Endangered Species and America First Energy Abundance
Is there a way for us to have it all: energy abundance and protection or restoration of endangered species?
By Rob Sisson, President Emeritus of ConservAmerica
Try to remember the last time you read a newspaper or scanned X or LinkedIn and did not see a discussion about America’s insatiable appetite for energy. Over the weekend, even reserved Hoosiers openly questioned their utility provider about 300% increases in electric bills (WNDU). Every corner of the country appears slated for a proposed data center, raising concerns over land and water use and energy consumption and prices, while local officials rub their hands together gleefully, thinking of ways to spend property tax windfalls such projects would provide.
American energy is national security. It is economic security. Most important of all, it is family security. It’s why the Trump Administration is laser-focused on energy abundance and America First energy resources. The Administration is working day and night to reduce decades of red tape that impede energy infrastructure projects. You cannot walk anywhere in D.C. these days without overhearing someone dropping “permitting reform” into sidewalk conversations. Thankfully, President Trump, Energy Secretary Wright, Interior Secretary Burgum, and EPA Administrator Zeldin have made great strides in unleashing American energy abundance over the past twelve months.
But…
In the U.S, there are always ways for litigious-minded folks who oppose lower electric, heat, and gasoline prices to hinder progress. For decades, the Endangered Species Act has been the preferred cudgel to slow or stop new energy infrastructure projects. Go ahead and Google any proposed energy project of which you are aware, and you can almost guarantee someone has filed a lawsuit against it, arguing an endangered species will be irreparably harmed if the project goes forward. If the project is eventually approved, it will be years and years later, and millions upon millions of dollars will be spent in legal expenses by the project sponsor and the opposition.
Wildlife, including flora and fauna, is top of my mind every day. I live on the side of a mountain in Montana, keep a daily phenology, and wake up every morning hoping “this is the day that the grizzly that was sighted on the other side of the mountain wanders through our property”. This past fall, I passed up at least a dozen ‘lay-up’ shots at trophy mule deer because mule deer populations are down in the region, and no one can quite figure out why. I live here because of my love for wildlife and the landscape.
Is there a way for us to have it all: energy abundance and protection or restoration of endangered species? ConservAmerica’s new report, Powering America Through Endangered Species Act Reform, concludes, yes, we can.
The report recommends four policy steps that can put an end to the zero-sum game of adversarial litigation and shift from a reactive to a proactive method of endangered species management. Research behind the report proves that energy companies could invest a fraction of the cost of normal litigation up front, eliminating delays in action to protect species and achieve much more favorable outcomes for endangered species. (Not to mention more productive ways plaintiffs could invest the tens of millions they spend every year in litigation in more positive ways, like conservation easements or habitat restoration!) Coupled with common sense solutions, like a Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (RAWA) to empower state wildlife agencies to focus on collaboration rather than litigation, tax incentives and safe harbor provisions for private landowners, and leveraging the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to scale up private land programs, ConservAmerica believes America First Energy Abundance and recovery of endangered species are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, America First energy policies, heeding ConservAmerica’s recommendations, could launch the most successful era of the Endangered Species Act in history.
Rob Sisson is the President Emeritus of the Michigan-based environmentalist nonprofit ConservAmerica and a member of ACC’s Board of Directors.
According to Montana FWP and numerous independent studies, the mule deer population has declined in Eastern MT (where I presume Rob still resides) as a result of drought and numerous hard winters. The population can rebound, if we allow them the ability to do so, but not if we build infrastructure that contributes to their decline.
Mule deer are a resilient species, but large-scale energy projects that fragment the landscape and use resources reduce their ability to rebound after a major decline.
Many species listed on the ESA are not as resilient as mule deer. For too many, their habitat is already fragmented. Their resources are already diverted or consumed and they have limited options for movement that improves gene flow across the landscape.
Large-scale energy projects require large-scale infrastructure and resource development. Many of these projects are incompatible with the goals of wildlife conservation and habitat protections for T&E species. While I’m sympathetic to the need to build new infrastructure to meet the demands of an increasingly energy-hungry public, I also insist that we engage in a more thoughtful dialogue than what the Abundance thinkers have put forth. This is lazy, anti-conservation thinking.