Endangered Species Act
Is the landmark law in need of change?
By Mary H. Cooper

Since the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was passed in 1973, more than 1,200 animals and plants have been listed as threatened or endangered — a designation designed to protect species on the brink of extinction. But the landmark legislation has been controversial from the start, pitting environmentalists against property-rights advocates in a protracted debate over the ESA's economic costs and. . . .

Read the Full Report (Subscription Required)
Buy Report PDF

Has the Endangered Species Act lived up to its mandate?

Union of Concerned Scientists “Biodiversity Baloney: Some Popular Myths Undone”. From www.ucsusa.org.	Rep. Richard W. Pombo, R-Calif. Chairman, House Resources Committee. “The ESA at 30: Time for Congress to Update & Strengthen the Law,” resourcescommittee.house.gov.

Climate Change Threatens Endangered Species

Global warming has emerged as a major threat to the world's endangered species. Most scientists predict that even a slight rise in temperatures likely will cause changes in the distribution of the world's species and may push those already in decline past the survival “tipping point” and into extinction.

“A lot of species at risk are in very fragmented geographic ranges compared with what they once had, and adapting to climate change may mean crossing [geographic] barriers that used to be possible but aren't now,” says John Fay, a senior biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which helps implement the Endangered Species Act. “I worry about places like Hawaii because there's no place for species to go if the climate changes there. If global warming causes sea-level changes, whole island habitats may disappear entirely.”

The interdependence of climate patterns and ecosystems is incalculably complex, and scientists can only look to the past for clues to what climate change may do to Earth's flora and fauna. The fluctuations between ice ages and subsequent periods of warming were accompanied by mass extinctions and huge shifts in the distribution of species, according to the fossil record.

The main cause of the current gradual rise in Earth's surface temperature is the burning of fossil fuels — oil, coal and natural gas. Excess carbon dioxide, a byproduct of fuel combustion, forms a layer in the atmosphere that traps the sun's heat in a process known as the greenhouse effect.

Polar bears are considered in serious jeopardy due to global warming and the melting of polar ice caps. (Getty Images/Maria Stenzel)

The most obvious signs of warming are occurring at the poles, where huge segments of ice are breaking away from polar ice caps. Polar bears, which roam across vast tracts of ice in their search for seals and other prey, are already coming under pressure from the shrinking ice caps. Scientists have observed that polar bears around Hudson Bay have been noticeably thinner in late summer, which bodes poorly for the survival of cubs over the harsh arctic winter.

“We were once confident about the polar bear's future,” says Carroll Muffett, director of international conservation at Defenders of Wildlife, an environmental group. “But now it's widely recognized that the polar bear is in serious jeopardy.”

Concern over global warming during the 1990s resulted in an international agreement — the Kyoto Protocol — to take steps to slow the trend. President Bill Clinton joined most of the rest of the world's leaders in signing the protocol, though he never sent it to the Senate for ratification, knowing it would not have been approved. While a majority of scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that steps need to be taken to slow the trend, opposition to the protocol runs high because it would require the United States — the world's biggest consumer of fossil fuels — to drastically curb its energy emissions.

Indeed, when President Bush took office in 2001, he reversed Clinton's support for the ongoing treaty negotiations by renouncing the Kyoto Protocol. Bush said it unfairly saddled the United States with the greatest cost of compliance by mandating sharp cuts in energy use for Americans while exempting developing nations, whose energy use is low but rising quickly. Calling the agreement “an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns,” Bush said, “I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy.”

Environmentalists, including wildlife advocates, denounced Bush's decision. “The Bush administration's decision to walk away from the Kyoto Protocol and its efforts constantly to undermine work to combat global climate change are having a severe, severe effect on biodiversity,” Muffett says. “Global climate change is one of the big problems facing the world and its wildlife. It's already having significant effects on biodiversity, and those effects are only going to increase.”

[1] For background, see Mary H. Cooper, “Global Warming Treaty,” The CQ Researcher, Jan. 26, 2001, pp. 41-64.

Footnote: 1. For background, see Mary H. Cooper, “Global Warming Treaty,” The CQ Researcher, Jan. 26, 2001, pp. 41-64.

[2] See Mary H. Cooper, “Mass Extinctions,” The CQ Researcher, Sept. 15, 2000, pp. 713-744.

Footnote: 2. See Mary H. Cooper, “Mass Extinctions,” The CQ Researcher, Sept. 15, 2000, pp. 713-744.

[3] “Text of a Letter from the President to Sens. Hagel, Helms, Craig and Roberts,” March 13, 2001, www.whitehouse.gov.

Footnote: 3. “Text of a Letter from the President to Sens. Hagel, Helms, Craig and Roberts,” March 13, 2001, www.whitehouse.gov.