EPA advisory panel gutted of scientists, to be replaced by people from regulated industries

May 9, 2017 • 12:30 pm

This is the kind of stuff the Science March was designed to prevent. As yesterday’s New York Times reported, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, whose name encapsulates its mission, has just dismissed five or more members of its scientific review board, the Board of Science Counselors (BSC). The BSC’s job is to review and vet the science produced by the EPA, which is used in its mission to regulate industries and protect the environment.

The Board was in bad odor after having recommended more work on climate change, and their punishment was to ditch the scientists off the Board—after those scientists had already been told they wouldn’t be let go under the new administration.

So who’s going to guard the environmental henhouse? Why, members of the regulated industries, of course! Read and weep:

A spokesman for the E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, said he would consider replacing the academic scientists with representatives from industries whose pollution the agency is supposed to regulate, as part of the wide net it plans to cast. “The administrator believes we should have people on this board who understand the impact of regulations on the regulated community,” said the spokesman, J. P. Freire.

The dismissals on Friday came about six weeks after the House passed a bill aimed at changing the composition of another E.P.A. scientific review board to include more representation from the corporate world.

President Trump has directed Mr. Pruitt to radically remake the E.P.A., pushing for deep cuts in its budget — including a 40 percent reduction for its main scientific branch — and instructing him to roll back major Obama-era regulations on climate change and clean water protection. In recent weeks, the agency has removed some scientific data on climate change from its websites, and Mr. Pruitt has publicly questioned the established science of human-caused climate change.

In his first outings as E.P.A. administrator, Mr. Pruitt has made a point of visiting coal mines and pledging that his agency will seek to restore that industry, even though many members of both of the E.P.A.’s scientific advisory boards have historically recommended stringent constraints on coal pollution to combat climate change.

Mr. Freire said the agency wanted “to take as inclusive an approach to regulation as possible.”

“We want to expand the pool of applicants” for the scientific board, he said, “to as broad a range as possible, to include universities that aren’t typically represented and issues that aren’t typically represented.”

Everybody knows what’s going on here: the Republicans don’t give a rat’s patootie about the environment, and if those pesky scientists get in the way, well, fire ’em! Let the coal industry determine pollution standards and the industrialists prosper. (And we can also ditch the Paris climate accords.)

You can march for science until your toes wear off, but the real way to stop this is to quit electing Republicans.

New “rogue” Twitter account reportedly run by disaffected National Park Service employees

January 25, 2017 • 12:30 pm

As I reported yesterday, after the Trump administration ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to have a social media blackout, a National Park Service account went rogue. Yes, in the Land of the Brave, South Dakota, the Badlands National Park Service Twitter account began emitting a series of tweets about climate change (anthropogenic change is of course poo-pooed by Tru*mp). It was a remarkable example of defiance, and I applaud whoever did it (we’re now told it was an unauthorized person who used the account, but who knows?). Here are some of those tweets, which of course have now been deleted:

screen-shot-2017-01-25-at-12-13-06-pm

The Badlands National Park Twitter Account (@BadlandsNPS) appears to be back up, but is posting only very sporadic and tame tweets. Now, however, a real rogue account has surfaced: “AltUSNatParkService” (@AltNatParkSer) that is, according to Time Magazine, “purportedly run by NPS staffers.” Here’s the header; you can go there by clicking on the screenshot:

screen-shot-2017-01-25-at-12-12-20-pm

A sample is below. Ceiling Cat bless these folks, especially if they’re NPS employees. They may be risking their jobs, but if this isn’t the kind of civil disobedience we need now, what is?

I suspect that, by and large, NPS employees aren’t big fans of Trump, since many are likely to be environmentalists. 

screen-shot-2017-01-25-at-12-24-38-pm

screen-shot-2017-01-25-at-12-25-02-pm

h/t: Tom C.

Reader wildlife photo

March 30, 2016 • 1:30 pm

by Greg Mayer

My Okinawa correspondent sends a happier picture than last time, this one of a living longhorn beetle, a member of the family Cerambycidae. Note the very long antennae, and the impressive tarsi. Cerambycids are often brightly or contrastingly colored.

An Okinawan longhorn beetle, 30.iii.2016.
An Okinawan longhorn beetle, 30.iii.2016.

