Archive | January, 2011

Capitol reef NP

Coming Up Daisies

Maguire daisy (USFWS)

Two days ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that the Maguire daisy (Erigeron maguirei) will be delisted from the Endangered Species Act. Although the act has improved the status of hundreds of species, it has rarely recovered species to the point of delisting. The daisy is only the 21st of such species, so the reason for its success deserves a closer look.

When the daisy was first listed as “endangered” in 1985, it was known from only 7 plants that occupied rocky areas inaccessible to cattle grazing. Grazing is thought to have extirpated the plant from other parts of its former range. Listing prompted a series of field studies that led to the discovery of additional daisy populations and new genetic information about the species. The genetic data revealed that two other varieties of the Maguire daisy, both excluded from the 1985 listing, were not taxonomically distinct from the listed variety. This automatically increased the species’ total population to approximately 3,000 plants across 12 reproductively isolated sites. Based on this windfall, the Service downlisted the species from “endangered” to “threatened” in 1996.

At around the same time, the Service approved a recovery plan for the daisy. The plan establishes three criteria for delisting the species, including maintaining 20 populations, each of which must exceed minimum viable population levels. But when the daisy was proposed for delisting in 2008, the Service had found only 9 populations. So how is delisting possible? It turns out that the 9 populations were functionally better than the estimated 20 populations identified in the recovery plan, as most of them were well above the minimum viable population size. This outcome shows that recovery plan criteria, while important benchmarks, should be interpreted with some flexibility, especially when they are based on outdated assumptions.

Range of Maguire daisy

The recovery plan also directs the Service to help establish formal land management designations to protect the daisy on federal lands. Fortunately for the daisy, over 99 percent of its populations occur on federal lands, a rarity for a listed species. As a result, the targeted protection of federal lands would contribute tremendously to the species’ recovery. This is precisely what happened. For example, the National Park Service’s General Management Plan for Capitol Reef National Park, where approximately 91 percent of all the daisies are found, protects the species by designating all areas they occupy as Primitive and Threshold Management Zones. Because of comparable protections on Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands, the daisy now numbers 163,000 plants within 10 populations in southeastern Utah.

And what did it cost for this momentous accomplishment? According to the Service’s reports to Congress, approximately only $422,000 over 19 years (1989-2007), of which $264,000 was provided by state and federal agencies other than the Service. While these figures do not include costs incurred since 2007, the total bill is probably less than $650,000—far below the annual spending for many other species. For imperiled species with a high potential for recovery, a little money can go a long way.

The ease with which some species like the Maguire daisy can be recovered underscores an important question: how should the Service prioritize the use of its recovery funds? The Service ranked the daisy 14 out of 18 on its priority of species to recover, mostly because threats to the daisy were low. Yet by focusing on these low-hanging fruits, the Service could more easily improve the Endangered Species Act’s success record. Exactly how the Service should prioritize recovery efforts is a difficult, value-laden question that we will grapple with in a future blog entry.

Capitol Reef National Park (Flickr)

Posted in Imperiled Wildlife0 Comments

New Report Highlights the Importance of Private Lands to Biodiversity Conservation

New Report Highlights the Importance of Private Lands to Biodiversity Conservation

Forest in the Fall

Copyright Raul Touzon/National Geographic Stock

For those of us who are dedicated to protecting private forests, a recently released 20-page report by the USDA adds even more credence to our work.  “Threats to At-Risk Species in America’s Private Forest” contains a number of important findings that can lend additional weight to your conservation efforts.  Here are some findings that I found especially helpful in “fueling my fire” for protecting forest on private lands:

  • “Sixty percent of the at-risk species of plants and animals in the conterminous, or ‘lower 48’, United States are associated with private forests (Robles et as. 2008)”
  • “Seventy-five percent of all forest lands in the East are privately owned”.
  • “More than 4,600 native animal and plant species associated with private forest in the United States are at risk of decline or extinction.”
  • “In some watersheds, up to 95% of forest-associate at-risk species occur only in private forests.”

Clearly, these findings show that working with private-forest landowners, especially in the East, is an absolute must if we care about protecting biodiversity.

