Court decision in Wilderness Watch v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Mont.)
On August 2, the district court granted a preliminary injunction against the construction of a pipeline (including heavy machinery, temporary roads and disturbance of the land) to benefit Arctic grayling in the Red Rock Lakes Wilderness of in a national wildlife refuge in southwestern Montana. The court held, “Ultimately, in light of the Wilderness Act’s strict requirements, the mere possibility that the proposed action may aid in Arctic grayling conservation is not enough to create necessity.” The possible availability of alternatives that would not affect the wilderness character was also a factor working against a finding of necessity. (The article has a link to the opinion.) A lawsuit against the FWS decision to not list the grayling as threatened or endangered is pending (described here).
Notice of Intent to Sue
On August 3, WildEarth Guardians notified the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service of its intent to sue the agency for denying its petition to list the Joshua tree under the Endangered Species Act. The FWS decision followed a previous lawsuit where their previous denial was reversed due to inadequate consideration of the effects of climate change. This notice cites climate-related wildfires and lack of regeneration. (The press release includes a link to the Notice.)
Settlement of Red Wolf Coalition v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (E.D. N.C.)
On August 9, the FWS, Red Wolf Coalition, Defenders of Wildlife and Animal Welfare Institute signed a stipulated settlement agreement to resolve this case filed in 2020. This followed a preliminary injunction against a 2015 agency policy prohibiting the release of captive red wolves into the Red Wolf Recovery Area (focusing on the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge) where the court held, “reversal of the prior policy to release captive red wolves into the wild population and engage in proactive and regular adaptive management to address coyote hybridization have had significant adverse impacts and will hasten the extinction of red wolves in the wild.” The FWS agreed to cooperatively develop and publicize red wolf release plans for the next eight years. (This article includes a link to a press release that links to the settlement agreement.)
New lawsuit: Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (M.D. Fla.)
On August 9, CBD and Nokuse Education, Inc. sued the FWS for denying protection to the gopher tortoise under the Endangered Species Act, stating, “Unfortunately, a mere three percent of the gopher tortoise’s historical longleaf pine ecosystems currently remain, and all upland habitats frequented by the tortoise are steadily being degraded and destroyed by encroaching development, poor habitat management, and climate change.” Gopher tortoises in parts of Louisiana, Mississippi and western Alabama are currently protected, but those in in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and most of Alabama are not.
Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland (D. D.C.)
On August 11, the district court agreed with plaintiffs that, while the Fish and Wildlife Service had created plans for three wolf subspecies, those plans are in three distinct regions of the United States (northern Rocky Mountains, Mexican wolf and eastern timber wolf) and left 44 states where the gray wolf is listed as endangered without a wolf recovery plan. The judge refused to dismiss the case against the FWS, but the ultimate relief has not been determined. The ruling would not directly impact wolves in Alaska, or the northern Rocky Mountain states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, as well as wolves in certain portions of Oregon, Washington and Utah.
Court decision in Natural Resources Defense Council v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. D.C.)
On August 11, NRDC prevailed for a fourth time in its pursuit of protection for the rusty patched bumblebee. This time a court invalidated the determination by the FWS that designation of critical habitat would not be “prudent,” an exception sometimes allowed by ESA. The bee is native to the upper midwest, and has been found on the Chippewa National Forest.
A success story or a future lawsuit?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed to remove the Apache trout from the list of threatened species. It is found in the White Mountains on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, and the Forest Service is credited with assisting the White Mountains Apache Tribe and others with habitat restoration and non-native fish removal to support recovery of the species.
“There’s been good progress toward bringing Apache trout back from the brink of extinction, but it’s way too soon to strip protections for these remarkable fish,” said Robin Silver, of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Their habitat has been hammered by grazing and fires, and they won’t survive without the Endangered Species Act’s safeguards. Non-native trout and growing dangers from climate change also jeopardize the trout’s survival.”
Every species has preferred habitat. As the climate changes (since we don’t know how plants will change) locations of those habitats might change, hence the proposed ESA rule that says habitat can be not current habitat, but “areas some think might be future habitat”. So… I’m seeing that folks could argue that the survival of any species, including those currently doing fine, is jeopardized by climate change, either now or in the future.
It sure seems like the “Whatever Happens” strategy, where as long as humans don’t intervene, ‘whatever happens’ is just fine.
There needs to be reliable evidence that the species is likely to become extinct or endangered in the foreseeable future. The Services should not be speculating. Here’s a memo from the DOI solicitor’s office on what they recommend “foreseeable future” mean when making listing decisions: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/foreseeable-future-solicitor-memo-2009-01-16.pdf
Including our species? Climate change does seem to run through a lot of species these days. The operative term in ESA (for a threatened species) is endangered “within the foreseeable future,” and scientific uncertainty associated with that has commonly been a part of listing lawsuits.
And we should never forget that the future really isn’t “foreseeable.” Computers only add a degree of so-called “scientific” speculation to this fact — and are really no different than medieval priests or carnival fortune tellers in that regard, but a lot more expensive and with a similar track record.
