September, 29 2023, 12:50pm EDT

Protect All Our Coasts Coalition Responds to the Biden Administration’s Five-Year Plan for Offshore Drilling
Today, the Protect All Our Coasts Coalition – a broad coalition representing over 20 organizations, spanning national, regional, local, and environmental justice organizations who are aligned with the shared goal of preventing new offshore drilling – reacts to the Biden administration’s National Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2024-2029 (“Five-Year Plan”).
The U.S. Department of the Interior released its final Five-Year Plan today, offering three lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico.The final plan scales back from the eleven sales originally proposed to three and spares Alaska. But the plan is a step backwards from the climate goals the administration has set and for environmental justice communities across the Gulf South, who are already experiencing the disproportionate impact of fossil fuel extraction across the region. This decision comes after over a year of advocacy in which the Protect All Our Coasts coalition has consistently stood together in their call for “No New Leases” in the final Five-Year Plan.
Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Biden administration could have finalized a Five-Year Plan with no new leases for offshore drilling. Offering three lease sales is incompatible with reaching President Biden’s goal of cutting emissions by 50-52% by 2030, undermines domestic action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and runs counter to commitments to Gulf communities that already bear the brunt of oil, gas, and petrochemical buildout.
In response to the release of the Department of Interior’s Five-Year Plan, these organizations have released the following statements:
Local Organizations
“Given that there are over 9,000 leases, yet to be explored or tapped into, it makes no sense that the Biden administration would open up additional leases, placing the environment and the lives of people in serious jeopardy in the Gulf South. Folks in Port Arthur, TX die daily from cancer, respiratory, heart, and kidney disease from the very pollution that would come from more leases and drilling,” said John Beard, Founder, President, and Executive Director of the Port Arthur Community Action Network. “If Biden is to truly be the environmental president, he should stop any further leasing and all forms of the Petrochemical build out, call for a climate emergency, and jumpstart the transition to clean green, renewable energy, and lift the toxic pollution from overburdened communities. We say enough is enough. We refuse to be sacrificed. We reject the five year plan, and demand that President Biden treat us like living people, not pawns in a Petrochemical power-play for profits at the expense of our lives, health, and futures.”
“Our community stands with others throughout the Gulf South that condemn the expansion of offshore drilling. The Biden Administration’s decision contradicts promises of environmental stewardship and places profit over the well-being of our communities and plane,” said Armon Alex, Co-Founder of the Gulf of Mexico Youth Climate Summit. “ It’s imperative that we prioritize climate action and the protection of vulnerable frontline communities. Let us unite to end new offshore drilling and pave the way towards a clean, just, and sustainable energy future.”
“We’re disappointed the Biden Administration did not follow through on a promise of no new leasing, and instead, the residents of the Gulf of Mexico are having their resources sold off for bargain prices once again,” said Christian Wagley, coastal organizer at Healthy Gulf. “These new leases lock us into continued dependence on extractive fossil fuels, instead of moving towards a clean and just energy economy that Americans not only want but is a necessity to stave off climate disaster. Furthermore, Gulf communities are tired of being a sacrifice zone, experiencing the effects of climate change first while other regions remain protected from new leases.”
“While we would love to celebrate the news of historically few lease sales, the earth does not recognize political ‘victories,’” said Kendall Dix, national policy director at Taproot Earth. “South Louisiana is currently facing a drinking water crisis right now that is a consequence of salt water intrusion and the climate crisis. As the head of the United Nations and has said, continued fossils fuel development is incompatible with human survival. We need to transition to justly sourced renewable energy that’s democratically managed and accountable to frontline communities as quickly as possible.”
National Organizations
“The Surfrider Foundation is deeply disappointed that the Biden administration plans to expand offshore oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters,” said Dr. Chad Nelsen, CEO of the Surfrider Foundation. “New leases in the 5-year drilling plan will damage our coastlines and communities, while further exacerbating the climate change crisis. We call on the President and Congress to take decisive action to end new offshore drilling forever. This includes canceling new lease sales in the next 5-year plan and passing legislation to permanently protect U.S. coasts from new oil drilling. It’s high time that our federal leaders stop approving new fossil fuel development that will worsen climate change.”
