Greater sage-grouse may lose ground to global warming. Photo courtesy USGS. Source: summitcountyvoice.com
GR: Of course, the overwhelming threat to the sage-grouse and the other members of nature began with human development and progress. The things we desired, warmth and safety, have filled the air with pollutants that are threatening all life, sage-grouse included.
For A development scenario involving reduced meat consumption and crop waste, as well as less energy-intensive lifestyles can help us reach global development goals while also protecting biodiversity, according to a new study. Source: www.iucn.org
GR: What are our global development goals? Total annihilation of nature? The Trantor of Asimov’s novel? The words “development” and “progress” are words that are used by those that seek to profit from human desires and fears. Let’s look closely at our desires and think about making them lasting and beneficial for all–including our fellow Earthlings.
GR: Australian developers are interested in short-term profit, and they are willing to sacrifice ecosystems, wildlife, and their country’s future to get it. Wait. . . did I say Australian? How small of me–it’s developers everywhere. My neighbor Canada has caved in, let’s hope Australia can find the strength and pride to resist.
The following from the Guardian:
“Leading conservationist says Australia needs to understand the importance of leaving carbon-dense forests standing.
“The WWF analysis used 40 years of satellite imagery and land use mapping to find that nearly half of 5,815 Australian terrestrial ecosystems, covering an area of approximately 257m ha, would be listed as threatened under IUCN criteria because of land clearing and degradation.
“This vast number of threatened ecosystems, primarily due to the clearing of land for agriculture, dwarfs the 66 ecological communities officially listed as threatened by the Australian government.” Source: www.theguardian.com
GR: Thinking about the Tasmanian parrots endangered by deforestation, repeating this Guardian article seemed appropriate: “The WWF analysis used 40 years of satellite imagery and land use mapping to find that nearly half of 5,815 Australian terrestrial ecosystems, covering an area of approximately 257m ha, would be listed as threatened under IUCN criteria because of land clearing and degradation.”
HB2570 municipalities; vegetation requirements; prohibition (Mitchell) prohibits cities from requiring native plant salvage and also from requiring the planting of native vegetation.
There are many reasons this is a bad idea. Encouraging the salvage and planting of native plants can help save water and ensure more resiliency in the vegetation. Some non-native plants contribute to public health problems, such as severe allergies. Limiting these plants is an important goal of local communities. Further, it is critical that non-native invasive plants be limited as these can cause harm to neighbors’ private property and to our parks and wildlands, plus harm agriculture, wildlife, and more by spreading to create unnatural fire conditions and out competing native plants.
Please modify and send the message below and ask your representatives to oppose this ill-conceived bill to limit local communities’ ability to protect native plants. . . . Source: secure.sierraclub.org
GR: Ignoring the effects of a development would make it cheaper to destroy native habitats. Of course, developers want that. I doubt the savings would amount to much for individuals that use the developments, but the cost in natural vegetation and wildlife will be a lasting expense that we will all feel.
“The American Burying Beetle, Nicrophorus americanus, is an endangered species with limited habitat remaining. Eastern Oklahoma contains significant habitat that must be preserved or mitigated. Mitigation typically takes the form of a company or organization establishing a permanent habitat area approved by the US-FWS.”
“Some governmental units in Oklahoma, object to the increased cost and would like the Burying Beetle removed from the endangered species list. Perhaps they should instead re-evaluate their development goals? Can they develop by infill of existing already developed areas instead? Do they really need to widen the current roads and bridges?”
GR: Of course, developers and planners in government are not interested in endangered species. If the beetle stands in the way of municipal growth or private profits, public servants and developers will try everything up to and including law suits and congressional campaign contributions to get a loophole.
The critically endangered Regent Honeyeater could be at risk of extinction if plans to develop an industrial estate in New South Wales in Australia goes ahead, experts have found.
The bird is endemic to South Eastern Australia and this site contains one of the most important breeding habitats for this extremely rare bird, whose population has declined by more than 80 percent over the last 24 years.
“We are now certain that Regent Honeyeaters rely on this site for food and to breed,” said Samantha Vine, Head of Conservation at BirdLife Australia. “Development of this site will be catastrophic for this imperilled species.”
GR: Not another extinction in Australia; right?