The Trump administration’s changes to the Endangered Species Act — changes endorsed by Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Battle Ground — mark an extension of the president’s attack on the environment. President Donald Trump’s continued preference for short-term economic gains is delivering long-term and permanent damage that calls for diligent opposition.
In announcing the changes this month, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross said they would “ease the regulatory burden of the American public, without sacrificing our species’ protection and recovery goals.”
That is a desirable outcome. But the administration’s demonstrated hostility to science and environmental protections call into question the sincerity of the statement.
Trump has declared climate change a “hoax” perpetrated by the Chinese government, and last week he skipped a climate change conference at the G-7 summit while aides lied to the public about the reason for his absence. The administration has worked to open public lands to mining and other resource extraction. And Trump has attempted to roll back clean air and clean water regulations.
The Endangered Species Act, originally signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1973, is the latest environmental standard to come under attack by the current administration.
Most disconcerting is that the changes will direct the federal government to conduct an economic analysis before considering whether to list a species as threatened or endangered. This is akin to an EMT asking for a patient’s bank statement before deciding whether to treat a heart attack.
In addition, the administration will not weigh the current and future impact of climate change when deciding on protection for a particular species. This is akin to ignoring the heart attack and treating a patient for nothing more than high blood pressure.
Nationally, the Endangered Species Act has been credited with preserving and bolstering iconic species such as the bald eagle, the grizzly bear and the California condor. But it also has had an impact on hundreds of other species. In Clark County, eight species of animals and plants — including coho salmon, chinook salmon and water howellia — are listed as threatened or endangered under the act.
Those listings have, undoubtedly, generated restrictions that have negative economic impacts. Herrera Beutler told The Columbian that the Trump administration’s changes will keep the act from “being abused and distorted by radical urban environmentalists or government bureaucrats to end forest management and put farmers out of business.”
The misnomer in that statement is the suggestion that forest management is impossible with the Endangered Species Act in place. The irony in it is that Herrera Beutler decries the impact of the act on farmers while remaining silent about damage from Trump’s trade war.
There are, indeed, instances where economic concerns and environmental protections clash. Rather than leaving decisions to an anti-environment administration, Congress must take the lead. Forest management policy has been in need of change for decades; a robust discussion among elected officials would be more productive than a directive from an administration that has persistently undermined the environment.
The bottom line is that President Trump has done nothing to demonstrate that he is interested in protecting the health of Americans or the plants and animals that share our environment. It is foolish to believe that he is doing so now.