Normally I’d have no idea what particular genus or species an Okinawan insect would be– I was happy I recognized the order and family!– but this seems to be an Asian longhorned beetle, Anoplophora glabripennis, which has become an invasive species in the US, Canada, Trinidad, and several European countries. The larvae feed on the sapwood of maples, elms, and other trees. If a reader more knowledgeable about Okinawan or East Asian insects has an opinion, please weigh in.

The Bundy Gang begins ripping apart the wildlife refuge to allow grazing

January 12, 2016 • 12:15 pm

Okay, it’s time for the U.S. Gub’mint to do something about Ammon Bundy and his gang of armed thugs, currently occupying the Malheur Wildlife refuge in Oregon in solidarity with two fellow thugs convicted of arson. As the New York Times reports, these gun-toting, Jesus-loving vandals took a Wildcat excavator and ripped out barbed-wire fencing separating the refuge from private land, allowing other thugs to graze their cows on the reserve:

On Monday, the protesters drove out to a snowy expanse miles from the refuge’s headquarters, bringing along the excavator. They approached a fence they said divided private and public land, and cut a space about 80 feet long, a move they said would allow the Puckett family to graze its cattle at the refuge.

“I feel like this is the first step of many in restoring ranchers’ rights,” Mr. Bundy said.

I’m still amazed that the authorities have done nothing to prevent this criminal trespass on a famous bird refuge. They stand by while the Ammon Gang gets brought food, and while their followers intimidate authorities by trailing them in the area.

What with this vandalism, which now opens the reserve to depredation by Bos taurus, it’s time for the authorities to stop sitting on their hands and do something. If they don’t want to go in with tear gas, which could trigger a gun battle, they can block the roads and cut off power and water. That land is your land, that land is my land, and we don’t have to put up with these morons taking it over for their personal use.

The siege at Malheur continues: birders and environmentalists object

January 7, 2016 • 10:00 am

Ammon Bundy and his band of gun-toting thugs continue to occupy the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, protesting the arson sentences of two fellow thugs, and trying to make the larger point that the Federal Gubmit is taking away the rights of farmer and ranchers. In effect, they’re claiming that they and not the government have the rights to government land.

This cannot stand. Although the Guardian reported on Tuesday that the feds plan to shut off power to the refuge, freezing out the outlaws, I’m not sure if they’ve done that yet, and Bundy’s group would probably just chop wood (an illegal act itself) to keep themselves warm. Granted, an armed assault on the thugs would be a disasterous mistake, but I still think they should cut off supplies and water until the group surrenders. They should then be promptly clapped in jail. But the authorities remain curiously disengaged from the occupation, as they have been with Ammon’s father, Cliven Bundy, who has yet to be punished for his own illegal activities.

The non-response of the government to both Ammon and Cliven’s crimes is disturbing for two reasons. First, it sets a bad example: letting one class of citizen break the law without punishment. That sends the message that some people are above the law, which of course outraged people when the “affluenza teen” got off lightly. Although this is civil disobedience, it differs drastically from the civil disobedience of the Sixties civil rights protests.  The protestors in Malheur are armed, will not be taken willingly, and have threatened to “defend themselves” if action is taken to remove them. And the laws against grazing and farming on federal land are not unjust, as were the segregation laws of the South.

Second, the government’s failure to take action simply emboldens libertarian thugs like the Bundys who think they know how to use the land better than the government (i.e., us), and we can thus expect more actions like the one at Malheur. And more guns will be involved.

One thing I didn’t know when these protests began is that the Malheur refuge is an important one for wildlife, as noted by bird-lover Peter Cashwell’s op-ed in today’s New York Times,”Bird-watching, patriotism, and the Oregon standoff.” Cashwell makes two points, the first about the importance of the refuge for wildlife—and for people who like wildlife:

The Malheur refuge itself was established by Teddy Roosevelt, an avid outdoorsman who in 1908 set aside federal property around three Oregon lakes as a place for migratory birds to breed, one of more than 50 such refuges created during his presidency. I wonder sometimes whether T.R. became a conservationist because he came from New York City, a place where the principle of setting aside land for the public is close to sacred. This can be observed every spring, as thousands of urban birders fill New York’s carefully defined green spaces, hoping to get a glimpse of the brightly feathered migrants that settle in the trees on their way north — without kicking out the Frisbee players in their midst.

. . . Malheur is such a property. A birder will tell you that more than 320 different bird species have been recorded at the refuge, and more than 130 have nested there — a pretty fair total considering the entire North American continent hosts about 800. But this isn’t just a tiny spot on the map where hard-core birders can ooh and aah over rarities. Because the refuge lies along the Pacific Flyway, a common route for migration, a substantial part of a given species’ population may well come through in the spring and fall. Mel White, an author and birder, says that when they see more than 300,000 snow geese in Malheur during migration, “even non-birders will be impressed.”