And this is just the big picture – the report also contains maps of the US in which the number of at-risk species and the relative threat to their habitat from increased housing density, wildfire, and insect and disease are shown by watershed.  So, for example, if you work in a watershed in the northwest corner of North Carolina, you will discover the relative threat to forest-associated at-risk species in your little corner of the world compared to the other hundreds of watersheds in the US.

Whether you work to reduce vehicle-wildlife collisions, negotiate conservation easements, or advocate for tax incentives for landowners for forest stewardship, this report reaffirms that forest wildlife needs you!

Posted in Imperiled Wildlife1 Comment

Endangered Species on the Bus?

Endangered Species on the Bus?

Photo of one of the "Endanger Buses" in San FranciscoSide view of an "Endanger Bus" in San Francisco

Do you mind sharing your seat with a brown pelican?  Don’t worry, you won’t have to.  These endangered species are on the outside of the bus.  Endangered Species is an art project on San Francisco’s public buses. Images of endangered species are wrapped around the buses with information about the species on the back of the bus.

The project was the idea of artist Todd Gilens, inspired by the visual elements of everyday urban life.  “Buses are so assaulted by advertising, it’s as if our transit system is not our own. But whose environment is it? How can we best look after the places we live?” questioned Gilens.  “Public transit is about pooling and sharing resources. Bringing the bus together with local ecosystems and vulnerable animal species was a natural fit once I started to think about it that way.”

The Endangerbuses will be prowling the streets of San Francisco from January to April 2011, dispatched to different routes each day.  You can follow the Endangerbus adventure on Twitter at #endangerbus.  If you visit or live in the San Francisco area, post your pictures on Flickr tagged with endangerbus.

Posted in Imperiled Wildlife2 Comments

Photo: NOAA

Administration to Launch Climate Adaptation Guidance

Photo: NOAA

The Obama administration is set to issue climate change adaptation guidance to all federal agencies in early February.  As highlighted in my previous post, the guidance was called for by the Interagency Climate Adaptation Task Force.

Climate change poses profound challenges to the missions and programs of many federal agencies.  Already, many of the federal natural resources agencies, which are currently dealing with the effects of prolonged drought, floods, fires, forest change, and species movements are taking a hard look at how climate change is affecting their programs.  It is vital that all federal agencies begin looking at these changes seriously, and planning response programs to reduce their risks.

As the administration finalizes agency climate adaptation guidance, it should consider:

  • Establishing a core climate change consultation team comprised of leading technical agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which provides “climate services”.  Most agencies do not have this expertise and won’t be able to adequately address climate change without the help of the experts within the federal government.
  • Gearing the guidance to the agency-level, not the Departmental level.  Unlike reducing greenhouse gas emissions which have common strategies applicable to all agencies (e.g. purchasing more efficient vehicles and other equipment), adapting to the impacts of climate change is dependent on an agency’s mission, goals and mandates.  For example, the risks posed by climate change, and thus the necessary response strategies, to the missions of the Food and Nutrition Service, which administers the federal School Lunch Program and other nutrition programs, and the U.S. Forest Service, both within the Department of Agriculture, are profoundly different.  The Food and Nutrition Service programs may be affected by higher food prices due to climate change-induced impacts to crops.  The agency may contemplate longer-term food contracts to average out greater year to year variation in food prices as an adaptation strategy.  The Forest Service on the other hand is more directly impacted by the impacts of climate change, which are changing the very nature of the forests they manage.  The Forest Service may have to consider large-scale habitat treatments to make forests more resilient to climate change, alter tree species composition when replanting forests, and restoring habitat connectivity to allow species to move in response to climate change.
  • Instructing agencies on the use of ecosystem-based approaches to climate adaptation in achieving their mission.  The Adaptation Task Force Report states: “Adaptation should, where relevant, take into account strategies to increase ecosystem resilience and protect critical ecosystem services on which humans depend to reduce vulnerability of human and natural systems to climate change.” Maintaining and restoring ecosystem services is often cheaper to achieve adaptation goals and has benefits far beyond adaptation.  For example, restoring natural flood plains to better absorb flood waters is a proven strategy to ameliorate the impacts of increased rain events and is a more sustainable strategy than engineering new or higher levees.  Agencies, in particular agencies that do not normally work on natural resource conservation, will need additional guidance on how to benefit from ecosystem-based adaptation.
  • Providing consistent data and sources of climate change information in designing individual adaptation strategies.  For instance, two agencies working on our coasts should be using similar estimates for sea level rise, based on the best available science.
  • Prioritizing programs and projects that are sensitive to the current climate and weather conditions (e.g.  agriculture programs), that make long-term commitments (e.g. new highways), or that have broad-reaching, system-level effects (e.g. decisions that affect land use planning).
  • Mainstreaming adaptation into existing programs.  Though there may be special needs that require new, focused adaptation programs, most strategies to ameliorate an agency’s climate change risks should be embedded into its existing programs.  In other words, normal planning process already employed by agency programs should start to integrate climate change.
  • Ensuring meaningful implementation of the guidance by establishing clear benchmarks, time tables, and accountability measures.
  • Ensuring agency adaptation strategies are sustainable.  Sustainable adaptation strategies do not increase greenhouse gas emissions, do not harm the environment, and do not impede the adaptation options of other agencies, sectors, or stakeholders.

