Latest news with #WildernessSociety
Yahoo
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Australia called out for 'failing' two rare species facing extinction
Conservationists are calling out government bureaucrats for "failing" to deliver two time-sensitive documents 16 years after they were first called for. This July, two draft plans were released for public consultation about how to save a pair of rare animals threatened with extinction. One is the vulnerable Australian lungfish, an ancient species that has developed the unique ability to breathe air from the surface using a single lung during dry periods. The other is the endangered sandhill dunnart, a tiny carnivorous mammal that weighs less than two AA batteries. This is the second time draft recovery plans have been announced for the two species, but neither has had its recovery plan finalised. Listing a species as threatened indicates it needs help, and recovery plans are described as being akin to "rescue roadmaps" that strategise how to save it. In Australia, there are over 2,200 species listed by the Commonwealth as threatened with extinction under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. The Wilderness Society, which is represented by Environment Justice Australia (EJA), claims there are hundreds of other species with 'missing or expired plans', and it has taken the government to court, with the Australian lungfish and sandhill dunnart both subject to that case. Ellen Maybery, senior specialist lawyer at EJA, said draft recovery plans 'aren't enough' and that 'effective recovery plans' are needed. 'There are still hundreds of missing or expired plans. Our client is asking the court to confirm that the law requires these recovery plans to be made,' she said. The Wilderness Society argues recovery plans were actually due back in 2012 when Kevin Rudd was installed as prime minister for the second time. That's because then environment minister Peter Garrett was taken to have decided they were required three years earlier in 2009. Since then, Australia has had four other prime ministers, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese. The Wilderness Society notes they were released four months after its legal action in the Federal Court was announced. Its biodiversity policy manager, Sam Szoke-Burke, noted Australia has the worst record in the world for mammalian extinctions and the second worst for biodiversity loss. 'Yet government after government has neglected to comply with mandated functions and duties to protect and foster recovery of Australian wildlife and plants,' he said. 'In the face of inaction, we felt we had no option other than to resort to the courts to compel the Federal government to do its job: we believe that includes making recovery plans for these unique and important animals.' 📸 Woman with 'specific skills' sets up 280 cameras in search rare animal 🚨 Mass bird poisoning fears at suburban shopping centre 🦁 Zoo defends $180 experience after video 'stunt' sparks concern The Department of Environment declined to answer specific questions about the matter. 'As these queries relate to recovery plans that are the subject of current legal proceedings before the Federal Court, it would not be appropriate to comment further,' it said. Environment Minister Murray Watt's office did not respond to questions from Yahoo. Love Australia's weird and wonderful environment? 🐊🦘😳 Get our new newsletter showcasing the week's best stories.
Yahoo
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Are national parks really at risk? Sen. Mike Lee pushes back on campaign against public land sales
WASHINGTON — Sen. Mike Lee and Rep. Celeste Maloy are defending a proposal to sell federally owned land after environmental groups launched a campaign against the proposal, included in the Senate version of President Donald Trump's tax bill. The groups accuse congressional Republicans of trying to siphon off millions of acres of federal land to help pay for Trump's tax cuts. But Lee and Maloy, both Utah Republicans, say maps circulated by groups like the Wilderness Society are misleading, and come from national groups that don't understand the local issues at play. The decades-long debate over whether to sell off federally controlled land was reignited last week after Lee drafted language requiring 11 Western states to sell between 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres over the next five years. The proposal is tucked into a larger bill of energy-related provisions meant to offset trillions of dollars in proposed tax cuts in Trump's reconciliation package. The proposal has prompted pushback, mostly beyond the handful of states it directly affects. Public land advocates and outdoor groups have criticized the legislation — even attracting the attention of some celebrities, such as actress Sydney Sweeney who said this week that public lands 'belong to all Americans, and it is the patriotic duty of every citizen to resist this scheme.' Lee rejected that characterization, responding in a post on X: 'Great—if federal land is an unmitigated good, then every state should have an equal share of it.' The online discourse has resulted in conflicting interpretations