Regarding this track record: Chris Field, director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, put it bluntly, in a letter responding to the New York Times’ assertion that “few thought [climate change] would arrive so quickly”: “The problem has not been that the scientists got it wrong. It has been that despite clear warnings consistent with the evidence available, scientists dedicated to informing the public have struggled to get their voices heard in an atmosphere filled with false charges of alarmism and political motivation.”
https://www.preventionweb.net/news/do-these-heat-waves-mean-climate-change-happening-faster-expected#:~:text=Certain%20real%2Dworld%20events%20have,in%20recent%20decades%2C%20scientists%20say.
Hi Jon: I think everybody knows that the climate is always changing. “Quickly,” too, at times. I think Chris Field is probably referring to the “climate catastrophe” or whatever euphemism is being used at this time for the old “Global Warming” scare. I have to say that I disagree with Chris, based on my own research and that of many others, and also with his adjectives — which come across as “alarmist.” I’m guessing he’s a modeler funded by taxpayers, and this is his “job?”
Bob: Interested to know when you think was the last time climate changed this quickly?
Hi David: Climate is an “average” — typically computed over a 30 year period. Averages don’t change very quickly at all, by definition. Besides, all indications are that the climate is well within normal bounds and is not going through any type of rapid transition. That’s models doing the scare tactics, not reality.
Bob Zybach wrote:
“Climate is an “average” — typically computed over a 30 year period.”
I know. When was the last 30-year period climate changed this quickly?
“Averages don’t change very quickly at all, by definition.”
Not true at all, but let’s not get into that.
“Besides, all indications are that the climate is well within normal bounds and is not going through any type of rapid transition.”
What do you mean by “normal bounds?”
What do you mean by “rapid?”
Thanks.
I think the problem is not getting the word out or false charges or political motivation… otherwise California, which is full of people who believe, is not zero carbon. Because it’s really, really, hard to do. More talking is not going to work. Shutting off fossil fuels- until we have something to replace it- doesn’t work. To my mind, we have a surplus of exhortation and a paucity of technical fixes and practicalities.
Thanks Sharon: I don’t think there is a technical fix for something that hasn’t happened. I think the practical solution is the same as always — we are an adaptable species, from deserts to mountain tops, on ice, and underwater. If and when the climate changes in a horrific manner, as some would have us believe, then we will adapt, along with millions of other species. That’s our history and our proven capability. Freaking out and throwing money at folks threatening doom and gloom is also part of our heritage, and this looks like just one more iteration of that approach to feared change. My thought is that people will be laughing at the Global Warming proponents 50 years from now in much the same way we treat the “scientists” who promoted a flat earth peopled by Cardiff giants.
Bob Zybach wrote, “I don’t think there is a technical fix for something that hasn’t happened. I think the practical solution is the same as always — we are an adaptable species, from deserts to mountain tops, on ice, and underwater. If and when the climate changes in a horrific manner, as some would have us believe, then we will adapt, along with millions of other species. That’s our history and our proven capability.”
But when did humans, especially modern humans, face climate change this rapid? And mountainous species have a limit to how high they can climb. Do we really want malaria in the US again? Corals can’t easily move. Plants and animals have never before faced the kind of infrastructure in place to prevent their migration.
I think it’s much to glib to say “we’ll adapt” and everyone else will too. The global climate is changing about 30 times faster than it did from the last glacial maximum to the Holocene. When was the last time this happened?
Hi David: I think the climate has changed rapidly following volcanic eruptions during historical time, and likely changed rapidly in the undocumented past as well. I seriously doubt that it is now changing 30X faster than at any previous time. That sounds more like a modeling outcome than reality.
Bob Zybach wrote:
“I think the climate has changed rapidly following volcanic eruptions during historical time, and likely changed rapidly in the undocumented past as well.”
When exactly was this?
“I seriously doubt that it is now changing 30X faster than at any previous time. That sounds more like a modeling outcome than reality.”
No, just look at the data.
The temperature change from the last Glacial Maximum 23,000 years ago to the start of the Holocene 11,000 years ago was about 6 C. That’s an average rate of 0.005 C/decade. Temperature is now changing at 0.25 C/decade, 50 times faster.
https://earthsciencesociety.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/ice-age-temperature-changes.jpg
David: Seriously? We don’t know what the “global temperature” was 100 years ago, much less 11,000 or 23,000 year ago — or whether such a measure actually has any particular value. Let’s assume you are correct, though — what makes you think the temperature change was gradual over that time, and didn’t take place abruptly on a few occasions? Modeling with debatable numbers to derive a desired conclusion is politics, not science.
Bob Zybach wrote:
“David: Seriously? We don’t know what the “global temperature” was 100 years ago, much less 11,000 or 23,000 year ago”
As you well know, we had thermometers 100 years ago, and lots of proxies for the ice age past. See, for example,
“Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum,” Matthew B. Osman et al, Nature v 599 pp 239–244 (2021).