Cashwell’s second point is simple:

[Ammon Bundy] is leading this action, he explained, so “people can reclaim their resources.” The identities of the people who will be doing this reclaiming remain unclear, but to me this action seems much like many others in American history: a loudly proclaimed defense of principle intended to cover up a land grab.

And the land being grabbed? It’s ours.

. . . And that, I think, is where Mr. Bundy and his followers miss the point: When land is held by the federal government they so despise, that land belongs to us all. You cannot “reclaim” territory for the “people” if they already own it. The seizure of Malheur is an attempt to claim the land, at the point of a gun, for unnamed individuals, all while taking it away from every other American. Whatever this action may be, it is not patriotism.

Yep, it’s our land to keep intact, not theirs to ravage, burn, and overgraze; and I for one prefer to see it kept unsullied. So does the government.

If you doubt the resolve of the birders who share Cashwell’s animus against the thugs, read this piece on The Daily Kos: “Warning from the birding community to the terrorists in Oregon: We’re watching you“. It’s a bit extreme, I think, and perhaps a little tongue-in-cheek, but I like it anyway, for it shows how the birders counter guns with cameras and binoculars:

Just a friendly warning from the birding and wildlife photography community to the Oregon terrorists. We are watching your every move, and we have been watching you for a long time. And yes absolutely you are domestic terrorists of the worst kind, and the truth about your decades of constant poaching of protected wildlife around Malheur and other wildlife refuges, national parks, national forests and BLM lands has been well-documented. For years those of us who are wildlife photographers, birdwatchers and carers of wildlife, have been documenting the activities of you poachers and criminals around many of our nation’s wildlife refuges.

. . . Those of us who are international wildlife and nature photographers regularly face charging elephants, attacking lions and grizzlies, hidden crocodiles, massive storms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, the hottest, coldest and windiest conditions, and all kinds of poisonous snakes and bugs in our work, and we know the outdoors and wilderness from desert to jungle to sea to mountain to tundra from pole to equator better then any poacher or criminal or yeehaw yokel ever will, and we are not afraid to protect it. We have a just fear of nature from experience, but we don’t fear you gun-toting thugs in the least. You will never see us, but we and our cameras will always see you. We will #takebackmalheur from you terrorists, and will not rest until every one of you thugs and poachers is behind bars where they belong. You may think that your communities support you, but the majority do not and as many as support you, many more despise you, and your every move is being documented in great detail. The birding networks are ablaze right now about everything going on in Malheur. We know the nearby trailer park, who is supplying you with food, and a tourist boycott of them is already in the works for all birders for this upcoming bird season. We know who everyone is coming in and out, and why, and every shred of information is going straight to law enforcement and across every birding network in America.

. . . We are watching you and our years of birding photography have made us endlessly patient and determined.

Well, I wouldn’t yet call the Bundy Gang “terrorists” (though one could make a case that they are, since they’re trying to intimidate people by brandishing firearms and threatening to use them), but I know one thing: I am far more sympathetic to the birders than to loons like the Bundy Gang.

Someone added this cartoon to the comments:

SafariScreenSnapz002

h/t: Diane G

Who’s that bug?

October 13, 2015 • 4:22 pm

by Greg Mayer

As Jerry is about to, or has just completed, a trip from Europe over the Atlantic to North America, I thought I’d share a photo of a fellow traveler– this hemipteran, or “true bug”, that arrived today at a furniture store in Racine, Wisconsin, in a shipment of furniture from Norway.

A Norwegian hemipteran, after it's arrival in Racine, Wisconsin, USA.
A Norwegian hemipteran, after it’s arrival in Racine, Wisconsin, USA.

Although many people call all insects (and other small creatures) “bugs”, only insects of the order Hemiptera are called “bugs” by entomologists, and hence are often distinguished from hoi polloi bugs as “true bugs”. Introduced organisms of all kinds– gypsy moths, rabbits, cane toads, brown snakes, goats, etc.– can cause ecological havoc, and some, such as the zebra mussel, have, like this bug, hitched a ride on commercial shipments. I’ve seen lizards, frogs, snails, and ants that have arrived in nursery shipments. Our little friend above, however, will cause no havoc– he has been corralled, and is wending his way to me, for handing over to my department’s entomologist

Once it’s here, she’ll want to identify it, but as a Norwegian species, our local keys and ID guides might not get much past family-level identification. Are there any Norwegian or other European readers with an expertise in insects who would care to venture an identification? Please let us know in the comments.