about what the legislation would do — or wouldn't do, in some cases. Here's a breakdown of the basic components of the bill and how different groups are responding. Under the bill, 11 states would be required to sell anywhere between 0.5% and 0.75% of all Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service lands, which could total up to a maximum of 1.5% in some cases. The legislation specifically applies to Utah as well as Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming. About 63% of Utah's land is owned by the federal government, the most of any state in the country aside from Nevada. The federal government owns more than 80% of the land in Nevada. By comparison, the federal government owns just 0.3% of the land in Connecticut and Iowa, the least among the states. The bill would require the land be used only for 'the development of housing or to address associated community needs,' although it does leave that interpretation up to the secretaries of Interior and Agriculture. Lee has said there will be updates to the legislation that would further restrict what lands can be sold, mandating that those being sold by the U.S. Forest Service are within two miles of a population center and those being sold by the Bureau of Land Management are within five miles. The Utah senator notes lands with existing permits for grazing, mining, mineral leases, or more would also be exempt. The bill outlines 15 categories of protected land that cannot be sold for housing purposes. These include national monuments, national historical parks, recreation areas, conservation areas, units of the National Wildlife Refuge System, units of the National Fish Hatchery System, national trails, national memorials, battlefield sites and military parks, among other things. However, conservation groups such as the Wilderness Society have circulated maps depicting lands they believe would fall under the bill's definition of public lands. The map shows popular hiking trails, ski resorts and grazing areas the group says would be at risk under Lee's proposal. Those lands stretch across the Wasatch Front to include Big Cottonwood Canyon, Little Cottonwood Canyon and Parleys Canyon. Lee has pushed back against those characterizations, with his office arguing the Wilderness Society map is not an official government document and is 'speculative and misleading.' Rep. Celeste Maloy, R-Utah, who led a similar public lands sales proposal in the House earlier this year, also rejected the Wilderness Society map, warning it's part of an agenda from a 'national group that may have no understanding of Utah.' 'People see that map and they get panicky,' Maloy told the Deseret News in an interview. 'I want people in Utah to be more thoughtful in how they respond to maps on the internet, because that map isn't part of any legislation.' 'Not every acre of public land is a national park. The vast majority of it is not,' Maloy added. 'We have a lot of sagebrush ground that is adjacent to cities and towns where we do have infrastructure needs, and we've got to be able to have serious conversations about how we handle the real needs of communities in Utah. It can't always devolve into loud rhetoric about parks and access.' Instead, the Utah lawmakers have maintained the bill does not list any lands 'for sale' but instead creates a nomination process to purchase lands currently owned by the government. The legislation excludes specific acreage as well as any maps to adhere to the strict Senate rules of reconciliation. 'When this bill puts land in the category of eligibility for sale, it doesn't mean for sale,' Lee told conservative radio host Glenn Beck on Thursday. 'It just means there's a process by which it could be transferred.' The process for selling off land would begin shortly after the bill is passed. The legislation requires the secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to solicit nominations from interested parties within 30 days of passage. The bill does not specify who qualifies as an 'interested party' nor does it have restrictions. The lands under consideration must meet certain criteria, such as being adjacent to existing developed areas, having access to existing infrastructure, is suitable for resident housing, and contains isolated tracts that are inefficient to manage. After that initial solicitation, the secretaries must publish lists of land for sale every 60 days until they meet the required acreage of lands to sell in each state. However, the provision would require the interior secretary to consult with state and local governments as well as any Indian tribes before facilitating any sort of sale, according to the bill. That way, aides noted, it created a 'public participant process.' The bill also carves out what is known as 'first right of refusal,' which would give state and local officials an early opportunity to make a first offer if they so choose. When drafting her initial amendment, Maloy proposed selling about 11,000 acres of public lands in Utah's Washington and Beaver counties, which was drafted upon request from county officials. That proposal was ultimately removed from the tax bill amid pushback from some Republicans as well as concerns it did not adhere to strict reconciliation rules. Still, Maloy says the arguments influencing the original amendment still stand: Local leaders should decide whether to sell off public lands. 