The Endangered Species Act: A Barometer for Sustainability?

On August 20, the Bush Administration proposed to eliminate the requirement that federal agencies get independent scientific reviews of proposed projects to assess their effects to endangered species. The new administrative rule would disarm one of the most important requirements of the Endangered Species Act.

The Act is possibly the strongest and controversial environmental law in the United States. The Bush Administration has made several failed attempts to eliminate important aspects of the law; the courts have repeatedly sided with its opponents. It is no surprise then that the number of new plants and animals that have been listed is fewer than any presidency in the last 30 years.

Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act in 1973, declaring “that—

(1) various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have

been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation,” and aiming to conserve the ecosystems on which endangered and threatened species depend. The law makes it unlawful to "take" (harm, harass or kill) an endangered species (EAS Sec. 9). It also requires that a recovery plan be developed, including the designation of critical habitat, which is the habitat area needed for recovery. Since the time the ESA was passed, 1,237 animals and 747 plants have been listed as either threatened or endangered. The public has petitioned hundred more for consideration.

The crux of the ESA debate centers on Section 4: the designation of critical habitat. Critical habitat designation places restrictions on the type and intensity of human activity in sometimes profound ways. One of the most famous cases is the 1990 listing of the Northern spotted owl.  It led to the designation of millions of acres of old growth forest in the Pacific Northwest as critical habitat and off limits to the logging industry.  While many blame globalization rather than the spotted owl, the end result was the same: many local mills closed and relatively well-paying rural jobs shifted to other parts of the world where virgin timber was more accessible.

Considering how politically unpopular it can be, its no surprise then that as of September 4, 2008, critical habitat has been designated for only one third (526 of 1,984) of these animals and plants.  Of course it’s never as simple as the spotted owl versus jobs, though some would like you to think so. 

Critical habitat for an endangered species supports not only it but also the other species that depend upon it to play its role in the ecosystem.  All species rely on others for their existence, forming a “complex web” of interdependent interactions, often called biodiversity. Once a species is lost, interactions that have developed over millennia can begin to unravel, diminishing the ability of an ecosystem to respond to exotic species invasions, climate change and habitat degradation.

Healthy biodiversity is important to maximize the earth’s ability to perform its most vital functions – the ones that help keep the earth and its organisms alive and healthy, such as purifying water, turning carbon dioxide into oxygen, and creating organic matter. Therefore, providing critical habitat for all endangered species and enforcing those protections could actually lead to a more sustainable relationship with our fellow organisms.

There have been many critiques of the Endangered Species Act, including its effect on natural resource-dependent jobs, lack of compensation to private landowners and overall effectiveness. My own is that it is rarely adhered to and enforced, which could require that humans scale back the amount of land we have already converted from wildlife habitat to other uses.

The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, ratified by over 150 countries (but not the United States), estimates that the current extinction rate is 100 to 1,000 times faster than the historic record, the fastest rate since the asteroid impact that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Unlike the five previous mass extinctions, this one is caused by human induced changes to the earth. If we continue to deny our role, we imperil thousands of other species, not to mention the role the earth itself needs to play in addressing climate change.

If we chose to fully embrace and enforce the Endangered Species Act in the United States, we could use species recovery as a barometer of our performance at adapting toward more sustainable lifestyles. By supporting strong critical habitat protections for endangered species, we could likely protect our native biodiversity at home while helping to offset the continuing damage our ecological footprint inflicts on habitat in other parts of the world.

We know that reducing our carbon footprint is not enough to reverse the growing effects of climate change on the earth’s life-supporting ecosystems. We must also consider restricting our, often well-intentioned, desire to manipulate the landscape as we see fit and even consider giving some of what we’re already using back for native species to thrive. The question is if we as a country are ready to make the necessary land-use sacrifices to reduce our impacts to native biodiversity at home while at the same time reducing the effects our consumptive habits on the rest of the world.