Canadian scientist suspended, investigated after writing song criticizing the prime minister

September 8, 2015 • 9:00 am

Below is a song critical of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (head of the Conservative Party), who’s famous for his dire environmental policies. As Wikipedia notes (and I’ll add the links):

The Conservative Party of Canada has made significant budget cuts to Environment Canada, leading to criticism that it is undermining the ability of departmental staff to enforce remaining environmental laws.

The CPC has also been accused of restricting the ability of government scientists to speak to the public, the media, and even other scientists, leading to criticism that they are trying to limit the debate on environmental issues by “silencing scientists”.

The silencing of scientists was explicitly directed to keeping them quiet about three issues: global warming, fisheries, and especially the Athabasca oil sands project, which has been bitterly opposed by environmentalists. While I suppose the government has the right to restrict what scientists say when they’re speaking as government employees, I can’t see that they have the right to do so when those scientists are speaking as individuals and not representing official policy. This kind of speech restriction would never stand up in the U.S., for instance.

Harper is muzzling scientists for one reason only: to prevent the free dissemination of scientific information and opinion that might be inimical to the government’s (i.e., Harper’s) interests. It’s repressive, and would, in the U.S., constitute a violation of the First Amendment. I suppose the Canadian constitution permits this, though I know Canadian scientists have demonstrated against it.

Enter Tony Turner, a scientist at Environment Canada, one of the agencies whose budget has been cut. Turner, apparently a fixture on the Ottawa music scene, wrote the following song, “Harperman,” criticizing the PM and calling for his ouster. As The Guardian notes (see also the article on the CBC News site):

The song, which is recorded with a backing choir and a double bass, with Turner himself on the guitar, contains lyrics like “no respect for environment / Harperman, it’s time for you to go”, and “no more cons, cons, cons / we want you gone, gone gone”.

The song is actually quite catchy, and doesn’t divulge and privileged scientific information:

So what happened? Turner was suspended and is now being investigated by the government. That’s McCarthy-esque behavior, and is reprehensible. Harper himself could, of course, reverse this decision, and the fact that he didn’t is even more evidence that it’s time for him to go. Meanwhile, Turner, under any reasonable code of behavior, has the right to privately express his scientific and political opinions. The CBC, which gives more information about the song (useful for non-Canadians), adds this:

Debi Daviau, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), confirmed to CBC News that Turner is under investigation. PIPSC is the union which represents federal scientists.

“[Environment Canada] is alleging … [Turner] has violated the departmental code of values and ethics in that the writing and performing of this song somehow impeded his ability to impartially study migratory birds,” she said.

“There doesn’t seem to be a lot of formal grounds to base this in and certainly the courts have been loud and clear on the matter of how public servants can legitimately participate in a federal election.”

A spokesperson for Environment Canada wouldn’t comment on the case, citing privacy, but said public servants are expected to comply with the values and ethics code, regardless of their job.

So is this silencing and punishment of scientists legal? The CBC has a FAQ site, posted last May, about muzzling government scientists. While they describe the new draconian directive, they don’t discuss at all whether this policy is legal.

In 2006, the Harper government introduced strict procedures around how its scientists are allowed to speak about their research to the media.

In the past, journalists were generally able to contact scientists directly for interviews, but after these new directives they had to go through government communications officers.

And scientists had to get pre-approval from their minister’s office before speaking to members of national or international media, a process that can involve drafting potential questions and answers, which are then scrutinized by a team before the green light is given.

. . . A 2014 study of media policies from 16 federal departments concluded that current policies place far more restrictions on Canadian scientists when it comes to talking to media than is the case with their U.S. counterparts.

Since the policy has stood for nearly ten years, I suspect it’s legal, or it would have been challenged in the courts, but I’m not sure. The CBC adds that “A complaint lodged by advocacy group Democracy Watch and the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Clinic in 2013 led to the launch of an investigation by Canada’s information commissioner Suzanne Legault, which is still ongoing.” But I haven’t heard any results.

Perhaps some Candians, or Canadian scientists, can weigh in here and see if anything has been or can be done about this abrogation of free speech, and of the free dissemination of scientific opinion.

h/t: Matthew