'Every event I have, especially political events, somebody asks, 'What are you going to do to get us more control of our public land?'' Maloy told the Deseret News. 'I think there's a big appetite for that in Utah. People want it to be thoughtful. They want more access, they want more control. They want more of a voice.' Lee's language is separate from Maloy's, although the Utah senator did work with the congresswoman when drafting his own version, he told the Deseret News. The proposal to sell off public lands is still an uphill battle in Congress, even with Trump's support on the issue. While some conservatives are supportive of the effort to sell federally owned lands to pay for Trump's signature tax cuts, other Republicans in Western states have come out against the proposal — particularly those in Montana. Both Republican Sens. Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy of Montana told the Deseret News they oppose the sale of public lands. However, they both noted separately they were pleased to see Montana exempted from Lee's proposal, which the Utah senator did after consulting with the pair. However, Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., has gone even further to say he would outright oppose any reconciliation package that includes the sale of public lands, possibly putting the bill at risk. 'I don't yield to pressure, only higher principle,' Zinke said in a statement. 'I have said from day one I would not support a bill that sells public lands. I am still a no on the Senate reconciliation bill that sells public lands. We did our job in the House. Let's get it finished.'
Mint
06-07-2025
- Business
- Mint
The moment the clean-energy boom ran into ‘drill, baby, drill'
Southern Energy Management is bracing for whiplash. The Raleigh-based home-solar-panel installation company grew steadily in recent years, thanks in part to tax credits in former President Joe Biden's landmark 2022 climate law. Now, Chief Executive Will Etheridge says his 190-person company's residential solar sales could plunge in 2026 by as much as half. President Trump's megabill, which he signed into law Friday, ends the subsidies later this year. Etheridge's plans to buy more supplies from factories in North Carolina and elsewhere are on hold. 'Now, I'm not thinking about that at all," he said. 'I'm trying to think about how to save North Carolina jobs." A wave of government spending that swept through the U.S. economy in recent years is about to recede. Biden's climate law threw subsidies behind wind and solar power, electric vehicles and other green projects that federal forecasters said would total nearly $400 billion. Outside analysts projected the ultimate spending would be even greater. Investors jumped into renewables stocks, while local governments and labor unions clamored for new projects. Trump's 'big, beautiful bill" will turn off that spigot as part of a push to extend the tax cuts enacted in his first term. Credits for EVs and home solar panels are slated to end in the coming months. Incentives to develop or produce renewable energy will wind down within years. The legislation, meanwhile, boosts the prospects for fossil-fuel production on public lands, a boon to oil-and-gas drillers that are pumping record supplies and posting bumper profits. Biden's law tried to build a bridge to an economy more oriented around renewable energy, said Tracy Stone-Manning, president of the Wilderness Society, a group that aims to protect public lands. 'What [Trump's] is doing is blowing the bridge up," said Stone-Manning, who was director of the Bureau of Land Management in the Biden administration. The clashing visions have left many developers and workers around the country in a lurch. Clean-energy executives expected regulatory changes under any new administration. Some warn, though, that the swift rollback of much of a previously passed law will create a new level of uncertainty for future investment and raise financing costs down the road. 'You're going to strand a lot of capital, and you're going to put a lot of people out of business by changing the chessboard right in the middle of the game," said Reagan Farr, chief executive of solar developer Silicon Ranch. 'That's something as a country that we've been good about until now." Trump's spending bill—which the Congressional Budget Office expects will cut more than half a trillion dollars in tax incentives over the next decade—isn't as extreme as some renewables advocates feared. A proposed tax on wind and solar projects was stripped by the Senate. Lawmakers also extended through 2027 a phaseout of credits for renewable energy investment and production. That could give some ongoing construction runway to continue. But deals still in negotiation or in the early stages of development could be caught in no-man's-land, said Farr, whose company's projects include several solar arrays in Georgia and Tennessee to power Meta Platforms data centers. 