The federal government is big and diverse.  Not every agency will be affected by climate change in the short term, but every agency should at least go through a formal process to see if it is at risk.  The above recommendations would provide a basis for doing that analysis in a meaningful way.

Posted in Climate Change1 Comment

Building a National Program to Help Save Wildlife from Climate Change

Climate change affects species and ecosystems at large scales.  It will become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, for wildlife and land managers to conserve natural resources within the boundaries of any particular land unit alone.  Coordinated, collaborative landscape-scale science and conservation is our best chance of safeguarding wildlife and ecosystems from the impacts of climate change.

For the past few years Defenders has been pressing policy makers to develop a national wildlife climate adaptation strategy that will begin addressing these challenges.  We, along with our coalition partners, have been successful in educating policy makers about the importance of this issue and all comprehensive climate change bills in the last two years included a natural resources adaptation title that provided direction for the government to develop a national wildlife, habitat and ecosystem climate adaptation strategy.  Unfortunately, comprehensive climate legislation was not adopted in the last Congress and no one expects it to be resurrected by the recently-convened Congress.

In federal appropriations bills enacted in 2009 and 2010, however, Congress directed the Department of the Interior and the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to develop a national wildlife adaptation strategy.  The report accompanying the 2010 bill stated:

“The conferees note the previous direction provided within the fiscal year 2009 appropriations act directing the Secretary of the Interior to develop a national strategy to assist fish, wildlife, plants, and associated ecological processes in becoming more resilient, adapting to, and surviving the impacts of climate change. This conference agreement provides ample funds to accomplish substantial scientific and management activities, but this needs to be done within the context of an integrated approach among the various Federal departments, States, Tribes and other institutions. The conferees urge the Council on Environmental Quality, working closely with the Department of the Interior as the lead department, to develop a national, government-wide strategy to address climate impacts on fish, wildlife, plants, and associated ecological processes. It should provide that there is integration, coordination, and public accountability to ensure efficiency and avoid duplication. The conferees expect to receive a timeline and a blueprint for the completion of such a national strategic planning effort, as well as regular updates as progress is made.”

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) within the Department of the Interior, CEQ, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are now co-chairing an effort to get this strategy off the ground.  The FWS led an informal process over the last year to begin building support from a national strategy and soliciting feedback from the conservation professional and scientific communities.  But now the real work of developing the plan is underway.  There is a national Steering Committee comprised of over 20 federal, state, and tribal representatives leading the development of the plan.  Although a final national strategy is scheduled to be published by summer 2012, we are encouraging the Steering Committee to accelerate the timeline by 6 months to issue a final strategy by the winter of 2011-2012.

To assist the Steering Committee as it develops the national strategy, Defenders and our conservation partners* recently provided the following input:

The Goal

According to the Congressional direction provided in the FY 2010 federal appropriations bill mandating the development of the National Strategy, the goal is to “to assist fish, wildlife, and plants and associated ecological processes in becoming more resilient, adapting to, and surviving the impacts of climate change.”  The National Strategy should focus on two related, but distinct, sub-goals:

  • Providing guidance to natural resources agencies and conservation partners to achieve the above goal and advancing the field of wildlife and ecosystem adaptation;
  • Highlighting the benefits of ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation and providing guidance to non-natural resources-related agencies and partners to implementing ecosystem-based approaches.