“Biden has once again chosen Big Oil profits over what’s right for the climate and Gulf communities,” said Raena Garcia, senior fossil fuels and lands campaigner at Friends of the Earth. “Having squandered this crucial moment to protect our oceans, it’s no wonder he was sidelined at last week’s UN Climate Ambition Summit. No law, not even the Inflation Reduction Act, mandates new drilling, and we are exploring all available strategies in response to BOEM’s deeply disappointing and potentially unlawful move.”
“I feel disgusted and incredibly let down by Biden’s offshore drilling plan. It piles more harm on already-struggling ecosystems, endangered species and the global climate,” said Brady Bradshaw, senior oceans campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We need Biden to commit to a fossil fuel phaseout, but actions like this condemn us to oil spills, climate disasters and decades of toxic harm to communities and wildlife.”
“New fossil fuel development is incompatible with the scale of the climate crisis we face. The Biden Administration’s continued leasing for offshore drilling sacrifices the Gulf South communities that have been subjected to living in the most polluted areas of the nation for decades,” said Zero Hour Policy Director Aaditi Lele. “Decisions like these lock us into decades of oil spills, pollution, and destruction at the hands of Big Oil. The President and Congress must act to phase out all fossil fuels on public lands and waters.”
“This is the last thing we need – and the last place we need it. Gulf waters have never been hotter. Rising seas are swamping the Gulf coast. Louisiana is suffering some of the worst heat, drought and wildfires in the state’s history,” said Manish Bapna, President and CEO of the NRDC (the Natural Resources Defense Council).“The message from the Gulf is clear. It’s time to break, not deepen, our dependence on the fossil fuels that are driving the climate crisis. It’s time to make federal ocean waters part of the climate fix, not the problem. It’s time to reduce, not increase, offshore drilling that exposes oceans, marine life and coastal communities to catastrophic risk and ongoing harm. It’s time to end the unconscionable health risks that producing, refining and exporting Gulf fuels inflicts on local communities.This plan calls for fewer new offshore leases than previous federal five-year plans. But let’s be clear: oil and gas companies already hold leases to enough of the Gulf of Mexico to cover half the state of Indiana – and to produce oil and gas at current rates for decades. Exposing even more of the Gulf to the risk of a BP-style blowout makes no sense.”
Oceana Vice President for the United States, Beth Lowell, said:
“By failing to end new offshore drilling, President Biden missed an easy opportunity to do the right thing and deliver on climate for the American people. This decision is beyond disappointing, as Americans face the impacts of the growing climate crisis through more frequent and intense fires, droughts, hurricanes, and floods. President Biden is unfortunately showing the world that it’s okay to continue to prioritize polluters over real climate solutions. Expanding dirty and dangerous offshore drilling only exacerbates the climate catastrophe that is already at our doorstep. Unfortunately, it’s our coastal communities who will bear the immediate impact of this shortsighted decision.
Every new drilling lease is a disaster waiting to happen. We know when companies drill, they spill, and offshore disasters impact communities, people, and businesses who rely upon a healthy ocean. Offshore drilling also fuels the climate crisis that will impact every single person living in the United States, but it will be low-income and marginalized groups who are disproportionately impacted. We can’t accept the consequences from President Biden’s failure to act. Congress must immediately reject this proposal during the review period and prevent all new leases on federal waters.”
“A single new lease sale for offshore oil and gas exploration is one too many,” said Sarah Winter Whelan, Executive Director of the Healthy Ocean Coalition. “Communities around the country are already dealing with exacerbating impacts from climate disruption caused by our reliance on fossil fuels. Any increase in our dependence on fossil fuels just bakes in greater impacts to humanity. In addition, the ocean, which absorbs 90% of the heat from our warming planet and a third of the carbon dioxide released into the air, should be seen and treated as a climate solution, not a source for further climate disaster. We call on the Biden Administration and Congress to stop handing our future to Big Oil and focus solely on the just and equitable transition to renewable energy.”
