What I would have the US (and other G20 govts) do to protect biodiversity
A few days ago, I noted a call for concrete actions that G20 nations can take to protect biodiversity, made by Guillaume Chapron and George Monbiot through the Guardian. Ever since a friend alerted me about this call on twitter, and nagged me to respond, I've been scratching my head and mulling over options that fit the criteria (scientifically supported; concrete action achievable over reasonable timeframe; with significant political costs). Given the list of G20 nations (which include both my home country of India and my current home, the US) and the huge amounts of damage they are causing to biodiversity individually and collectively, I could think of a number of things that must be done, and that fit those criteria. As I'm sure most of you can as well. So which one to pick? And which one was not likely to be picked by too many others (assuming there would be redundancies)?
After going back and forth over this (with a brain slowed down by a severe cold/fever over the weekend), and reading a bunch of papers and websites, I finally submitted my suggestion a short while ago. It is a concrete legislative action based on solid scientific evidence that can have far reaching positive consequences for biodiversity, if only the politicians can muster up the will to stand up to the vested interests lobbying against this action. And it is also one action that doesn't seem to have been submitted by anyone else on this list of suggestions on the Guardian website!
I thought of writing a separate blog post detailing my suggestion, but in the interest of time—and of catching up with other things that have piled up while I've been in bed—I'll defer that, at least for now. Instead, you can read my complete response to the questionnaire below. And please let me know your thoughts.
The United States government (and those of its states, and indeed other G20 nations that haven't done so) must pass laws prohibiting the use of lead in bullets and other "sporting" ammunition and fishing lures. Lead from these sources has become a major environmental pollutant and health hazard, especially for carnivorous/scavenging species like the endangered California Condor, which ingest lead from dead animals short by "sport" hunters, or through bioaccumulation, esp in aquatic food chains. Alternatives are available, but expensive (unless subsidized) for individual hunters, and expensive politically because of vested interests arrayed against any legislative action to get the lead out. Yet, this ought to be a simple, straightforward action that can easily be accomplished within a short period of time, and produce measurable improvements in the status of many wildlife species, including globally endagared ones, that are currently suffering from excessive lead pollution from hunters' guns. The benefits are clear, the costs are clear, and the opposition is also clear on this issue. All that is needed is some political will to act in the interests of biodiversity.
After going back and forth over this (with a brain slowed down by a severe cold/fever over the weekend), and reading a bunch of papers and websites, I finally submitted my suggestion a short while ago. It is a concrete legislative action based on solid scientific evidence that can have far reaching positive consequences for biodiversity, if only the politicians can muster up the will to stand up to the vested interests lobbying against this action. And it is also one action that doesn't seem to have been submitted by anyone else on this list of suggestions on the Guardian website!
I thought of writing a separate blog post detailing my suggestion, but in the interest of time—and of catching up with other things that have piled up while I've been in bed—I'll defer that, at least for now. Instead, you can read my complete response to the questionnaire below. And please let me know your thoughts.
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States government (and those of its states, and indeed other G20 nations that haven't done so) must pass laws prohibiting the use of lead in bullets and other "sporting" ammunition and fishing lures. Lead from these sources has become a major environmental pollutant and health hazard, especially for carnivorous/scavenging species like the endangered California Condor, which ingest lead from dead animals short by "sport" hunters, or through bioaccumulation, esp in aquatic food chains. Alternatives are available, but expensive (unless subsidized) for individual hunters, and expensive politically because of vested interests arrayed against any legislative action to get the lead out. Yet, this ought to be a simple, straightforward action that can easily be accomplished within a short period of time, and produce measurable improvements in the status of many wildlife species, including globally endagared ones, that are currently suffering from excessive lead pollution from hunters' guns. The benefits are clear, the costs are clear, and the opposition is also clear on this issue. All that is needed is some political will to act in the interests of biodiversity.
California Condor, and a number of other carnivorous/scavenging species throughout the US.
1. A recent review of the effects of lead ammunition on terrestrial birds notes that: "Fifty-nine terrestrial bird species have so far been documented to have ingested lead or suffered lead poisoning from ammunition sources, including nine Globally Threatened or Near Threatened species." http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.02.018
Many other peer-reviewed papers on this topic are available.
2. Center for Biological Diversity is a leading NGO that has been fighting to get lead ammunition banned in the US. Here's a link to the campaign page:
3. Last week, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied a petition from several environmental action groups to ban lead in ammunition under the Toxic Substances Control Act claiming lack of jurisdiction. The AP report of this news: http://is.gd/eNXbS
4. The NRA-ILA lobby wrote a strong letter against the petition to the EPA:
0 comments:
Post a Comment