These two sub-goals are vital to the success of the National Strategy.  We need to build the capacity of all conservation partners involved in direct conservation actions.  At the same time we need to harness the efforts of other sectors to assist in ecosystem adaptation to achieve landscape-scale success.

The Niche

When Congress first provided direction to the federal agencies to begin developing the National Strategy in the FY 2009 federal appropriations bill, there was little natural resources climate change adaptation policy development underway.  Today, there are myriad policies, programs, and activities underway in various federal, state, and local agencies as well as NGOs, universities, and the business sector.

The National Strategy should complement, add value, fill gaps, and assist in integrating and coordinating between these and other initiatives.  Two key aspects the National Strategy fills is its focus on biodiversity and its commitment to providing direction to all conservation partners.

The Problem

Climate change is placing tremendous strain on our already stressed fish, wildlife, plants and ecosystems.  We have already seen the massive shrinking of Arctic sea ice, record drought conditions in the southwest, vast forest die-offs from warming-induced beetle infestations, and documented shifts in species phenology and ranges.  This has all occurred under only 1°C of average global warming.  We are fast approaching 2, 3, and even 4°C of global warming by the end of this century.  It is difficult to imagine what the world is going to look like in this context.

But the impacts of climate change themselves are not the problem.  The problems or barriers to alleviating the impacts are largely institutional, social, and political.  The main problems and barriers we have identified in achieving biodiversity conservation in the face of climate change include:

  • Lack of a priority/no shared priorities.  Ecosystem adaptation is not currently a high priority for most natural resources related agencies, and is not even considered by non-natural resources related agencies.
  • Lack of climate change literacy among agency staff, decision and policy makers, stakeholders and constituents.
  • Lack of coordination and collaboration at landscape scales, across jurisdictions.
  • Lack of concrete on-the-ground adaptation actions making it difficult for agency staff and partners to conceptualize solutions.
  • Lack of institutional mechanisms to address uncertainty in decision making.

The National Strategy does not have to attempt to solve all of these problems.  Other adaptation-related initiatives underway may be adequate to address some of these barriers. The National Strategy should, however, explicitly identify the problems it is trying to solve.  The Steering Committee should ask itself, “Why do we need a National Strategy?”

The National Strategy

Using the above goals, policy context and problem definitions, the following components and principles should be included in the National Strategy:

  • The National Strategy should be designed in phases.  The National Strategy being developed today is phase one.  It does not have to conserve wildlife for the next 100 years.  Rather it should set the goals and focus on actions to build institutional adaptive capacity over the next five years.  The National Strategy should explicitly include a process and time table for revision as we learn more about the impacts of climate change and adaptation strategies.  In addition, the National Strategy should include measures to foster implementation, such as such as annual progress reports.
  • The National Strategy should make it clear that wildlife and ecosystem adaptation is a priority for all agencies and partners, including agencies that are not traditionally classified as land and resource management agencies but that routinely impact wildlife and natural resources, such as the Department of Transportation and Department of Defense.
  • The National Strategy should define and provide objective criteria for determining what constitutes wildlife and ecosystem adaptation.  The National Strategy should also define and provide guidelines to those seeking to implement ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation.
  • The National Strategy should foster coordination and collaboration across jurisdictions.  Coordination and collaboration cannot be simply rhetoric in the Strategy.  The National Strategy should identify specific institutional mechanisms to ensure coordination and collaboration is successful, is prioritized, and is rewarded.  Coordination and collaboration are particularly important for science and restoring ecological connectivity to facilitate species movements in response to climate change.
  • The National Strategy should establish a process to address high-priority climate impacts.  For example, the National Strategy may commit to establishing blue ribbon science and management teams focused on providing guidance to managing coastal marshes under sea level rise, addressing drought in southwestern aquatic ecosystems, managing forest change, and managing the drying of lakes and ponds in Alaska due to permafrost melting.
  • The National Strategy should identify the baseline of science that partners should share.   The National Strategy should include guidance to provide consistent approaches and sources of information on climate change science and impacts.  For example, agencies that have missions relying on our coasts should be using consistent information about the projected threats of sea level rise.  This could be achieved by relying on products and services provided by the USGCRP.
  • The National Strategy should clearly outline how it will be implemented.  This should include specific commitments, performance measures, timelines, and reporting functions.

