In Spotlight: Common Sense Advocacy
|
Protecting and preserving our biodiversity and the environment is not a partisan issue, but a global issue. It transcendences international borders and impacts all of us. A global imperative of this magnitude requires everyone to bear responsibility. While each of us can do our part we rely on world leaders to provide a legislative framework to safeguard the future of both humanity and the environment. They must, therefore, pledge to serve their constituents by legislating policies, which don't pit people against the environment under the guise of economic growth. We shouldn't have to choose between preserving nature and making a living, considering we cannot sustain life or a livelihood without nature, especially if we willfully choose to destroy it. |
|
“Salmon is a way of life for the tribal people, especially the Yakama people. . . the Creator warned us that, as long as we took care of those resources, they would take care of us. But if anything happened to that salmon, and it or any of the other resources disappeared, then we too would disappear as a people.”
—Carol Craig (Yakama), 2003 |
|
Scientists believe that we are witnessing the fastest mass extinction of species as a result of human action. Some of these activities include deforestation, overfishing, and greenhouse gas emissions to name a few. Given the urgency of the situation, we do not have the luxury of time to accept setbacks in environmental or wildlife protection laws. With this in mind, this edition of Wildlife In Spotlight will explore the impact of environmental policies enacted here in the United States and its impact around the globe. Do these environmental policies affect change only in the United States or do they influence public policies and economies around the world?
|
|
....We shouldn't have to choose between preserving nature and making a living, considering we cannot sustain life or a livelihood without nature, especially if we willfully choose to destroy it... |
We will look at two very different and unrelated policies enacted here in the United States. First, the ongoing concerns about the Key Stone XL pipeline, and second, the elephant protection laws, which went into effect on July 6, 2016. We will analyze each policy individually and then compare the two to find common themes between the two. In essence, this edition is an exercise to reflect on the gravity of political policies and how they affect change in the short-term as well as in the long run.
Do stop by the “Who To Support” segment at the end of the newsletter to view the list of organizations that are at the forefront of wildlife and environmental policy legislation. Please visit their websites to sign petitions, make a donation and to stay informed. I hope you will join me in supporting these organizations, which promote common sense advocacy and neutralize thoughtless political policies. |
Key Stone XL Pipeline
Facts About The Keystone XL Pipeline:
Overview
Environmental concerns
Concerns Native Americans have
Jobs
Why is the President of the United States involved?
Obama Administration (Jan 20, 2009 – Jan 20, 2017)
Trump Administration (January 20, 2017)
Overview
- In September of 2008 TransCanada, a Canadian oil company submitted an application to the United States government to build a 1200 mile pipeline. (map)
- This pipeline was expected to carry crude oil from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada to the US refineries in the Gulf of Mexico.
- If the pipeline were to be completed it would move approximately 830,000 barrels of crude oil a day.
Environmental concerns
- The implementation of this project is a huge concern to environmentalists because oil extracted from tar sands emits 17% more greenhouse gasses than traditional extraction techniques.
- Accidental leaks caused by broken oil pipelines have a devastating health impact on both people and wildlife. Containing these leaks and cleanups can be a very time consuming and an expensive undertaking.
Concerns Native Americans have
- The Native American tribes strongly oppose the construction of the pipeline because an accidental leak from the crude oil pipeline would contaminate their drinking water source. Their concerns are valid given that leaks are not uncommon in oil pipelines.
- If construction proceeds despite the objections raised by the Native American tribes then the United States is yet again in violation of the land usage treaty agreement that the United States has signed with the Native Americans.
Jobs
- TransCanada predicts around 42,000 jobs. Some of which are direct and others are the spin-off jobs during the two-year construction phase. The number of jobs that TransCanada claims the project will generate is debatable. According to a review conducted by the State Department, it is predicted to range between 6,000 – 10,000. These estimates are a reflection of all the jobs created during the two-year construction period and expected to be terminated when construction is completed.
- After the construction phase is complete the pipeline will offer only 50 permanent positions for maintenance and upkeep of the pipeline.
Why is the President of the United States involved?
- The pipeline crosses international borders, which requires the President’s approval.
Obama Administration (Jan 20, 2009 – Jan 20, 2017)
- On November 4th, 2015, President Obama rejected Transcanada's proposal to build the Key Stone XL pipeline. In his announcement he said “This pipeline would neither be a silver bullet for the economy - as was promised by some - nor the express lane to climate disaster proclaimed by others.” He also stated that his decision was based on the State Department's review which took into account public input and our national interest.
Trump Administration (January 20, 2017)
- On January 24,2017, four days after President Trump took office, he overturned President Obama's decision by signing an Executive order to expedite the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
Timeline Of Policy Legislation
From A Policy Perspective What Does All This Boil Down To?
The Obama Administration:
On November 4, 2015, President Obama rejected TransCanada's application for a permit to construct the crude oil pipeline. The decision came seven years after the original application was submitted in September of 2008. In his announcement, President Obama said, “This pipeline would neither be a silver bullet for the economy - as was promised by some - nor the express lane to climate disaster proclaimed by others”.
So why did he reject the proposal?
As Bruce Huber, professor of energy law at the University of Notre Dame said in an interview on National Public Radio (NPR), this was a symbolic move. It demonstrated environmental leadership from the United States to combat climate change.
I couldn’t agree more.
Combating climate change is going to be a monumental task, especially when it comes down to changing our mindset about how we view fossil fuel. We will need real political grit and leadership to propel us away from fossil fuel, a leading contributor of greenhouse gasses. Change does not happen overnight but it happens over time, and in small increments. To that end, the symbolic gesture from political leadership is a precursor to progress before we gather critical mass.
That said, let’s us also consider how this plays out to those who face economic challenges because of loss of employment. There are no two questions that people out of jobs endure real hardship and their concerns are legitimate. However, endorsing the crude oil industry knowing it will eventually scale back after the construction phase puts people at risk, yet again, of enduring financial insecurity. Strengthening a community requires political leaders to be visionaries who guide their citizens to innovative industries, which show real promise of growth. In other words, a political leader should empower their citizens to financial stability not prey on their economic vulnerabilities for political gain.
Often overlooked, marginalized, and silenced are the voices of the Native American tribes. Their culture is deeply rooted in respecting nature and honoring ancestral knowledge. It is unfortunate that we don’t learn from their values, which teach us to harmoniously coexist with nature but instead we fight them. We must remember that this land rightfully belongs to them and we must respect their traditions and principles. However, not only do we forget that but the United States government also regularly violates the land usage treaty that it has signed with them. Proceeding with the construction of the Keystone pipeline would have yet again violated the treaty because the pipeline crosses tribal land. It would have also failed to acknowledge their concerns of health risks in case of an accidental leak. By rejecting the proposal President Obama took into consideration all their concerns and did what was right for the people and the country.
The Trump Administration:
On January 24th, 2017 President Trump signed an Executive Order which overturned President Obama's decision to reject the construction of the Key Stone XL pipeline. In doing so the Trump Administration has neglected to address concerns regarding climate change, long-term job security, the Native American land treaty rights and health risks.
The Obama Administration:
On November 4, 2015, President Obama rejected TransCanada's application for a permit to construct the crude oil pipeline. The decision came seven years after the original application was submitted in September of 2008. In his announcement, President Obama said, “This pipeline would neither be a silver bullet for the economy - as was promised by some - nor the express lane to climate disaster proclaimed by others”.
So why did he reject the proposal?
As Bruce Huber, professor of energy law at the University of Notre Dame said in an interview on National Public Radio (NPR), this was a symbolic move. It demonstrated environmental leadership from the United States to combat climate change.
I couldn’t agree more.
Combating climate change is going to be a monumental task, especially when it comes down to changing our mindset about how we view fossil fuel. We will need real political grit and leadership to propel us away from fossil fuel, a leading contributor of greenhouse gasses. Change does not happen overnight but it happens over time, and in small increments. To that end, the symbolic gesture from political leadership is a precursor to progress before we gather critical mass.
That said, let’s us also consider how this plays out to those who face economic challenges because of loss of employment. There are no two questions that people out of jobs endure real hardship and their concerns are legitimate. However, endorsing the crude oil industry knowing it will eventually scale back after the construction phase puts people at risk, yet again, of enduring financial insecurity. Strengthening a community requires political leaders to be visionaries who guide their citizens to innovative industries, which show real promise of growth. In other words, a political leader should empower their citizens to financial stability not prey on their economic vulnerabilities for political gain.
Often overlooked, marginalized, and silenced are the voices of the Native American tribes. Their culture is deeply rooted in respecting nature and honoring ancestral knowledge. It is unfortunate that we don’t learn from their values, which teach us to harmoniously coexist with nature but instead we fight them. We must remember that this land rightfully belongs to them and we must respect their traditions and principles. However, not only do we forget that but the United States government also regularly violates the land usage treaty that it has signed with them. Proceeding with the construction of the Keystone pipeline would have yet again violated the treaty because the pipeline crosses tribal land. It would have also failed to acknowledge their concerns of health risks in case of an accidental leak. By rejecting the proposal President Obama took into consideration all their concerns and did what was right for the people and the country.
The Trump Administration:
On January 24th, 2017 President Trump signed an Executive Order which overturned President Obama's decision to reject the construction of the Key Stone XL pipeline. In doing so the Trump Administration has neglected to address concerns regarding climate change, long-term job security, the Native American land treaty rights and health risks.
Elephant Protection Policy
Facts About The Elephant Protection Policy:
- In 1976 the African elephants were for the first time were listed in CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) under Appendix III by Ghana.
- In 1977 CITES moved the elephants to Appendix II.
- By 1990 the elephant population had dropped by 50% and that same year they were moved to Appendix I.
- Any species listed under the Appendix I of CITES is automatically banned from being traded internationally. This rule applied to the elephants too and hence there was no trade in commercial ivory while they were listed as Appendix I.
- In 1997 the elephants were moved back to Appendix II as some populations started to recover.
- CITES authorized the one-off ivory sale in 2008.
- Following the one-off ivory sales, 100,000 elephants were killed between 2010 – 2012 and the crisis reached a tipping point.
- In 2014 the United States proposed a Federal ban on ivory trade.
- In 2015 China committed to ban ivory trade for one year.
- On July 6th, 2016 the United States enacted a near-total ban on commercial ivory trade.
- On Dec 30th, 2016 China announced a complete shutdown of their domestic ivory markets.
Timeline Of Policy Legislation
From A Policy Perspective What Does All This Boil Down To?
China and the United States are the two largest consumers of elephant ivory in the world. The demand for ivory directly contributes to the indiscriminate killing of the African elephant by poachers.
The one-off ivory sale in 2008 authorized by CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) was a legal sale of government-owned stockpiles of ivory. Even though measures were undertaken to ensure that this sale would not facilitate the reopening of the illegal ivory trade, it inadvertently ended up doing exactly that. There was no way of checking if the ivory came from the legal government stockpiles or from poached elephants after the transaction was completed in 2008. The growing middle-class in China surged the demand for ivory and soon the elephant crises reached a tipping point. 100,000 elephants were killed between 2010- 2012 for their ivory. The reporting of these statistics sparked an international outcry for protecting the species and decisive political action.
As the African elephant poaching crisis escalated the United States was faced with two challenges; first to legislate policy to ensure the survival of the elephants and second to address illegal wildlife trade within its borders.
In response to that, the Obama Administration proposed a federal ban on commercial ivory trade in 2014 and enacted a near-total federal ban on commercial ivory trade on July 6, 2016.
In 2015, China followed the United States lead to the proposed ban and announced that it will ban ivory imports for a year. Finally, on Dec 30, 2016 China announced a complete shutdown of their domestic ivory market.
Through collaboration, both United States and China were instrumental in enacting policies to protect a species beyond their own sovereign borders. Elephants, a keystone species of the African savannah, play a critical role in safeguarding the delicate ecosystem of the region. To summarize, the legislation achieved what it set out to do, it saved a species from the brink of extinction. However, in my opinion, it went beyond that; it ensured economies on the African continent continued to thrive via eco-tourism. Africa is home to some of the world’s most iconic species, which draws millions of visitors to view wildlife every year. Eco-tourism is a significant contributor to the GDP for many African nations. United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), an agency within the United Nations, recently published a fascinating paper on the value of wildlife in Africa. Included below are excerpts from “Towards measuring the economic value of Wildlife Watching tourism in Africa.” It provides clear and objective data on what wildlife contributes to regional economies.
China and the United States are the two largest consumers of elephant ivory in the world. The demand for ivory directly contributes to the indiscriminate killing of the African elephant by poachers.
The one-off ivory sale in 2008 authorized by CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) was a legal sale of government-owned stockpiles of ivory. Even though measures were undertaken to ensure that this sale would not facilitate the reopening of the illegal ivory trade, it inadvertently ended up doing exactly that. There was no way of checking if the ivory came from the legal government stockpiles or from poached elephants after the transaction was completed in 2008. The growing middle-class in China surged the demand for ivory and soon the elephant crises reached a tipping point. 100,000 elephants were killed between 2010- 2012 for their ivory. The reporting of these statistics sparked an international outcry for protecting the species and decisive political action.
As the African elephant poaching crisis escalated the United States was faced with two challenges; first to legislate policy to ensure the survival of the elephants and second to address illegal wildlife trade within its borders.
