TheTrump administrationis planning to narrow protections for endangered species, in a move that environmentalists say would accelerate extinction by opening up critical habitats for development, logging, mining and other uses.The proposal is the latest deregulatory effort byDonald Trump, who has made it a priority todismantle endangered species protectionsas part of a broader quest to boost energy extraction and industrial access, even in the US’s most sensitive and vulnerable natural areas.The new proposal from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service offers a new interpretation of the of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, which wouldstrike habitat destruction from regulations.At issue is a long-standing definition of two terms in the Endangered Species Act: “harm” and “take”. “Harm” has meant altering or destroying the places those species live. “Take”, meanwhile, is a term used in regulations to denote any actions that include hunting, capturing, wounding or killing a protected species, which has included altering or destroying the places those species live.A ‘recipe for extinction’: can the US’s envied nature protections survive Trump and his ‘God squad’?Read moreThe US Fish andWildlifeService and National Marine Fisheries Service said in a proposed rule, issued on Wednesday, that habitat modification and destruction should not be considered “harm” because it is not the same as intentionally targeting a species, which is defined as “take”.“The existing regulatory definition of ‘harm,’ which includes habitat modification, runs contrary to the best meaning of the statutory term ‘take,’” the proposal says.Challenges to the legalese could enable a much more limited application of the regulations, which would free industry to continue or begin activities that would impact habitat.But habitat loss isconsidered the strongest driver of species loss. Striking the word or changing these definitions could cause catastrophic damage to species already close to the brink.“If [you] say harm doesn’t mean significant habitat degradation or modification, then it really leaves endangered species out in the cold,” Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity said, adding that the proposal “cuts the heart out of the Endangered Species Act”.Environmentalists argue that the definition of “take” has always included actions that harm species, and the definition of “harm” has been upheld by the US supreme court.Spotted owls and Florida panthers both are protected because the current rule forbids habitat destruction, Greenwald said. The legislation has helped safeguard more than 1,700 species and their habitats,preventing 99%of those listed from going extinct, most famously the bald eagle.But if the new rule is adopted, someone who logs in a forest or builds a development would be unimpeded as long as they could say they didn’t intend to harm an endangered species.The proposed rule was expected to be published in the Federal Register on Thursday, kicking off a 30-day public comment period. Environmental groups are already planning to challenge the rule in court if it’s adopted. Questions remain about whether theTrump administrationis legally able to repeal a rule already upheld by the supreme court.The proposal “threatens a half-century of progress in protecting and restoring endangered species”, said Drew Caputo, an attorney at Earthjustice. He added that the law currently “recognizes the common-sense concept that destroying a forest, beach, river, or wetland that a species relies on for survival constitutes harm to that species”.skip past newsletter promotionSign up toDown to EarthFree weekly newsletterThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialEnter your email addressSign upPrivacy Notice:Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see ourPrivacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the GooglePrivacy PolicyandTerms of Serviceapply.after newsletter promotionIt’s not the first attempt by the administration to undermine protections. One of Trump’s first executive orders after returning to the White House in January,declared a national energy emergencyeven amid a record glut of oil and gas drilling, and calls for the endangered species committee, a group nicknamed the “God squad”, to meet at least quarterly.This committee, which would be led by US interior secretary Doug Burgum, five other senior officials from different government agencies and a representative from an affected state, has rarely been used but has the power to override the Endangered Species Act even if it results in the extinction of a species, hence its existential nickname.Changing the rule could prove an easier strategy to override protections. It could also threaten conservation areas kept safe because of the species that call them home.The issue is of particular concern in Hawaii. The islands have more endangered species than any other state – 40% of the nation’s federally listed threatened and endangered species – even though Hawaii has less than 1% of the land area of the US, according to the NationalFishand Wildlife Foundation.Maxx Philips, Hawaii and Pacific Islands director for the Center for Biological Diversity, said removing these safeguards will accelerate Hawaii’s extinction crisis and erode the biological and cultural heritage of the islands.She pointed to the example of tiny native bees that forage on and pollinate coastal dune plants. Very little oceanfront property remains undeveloped and what is left tends to be fragmented pockets. Other listed species living on the shoreline – like green sea turtles – could also lose their homes if protections are removed.“Habitat is life, right?” she said. “And without it, there is no recovery and without recovery, there is only extinction.”Oliver Milman and the Associated Press contributed reporting
Trump administration moves to narrow protections for endangered species
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Trump Administration Proposes Redefinition of Endangered Species Protections"
The Guardian
6.2
TruthLens AI Summary
The Trump administration has proposed significant changes to the protections afforded to endangered species under the Endangered Species Act, a move that environmental advocates warn could lead to accelerated extinction rates. The new proposal, issued by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, seeks to redefine key terms like "harm" and "take" in the context of habitat destruction. Historically, "harm" has encompassed actions that alter or destroy habitats critical to the survival of endangered species. However, under the proposed rule, habitat modification would no longer be classified as "harm," which could allow industries to engage in activities such as logging and mining without the obligation to consider the impact on endangered species. This shift has raised alarm among conservationists, who argue that habitat loss is a primary driver of species extinction and that the proposed changes effectively undermine decades of progress in wildlife protection.