We think that by adopting the above recommendations, the National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy will provide a framework for common action to assist our wildlife, habitats, and ecosystems cope with the impacts of climate change.

* Our conservation partners include Earthjustice, National Parks and Conservation Association, National Wildlife Federation, The Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, The Trust for Public Land, and The Wilderness Society.

Posted in Climate Change1 Comment

Planning for Climate Change Across Sectors

Over the last several months, Oregon’s state land use planning agency has been leading an interagency effort to develop a cross-sectoral framework for climate change adaptation planning. The final document (including a separate executive summary) was released last week. This report was requested by Governor Ted Kulongoski and was intended to be a first assessment of how the different agencies can help Oregon’s communities and ecosystems respond adaptively to future climate change. The result was a joint effort of the state’s natural resource, energy, transportation, and public health agencies.

This new state adaptation framework is in many ways a first crack at a very difficult nut. The process was limited somewhat by a short timeframe and severe limitations in the state budget, but it was also a valuable opportunity for representatives from a diverse set of state agencies to sit down at the same table and talk about their plans for preparing for climate change. Perhaps most importantly, it helped identify adaptation strategies that would benefit multiple sectors – for example, rehabilitating riparian areas to improve natural water storage on the landscape, which can benefit cities, agriculture, and wildlife – and to look for areas where adaptation strategies in once sector might unintentionally undermine efforts in another sectors. The process really highlighted the importance of coordinating adaptation planning to avoid duplicative or counterproductive efforts.

I participated in developing this framework as part of an ongoing contract with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and I was impressed with the willingness of the diverse set of agencies at the table to think about the challenges and opportunities of climate change in an ecological context. Everyone around the table clearly recognized the interconnectedness of human and natural systems and was eager to find solutions that had multiple benefits across multiple sectors. Likewise, everyone recognized that technologies that benefited one sector at the expense of others were likely to fail in the long run.

At the same time, our conversations made it increasingly clear that there are not a lot of easy answers when it comes to climate change. The goal was to identify inexpensive actions for short-term implementation – the low-hanging fruit, as it’s often called – but in a world where climate conditions are changing rapidly and both humans and wildlife are already struggling to keep up with those changes, these kinds of solutions are hard to come by. I think this highlights the importance of making significant early investments in both mitigation and adaptation efforts, even at a time when budgets are tight. This problem will only become more intractable and more expensive the longer we put those investments off., and climate change itself will soon start having significant negative impacts on local, national, and global economies. Kudos to Oregon for being one of the first states to start having these difficult conversations and mapping out the best way forward.

Posted in Climate Change0 Comments

A Community on Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem services are generally thought to be benefits that nature provides to humans. Things like clean water from healthy watersheds, clean air, climate regulation and protection from floods. As these services are diminished through over-exploitation and poor management, people discover that they are valuable, perhaps when it’s too late to reverse the damage.

Interest in ecosystem services as a new approach to resource management has grown dramatically in recent years, especially in academic and government circles. In December, a conference was held in Phoenix, called A Community on Ecosystem Services. It attracted over 400 scientists, economists, lawyers, nonprofits, businesses and federal officials and included over a hundred sessions on everything from measurements to markets for ecosystem services. Participants promoted their research, programs and new ideas.

Community on Ecosystem Services highlights
Rock Salt (yes, his real name) solicited assistance from the group to help the Army Corps of Engineers incorporate ecosystem services into the Corps’ decision-making framework – what to build, where, and how, given lots of competing demands and limited resources.

Amanda DeSantis from DuPont chided the United States for being so far behind the rest of the world in tracking environmental quality and preparing for widespread resource scarcity in the face of a growing world population that desires to consume as we do.

The best idea came from Shiprock Partners investment company managing partner Paul Brown, who pointed out that a ½ of 1% tax on the 30 trillion dollars in financial investments in the United States every year would purchase all of the carbon and other eco assets in the country.

University of Idaho law professor Dale Goble cautioned the group against taking too utilitarian and anthropocentric view of ecosystem services, and to continue using ecological risk assessment to determine impacts to the environment without confounding the results by including people’s preferences.