“With this Five-Year Plan, President Biden has sent the message that there is a price tag on our oceans, on our and our grandchildren’s livable futures, on breathing clean air, and on public health. The very culprits of this generation-defining catastrophe, oil giants like Chevron, Exxon, and Shell, will now continue to enjoy the privilege of cashing in on the economic boon and environmental death sentence that is drilling into the ocean floor for the next five years – a time frame critical to preventing the most irreversible consequences of a rapidly heating planet,” said Rachel Carson Council President & CEO Bob Musil. “Scientists, the youth, and the general public agree that if we do not implement ‘immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors’ we will sacrifice our chance of preventing the passage of the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold in the next decade, virtually crystallizing a future of chaos.”
“The ocean offers powerful solutions to fight the climate crisis–drilling for oil and gas is not one of them,” said Jean Flemma, Director of Ocean Defense Initiative. “Ocean, climate, and environmental justice advocates nationwide have been clear that the time has come to stop selling our ocean–and our future–to Big Oil. Any new leasing will perpetuate fossil fuel energy production–at a time when we urgently need to reduce emissions–while unfairly burdening Gulf communities yet again. By scheduling the fewest number of offshore lease sales in history, the Administration has acknowledged the need to transition from dirty, dangerous offshore drilling toward a clean energy future. Now they need to turn that acknowledgment into reality, and end offshore drilling.”
“While President Biden correctly only offered the smallest possible proposed leasing program, even one sale is one too many,” said Sierra Club Executive Director Ben Jealous. “Communities in the central and western Gulf are on the frontlines of climate change, offshore drilling disasters, and the pollution caused by extractive activities. Further leasing only furthers the threats to their homes, their health, and their future. At a time when we should be rapidly moving away from fossil fuels to meet our climate commitments and avert the worst effects of the climate crisis, issuing more oil and gas leases is the last thing we should be doing. Congress must fix these statutory mistakes and end new offshore drilling once and for all.”
“Sacrificing millions of acres in the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas extraction when scientists are clear that we must end fossil fuel expansion immediately is a gross denial of reality by Joe Biden in the face of climate catastrophe,” said Collin Rees, United States Program Manager at Oil Change International. “Doubling down on drilling is a direct violation of President Biden’s prior commitments and continues a concerning trend. Just last week, 75,000 people marched in the streets of New York urging an end to fossil fuels and the United States was blocked from attending the United Nations Climate Ambition Summit due to its dangerous plans to expand oil and gas. The United States is on track to expand fossil fuel production more than any other country by 2050, which is our most crucial window to limit the impacts of warming. Frontline communities, marine ecosystems, and our climate deserve a swift and just end to fossil fuels.”
Additional Information:
- Overwhelmingly, voters support preventing new offshore oil and gas leases in the upcoming Five-Year Plan decision, according to recent public opinion research, conducted by Lake Research Partners in March of 2023. The poll found that most voters do not want to expand offshore drilling and instead favor a proposal to not schedule new offshore drilling by a net margin of 16 points. Additionally, two-thirds of voters said they would prefer the administration expand clean energy like wind and solar over offshore drilling for oil and gas. Both national and coastal-states results are available.
- Nearly 1 million people have urged the Biden administration in a new petition to reject new leasing for offshore drilling in the final Five-Year Plan.
A broad and diverse group of people and organizations are united in calling for no new leases in the final Five-Year Program, including numerous U.S. Representatives, over 200 environmental and frontline organizations, 50 scientists, 28 youth organizations, and representatives of 60,000 coastal businesses and entrepreneurs.
Friends of the Earth fights for a more healthy and just world. Together we speak truth to power and expose those who endanger the health of people and the planet for corporate profit. We organize to build long-term political power and campaign to change the rules of our economic and political systems that create injustice and destroy nature.
(202) 783-7400LATEST NEWS
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
62,000 African Penguins Starving to Death Highlights Humanity-Driven Extinction Crisis
"If a species as iconic as the African penguin is struggling to survive," said one researcher, "it raises the question of how many other species are disappearing without us even noticing."
