September, 22 2021, 12:03pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jennifer Schwartz, WildEarth Guardians, 503-780-8281, jschwartz@
Lindsay Larris. WildEarth Guardians, 310-923-1465, llarris@
Wildearth Guardians Scores Groundbreaking Legal Win for the Joshua Tree
Court rules that federal government cannot ignore impact of climate change on the desert icon.
WASHINGTON
A federal district court in Los Angeles has ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the "Service") violated the law when they failed to list the imperiled Joshua tree under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA").
The Service disregarded overwhelming scientific evidence showing that climate change poses a major threat to the Joshua tree's survival when the agency denied listing the species as threatened under the Act. The decision stems from a 2019 lawsuit filed by WildEarth Guardians, challenging the Service's decision that the desert icon did not warrant federal protection, despite all the available scientific evidence pointing to the same conclusion: Joshua trees will be in danger of extinction throughout most of their current range by century's end from climate change driven habitat loss, invasive grass fueled wildfire, and other stressors.
"The Court's decision represents a monumental step forward for the Joshua tree, but also for all climate-imperiled species whose fate relies upon the Service following the law and evaluating the best scientific data available with respect to forecasting future climate change impacts," said Jennifer Schwartz, staff attorney for WildEarth Guardians and lead attorney on the case. "The Court's unequivocal holding--that the Service cannot summarily dismiss scientific evidence that runs counter to its conclusions--will force the federal government to confront the reality of climate change and begin focusing on how to help species adapt."
WildEarth Guardians first filed a petition to list the Joshua tree as "threatened" under the ESA in 2015 and the Service found the listing "not warranted" in August 2019. Under the Trump administration, the Service ignored every available peer-reviewed study to model future climate impacts to Joshua tree--all of which agree that the vast majority (roughly 90%) of the species' current range will be rendered unsuitable by the end of the 21st century. The Court lambasted the Service's decision in the ruling stating that "[i]n concluding that climate change will not affect Joshua trees at a population- or species level, the Service relies on speculation and unsupported assumptions."
Notably, while the decision was issued by the Service under the Trump administration, the Service refused to budge from its indefensible position--or even consider taking a fresh look at the finding--even under the Biden administration. In addition to the litigation, Guardians filed emergency petitions to protect two species of Joshua tree in May 2021, following the release of even more conclusive climate change findings and the large Cima Dome fire that swept through the Mojave National Preserve and killed an estimated 1.3 million Joshua trees. But the Service has failed to respond to the renewed petitions.
"While we are grateful to the Court for this positive decision, we are very disappointed that the Biden administration failed at several junctures to do what's right by these iconic Joshua trees," said Lindsay Larris, wildlife program director for WildEarth Guardians. "The time and money the federal government spent defending a decision that the Court could clearly see was wrong--instead of using these funds to conserve species and determine how to mitigate massive biodiversity loss from climate change--is tragic and, unfortunately, telling. We need this administration to take swift action to protect species and habitat, not just deliver nice messages about the importance of fighting climate change while defending the damaging actions of the prior administration."
The Court order now directs the Service to reconsider its decision, taking into account the best available science, including climate change models, in issuing a new decision for the Joshua tree. Pursuant to the ESA, this decision is required to be issued within the next 12 months, though the Service will now have 60 days to decide whether or not to appeal the decision.
"For the sake of the Joshua tree and the overwhelming majority of the public who believe in conservation, science, and protection of species and habitat, we are optimistic that the Service will use this opportunity to quickly issue a decision to protect the Joshua tree," said Schwartz. "Our climate-imperiled species--plants and animals alike--do not have time for political gamesmanship that questions unambiguous science. Now is the time for action to preserve what we can of the natural world before it is too late."
A copy of the Court order is available here: https://pdf.wildearthguardians.org/support_docs/Joshua_Tree_order.pdf
WildEarth Guardians protects and restores the wildlife, wild places, wild rivers, and health of the American West. Driven by passion, we've tackled some of the West's most difficult and pressing conservation challenges over the past three decades. We've celebrated small victories (banning leghold trapping in the state of Colorado), monumental triumphs (ending logging on more than 21 million acres in the Southwest), and everything in-between.
