SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
SAN FRANCISCO, Calif.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments Monday, May 9 in the most comprehensive legal action ever brought under the Endangered Species Act to protect rare and threatened plants and animals from pesticides in the United States. The Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action Network North America are challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's systemic failure to assess the impacts of more than 30 pesticides known to be harmful to dozens of endangered species found across the country.
|
"Pesticides are poisoning endangered animals, but the EPA is turning a blind eye," said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the Center. "This lawsuit, if we're successful, will force the EPA to take a comprehensive look at pesticide impacts on endangered wildlife across the country at long last -- and take common-sense steps to protect our wildlife from these chemicals."
The lawsuit seeks protection from dangerous pesticides for dozens of endangered and threatened species throughout the United States, including Florida panthers, California condors, piping plovers, black-footed ferrets, arroyo toads, Indiana bats and Alabama sturgeon. Documents from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and EPA, as well as peer-reviewed scientific studies, show that these animals may be hurt by the pesticides at issue in the case.
Despite well-documented risks of pesticides to imperiled wildlife, for decades the EPA has "registered" pesticides for use in the United States without conducting legally required Endangered Species Act consultations with expert federal wildlife agencies to determine whether the pesticides will harm protected wildlife. This failure prevents the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service from fully evaluating pesticide risks and from restricting pesticide uses known to be harmful to protected plants and animals.
An example of the EPA's failure to protect people and the environment is its continued registration of the dangerous herbicide atrazine, a widespread pollutant of groundwater and drinking water in this country. Atrazine, which causes reproductive problems and chemically castrates male frogs even at extremely low concentrations, was banned in the European Union more than a decade ago. Just last week the EPA, in a "preliminary risk assessment," found that the amount of the herbicide that's released into the environment in the United States is likely harming most species of plants and animals, including mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles.
Monday's hearing before Circuit Judges Wardlaw, Paez and Bea will be at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 2, 3rd Floor Room 330, James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse, 95 7th Street in San Francisco, Calif. The hearing addresses the environmental groups' appeal of the district court decision granting in part motions by the EPA and pesticide industry groups to dismiss the lawsuit. The hearing is open to the public. Center attorneys will be available after the hearing to discuss the case.
Background
More than a billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States, and the EPA has registered more than 16,000 different pesticides for use. Extensive scientific studies show widespread and pervasive pesticide contamination in groundwater, drinking water and wildlife habitats throughout the country.
Many EPA-approved pesticides are linked to cancer and other severe health effects in humans. Some pesticides can act as endocrine disruptors, interfering with natural hormones, damaging reproductive function and offspring, and causing developmental, neurological and immune problems in wildlife and humans.
A series of lawsuits by the Center and other conservation groups has forced the EPA to consult on the impacts of scores of pesticides on some endangered species and has resulted in temporary restrictions on pesticide use in sensitive habitats. Just last month, as a result of litigation by the Center, the EPA completed its first rigorous nationwide analysis of the effects of three pesticides on endangered species. The agency found that 97 percent of more than 1,700 animals and plants protected under the Endangered Species Act are likely to be hurt by malathion and chlorpyrifos. The analysis is likely to lead to permanent restrictions on some of the most harmful uses of these highly toxic pesticides.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Big Oil Wields Influence on Universities, Delaying Green Transition: Study
"We find that universities are an established yet under-researched vehicle of climate obstruction by the fossil fuel industry," the authors wrote.
"Fossil fuel companies have embedded themselves in universities across the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and beyond," they concluded.
"Everything that's been done so far by researchers on this indicates an emerging consensus... that this is a really serious and significant problem that needs to be taken a lot more seriously," Geoffrey Supran, director of the Climate Accountability Lab at the University of Miami and a co-author of the review, toldFinancial Times.
Jennie Stephens, a professor at the ICARUS Climate Research Center at Maynooth University in Ireland who also co-authored the study, toldDeSmog that "when you pull it all together, you realize how pervasive a strategy this has been."
"The science has been telling us that fossil fuel phaseout is the number one thing that we need to focus on, but within our universities, there's very little research on how to do fossil fuel phaseout," Stephens toldThe Guardian. "This provides some explanation for why society has been so ineffective and inadequate in our responses to the climate crisis."
Research on the links between Big Oil and universities in the U.S., U.K., Canada, and Australia has indeed been limited. The authors could only find 14 peer-reviewed papers and 21 civil society reports published in English between 2003 and 2023.
The studies they did find document the strong influence of the industry on institutions of higher education. They cite a number of examples, many of which are from elite universities. BP contributed between $2.1 million and $2.6 million to Princeton University's Carbon Mitigation Initiative between 2012 and 2017 and remains a sponsor. In 2017, a public relations firm working with BP wrote in an internal memo that partnership with Princeton was a way of "authenticating BP's commitment to low carbon."
An influential 2011 study by industry-linked researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Energy Initiative helped persuade policymakers that natural gas was a helpful "bridge" fuel—which effectively became Obama administration policy. Lead author Ernest Moniz became the U.S. Secretary of Energy in 2013.
These outcomes indicated the success of an industry strategy to influence university research and debate. A leaked 1998 internal memo from American Petroleum Institute, a lobby group, the subject matter of which was "build[ing] a case against precipitous action on climate change," recommended fostering "cooperative relationships with all major scientists whose research in this field supports our position."
These are a few of the examples of Big Oil's links to universities cited in a study in WIREs Climate Change published on September 5, 2024.
Fossil fuel industry influence hasn't been studied nearly as thoroughly as other potential conflicts of interest or sources of bias in the research process, the authors wrote. Their literature review found that many academics had drawn comparisons to tobacco and pharmaceutical meddling in academia. They wrote:
The studies reviewed here revealed parallels between fossil fuel industry strategies and those of industries like tobacco and pharmaceuticals. For example, fossil fuel companies have supported research that had commercial applications (e.g., hydraulic fracturing) or was otherwise favorable to their legal and policy positions (e.g., anti-punitive-damages law review articles)... Previous [conflict of interest] research has noted how the pharmaceutical industry stands out for arguing that it produces beneficial products, whereas industries like tobacco and lead seek to minimize the apparent harms of their products. The fossil fuel industry today appears to do both, and notably positions itself as an innovator of purportedly beneficial climate solutions, such as natural gas and carbon capture and storage.
The authors of the review also drew attention to universities' opacity in dealings with Big Oil, writing that there's a "widespread lack of transparency on funding ties, amounts, and contract details."
They wrote that, though academics have not devoted much attention to industry influence on higher education, some activists and NGOs have long tried to raise the issue. Campaigners seconded that fact in responding to the study on Thursday.
"This literature review confirms what students in our movement have known for years," said Jake Lowe, executive director of Campus Climate Network, told The Guardian. "Big Oil has infiltrated academia in order to gain undue credibility and obstruct climate action."
Lowe's group is one of many that's calling for universities to "dissociate" from fossil fuel interests—a movement that Supran, the Miami professor, called "basically divestment 2.0."
The problem is by no means limited to English-speaking countries. An investigation by Investigate Europe and openDemocracy last year found that European universities are also rife with Big Oil influence.
Most Popular