Articles by Eric de Place

Schwarzenegger’s new climate initiative isn’t all that.

To read today's headlines you'd think Schwarzenegger just saved the world from global warming catastrophe a la the "The Day After Tomorrow." But why?

In a speech to the United Nations World Environment Day gathering in San Francisco, the gubernator proclaimed that the scientific debate on climate change is over and that the world needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I suppose it's encouraging that another prominent Republican has made such a declaration, in contrast to the willful ignorance of the White House. But isn't this stuff common knowledge by now?

Schwarzenegger also unveiled a (non-binding) pledge to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 and to 1990 levels by 2020. By 2050, he aims to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

Okay, that last bit is impressive. But 2050 is so far over the hazy edge of the political horizon that it doesn't seem particularly courageous to make radical pledges for 45 years from now, when the near-term goals are actually fairly insubstantial.

Plenty of other places in the US have made far more aggressive commitments to battling climate change.

An optimistic op-ed on Washington state climate moves.

A refreshing and optimistic op-ed by KC Golden, policy director of Climate Solutions. Golden points out that 2005 is turning out to be a banner year for Washington--a year that includes both a turning away from energy-dependence and several encouraging steps toward a smarter and more efficient energy-economy that benefits everyone.

In a time when partisanship seems all the rage, Golden's point about ending our addiction to fossil fuels is right on the money:

We cannot rise to this challenge if we stay stuck in the well-worn ruts of political identity -- east vs. west; left vs. right; Republican vs. Democrat; environment vs. economy. We're going to miss the boat if the only story we've got is "us versus them."

It's a familiar story, this battle among special interests. But it's useless. It enriches political consultants and it spices up talk radio, but it gets us nowhere and we can't afford to go nowhere. We've got a fossil fuel age to end and a new, clean energy economy to build. We need a much richer, more constructive story -- a story that multiplies, not divides.

Northwest caribuou may not be long for this world.

We've heard a lot about caribou recently, mostly in the fight over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But fewer people know that the Northwest is home to the last remaining caribou herd to inhabit the lower 48 states. They are considered the most endangered large mammal in the continental United States.

Woodland caribou once ranged in New England, the Upper Midwest, and as far south as the Salmon River in Idaho. Today, the last survivors, the tiny Selkirk herd, occupy only a small range in northeast Washington, northern Idaho, and an adjacent portion of British Columbia. Even in BC, where caribou are relatively abundant, their range has shrunk dramatically as logging, development, and other habitat disruption makes itself felt in the Canadian Rockies. (Click on the small map at left for a look at present and historical range.)

The Selkirk herd has mimicked larger trends in North American caribou. Once numbering between 200 and 400, the herd has clung to a precarious existence since its listing as an endangered species in 1993. At present, the herd comprises only 35 animals, down from a recent high of 52 in 1995, which was achieved partly by three years of "augmentation" during the late-1980s when caribou from northern BC were transplanted to sustain the dwindling population.

Massive new Washington habitat conservation plan is bad news.

Today is the final day for the public to weigh in on a giant new habitat conservation plan--called the Forests and Fish Plan--that will govern how Washington's timber industry behaves and how well it safeguards habitat for endangered salmon. Here's the punchline: the plan will essentially grant the timber industry 50 years of legal immunity to the federal Endangered Species Act.

This is not a smart move.

Habitat conservation plans, ostensibly designed to protect endangered species, often authorize destructive activity that harms the very creatures they are supposed to protect. The Forests and Fish Plan will supposedly require timber companies to repair roads that erode into salmon streams, as well as leave streamside timber uncut. But the plan also leaves out a number of important measures.

Here is just a sampling of criticism that appeared in a recent Seattle Post-Intelligencer article: