

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Dan Forman
dan.forman@wwfus.org
(202) 495-4546
A new study analyzing the destruction of Southeast Asia's coral reefs
by blast fishing finds that an ounce of prevention is indeed better
than a pound of cure. The authors of the study in the journal Conservation
Letters find that using marine patrols and enforcement to prevent
blast fishing can be 70 times more cost-effective than rebuilding those
reefs after the damage is done.
Blast fishing, an illegal practice
in which home-made bombs are detonated into schools of fish for easy
collection, leaves large areas of broken coral rubble that are unlikely
to recover naturally. The result is severe impacts on biodiversity and
habitat for other fish because it kills both target and non-target fish
and shatters coral skeletons. It also often injures and maims those
doing the fishing when the home-made bombs malfunction. Blast fishing
has been practiced in Southeast Asia since World War II despite
regulations in most countries prohibiting it.
In recent years many
have tried to rebuild damaged reefs with artificial "reef balls,"
concrete structures, coral transplantation and electric fields, the
authors write. But the long-term effectiveness of these rebuilding
efforts is unproven and they are not as effective as protecting
centuries-old undamaged reefs from damage in the first place. In terms
of cost, the authors found that prevention is anywhere from 5-70 times
more cost-effective than rehabilitation using locally quarried rocks as a
base for regrowing corals, depending on the calculations used.
"There
are few if any methods of coral reef rehabilitation that are
economically feasible at large scale or for developing nations." said
Helen Fox, World Wildlife Fund Marine Conservation Scientist and the
corresponding author of the study. "The million dollar question is
whether to invest limited conservation funds in prevention of damage or
repair of damage to coral reefs and it appears that prevention through
increased enforcement is the answer in this case."
Coral reefs are
among the most diverse and most threatened ecosystems on the planet -
19 percent of the world's reefs are non-functional and in Southeast Asia
40 percent are non-functional. Most marine protected areas are
underfunded and marine patrols often have few boats and thousands of
square miles of ocean to protect from illegal activities such as blast
fishing.
This is one of the first studies to quantifiably examine
the cost-effectiveness of various management options for coral reefs.
The findings could significantly affect policies not only on coral reef
protection but also on the protection of other habitats.
The study
was authored by experts from World Wildlife Fund, the University of
Maryland, Purdue University, The Nature Conservancy and People and
Nature Consulting International. It can be read in full here: https://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123312265/HTMLSTART
The
study site was Indonesia's Komodo National Park, which is in a region
known as The Coral Triangle. This vast area of the Indo-Pacific region
harbors 75 percent of all known coral species, more than half of the
world's reefs, 40 percent of the world's coral reef fish species, and
six of the world's seven species of marine turtle.
Komodo itself
has over 200 species of reef- building corals but they are under threat.
Half of Komodo's 4200 acres of coral reefs had been damaged by blast
fishing by the mid-1990s. Since enforcement efforts began in 1996 with
the help of The Nature Conservancy blast fishing has decreased by 80
percent to 100 percent. Locals and dive operators report blast fishers
to police, and "floating ranger stations" are supported by speedboats to
pursue blast fishers.
TNC also began rehabilitation of damaged
reefs using locally quarried rocks as a base for regrowing corals in
large rubble fields. The efforts were mostly successful, resulting in
the growth of both hard and soft corals in the rehabilitation areas.
The
costs for both enforcement and rehabilitation were then analyzed: to
patrol the Park adequately for seven years would cost $1,122,953 while
the cost to install rock piles in all the damaged coral reef habitat of
Komodo National Park would be $40,800,000, or about $10,000 per acre.
Despite this price tag, this method is among the cheapest; others have
costs that range from $32,000 per acre to $247 million per acre.
"Our
study clearly shows that in this case for coral reefs, spending the
money upfront on enforcement is far cheaper and in the long run, is
better for the long-term health of reefs and the species that rely on
them, including humans," Fox said. "In addition, research on how to
increase management effectiveness and compliance with regulations could
yield high dividends."
The authors recommend that along with
increased enforcement, conservationists and park staff should promote
community education and alternative livelihoods to blast fishing, such
as seaweed farming and sustainable fishing.
World Wildlife Fund is the largest multinational conservation organization in the world, works in 100 countries and is supported by 1.2 million members in the United States and close to 5 million globally. WWF's unique way of working combines global reach with a foundation in science, involves action at every level from local to global, and ensures the delivery of innovative solutions that meet the needs of both people and nature.
One critic blasted the impending move as "an obvious example of what happens when a corrupt administration and fossil fuel interests are allowed to run amok."
In what experts warn would be the most sweeping rollback of US climate policy ever, the Trump administration is expected this week to repeal the Environmental Protection Agency's "endangerment finding," the Obama-era rule empowering climate regulation over the past 15 years.
The endangerment finding determined that six greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—caused by burning fossil fuels are a single air pollutant that threatens public health and welfare, rather than treating each gas individually, for regulatory purposes.
The 2009 finding has served as the legal foundation for EPA climate rules, including limits on power plant emissions and automobile fuel economy standards under the Clean Air Act.
The new rule would end the regulatory requirement to measure and report vehicle emissions, certify the results, and comply with limits. It would also repeal compliance programs and credit provisions.
“This amounts to the largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a Monday interview with the Wall Street Journal.
However, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) warned Tuesday on the upper chamber floor that "this week, the Trump administration is set to take one of its most nakedly corrupt steps since Donald Trump returned to office, and that’s saying a lot: a wholesale reversal of essentially all greenhouse gas regulations."
"Trump is making a radical move that will send shockwaves across the economy—uncertainty for manufacturers, states, regulators everywhere. And it flies in the face, of course, of basic science," Schumer said. "Let's be very clear what this announcement represents: It is a corrupt giveaway to Big Oil, plain and simple."
"Big Oil has worked tirelessly for decades to undermine rules that protect against emissions, and now that they have their guy in the White House, they are taking their biggest swing yet," the senator added. "Remember, in the spring of 2024, Donald Trump invited top oil executives to Mar-a-Lago and told them, if you raise me a billion dollars to get me elected, I will cut regulations so you can make more money. That devil’s bargain is now coming true."
Trump is trying to repeal the "endangerment finding" -- the scientific investigation that led EPA to conclude that climate change is dangerous to humans.It's scientifically unjustifiable of course, but they're going to have to justify it to a court. That should be fun to watch.
[image or embed]
— David Roberts (@volts.wtf) February 10, 2026 at 9:22 AM
Big Oil spent over $445 million to elect Trump and other Republican candidates during the 2024 election cycle.
Gretchen Goldman, president and CEO at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a nonprofit advocacy group, said in a statement Tuesday that “Zeldin took a chainsaw to the endangerment finding, undoing this long-standing, science-based finding on bogus grounds at the expense of our health.”
“Ramming through this unlawful, destructive action at the behest of polluters is an obvious example of what happens when a corrupt administration and fossil fuel interests are allowed to run amok,” Goldman added.
More than 1,000 scientists and other experts have implored EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to not repeal the endangerment finding. In a statement last year, the Environmental Protection Network warned that repealing the finding would result in “tens of thousands of additional premature deaths due to pollution exposure” over the next several decades and spark “accelerated climate destabilization with greater risks of heatwaves, floods, droughts, and disease spread.”
While Trump administration officials told the Journal that the new rules would not apply to regulation of emissions from power plants and oil and gas facilities, some said that repealing the endangerment finding could set the stage for additional rollbacks favoring such polluters.
UCS noted Tuesday that the Trump administration “relied heavily on shoddy science in a report developed by a ‘Climate Working Group,’ composed of five skeptics well outside the scientific mainstream in its proposal to repeal the endangerment finding."
“The report, which was commissioned by the Department of Energy (DOE), has been thoroughly discredited by the scientific community, which found that the report ‘misrepresents the state of climate science by cherry-picking evidence, exaggerating uncertainties, and ignoring decades of peer-reviewed research,’” UCS continued.
On January 30, Judge William Young of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, ruled that the DOE violated the law when Energy Secretary Chris Wright—the former CEO of a fracking company who denies there is a climate emergency—handpicked the five researchers for the dubious report.
Republicans have been working toward killing the endangerment finding for years. Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led blueprint for a right-wing overhaul of the federal government, explicitly mentions the rule as ripe for repeal. Project 2025’s policy lead, Russell Vought, now directs Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
OMB Acting Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Jeffrey Clark—a purveyor of the “Big Lie” that Democrats stole the 2020 election—has also been working hard at dismantling federal climate regulations, which he once likened to a “Leninistic” plot to control the US economy.
“Instead of rising to the challenge with necessary policies to protect people’s well-being, the Trump administration has shamefully abandoned EPA’s mission and caved to the whims of deep-pocketed special interests,” Goldman said. “Sacrificing people’s health, safety, and futures for polluters’ profits is unconscionable. We all deserve better and this attack against the public interest and the best available science will be challenged.”
Climate scientist Michael Mann called the campaign to repeal the endangerment finding “a reminder that, while some of the damage that Trump [and the] GOP are doing might seem temporary, the damage they’re doing to the planet is permanent.”
Or, as Cardiff University ecologist Aaron Thierry put it, “You can repeal an endangerment finding. You can’t repeal the endangerment.”
Former Rep. Tom Malinowski also decried the influence of AIPAC “dark money” on the Democratic primary process.
