[This post is an update as we missed posting the document in July] In July of this year, SCB, along with the Wildlife Society, the Ecological Society of America, and the American Statistical Association, sent a letter to the House of Representatives urging representatives to support an amendment by Norm Dicks blocking efforts to suspend listings of endangered species. The House subsequently did vote to strip the Endangered Listing Ban from the Interior Appropriations Bill. 37 Republicans bucked their leadership and voted with all but two Democrats to allow new listings of endangered species to continue. SCB continues to explore additional opportunities to collaborate with other scientific societies on similar policy issues.
SCB’s North America section has been extensively involved in policy issues surrounding the proposed construction of the Keystone XL pipeline because the pipeline controversy touches on broader concerns regarding sustainable energy and wildlife conservation. On October 9, SCB submitted comments on the State Department’s finding that the permit to allow the Keystone XL pipeline would be in the national interest.
The full comments are here. Also see SCB previous comments on the pipeline. The six questions are:
1) If you cannot adequately assess the effects of the pipeline and alternatives to it, how can you determine that it would be in the national interest?
2) How can the Secretary comply with her duties to ensure that her action will not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered whooping crane when neither her Biological Assessment nor the Interior Secretaries’ Biological Opinion consider the impact of the oil sands developments and the pipeline that makes them probable on the northern third of the habitat?
3) How can the Secretary find the pipeline to be in the national interest when Canada’s own Environment Commissioner has found that the effects are poorly understood, poorly controlled and will diminish the effectiveness of Canada’s participation in international agreements for the control of climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gases?
4) Will approving the permit reduce our environmental and other security risks more than choosing more prudent available alternatives?
5) Will approving the permit guarantee a source of transportation fuel for the U.S. at any reasonable price considering the competing bidders who will be much less constrained by market prices? Or will it merely guarantee access to those very bidders who would not otherwise have that access at all?
6) Why cause serious environmental harm and raise serious security risks — and reduce room for renewable energy — by permitting the pipeline, when we can conserve wildlife and supply our energy needs with secure, safe, clean, renewable energy in ways that can probably provide more permanent jobs across the US?
Many SCB Chapters are active in discussing and developing positions on conservation policy. The SCB Chapters committee has recently established a new website to provide information to the Chapters and a discussion forum to facilitate information sharing between Chapters. If you are interested in becoming involved with a local SCB chapter, you can also find more information at this site.