Dec 05, 2025
A study published this week about tens of thousands of starving African penguins is highlighting what scientists warn is the planet's sixth mass extinction event, driven by human activity, and efforts to save as many species as possible.
Researchers from the South African Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment (DFFE), the United Kingdom's University of Exeter, and other institutions examined a pair of breeding colonies north of Cape Town, South Africa, and published their findings Thursday in Ostrich: Journal of African Ornithology.
"These two sites are two of the most important breeding colonies historically—holding around 25,000 (Dassen) and around 9,000 (Robben) breeding pairs in the early 2000s. As such, they are also the locations of long-term monitoring programs," said study co-author Azwianewi Makhado from the DFFE in a statement.
As the study explains: "African Penguins moult annually, coming ashore and fasting for 21 days, when they shed and replace all their feathers. Failure to fatten sufficiently to moult, or to regain condition afterwards, results in death."
The team found that "between 2004 and 2011, the sardine stock off west South Africa was consistently below 25% of its peak abundance, and this appears to have caused severe food shortage for African penguins, leading to an estimated loss of about 62,000 breeding individuals," said co-author and Exeter associate professor Richard Sherley.
The paper notes that "although some adults moulted at a colony to the southeast, where food may have been more plentiful, much of the mortality likely resulted from failure of birds to fatten sufficiently to moult. The fishery exploitation rate of sardines west of Cape Agulhas was consistently above 20% between 2005 and 2010."
Sherley said that "high sardine exploitation rates—that briefly reached 80% in 2006—in a period when sardine was declining because of environmental changes likely worsened penguin mortality."
Humanity's reliance on fossil fuels is warming ocean water and impacting how salty it is. For the penguins' prey, said Sherley, "changes in the temperature and salinity of the spawning areas off the west and south coasts of South Africa made spawning in the historically important west coast spawning areas less successful, and spawning off the south coast more successful."
The researcher also stressed that "these declines are mirrored elsewhere," pointing out that the species' global population has dropped nearly 80% in the last three decades. With fewer than 10,000 breeding pairs left, the African penguin was uplisted to "critically endangered" on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species last year.
Sherley told Mongabay at the time that the IUCN update "highlights a much bigger problem with the health of our environment."
"Despite being well-known and studied, these penguins are still facing extinction, showing just how severe the damage to our ecosystems has become," he said. "If a species as iconic as the African penguin is struggling to survive, it raises the question of how many other species are disappearing without us even noticing. We need to act now—not just for penguins, but to protect the broader biodiversity that is crucial for the planet's future."
Looks like the combined effects of climate change and over fishing are key factors in decimating the populations of these penguins.www.washingtonpost.com/climate-envi...
[image or embed]
— Margot Hodson (@margothodson.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 4:46 AM
Fearful that the iconic penguin species could be extinct within a decade, the conservation organizations BirdLife South Africa and the Southern African Foundation for the Conservation of Coastal Birds (SANCCOB) last year pursued a first-of-its-kind legal battle in the country, resulting in a settlement with the commercial fishing sector and DFFE.
The settlement, reached just days before a planned court hearing this past March, led to no-go zones for the commercial anchovy and sardine fishing vessels around six penguin breeding colonies: Stony Point, as well as Bird, Dassen, Dyer, Robben, and St. Croix islands.
"The threats facing the African penguin are complex and ongoing—and the order itself requires monitoring, enforcement, and continued cooperation from industry and the government processes which monitor and allocate sardine and anchovy populations for commercial purposes," Nicky Stander, head of conservation at SANCCOB, said in March.
The study also acknowledges hopes that "the revised closures—which will operate year-round until at least 2033—will decrease mortality of African penguins and improve their breeding success at the six colonies around which they have been implemented."
"However," it adds, "in the face of the ongoing impact of climate change on the abundance and distribution of their key prey, other interventions are likely to be needed."
Lorien Pichegru, a marine biology professor at South Africa's Nelson Mandela University who was not involved in the study, called the findings "extremely concerning" and warned the Guardian that the low fish numbers require urgent action "not only for African penguins but also for other endemic species depending on these stocks."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