Environmentalists are particularly concerned about the implications of this proposal for various species, including the spotted owl and Florida panther, which rely on protected habitats for their survival. The changes could lead to a significant reduction in the regulatory power of the Endangered Species Act, allowing developers and industries to operate with fewer restrictions as long as they claim not to have the intent to harm a species. Critics, including legal experts and environmental organizations, assert that this reinterpretation of the law could result in devastating consequences for biodiversity and conservation efforts. As the proposal moves forward, it is expected to be published in the Federal Register, initiating a 30-day public comment period, during which environmental groups are preparing to challenge the changes in court. The potential for these modifications to erode protections, especially in ecologically sensitive areas like Hawaii, where a large proportion of the nation's endangered species are found, has raised serious concerns about the future of these vulnerable populations and their habitats.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article presents a critical perspective on the Trump administration's plans to redefine protections for endangered species. It highlights concerns from environmentalists about the potential implications of these changes, which could lead to increased habitat destruction and accelerate species extinction.
Intended Purpose of the Article
The piece aims to inform the public about the administration's deregulatory actions regarding endangered species protections. By framing the proposed changes as detrimental to environmental conservation, the article seeks to galvanize public opinion against these policies and encourage advocacy for stronger protections.
Public Perception and Emotional Response
The narrative likely intends to evoke a sense of urgency and alarm among readers. By using terms like "accelerate extinction" and "catastrophic damage," it fosters a perception that the administration's actions pose a significant threat to biodiversity. This emotional framing serves to mobilize environmental advocates and concerned citizens.
Potential Information Gaps
While the article focuses on the negative implications of the proposed changes, it may downplay or omit any potential economic arguments that supporters of the changes might present, such as promoting industrial growth or job creation. This selective focus could lead to a skewed understanding of the broader implications of the policy shift.
Manipulative Elements
The article employs persuasive language and emotional appeals, which could be viewed as manipulative. By emphasizing the dire consequences of the policy changes and framing them as a threat to nature, it encourages readers to adopt a specific viewpoint without equally presenting opposing arguments.
Veracity of the Content
The article appears to be based on factual information, referencing established regulations and the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act. However, the interpretation and implications drawn from these facts lean towards a particular narrative that may not encompass all perspectives.
Social and Economic Impact
If these regulatory changes proceed, they could lead to significant ecological consequences, potentially affecting sectors reliant on biodiversity, such as tourism and agriculture. Politically, it may galvanize opposition movements, leading to heightened activism around environmental issues.
Target Audience
The article is likely aimed at environmentally conscious individuals and organizations concerned about conservation efforts. It may resonate particularly with groups that prioritize ecological sustainability over industrial development.
Market Implications
In terms of market effects, industries involved in development, logging, and mining may benefit from deregulation, possibly leading to fluctuations in stock prices for companies in these sectors. Conversely, companies focused on sustainability and environmental protection may face challenges.
Geopolitical Context
While the article primarily addresses domestic policy, it reflects broader global discussions about environmental protection and sustainability. As climate change and biodiversity loss become more pressing issues globally, the U.S.'s stance on such regulations may influence international perceptions and collaborations on conservation efforts.
AI Influence on the Article
It is plausible that AI tools were employed in drafting or editing the article, particularly in structuring arguments or analyzing regulatory language. However, the specific influence of such technology on the article's tone and direction is difficult to ascertain without explicit disclosure from the authors. In summary, the article raises substantial concerns about the potential ramifications of the Trump administration's proposals on endangered species protections. Although it presents a clear and fact-based narrative, the emotional framing and selective emphasis on certain impacts suggest an intent to provoke a specific reaction from the audience.