Though legislation under the Environmental Protection Agency has done immense good for the environment and all species which inhabit it, this article illustrates the inefficacy of some of its actions, and the difficulty it often faces due to opposition from external interests.
The Black-tailed Prairie dog, once granted protection under the controversial Endangered Species Act is no now longer deemed an Endangered Species and the EPA thus holds no jurisdiction over its protection. To further the damage, The EPA was pressured by objections from the Fish and Wildlife Service to expand the use of a new prairie dog poison, Rozol. This will certainly not stand without controversy. Environmental groups such as the Audobon Society have already sued to repeal the approval of the above poison.
The EPA faces the same conflicts any large law-making entity would face, fierce opposition from those with vested interests. This conflict halts the progress the EPA could make in face of issues such as biodiversity loss, but is a necessary component of legislation. Without opposing interests, the power of the EPA would be largely unchecked, and wouldn't accurately represent the view of the people.
This scenario, however, demonstrates a clear overstep of check-and-balance boundaries as "wise-use" entities are allowed to suppress EPA action in efforts to "protect the market". Simply, there must be a compromised reached. Each party holds their own interests, and none can be met universally. However we must understand the reality of climate change and biodiversity loss. If we fail to act in order to appease other interests, the consequences could be dire.
Sorry about the randomly huge writing.
ReplyDeleteI like the randomly huge writing! It mixes it up quite nicely. And I agree with what athie said about the need to form a compromise. All environmental issues we are facing today are intertwined, and this article makes that point extremely clear. Political interests, economic interests, and environmental interests will all have to be considered in almost every environmental issue, and it is important that we realize this. Yay athie!
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting mix of victory and defeat. The victory: prairie dog populations have increased since they were originally granted protection. The defeat: the prairie dog populations are likely to decrease again, with the increased use of poison.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the point of having an Environmental Protection Agency if it doesn’t have the power to protect the environment? Legislation is only as good as it’s enforcement, and the EPA obviously needs more enforcement power. Bending to corporation’s every whim completely defeats the purpose of the creating the EPA in the first place
I believe that the praries dogs should be kept on the endangered species list because it has proven to be effective. By removing them from the list, it further subjects them to future being put onto the list. I see how some people may think that it is necessary to give into big business demands, but it is better for the environement- so it is better for the people to make the morally right decision.
ReplyDeleteMost deffinately they should be kept on the endagered species list. If you remove them from the list then they will be even more endagered. They need to be protected until there is almost an abundance. (you're huge writing is coolll)
ReplyDeleteThis issue is very exemplary of power big business holds in American government. Much like the immense power lobbyists hold in Congress, I'm sure the Fish and Wildlife Services receive a lot of money from poison manufacturers like Rozol. Thus, to continue to maintain proper funding for their activities, the Fish and Wildlife Services is participating in a game of survival of the fittest: either the EPA maintains protection of the prairie dog and affirms its commitment or the Fish and Wildlife Services gets its money. Its harsh to place a value on the environment, but American laissez-faire capitalism has done so.
ReplyDelete