Back to TABLE OF CONTENTS

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to 2007 ELECTION RESULTS

SCB'S FIELD WORK IN THE POLICY ECOSYSTEM

Initial Issues of Emphasis

In February 2007, SCB's Board of Governors considered priorities in the new U.S. Congress and the long-term interests of SCB members worldwide. The Board reviewed policy briefing materials and chose five initial areas of emphasis for SCB's policy work. The work will be led by the Executive Office under the supervision of the Policy Committee. The Board encouraged Sections, chapters, and other SCB groups to work on the areas of emphasis and other policy issues in consultation with Policy Director John Fitzgerald and the Policy Committee to ensure that new initiatives do not inadvertently conflict with the work of SCB or SCB groups.

The Board asked representatives of each Section to report to the Policy Committee and the Executive Office on its policy plans by 15 May. The North America Section will discuss plans at its members meeting on 24 May in Little Rock, Arkansas.

The initial areas of policy emphasis, to be reviewed at the 2007 annual meeting, are

-- Climate change. This was voted SCB's highest policy priority.

-- Scientific integrity in government decision making. Examples include the U.S. Endangered Species Act, other procedures affecting biological diversity, and procedures that protect scientists and practitioners from political retaliation.

-- Empowering key treaties and international agreements affecting biological diversity. Examples include the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and, potentially, the International Mechanism of Scientific Expertise on Biodiversity (IMoSEB).

-- Biological security. Controlling the importation of non-native invasive species and illegally harvested wood products, for example.

-- Investment and procurement. For instance, the United Nations Environment Programme's Finance Initiative "Biodiversity Workstream" is developing guidance for extractive industries on conserving biological diversity.

Work on these issues will be conducted in close consultation with the relevant Section leaders and policy teams. To draw on the expertise of SCB's membership, we are building teams with expertise in each of the five priority areas. SCB members with appropriate background and sufficient time to provide draft testimony or review drafts by the Executive Office or others are encouraged to contact John Fitzgerald and their Section or chapter leaders.

More information on SCB's policy program, including elements of our strategic plan, a short paper describing the U.S. Congressional budget process, and our initial statements on climate change policy, are available at SCB's Web site under Resources / Policy. An introduction to the initial policy issues also is available online.

THE NEW U.S. CONGRESS

During the past several months, the U.S. Congress held hearings on climate change and scientific integrity in climate and the biological sciences. SCB continued to work in coalition with other groups and independently to help the staffs of committees and subcommittees identify issues and potential witnesses, and to otherwise prepare for these hearings.

Climate Change

Recognizing the relationship between climate security, energy security, and natural resource stewardship, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi instructed most committees with jurisdiction over aspects of climate change and energy policy to report their legislation by the end of June in order to celebrate 4 July as Energy Independence Day.

Initial SCB statement on climate change. The leadership of the Energy and Commerce Committee asked nongovernmental organizations and industry leaders to respond to a letter that posed a series of questions about climate change policy. SCB's Policy Director, with the help of Policy Committee chair Luigi Boitani and other Board members, developed an 18-page statement by the 19 March deadline. The full statement is available on SCB's Web site. Without endorsing any particular legislation, SCB made several recommendations in response to the letter from the Committee, focusing mostly on issues within that committee's jurisdiction. In summary, these points were

1. Include forests and other natural mitigation systems in calculations so that their role in controlling the effects of greenhouse gases, and their changing status in the face of climate change, are taken into account and addressed through conservation and restoration.

2. Require conservation rates for energy utility services with modest charges for essential services. Escalate rates for larger amounts of use; time of day and seasonal adjustments to reduce peak demand; and adjustments to encourage utilities to offer and profit from efficiency investments, such as insulation, efficient appliances, and industrial electric motors.

3. Studies by the U.S. government, European Commission, and others have suggested that taxes on greenhouse gases are an effective means of encouraging efficient use and funding clean alternatives in the United States and other countries. Accordingly, SCB recommended that the Committee consider applying fees to the sources of greenhouse gas pollution. Fees could be set to reflect the pollution attributable to the oil and gas transmitted in pipelines and to the generation of electricity transmitted through power lines and assessed on energy transmitted through those means. For example, the European Commission has presented three papers recommending such taxes and tariffs on goods and services imported from countries that do not have comparable controls on pollution. Foreign flights landing in France are now taxed to reflect their greenhouse gas emissions.

SCB suggested that the Energy and Commerce Committee work with the Committee on Ways and Means to impose tariffs or limits on imports, the production of which generates pollution at levels that exceed those allowed by the United States. Proceeds can be made available as loans or grants to help clean up production methods in developing counties that are affected.

Studies and reports by the Congressional Budget Office (Dinan, T. September 2006. Evaluating the role of prices and R&D in reducing carbon dioxide emissions.), Department of Energy, and numerous think tanks found that taxing greenhouse gases will be more effective than trading pollution allowances. Additional studies by the Economic Policy Institute (Barret, J., et al. 2002) and the Environmental Protection Agency and Argonne National Laboratory (2004) indicate that pollution taxes are most effective when their revenue is applied to increase energy efficiency and production of renewables and to reduce other taxes.

4. Promote renewable energy through a renewable energy portfolio standard; better access to the grid and new, efficient transmission lines; and other tax shifts.

5. Cap emissions of all six major greenhouse gases near current levels. Develop a program for rapid phase-out of the greatest sources of pollution and the least efficient plants in conjunction with reductions in caps every four to five years thereafter. Work with other relevant committees such as Ways and Means, Natural Resources, Appropriations, Government Oversight, and the select committee on climate change to develop complementary legislation while planning to refine the provisions over the course of this Congress. Research by the Department of Energy and others demonstrates that solutions are more numerous and less expensive than widely believed, particularly when compared to the alternative expense of ecological and human responses to drought, floods, disease, and so forth. Mitigation and adaptation to climate change probably will require limitations on emissions and land use, tax adjustments, directed spending, international agreements, and changes in development assistance, research, and enforcement. In fact, this challenge offers great opportunities for the United States' economy and environmental health.

6. Direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, and other agencies to override regional discriminatory practices in grid management. These agencies could enhance energy transmission and policies in consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Together, they can encourage contributions by renewable sources and develop guidance for minimizing the ecological impact of all energy sources, including fossil and nuclear power.

7. Cut subsidies, direct and indirect, for any energy source or energy use that does not produce the net public benefits currently needed. For example, the life cycle of nuclear energy involves enriching the fuels, largely through coal-burning power plants. The Congressional Research Service estimated that US$4.25 billion was allocated to direct subsidies of fossil energy in Fiscal Year 2005. Recent studies of subsidies to the nuclear power industry have found that 60-90% of their costs--several billion dollars per year--are paid or allowed by the federal government. Other studies have shown that from the late 1940s to the late 1990s, nuclear and fossil fuels received between $115 and $147 billion in subsidies as compared to $5 billion for renewables. (See Kaplow, D. 2005. Nuclear power in the U.S.: still not viable without subsidy. Earthtrack. www.earthtrack.net/earthtrack/index.asp.) Likewise, revise federal policies on access to subsurface minerals to ensure full restoration when vested rights are exercised. In addition, minimize leasing that compromises biological diversity. Redirect the savings toward implementation of conservation programs that enhance mitigation, adaptation, and management of energy in ways that support the conservation of biological diversity.

Scientific Integrity

John Fitzgerald has been working regularly with three coalitions of groups that seek to unearth instances in which science has been suppressed and pose solutions to the problem. Fitzgerald serves on the steering committee of the Endangered Species Coalition (as he also did from 1984 to 1995). He is in regular communication with SCB members and others participating in working groups led by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Defenders of Wildlife, and a whistleblower protection coalition that includes the Government Accountability Project, a law firm and think tank on whistleblower protection. SCB member Francesca Grifo heads the UCS program on scientific integrity.

U.S. Endangered Species Act and National Forest Management Act. Recent court decisions, whistleblower leaks, and a report of the Department of the Interior's Inspector General have led to additional scrutiny concerning Bush Administration appointees at the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture while restoring a degree of protection for biological diversity. Highlights include rejection by the District Court of attempts to eliminate the requirement that populations of sensitive species be maintained in the National Forests (read the decision at www.savenationalforests.org) and a Ninth Circuit decision reemphasizing the primacy of the Endangered Species Act in land and water management decisions.

John Fitzgerald and Dominick DellaSala, Policy Chair of the North America Section, worked with Congressional staff and coalition colleagues to help Congress investigate and shape constructive responses to these developments. Representatives Gilchrest and Saxon, longtime supporters of the Endangered Species Act, recently challenged the proposed sweeping changes after chairs Norm Dicks and Nick Rahall of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and National Resources Committee told the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service that extensive changes to definition and protection of species' ranges would not be allowed by Congress.

These events are helping to shape hearings scheduled for early May on implementation of the Endangered Species Act. Dominick DellaSala currently is scheduled to testify on political interference with the recovery planning process for the Northern Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis caurina.

Advances in Whistleblower Protection. On 14 March, the U.S. House defeated an amendment that would have removed specific protections for scientists. They instead approved the Stupak amendment, which added protection for participation in scientific societies and journals. The House also approved H.R. 985, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007. The bill clarifies that instances of political interference with science are to be considered "abuses of authority" and therefore protects their disclosure. The Stupak amendment states that preventing a federal scientist or grantee from publishing or presenting their research is an interference. The bill, summary, and status are available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.985.EH:

Another bill is being prepared by the Senate's Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. Differences will be resolved in conference if the Senate passes its version.

International Treaties and Policy

The House Ways and Means Committee's Democratic Majority statement on trade policy now affirms a majority policy of requiring all countries that are parties to U.S. trade agreements to implement and enforce common, multilateral environmental agreements in regard to their trade with the United States. The statement refers specifically to Peruvian harvest and trade in mahogany (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/NewTradePolicy.pdf).

Biological Security

U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer, co-chair of the Congressional Indonesia Caucus, introduced his bill to ban the importation of illegally harvested wood products (H.R. 1497). The Associated Press noted, "The logging bill would extend the Lacey Act--which prohibits importation of wildlife taken in violation of conservation laws--to apply to wood and timber products. The measure would ban the import, export or sale of timber products made in violation of domestic or foreign law or international treaty." The bill was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans.

Sections and Chapters

The North America Section will discuss its 2007-2008 policy framework during a members' meeting on 24 May in Little Rock, Arkansas. North America Section President Reed Noss recently cosigned a letter with officials of Defenders of Wildlife and other groups urging Congress to strengthen the laws and programs designed to control the introduction and spread of invasive aquatic species.

SCB chapters also are contributing to policy activities. For example, the Washington, D.C. chapter has a large membership that can provide considerable leverage and leadership. The chapter has hosted a series of speakers and is scheduling policy-planning sessions. Chapter members in the western United States are drafting comments, to be reviewed by other SCB members with expertise on wolf ecology and the U.S. Endangered Species Act, on a proposal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to delist gray wolves (Canis lupus).

Policy Workshops at 2007 Annual Meeting

We are planning two lunch sessions at the 2007 annual meeting (on 2 July and 4 July) that will bring together policy experts and representatives from groups within SCB. An outreach survey will be included in the registration packets.

John Fitzgerald

Back to TABLE OF CONTENTS

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to 2007 ELECTION RESULTS