'They're not things that you just throw up in six months and you're done," he said. The policy changes could reduce investment by about $500 billion across electricity and clean fuels production by 2035, according to preliminary estimates by the Princeton University-led REPEAT Project. Renewables proponents fear the upshot will be higher bills for Americans living through a once-in-a-generation surge in power demand tied to the mania over artificial intelligence. Although Trump's campaign pledged to lower Americans' energy costs, some oil-and-gas executives have said privately that they understood his 'drill, baby, drill" rallying cry as an economic organizing principle, rather than a push to bore more wells through shale rock. Analysts say the new legislation will have limited immediate impact on already record-breaking U.S. fossil-fuel production. The new bill would help protect fossil fuels from more competition. Oil drillers last week operated 12% fewer rigs than they did at the start of the year, according to Baker Hughes. Pointing to languishing commodity prices and new tariffs on imported steel, nearly half of the oil-and-gas executives polled by the Dallas Fed in June said they expect to drill fewer wells in 2025 than initially expected. Longer term, however, measures such as expanded federal leases, cheaper royalties and the end of Biden-era tax credits will help shield fossil fuels from more competition. That could be particularly beneficial to producers of natural gas, who are jockeying with renewables developers to fuel the power-hungry AI boom. If 'repealing these subsidies will 'kill' their industry, then maybe it shouldn't exist in the first place," Tom Pyle, president of the pro-oil-and-gas group American Energy Alliance, said in a statement. Already, renewable stocks have been thrashed in recent years by inflationary shock and stubbornly high interest rates. Arduous permitting processes and supply-chain snafus busted project timelines. Costs spiraled. Local officials have feared a pullback in tax credits—and in turn a disappearing customer base for new manufacturers—for the better part of a year. Businesses ended or scaled back an estimated $15.5 billion worth of clean-energy projects in the first five months of the year, according to advocacy group E2. Among those affected were a Georgia battery plant, a Washington-state solar supplier and an offshore-wind-cable factory in Massachusetts. The cancellations spanned projects that promised to create roughly 12,000 jobs. Executives and labor leaders fear turbulence ahead will leave more Americans, including Cierra Pearl, out of work. The 29-year-old Mainer started an apprentice program last year with her local International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union and was soon building racks and installing panels on solar arrays. At $23.18 an hour plus overtime, the paychecks were her biggest ever. But Pearl was laid off in early May after developers hit pause. Now, with dimming hope for future projects, she is burning some of her $595 in weekly unemployment benefits on gas to drive to job interviews. 'I've felt hopeless a lot lately," Pearl said. It is not just financial stability that she lost, she added. 'It's dignity." Write to David Uberti at
Newsweek
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Map Shows States Where Wildlife Is Under Threat
A number of Western states have vulnerable wildlife that would be threatened by possible land protection rollbacks, according to the conservation group the Wilderness Society. Government documents have indicated that President Donald Trump and the Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum may roll back national monument designations and leasing withdrawals. Last month, a Department of Justice official determined that the president had the power to carry out the move. Newsweek has contacted the Wilderness Society for comment via email. The Department of the Interior told Newsweek it did not have any update on the discussions or further comment to share at this time. Why It Matters In his first term as president, Trump tried to edge toward a similar rollback. He reduced the size of two national monuments in Utah, deeming them a "massive land grab." He also lifted fishing restrictions within a marine monument off the New England coast, protections that his successor restored. The West is filled with various national monuments—areas of land that help to preserve vital wildlife habitats, according to conservation groups and ecologists who argue that rolling back protections would have wide-ranging effects on the American people and the country as a whole. What To Know No order or official policy has been set out to rescind the protections for national monuments. However, a leaked draft of an Interior Department document showed that the president sought to reduce the boundaries of six national monuments for resource extraction, the San Francisco news outlet SFGate reported. Per the outlet, the listed national monuments cover 5.4 million acres of land. Trump also requested that the Justice Department find out whether he had the power to "revoke President Biden's proclamations creating the Chuckwalla and the Sáttítla Highlands National Monuments," a May DOJ memo