Defenders organized a panel on national policy options that highlighted the importance of addressing ecosystem services at the proper scale, working across agency boundaries, using consistent measurements and establishing clear ecological goals. Speakers proposed engaging utilities in programs to finance the protection of ecosystem services through ratepayers, and creating eco-enterprise zones for pilot programs.

Many sessions summarized ongoing efforts to assign dollar values to ecosystem services, using a variety of methods. Studies comparing the costs and benefits of using natural systems (like protecting forests, restoring floodplains and wetlands) instead of concrete and steel structures to retain floodwaters and improve water quality are among the most compelling.

A town hall meeting was held to invite feedback on a proposal to establish a National Ecosystem Services Partnership, initially housed at Duke University at the Nicholas School.  I am on the steering committee, so share your ideas on the topic with me. View A Community on Ecosystem Services presentations and abstracts.

Posted in Paying for Conservation, Uncategorized1 Comment

Painting of Gradma's house

To Grandmother’s Condo We Go?

“Over the river and through the woodsPainting of Gradma's house

To Grandmother’s house we go.

The horse knows the way to carry the sleigh

Through the white and drifted snow. Oh!”

This classic winter song belies our traditional demographics and settlement pattern wherein young families live in urban centers and make holiday visits to their aging parents and grandparents living in the country.

Today, those demographics are generally turned on their head.  Young families – in search of the American dream and drawn by decades of cheap houses, cheap gas and ubiquitous roads – typically settle in the suburbs and exurbs.  Cheap land allowed rampant development to push well over the river and clear cut the woods to make way for subdivisions and big box retail.

This unbridled development has wreaked havoc on our natural resources and consumed habitat at an alarming rate.  The National Resources Inventory estimates that we have now developed more than 111 million acres, and 40 million of those acres were developed between 1982 and 2007.  That means more than one-third of all land that has ever been developed in the lower 48 states was developed during the last 25 years.  That is an increase of 56 percent in just the time that MTV has been on the air.

Unbridled development is the evil stepchild of rampant road building.  Driving has grown by three times the rate of population growth over the past 15 years and is expected to grow by 40 percent by 2030. Not because driving is an American pastime, but because communities are built and not planned, leaving people with no other option but to drive everywhere. Those multi-lane highways make it possible for people to commute to well-paying jobs from further and further away where houses and yards are bigger and bigger.  More people move there, creating more pressure for more housing.  More people mean more cars. More cars mean more traffic. Traffic worsens, creating more pressure for more lanes.  Rather than solving the problem, more lanes attract yet more people, causing yet more congestion in what is called “induced traffic,” and the cycle continues.

Meanwhile, Grandmother has had enough. She has long since lost her small town and is moving back through the woods, to the other side of the river, back to the city.  Grandmother’s house is now more likely Grandmother’s condo.  Empty nesters are flocking back to urban centers where they can enjoy easy access to the culture, open spaces, a sense of community and the many services of the city in a walkable setting.  Baby boomers are giving up their station wagons for bicycles and leaving traffic behind for the comfort of transit.

In response to this new trend, many cities, like New York City are making efforts to become more “age-friendly.”  According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and age-friendly city is “an inclusive and accessible urban environment that promotes active ageing.”  WHO statistics show the global proportion of people aged 60 and over will double from 11 percent in 2006 to 22 percent by 2050.  For the first time in history, there will be more older people than children.  By 2030, the number of New Yorkers age 65 and over — a result of the baby boomers, diminished fertility and increasing longevity — is expected to reach 1.35 million, up 44 percent from 2000.  Cities have the economic and social resources to become more age-friendly and are better equipped to undertake the necessary changes for a changing society.

Maybe more people should follow Grandma’s lead.  Cities are better equipped to serve the needs of people of all ages in the most efficient, environmentally friendly way. Denser development means we leave more wild areas wild and more natural resources available to provide services like clean air and water.  As of 2007, over half of the global population now lives in cities. By 2030, about three out of every five people in the world will live in cities.

So before you move “over the river and through the woods,” remember Grandma’s wisdom.  If we want to keep healthy, functioning rivers and woods, we need fewer people moving there.

Posted in Energy, Fossil Fuels0 Comments


dotWild is the blog of scientists and policy experts at Defenders of Wildlife, a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities.

www.defenders.org