TOUGHEN THE ESA,
SCIENTISTS
SAY
In the midst of efforts to water down the
Endangered Species Act, two scientific panels announced support for
the beleaguered law. Convened by the National Academy of Sciences,
the first panel called for swifter action by the government to
denote and protect “survival habitat.” Panel chairman Michael
Clegg, a geneticist with the University of California, says that
the government should set aside core habitat the moment a species
is listed. “It should be identified without reference to economic
impact,” writes Clegg. A second report, published by the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and directed by Professor
Stephen T. Meyer, looked into whether or not the act is leading to
a national economic crisis. Meyer’s answer is clear: “The economic
effects of endangered species listings are so highly localized, of
such small scale and short duration, that they do not substantially
affect state economic performance in the aggregate.” Though the
impact of listings might be felt locally, Meyers insists that they
be put in context. “For example,” he writes, “the recent series of
military-base closings have had economic impacts hundreds of times
greater than all the listings during the 20-year-life of the
Endangered Species Act.” The report is available through M.I.T.,
Project on Environmental Politics and Policy, Bldg/Room E38-628,
Cambridge, MA 02139
(6l7/253-2700).
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Toughen the ESA, scientists say.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