showed. Per the memo, the president also asked "whether we should disavow the opinion of Attorney General Homer Cummings titled Proposed Abolishment of Castle Pinckney National Monument, ... which has long been cited as a reason for treating the declaration of a monument under the Antiquities Act as irrevocable." Responding to these points, the DOJ wrote in the report, "We think that the President can, and we should." The response suggests that a rollback of the protections of the monuments—which provide critical habitat and migration corridors, according to the Wilderness Society—is looming. "Trump once again is targeting these protected areas, aiming to open them to oil and gas drilling, mining, logging, and road construction—this reflects a broader disregard for the conservation value of public lands," Peter Marra, the dean of the Earth Commons and a professor of biology and the environment at Georgetown University, told Newsweek. "These lands protect endangered species, stunning natural landscapes, and sacred Native American sites," he added. "We, as a nation—and especially our leaders—have a responsibility to safeguard these places for both their current significance and their value to future generations." Many of these protected areas spread across California, Arizona and New Mexico, with some in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Utah and Colorado. Monuments in Florida, Alaska, Maine and Minnesota could also be affected by a rollback of protections. "Because there is much more public land in the Western U.S. than the Eastern U.S., species conservation in the West relies hugely on wise management of public lands," Taylor H. Ricketts, the director of the Gund Institute for Environment at the University of Vermont, told Newsweek. "That is why federal action in the West is so consequential for wildlife. It represents a big part of the total habitat available for many species," he said, adding that for the wildlife in these areas, the habitats are "crucial and irreplaceable." What People Are Saying Taylor H. Ricketts, the director of the Gund Institute for Environment at the University of Vermont, told Newsweek: "Morally, allowing any species to vanish from the earth on our watch is an ethical failure. All species have an equal right to persist on earth, and we have a moral responsibility to avoid extinctions due to our growing activities. Practically, wildlife supports our economies and lives in countless ways. Bats consume millions of mosquitoes per night. Wild bees pollinate crops across the U.S., contributing billions annually to our agricultural sector. Millions of Americans of both parties enjoy hunting, fishing, hiking, and bird-watching. These contributions to our economy are based on wildlife and wild places that are increasingly threatened. This means everyone, whether they are a wildlife enthusiast or not, has a stake in maintaining America's wild places and the species that depend on them." Shahid Naeem, a professor of ecology at Columbia University, told Newsweek: "As an ecologist, the removal of any protection in favor of harmful exploitation is a bad thing as all species, all nature, provide for our citizens, and our national security and prosperity depend on retaining at least 30 percent of the U.S. as healthy ecosystems. The loss of some species, like top predators, tells us how the environment is degraded much more so than the loss of charismatic species or endangered species. To remove or weaken current protections is an affront to the American people and an assault on our national environmental well-being. He added: "What's protected is already too small an area. Many ecologists believe that a minimum of 50 percent of our nation needs to be protected or managed with ecosystem services or nature-based solutions in mind. If the administration is for the people it represents, it would increase and strengthen—not decrease and weaken—environmental protections designed to protect nature, which includes wildlife." Peter Marra, the dean of the Earth Commons and a professor of biology and the environment at Georgetown University, told Newsweek: "Many of the species inhabiting these threatened areas are already in decline. The Desert Tortoise, Mexican Spotted Owl, and Canada Lynx—among others—are struggling to survive amid shrinking habitats and intensifying climate pressures. Removing remaining protections and introducing industrial development only accelerates their path toward extinction. While the spotlight is often on the West, similar threats are emerging in protected areas across the East as well. This is not just about one region—it's a nationwide unraveling of environmental safeguards." He added: "When we lose species, we also lose ecological integrity—the balance and resilience of natural systems that not only sustain wildlife but support human life as well. These ecosystems regulate our climate, filter our water, and maintain the biodiversity that underpins food security and public health. But it's more than that. These lands represent our natural heritage. Each site holds something irreplaceable—whether it's a physical monument, a sacred cultural landscape, or a biologically unique habitat. The loss isn't