(206) 417-6363LATEST NEWS
With House GOP in Chaos, Senate Advances Bipartisan Bill to Avert Shutdown
"Once passed, the House must swiftly take up the bill and send it to the president's desk to avoid a shutdown—giving Americans the help and resources they deserve," said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Sep 26, 2023
Faced with a fractured and chaos-causing Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Senate took action on Tuesday to avert the looming government shutdown, voting 77-19 to advance a bipartisan short-term funding bill.
The procedural vote sets up the Senate to approve a continuing resolution (CR) that would fund the government through mid-November later this week. Both chambers must pass some type of funding measure to prevent a shutdown on October 1.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) took to the chamber floor on Tuesday to discuss the effort and call out embattled House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).
"We are now right at the precipice," Schumer said. "Yet all last week, Speaker McCarthy, instead of focusing on bipartisanship, catered to the hard right, and has nothing, to show for it. And now, the speaker will put on the floor hard-right appropriations bills that have nothing to do with avoiding a shutdown. So this week, the Senate will move forward first."
After the text of the CR was released, Schumer thanked Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and noted that "all through the weekend—night and day—Senate Democrats and Republicans worked in good faith to reach an agreement on a continuing resolution that will keep the government funded and avert a shutdown."
"This bipartisan CR is a temporary solution, a bridge that will spare families the pain of a shutdown while allowing Congress to keep working to fully fund the federal government," he stressed. "Once passed, the House must swiftly take up the bill and send it to the president's desk to avoid a shutdown—giving Americans the help and resources they deserve."
According to the office of Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the resolution:
- Extends government funding through November 17;
- Extends funding to help communities struck by disaster and continues support for Ukraine at a pivotal moment;
- Prevents critical health statutes from lapsing to ensure funding for community health centers and teaching health centers does not expire;
- Extends the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) authorities through the end of the calendar year;
- Ensures federal wildland firefighters will not see a pay cut; and
- Ensures the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) will continue to be able to serve the nearly 7 million women and children who rely on it.
"A shutdown would be nothing short of a catastrophe for American families, our national security, and our economy. It is critical that we avoid one, and that's exactly what this bipartisan legislation will do," said Murray, noting that senators continue to work on annual appropriations bills for fiscal year 2024. "We have much more to do, but we should pass this legislation immediately—there is no time to waste."
House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) agreed that "the bipartisan continuing resolution introduced by the Senate is a reasonable approach to keeping the government open while we finish our work on final 2024 funding bills."
"It is not perfect, but it prevents a catastrophic and avoidable shutdown, includes critical funding to help communities recover from natural disasters, and protects national security with continued support for Ukraine in the face of Russia's continued attacks," she said. "If House Republicans are serious about finishing final full-year bills, they need to vote for this bipartisan continuing resolution so we can get to work right away."
Meanwhile, The Hillreported that McCarthy on Tuesday "floated the possibility of meeting" with President Joe Biden to work out a compromise, telling journalists that "the president could keep government open by doing something on the border."
The now-dead CR that House Republicans unveiled last week even though they knew it was "doomed to fail" notably included border polices widely opposed by Democratic lawmakers and funding cuts that betrayed McCarthy and Biden's debt limit deal.
Some Republicans suggested the Senate CR "ain't gonna pass the House," as Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) put it. According toPolitico, Rep. Greg Murphy (R-N.C.) concurred, pointing to Ukraine aid and saying: "It's not gonna happen over here. It's not gonna happen on the Republican side."
House Republicans on Tuesday night advanced four full-year spending bills, though that won't prevent a shutdown.
This post has been updated with House Republicans' comments and Tuesday night vote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Urges Curbs on Development of 'Deceptive and Dangerous' Human-Like AI
"Lawmakers and regulators must step up and confront this threat before it's too late," the report's author warns.
Sep 26, 2023
Tech companies are creating and deploying artificial intelligence systems "that deceptively mimic human behavior to aggressively sell their products and services, dispense dubious medical and mental health advice, and trap people in psychologically dependent, potentially toxic relationships with machines," according to a report published Tuesday by Public Citizen.