In response to that, the Obama Administration proposed a federal ban on commercial ivory trade in 2014 and enacted a near-total federal ban on commercial ivory trade on July 6, 2016.
In 2015, China followed the United States lead to the proposed ban and announced that it will ban ivory imports for a year. Finally, on Dec 30, 2016 China announced a complete shutdown of their domestic ivory market.
Through collaboration, both United States and China were instrumental in enacting policies to protect a species beyond their own sovereign borders. Elephants, a keystone species of the African savannah, play a critical role in safeguarding the delicate ecosystem of the region. To summarize, the legislation achieved what it set out to do, it saved a species from the brink of extinction. However, in my opinion, it went beyond that; it ensured economies on the African continent continued to thrive via eco-tourism. Africa is home to some of the world’s most iconic species, which draws millions of visitors to view wildlife every year. Eco-tourism is a significant contributor to the GDP for many African nations. United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), an agency within the United Nations, recently published a fascinating paper on the value of wildlife in Africa. Included below are excerpts from “Towards measuring the economic value of Wildlife Watching tourism in Africa.” It provides clear and objective data on what wildlife contributes to regional economies.
Serengeti - Ngorongoro Circuit, Tanzania
…“According to a study conducted in 2009, the southern circuit at Serengeti-Ngorongoro receives 300,000 tourists per year on the 300 km stretch between Arusha and Serengeti. The total inbound tourism expenditure generated at this destination is US$ 500 million per year, which is more than half of Tanzania’s foreign exchange earnings from tourism”….
Bird watching in South Africa
..."In 1997, a quantitative study on avitourism to South Africa conservatively estimated that the country received between 11,400 and 21,200 birdwatchers per year which contributed US$ 12 to 26 million to the South African economy (Turpie & Ryan, 1998; cited after Biggs et al., 2011)….. The development of birding tourism has been promoted by community projects supported by NGOs from the tourism sector. Currently, there are more opportunities for small business development along birding routes, which contributes to the creation of jobs for local communities (e.g., local birding guides) and supports conservation. (Biggs et al., 2011).”…. Read more
…“According to a study conducted in 2009, the southern circuit at Serengeti-Ngorongoro receives 300,000 tourists per year on the 300 km stretch between Arusha and Serengeti. The total inbound tourism expenditure generated at this destination is US$ 500 million per year, which is more than half of Tanzania’s foreign exchange earnings from tourism”….
Bird watching in South Africa
..."In 1997, a quantitative study on avitourism to South Africa conservatively estimated that the country received between 11,400 and 21,200 birdwatchers per year which contributed US$ 12 to 26 million to the South African economy (Turpie & Ryan, 1998; cited after Biggs et al., 2011)….. The development of birding tourism has been promoted by community projects supported by NGOs from the tourism sector. Currently, there are more opportunities for small business development along birding routes, which contributes to the creation of jobs for local communities (e.g., local birding guides) and supports conservation. (Biggs et al., 2011).”…. Read more
Communities where poverty and unemployment are high, are often places where illegal wildlife trafficking is rampant. Items such as elephant ivory, tiger parts, exotic reef fish, along with hundreds of other items are illegally traded all over the world, including within the United States.
Illegal wildlife trade is a lucrative business; INTERPOL estimates it to be a 20 billion dollar industry. Trade in illegal wildlife is funded and operated by an extensive network of organized criminals, the same people involved in other illicit activities such as drug trafficking, trade in arms and human trafficking. The profits generated from these unlawful activities fund civil wars and sponsor terrorism.
Given what we now know about these organized criminals it is evident that wildlife trafficking is not just an environmental issue, but one pertaining to national security and global stability. By enacting the Elephant protection laws in the United States and shutting down ivory markets in China, the world’s two largest markets of illegal ivory trade have impeded the free flow of illegal ivory and cut off funding to these syndicates.
Illegal wildlife trade is a lucrative business; INTERPOL estimates it to be a 20 billion dollar industry. Trade in illegal wildlife is funded and operated by an extensive network of organized criminals, the same people involved in other illicit activities such as drug trafficking, trade in arms and human trafficking. The profits generated from these unlawful activities fund civil wars and sponsor terrorism.
Given what we now know about these organized criminals it is evident that wildlife trafficking is not just an environmental issue, but one pertaining to national security and global stability. By enacting the Elephant protection laws in the United States and shutting down ivory markets in China, the world’s two largest markets of illegal ivory trade have impeded the free flow of illegal ivory and cut off funding to these syndicates.