just environmental; it's moral and ethical." Noah Charney, a professor of conservation biology at the University of Maine, told Newsweek: "When companies come in and fence off land, drive heavy machinery, build roads, and divert water, these cause major changes to the local ecosystems and the ability of the species to persist. There's direct mortality from equipment, earthmoving vehicles—such as turtles and cactuses getting crushed. Then, there are a variety of indirect mortality sources—such as runoff into streams from oil or equipment; sediment and pollution runoff from roadways that gets flushed downstream out in monsoons; nighttime lighting associated with equipment that can cause birds, most of which migrate at night, to crash and die; and the spread of non-native species often associated with development that can push out endemic species or spread disease. Finally, there are the long-term consequences of the fences and habitat fragmentation—even if species are able to survive in isolated patches, over time, all species need to be able to move between habitat patches to find resources, adjust to shifting weather patterns and find mates for long-term population persistence." What Happens Next Now that the DOJ has confirmed that the president has the power to roll back protections of national monuments, it seems likely that the White House and the Department of the Interior will move to finalize an order to open those lands for resource extraction.
ABC News
30-06-2025
- General
- ABC News
Wilderness Society and AgForce clash over land-clearing in Queensland
A not-for-profit environmental group is calling for more clarity and enforcement after releasing drone footage of land in central Queensland it says may have been illegally cleared under federal law. The Wilderness Society said it was alerted to instances of land clearing by users of its app, which it then documented with legally obtained drone footage filmed over 12 months. Queensland campaigns manger Hannah Schuch said the clearing was primarily for beef production at properties in the Marlborough and Emerald regions. "[The] freshly bulldozed native forests and bushland are likely to be home of dozens of threatened species, including the koala, the greater glider and the red goshawk," she said. But the state's peak body for agriculture labelled the claims misleading and said no-one had done anything illegal. "We're very conscious of our environmental credentials and of what we are allowed to clear and not allowed to clear," AgForce Queensland president Shane McCarthy said. The Wilderness Society said the clearing of hundreds of hectares of land was legal at the state level but had been done without the mandatory assessment by the federal government. Any act that has a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance, such as clearing the habitat of a threatened species, requires a referral under the federal government's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC). The society's claims follow allegations made by the Australian Conservation Foundation that 90,000 hectares of land across the nation had been illegally cleared for beef production. The National Farmers' Federation has rejected that claim. A spokesperson for the federal Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water said an investigation into the Marlborough matter had been closed with no enforcement action taken. It said the matters in Emerald remained under investigation. Mr McCarthy said much of the clearing on beef properties was conducted to manage regrowth on previously cleared land. He said there was a lack of clarity in the EPBC Act. "We know of cases where people have got these notices in the mail to say 'there could be an endangered habitat, but we don't know where it is', and when the producers go down and actually look at the area … there's no chance of that being there," Mr McCarthy said. "There's a lot of confusion." He said landowners were conscious of animals on their land and would never knowingly clear a threatened species habitat. "Producers are the better stewards of that land … they live there, they manage it on a day-to-day basis," Mr McCarthy said. "They don't sit in an office down in Sydney or Melbourne somewhere and look at it on a map and then decide what should or shouldn't be done there. The Wilderness Society has called on the government to make sure the laws are understood properly and enforced. "It really shouldn't be up to citizen scientists and not-for-profit independent organisations to monitor what's happening on the ground," Ms Schuch said. The environment department said anyone found in breach of the EPBC Act could be fined, directed to remediate damage or face prison time. "The department routinely monitors and verifies compliance across our regulatory schemes and works to detect, disrupt and deter noncompliant activity," the spokesperson said. The federal government has been working on reforming the act for several years. Environment Minister Murray Wyatt has admitted the laws are "broken" and held a roundtable meeting this month to discuss reform. No change is expected before Christmas, but the minister is adamant there will be reform in the next 18 months.