The report—entitled Chatbots Are Not People: Designed-In Dangers of Human-Like AI Systems—asserts that "conversational artificial intelligence (AI) is among the most striking technologies to emerge from the generative AI boom kicked off by the release of OpenAI's ChatGPT. It also has the potential to be among the most dangerous."
"The subtle and not-so-subtle design choices made by the businesses behind these technologies have produced chatbots that engage well enough in fluid, spontaneous back-and-forth conversations to pose as people and to deceptively present themselves as possessing uniquely human qualities they in fact lack," the publication warns.
The report continues:
Deceptive anthropomorphic design elements... are fooling people into falsely believing AI systems possess consciousness, understanding, and sentience. These features range from AI using first-person pronouns, such as "I" and "me," to expressions of emotion and opinion, to human-like avatars with faces, limbs, and bodies. Even worse, AI can be combined with emerging and frequently undisclosed technologies—such as facial and emotional recognition software—to hypercharge its manipulative and commercial capabilities.
This, the publication says, is happening "with little or no testing, oversight, and accountability—including in places no one expects them, like the drive-thru at fast food restaurants, sometimes without any disclosure to customers."
The report contains a series of policy recommendations including:
- Banning counterfeit humans in commercial transactions, both online and offline;
- Restricting and regulating deceptive anthropomorphizing techniques;
- Banning anthropomorphic AI from marketing to, targeting, or collecting data on kids;
- Banning AI from exploiting psychological vulnerabilities and data on users;
- Special scrutiny and testing for all health-related AI systems—especially those intended for use by vulnerable people; and
- Severe penalties for lawbreakers, including banning them from developing and deploying AI systems.
"The tech sector is recklessly rolling out AI systems masquerading as people that can hijack our attention, exploit our trust, and manipulate our emotions," Public Citizen researcher and report author Rick Claypool said in a statement. "Already Big Businesses and bad actors can't resist using these fake humans to manipulate consumers."
"Lawmakers and regulators must step up and confront this threat before it's too late," he added.
In July, the Biden administration secured voluntary risk management commitments from seven leading AI companies, a move that was welcomed by experts—who also urged lawmakers and regulators to take further action.
A report on the dangers of AI published earlier this year by Claypool and tech accountability advocate Cheyenne Hunt urged a pause in the development of generative artificial intelligence systems "until meaningful government safeguards are in place to protect the public."
Keep ReadingShow Less
FCC Chair Confirms Plan to Reinstate Net Neutrality Rules Eviscerated Under Trump
"To allow a handful of monopoly-aspiring gatekeepers to control access to the internet is a direct threat to our democracy," said Michael Copps, a Common Cause special adviser and former FCC commissioner.
Sep 26, 2023
Open internet advocates across the United States celebrated on Tuesday as Federal Communications Commission Chair Jessica Rosenworcel announced her highly anticipated proposal to reestablish FCC oversight of broadband and restore net neutrality rules.
"We thank the FCC for moving swiftly to begin the process of reinstating net neutrality regulations," said ACLU senior policy counsel Jenna Leventoff. "The internet is our nation's primary marketplace of ideas—and it's critical that access to that marketplace is not controlled by the profit-seeking whims of powerful telecommunications giants."
Rosenworcel—appointed to lead the commission by President Joe Biden—discussed the history of net neutrality and her new plan to treat broadband as a public utility in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., which came on the heels of the U.S. Senate's recent confirmation of Anna Gomez to a long-vacant FCC seat.
Back in 2005, "the agency made clear that when it came to net neutrality, consumers should expect that their broadband providers would not block, throttle, or engage in paid prioritization of lawful internet traffic," she recalled. "In other words, your broadband provider had no business cutting off access to websites, slowing down internet services, and censoring online speech."
"Giant corporations and their lobbyists... will try every trick to block or delay the agency from restoring net neutrality."
After a decade of policymaking and litigation, net neutrality rules were finalized in 2015. However, a few years later—under former FCC Chair Ajit Pai, an appointee of ex-President Donald Trump—the commission caved to industry pressure and repealed them.