Lots of hockey sticks:
http://www.davidappell.com/hockeysticks.html
Assuming we are even able to adapt, shouldn’t we consider the cost? “The fiscal risk of climate change is immense.” https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/04/climate-change-could-cost-us-2-trillion-each-year-by-2100-omb.html
And that’s just in the U. S. and just the human costs that can be monetized. My thought is that descendants of climate-change deniers will be embarrassed, if not ashamed.
Jon: Please stop using the term “deniers.” It’s insulting and off-putting. Your projection into the future regarding the thoughts and emotions of our descendants is revealing. I do have great-grandkids so have some insight into the likelihood that our descendants will care less what any of us think about anything, much less be driven to shame or embarrassment. Or even a general awareness of our opinions, one way or the other. But they could well have to study the great Global Warming scam in one of their history or economic classes.
Bob Zybach wrote:
“Jon: Please stop using the term “deniers.” It’s insulting and off-putting.”
But “denier” is the perfect word for it:
Merriam-Webster:
“deny
1
: to declare (something) to be untrue
2
: to refuse to admit or acknowledge (something)”
David: “Denier” is an insult, and in part for the definitions you give. No one is “refusing to admit” something. That is just your adverse spin on people you don’t know and disagree with. The correct term is “skeptic” (check out your dictionary for definition), which is the basis for all scientific inquiry, Calling people names only weakens your own argument, whatever it might be.
Anonymous: Denier is not an insult, it’s a perfectly good word in the English language, that had a meaning long before the Holocaust.
And, yes, a “denier” is different from a “skeptic.” But there are very few real skeptics around. For most, their arguments are easy to debunk, and in many cases have been for decades. Yet they never stop using them.
What Bob’s doing above *is* denial, IMO. For example, he just denied that we could know the temperature 100 years ago, or 11,000 or 23,000 years ago. But in an earlier comment he wrote that today’s climate “is well within normal bounds.” How does he know what the “normal bounds” are while claiming we know nothing about past temperatures?
That’s the kind of weak arguments I’m talking about, weak logically, weak scientifically and, yes, they constitutes denial, because they’re without reason.
David: I’m not sure why that posted under “Anonymous,” but it did. So you’re saying thermometers 100 years ago were capable of determining a “global temperature” and that ice cores could deliver a similar result from thousands of year’s ago? Seriously? And you think that I am a post-WW II “denier?” And somehow you are conflating a manufactured “global temperature” with “climate?” Oh, well. I can see why you resort to name-calling instead of discussion.
Bob Zybach wrote:
“So you’re saying thermometers 100 years ago were capable of determining a “global temperature” and that ice cores could deliver a similar result from thousands of year’s ago? Seriously?”
Bob, there were plenty of thermometers 100 years ago, you know, and people were keeping temperature records.
Have you read about the methodology of calculating global temperatures, say from the Hadley group?
Have you noticed the error bars on global temperature data ~100 years ago, say from HadCRUT5?
Read anything about temperature data homogenization?
Have you read anything about paleoclimatology?
Any of the papers that were on my hockey stick page?
How about starting with Osman+ Nature 2021?
You’re just denying paleoclimatology without appearing to know anything about it whatsoever.
I’m still interested to know what you meant by climate’s “normal bounds” if you don’t think temperatures were known 100+ years ago.
David: You are conflating “global temperature” — however that might be determined — with “climate.” Two different animals. My graduate research was on western Oregon wildfire history over the past 500+ years, during which time the seasons remained mostly the same. Pollen analysis for the same region shows varying climates in the past 11,000 years, but mostly for specific locations. What that has to do with highly debatable — and weirdly specific — “global temperatures” seems odd. Mostly a taxpayer-funded job security strategy so near as I can determine. Here’s Hanson’s work on pollen that I had the pleasure of working directly with him to interpret: http://www.orww.org/Oregon_Experts/Hansen_HP/
Bob, what’s weird about global temperature? It’s just an average of thermometer readings…. And it’s the first thing anyone thinks of when they hear the word “climate.” And the changing temperature is what, in turn, causes a lot of the other changes.
Seems instead you’re conflating wildfires with climate.
You still haven’t answered how you know the “normal bounds” of the climate of the past.
Bob wrote: “What that has to do with highly debatable — and weirdly specific — “global temperatures” seems odd. Mostly a taxpayer-funded job security strategy so near as I can determine.”
What does that mean?
Didn’t YOU have a lot of taxpayer-funded jobs?
http://nwmapsco.com/ZybachB/Curriculum_Vitae.htm
I think there are a lot of people in the middle.. maybe not you. I believe that climate is doing something… but can also be used as an excuse for different things. It’s a popular bandwagon with lots of money that everyone wants to hitch to. It can be both things at the same time.
I believe if we work together we can find technical solutions to decarbonize that don’t throw the poorer people among us, and in the world, under the bus, and don’t centralize decision-making in the hands of a few. Just like any other problem. In fact, all these problems… housing, economics, health, are all interrelated and need to be solved together. By people of goodwill. Pontificating and attacking other people (more hot air)(not that we are doing it here, thank Gaia) just keeps solutions from being found and creates ill will. IMHO.
I inhabit Pragmatic, Concerned About People and Climate at the Same Time space.