Biodiversity Crisis vs. Climate Crisis: Implications of the Endangered Species Act Changes

TFD – Discover the implications of the Biden administration’s changes to the Endangered Species Act, addressing the biodiversity crisis and climate crisis. Understand how these changes impact endangered species protections.

On Thursday, the Biden administration improved the Endangered Species Act’s safeguards by overturning Trump-era regulations that had eliminated protections for flora and fauna that are imperiled by the climate catastrophe and human growth.

Together with those identified as endangered, the recently adopted regulations would restore the so-called blanket rule safeguards for species listed as threatened with extinction. The Trump administration eliminated protections for threatened species, which is a lower classification than endangered, in 2019.

Another Trump-era provision was completed in the Biden administration standards, which prohibit agencies from taking the economic impact of classifying particular species as vulnerable or endangered into account. Climate change as a threat will be taken into account in the new regulations.

In a statement, US Fish and Wildlife Service Director Martha Williams stated, “The Endangered Species Act is more important than ever to conserve and recover imperiled species now and for generations to come. Species face new and daunting challenges, including climate change, degraded and fragmented habitat, invasive species, and wildlife disease.”

Industry associations and Republican states, who have filed court challenges against numerous of the Biden administration’s environmental and climate measures, are expected to contest the guidelines.

According to Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, animals, and seas at environmental legal firm Earthjustice, the new regulations fall short of Obama-era protections even though they are stronger than the drastic rollbacks implemented by the Trump administration.

“It is concerning because the species we are discussing here are, by definition, in danger of extinction, and today’s action contains some significant positive aspects as well as significant aspects that were left undone,” Caputo stated.

Caputo referenced a Trump-era regulation that gave agencies more discretion to choose not to list species by requiring them to show that there would be “reasonable certainty” that harm would occur to a species unless it was granted government protection.

“The issue with that clause is that it leaves room for uncertainty about future events,” Caputo continued.

The modifications drew criticism from several industry associations who felt they were overly onerous.

Conor Bernstein, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, stated, “While we strongly support the conservation goals of the ESA… it has become a tool to impose unnecessary development restrictions and create regulatory uncertainty, rather than accomplish the important work of advancing species recovery or protection.”

The regulations, which apply to both terrestrial and marine species, were developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

The work being done under the Endangered Species Act by NOAA Fisheries Assistant Administrator Janet Coit will “focus on mitigation of ongoing threats such as altered ecosystems due to climate change,” according to a statement. Scientists were alarmed when global ocean temperatures reached record highs in 2023 and bleached Florida’s coral reefs. The new year has seen a continuation of the marine heat waves.

Caputo

“Both a climate crisis and a biodiversity crisis exist,” stated Caputo. It’s not accurate, in my opinion, for many people to believe that the biodiversity catastrophe is primarily caused by the climate crisis. It’s the devastation of habitat.