"The public backlash was overwhelming. People lit up our phone lines, clogged our email inboxes, and jammed our online comment system to express their disapproval," noted Rosenworcel, who was a commissioner at the time and opposed the repeal. "So today we begin a process to make this right."
The chair is proposing to reclassify broadband under Title II of the Communications Act, which "is the part of the law that gives the FCC clear authority to serve as a watchdog over the communications marketplace and look out for the public interest," she explained. "Title II took on special importance in the net neutrality debate because the courts have ruled that the FCC has clear authority to enforce open internet policies if broadband internet is classified as a Title II service."
"On issue after issue, reclassifying broadband as a Title II service would help the FCC serve the public interest more efficiently and effectively," she pointed out, detailing how it relates to public safety, national security, cybersecurity, network resilience and reliability, privacy, broadband deployment, and robotexts.
Rosenworcel intends to release the full text of the proposal on Thursday and hold a vote regarding whether to kick off rulemaking on October 19. While Brendan Carr, one of the two Republican commissioners, signaled his opposition to the Title II approach on Tuesday, Gomez's confirmation earlier this month gives Democrats a 3-2 majority at the FCC.
"Giant corporations and their lobbyists blocked President Biden from filling the final FCC seat for more than two years, and they will try every trick to block or delay the agency from restoring net neutrality now," Demand Progress communications director Maria Langholz warned Tuesday. "The commission must remain resolute and fully restore free and open internet protections to ensure broadband service providers like Comcast and Verizon treat all content equally."
"Americans' internet experience should not be at the whims of corporate executives whose primary concerns are the pockets of their stakeholders and the corporations' bottom line," she added, also applauding the chair.
Free Press co-CEO Jessica J. González similarly praised Rosenworcel and stressed that "without Title II, broadband users are left vulnerable to discrimination, content throttling, dwindling competition, extortionate and monopolistic prices, billing fraud, and other shady behavior."
"As this proceeding gets under way, we will hear all manner of lies from the lobbyists and lawyers representing big phone and cable companies," she predicted. "They'll say anything and everything to avoid being held accountable. But broadband providers and their spin doctors are deeply out of touch with people across the political spectrum, who are fed up with high prices and unreliable services. These people demand a referee on the field to call fouls and issue penalties when broadband companies are being unfair."
Like Rosenworcel, in her Tuesday speech, González also highlighted that "one thing we learned from the Covid-19 pandemic is that broadband is essential infrastructure—it enables us to access education, employment, healthcare, and more."
That "more" includes civic engagement, as leaders at Common Cause noted Tuesday. Ishan Mehta, who directs the group's Media and Democracy Program, said that "the internet has fundamentally changed how people are civically engaged and is critical to participating in society today. It is the primary communications platform, a virtual public square, and has been a powerful organizing tool, allowing social justice movements to gain momentum and widespread support."
After the Trump-era repeal, Mehta explained, "we saw broadband providers throttle popular video streaming services, degrade video quality, forcing customers to pay higher prices for improved quality, offer service plans that favor their own services over competitors, and make hollow, voluntary, and unenforceable promises not to disconnect their customers during the pandemic."
Given how broadband providers have behaved, Michael Copps, a Common Cause special adviser and former FCC commissioner, said that "to allow a handful of monopoly-aspiring gatekeepers to control access to the internet is a direct threat to our democracy."
Rosenworcel's speech came a day after U.S. Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) led over two dozen of their colleagues in sending a letter calling for the restoration of net neutrality protections. The pair said in a statement Tuesday that "broadband is not a luxury. It is an essential utility and it is imperative that the FCC's authority reflects the necessary nature of the internet in Americans' lives today."
"We need net neutrality so that small businesses are not shoved into online slow lanes, so that powerful social media companies cannot stifle competition, and so that users can always freely speak their minds on social media and advocate for the issues that are most important to them," they said. "We applaud Chairwoman Rosenworcel for her leadership and look forward to working with the FCC to ensure a just broadband future for everyone."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
Independent, nonprofit journalism needs your help.
Please Pitch In
Today!
Today!