Flesher, J. (2023, August 4). After helping prevent extinctions for 50 years, the Endangered Species Act itself may be in peril. The Associated Press. Retrieved August 27, 2023, from https://apnews.com/article/endangered-species-eagle-wolf-biden-trump-12d1a8ef6d453ad8f6d4c2b6edb567e8
Conservative politicians have begun to make attempts to weaken the Endangered Species Act, citing that it is outdated although well-meaning. While the United States Congress has not updated the act since 1992, some environmentalists still are becoming worried that it will not hold up, which would cause many species to be at risk of extinction. In fact, most environmental scientists argue that now is a better time than any to strengthen the act due to the alarmingly high rates of endangerment as of recent, with species such as the spotted owl and snail darter at risk.
This article shows how environmental science can become greatly intertwined with many other areas of study, including politics and economics, as many find environmentalism to be a political stance. While I feel that caring about the natural world should not be controversial, it does not surprise me that certain policies in the Endangered Species Act would be criticized, because no law is perfect. In addition, deciding whether to prioritize spending money on saving land and certain species from extinction versus spending on infrastructure or other human-based activities ties environmental science to the economy, as it is a balancing act to decide how much further humans can interfere with ecosystems before it leads to our own demise. Because animals are a major part of every ecosystem, it is important to recognize how the morals of humans can affect crucial parts of the environment.
Sonia- Your follow up paragraph is impressively insightful. Of course there is going to be a question of how to prioritize spending. Even when we have money prioritized for endanger species protection, it’s still tricky because there are so many species… should they all be treated equally? That is a big ethical/economic question when it comes to spending. The law is not perfect for sure. We will dig into this a bit in class. Great post here.
Question though- if you were to change it, how would you do it? Or would you leave it as it is and not rock the boat?
Thank you, Mr. Powell! I think if I had the power to, I would strengthen the ESA and prioritize our natural environment over human desires like infrastructure. Besides the obvious argument- that working towards sustainability for our land is more ethical than prioritizing human spending- I also think that environmental acts will protect us in the long run by making sure we don’t need as much spending on protecting our environment later. We can already see this trend now, especially in climate change; because people in the past did not strengthen laws on carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere for the sake of the economy, we now have to deal with spending much more time, effort, and money on making sure we don’t reach a point of no return in terms of global warming.