In 1973, Congress passed the Endangered Species Act, a program designed to provide for the conservation of plants and animals on the endangered species list. The law made it illegal to harm any of the listed species and legislated against the degradation of their habitat. More recently, the government began looking into using the ESA as an avenue of recouping the vast losses caused by the BP oil spill. As they launch a criminal investigation into whether BP was criminally negligent, the ESA is one of the legal means with which they might be able to subvert the current cap on damages. While this may be beneficial in the short term, Craig Collins, author of Toxic Loopholes: Failures and Future Prospects for Environmental Law, looks at loopholes in the ESA itself to argue for a fundamental realignment of our approach towards how we legislate environmental protection. In the age-old battle between the environment and the economy, Collins asks us to reevaluate our priorities. -------- Endangered Species Act: Noah’s Ark or Titanic? By Craig Collins, Ph.D. California State University East Bay, Environmental Law & Policy The Endangered Species Act is the equivalent of a tiny bandage on a gaping wound. When Congress passed the ESA back in 1973, it was responding to intense public pressure to save a growing number of species from extinction. Groups like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the World Wildlife Fund raised public awareness and sympathy by showcasing the plight of a small group of cute or charismatic creatures—like pandas, bald eagles and blue whales—whose survival was threatened by human encroachment. This campaign was so effective that the media still portrays the struggle to preserve biodiversity as an altruistic endeavor pressed upon society by tree-hugger environmentalists trying to rescue wildlife from the brink of extinction.
Read MoreThe Gulf oil spill and the West Virginia mine explosion are two of the biggest tragedies in our recent history. Isn’t it interesting, then, that they share one highly combustible causal factor? Craig Collins, author of Toxic Loopholes: Failures and Future Prospects for Environmental Law, points to methane gas – from its incendiary role in the BP oil spill and the Massey mine explosion to its latent potential for wreaking further havoc. While the slow-moving mass of oil reaches our shores, with new ever-escalating estimates of the gallons spilled being announced, Collins reminds us of the lesser recognized hazards of methane gas and the further damage it can cause. -------- The Grim Reaper of Greenhouse Gases By Craig Collins, Ph.D. California State University East Bay, Environmental Law & Policy Although carbon dioxide is the most talked-about greenhouse gas, we ignore methane at our peril because it may prove to be the deadliest greenhouse gas of all. Unlike CO2, methane is flammable.
Read MoreWhile the Gulf oil slick worsens, still spilling from a capsized wellhead and pressing ever closer to coastline towns, the blame game has exploded across the public sphere. Craig Collins, author of Toxic Loopholes: Failures and Future Prospects for Environmental Law, weighs in on the politicking to offer his vision of why this crisis demands a reconsideration of America’s heavy reliance on petroleum – economically, environmentally, and morally.
Read MoreLast week, Bolivian President Evo Morales hosted a four-day summit on climate change - the World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth. Attracting more than 35,000 delegates from social movements and organizations from 140 countries, this alternative summit gathered indigenous groups, scientists, activists and delegations from lower income countries - a sharp contrast from the diplomatic representatives of December's Copenhagen Accord. Craig Collins, author of Toxic Loopholes: Failures and Future Prospects for Environmental Law, weighs in on the mission, message, and political expediency of the Bolivian Accord. ----- The message delivered by the poor nations and climate activists gathered in Bolivia this week is undeniably just: The world desperately needs an effective climate agreement. Rich countries are primarily responsible for causing this problem and have reaped most of benefits of two centuries of fossil-fueled industrialization. Therefore, they must bear most of the costs of responding to climate change and overcoming the world’s addiction to fossil fuels. Only the callous or ethically challenged would dispute this position on moral grounds. But even though the South’s case for climate justice is ethically sound, it may be politically doomed. Power, not morality, is the currency of international politics. In the corridors of power, the moral high ground is nearly worthless without real leverage to back it up. And, when it comes to climate change, the South has very little leverage to wrest justice from the North.
Read More