Former Rep. Tom Malinowski on Tuesday conceded the 2026 Democratic primary race to represent New Jersey's 11th Congressional District to progressive challenger Analilia Mejía, whom he vowed to back in the general election.
In a statement posted on social media, Malinowski praised Mejía for "running a positive campaign and for inspiring so many voters," while also emphasizing that "it is essential that we send a Democrat to Washington to fill this seat, not a rubber stamp" for President Donald Trump.
Malinowski then unloaded on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in the US. Through its super PAC, the United Democracy Project, AIPAC spent a significant sum hammering the former Democratic congressman with negative ads that accused him of supporting Trump and US Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) operations.
"The outcome of this race cannot be understood without also taking into account the massive flood of dark money that AIPAC spent on dishonest ads," he said. "I wish I could say today that this effort, which was meant to intimidate Democrats across the country, failed in NJ-11. But it did not. I met several voters in the final days of the campaign who had seen the ads and asked me, sincerely, 'Are you MAGA? Are you for ICE?'"
During his previous tenure serving in Congress from 2019 to 2023, Malinowski was a reliable vote in favor of sending military aid to Israel. However, AIPAC and some associated political action committees decided to target the New Jersey Democrat when he suggested putting conditions on future aid packages to Israel.
Malinowski said that no Democrat should accept support from AIPAC, which he described as a pernicious influence on US elections.
"Our Democratic Party should have nothing to do with a pro-Trump-billionaire-funded organization," he said, "that demands absolute fealty to positions that are outside of the American pro-Israel community, then smears those who don't fall in line."
Malinowski vowed to oppose any candidate that AIPAC backs "openly or surreptitiously" in future contests in the district.
"The threat unlimited dark money poses to our democracy," he emphasized, "is far more significant than the views of a single member of Congress on Middle East policy."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who also endorsed Mejía in the Democratic primary, also congratulated her on her win, emphasizing the significant number of obstacles she needed to overcome before emerging victorious.
"Starting with almost no name recognition, Analilia Mejía took on the oligarchs, the Republican establishment and Democratic establishment—and WON," Sanders wrote on social media. "The American people want leaders who stand up to the billionaire class and fight for working families."
The progressive advocacy organization Our Revolution praised Mejía for beating New Jersey machine politics, and pointed to her past campaign work as a sign of what she could do if she wins the April general election and is sworn in as a congresswoman.
"As a grassroots organizer, she helped win a $15 minimum wage and paid sick days," Our Revolution wrote. "As national political director for Bernie 2020, she's built movements to un-rig the economy. Now, she's ready to take this fight to Washington. When we organize, we win!"
"Congress must not accept this unjustifiable, $10.3 billion giveaway," said the office of Sen. Ron Wyden, who is leading the repeal effort.
The Republican-controlled US Senate is expected to vote Tuesday on a Democratic resolution aimed at overturning a major tax giveaway to large corporations that the Trump administration quietly implemented last year without congressional approval.
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution is led by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. In a memo released ahead of Tuesday's vote, Wyden's office noted that the Trump administration's regulatory assault on the Biden-era corporate alternative minimum tax (CAMT) is expected to hand corporations and private equity firms more than $10 billion in tax breaks.
"This tax break is hidden inside new guidance, IRS Notice 2025-28," Wyden's office observed. "The notice makes changes to the rules governing how corporate giants and private equity firms can count income coming from partnerships they own, essentially giving those corporations a 'choose-your-own-tax-rate' adventure."
The CAMT, approved under the Inflation Reduction Act in an effort to combat corporate tax avoidance, requires highly profitable US companies to pay a tax of at least 15% on so-called book profits, the numbers that are reported to shareholders.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank, said in a statement opposing the Trump administration's weakening of the CAMT that the Trump administration's guidance "offers corporations a 'rainbow of choices' in how they calculate their share of partnership book income for minimum tax purposes, several of which deviate significantly from the statutory intent of tying corporate minimum tax liability to book income rather than taxable income."
"The weakened rules, combined with the administration’s hollowing out of IRS enforcement (which make it less likely that corporations, complex partnerships, and their owners will pay what they legally owe) mean corporations are racking up large tax cuts that weren’t enacted by Congress," the group added. "The corporate minimum tax was initially estimated to raise $222 billion over ten years, but the actual revenue will likely be far lower in part due to special giveaways already granted by the administration."
Wyden's effort to overturn the Trump administration's unilateral erosion of the CAMT—which comes on top of the massive tax cuts for corporations that congressional Republicans approved last summer—also drew support from the conservative Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, whose president, Maya MacGuineas, said in a Tuesday statement that "we ought to be strengthening the tax base and improving tax enforcement, not opening up new loopholes that undermine the intent of the law."
"The current Congressional Review Act measure would help restore the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax to its intended design," said MacGuineas. "It would be a small first step—a baby step really—toward beginning to get our fiscal house in order."