Compare And Contrast
Although the two topics, Key Stone XL pipeline and the Elephant protection laws, are completely unrelated policies the table below is intended to draws our attention to look for consistency in approach in drafting and enacting environmental and wildlife policies. Both these policies were enacted under the Obama Administration.
Although the two topics, Key Stone XL pipeline and the Elephant protection laws, are completely unrelated policies the table below is intended to draws our attention to look for consistency in approach in drafting and enacting environmental and wildlife policies. Both these policies were enacted under the Obama Administration.
Conclusion:
The common thread that emerges from evaluating these two decisions by the Obama Administration is that consensus was reached to ensure the long-term success of the people in the region and the environment. On that note, let us revisit the question; do environmental and wildlife protection policies transcend international borders and have a global impact? The answer is, yes of course they do.
However, if public policies are enacted overnight via Executive Orders of the President without due consideration to scientific data and public input then the long-term survival of the people and the environment is jeopardized and ultimately compromised. Under the present political climate (Trump Administration) there is a real threat of unraveling decades of hard work put forth by conservationist, researchers, and policy makers. If these sound environmental policies come undone it will ultimately impact policies affecting wildlife conservation. Given the fastest mass extinction of species that we are witnessing right now, we do not have the luxury of time to accept any setbacks in wildlife protection laws. It often takes years to formulate, implement, and effectively enforce wildlife protection policies. Laws such as these give law enforcement officials the necessary framework at the national and international front to preserve our biodiversity and bring wildlife criminals to justice. Hence it is imperative that existing wildlife protection laws are protected and new ones are formulated to truly protect nature and wildlife and not be token policies drafted under the guise of economic growth.
To that end, I hope you will join me in neutralizing thoughtless political policies by promoting common sense advocacy for nature and wildlife.
The common thread that emerges from evaluating these two decisions by the Obama Administration is that consensus was reached to ensure the long-term success of the people in the region and the environment. On that note, let us revisit the question; do environmental and wildlife protection policies transcend international borders and have a global impact? The answer is, yes of course they do.
However, if public policies are enacted overnight via Executive Orders of the President without due consideration to scientific data and public input then the long-term survival of the people and the environment is jeopardized and ultimately compromised. Under the present political climate (Trump Administration) there is a real threat of unraveling decades of hard work put forth by conservationist, researchers, and policy makers. If these sound environmental policies come undone it will ultimately impact policies affecting wildlife conservation. Given the fastest mass extinction of species that we are witnessing right now, we do not have the luxury of time to accept any setbacks in wildlife protection laws. It often takes years to formulate, implement, and effectively enforce wildlife protection policies. Laws such as these give law enforcement officials the necessary framework at the national and international front to preserve our biodiversity and bring wildlife criminals to justice. Hence it is imperative that existing wildlife protection laws are protected and new ones are formulated to truly protect nature and wildlife and not be token policies drafted under the guise of economic growth.
To that end, I hope you will join me in neutralizing thoughtless political policies by promoting common sense advocacy for nature and wildlife.
Who To Support
The organizations listed below are environmental advocacy groups that are at the forefront of wildlife and environmental policy legislations. Please take a few minutes to visit their website and pledge your support by signing petitions, making a donation and staying informed. Please send your monetary contributions directly to an organization of your choice.
National Resources Defense Council
350.org
World Wildlife Fund
International Fund for Animal Welfare
National Wildlife Federation
Earth Justice.
Climate reality project
Wildlife Conservation Society
The organizations listed below are advocacy groups which focus on the rights of Native American tribes and nature. Please take a few minutes to visit their website and pledge your support by signing petitions, making a donation and staying informed. Please send your monetary contributions directly to an organization of your choice.
Indigenous Environmental Network
Honor The Earth
Sacred Stone Camp
Black Mesa Water Coalition
Seventh Generation Fund
The organizations listed below are environmental advocacy groups that are at the forefront of wildlife and environmental policy legislations. Please take a few minutes to visit their website and pledge your support by signing petitions, making a donation and staying informed. Please send your monetary contributions directly to an organization of your choice.
National Resources Defense Council
350.org
World Wildlife Fund
International Fund for Animal Welfare
National Wildlife Federation
Earth Justice.
Climate reality project
Wildlife Conservation Society
The organizations listed below are advocacy groups which focus on the rights of Native American tribes and nature. Please take a few minutes to visit their website and pledge your support by signing petitions, making a donation and staying informed. Please send your monetary contributions directly to an organization of your choice.
Indigenous Environmental Network
Honor The Earth
Sacred Stone Camp
Black Mesa Water Coalition
Seventh Generation Fund