• There’s a public lands bill that’s been floating around Congress (previously mentioned here), and last week the House messed it up and actually failed to pass it. They were trying to do a runaround of Republican shenanigans by getting a 2/3 super-majority that would allow no amendments to the bill, but they lost by 2 votes (2 votes! And if 2 of those opposition votes simply hadn’t showed up to vote, it would’ve passed, because the 2/3 requirement would’ve been lower). Well, they’re trying it again — the Senate has set it up for re-passage as part of the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act.
• In-depth, fascinating read on the different Yellowstone wolf packs’ activity. A true soap opera.
• Peter Kareiva kind of knocks it out of the park talking about children and carbon footprints. Worth a full read, but here’s the take-home message: being an eco-hero in your daily life could probably save 300-500 tons of carbon over your lifetime. Reducing the number of children you have by one would save nearly 10,000. Unless you live in Bangladesh, in which case you would save about 50.
• Nice article from the NY Times on the trade-offs between preserving ecosystems and building the fabled Smart Grid.
• WCS has released free software that, using camera trap photos of tigers, develops 3D models of their stripes to identify individuals. They’ve even used it to identify poached skins. The next question, of course, would be whether certain patterns are spatially correlated. Can you identify a tiger’s home based on his stripes?
• Dinosaur mesopredator discovered.
• Had a very nice dinner with Brian (of the consblog Brians) last night, and the topic of “fish: good for you, terrible for the oceans” came up.

Check out this paper in press from Conservation Biology on climate change mitigation, adaptation and biodiversity by James Paterson et al. They describe current responses to climate change as focusing on win-win scenarios for mitigation and adaptation. They suggest, however, that many of these responses would have negative effects on biodiversity. They present a figure of strategies, and how they might fit into “win-win-win” scenarios: that is, good for climate change mitigation, adaptation AND good for biodiversity. Forest conservation, urban tree planting and green rooftops appear to be in the win-win-win category, whereas large dams, new desalination plants and sea-wall defenses are listed as wins for adaptation or mitigation, but losses for biodiversity.

Am I the only one who gets queasy thinking about the tradeoffs that will have to be made in the coming decades when it comes to climate change and biodiversity? On a smaller scale, the discussion regarding biodiversity and climate change is a bit like the current conversation about energy policy. On the one hand, you have folks demanding increased drilling and natural gas production domestically (in the U.S.) and on the other you have the call for investment in renewable energy. I want to call this debate a no-brainer, but that’s precisely the wrong language. One side of the argument actually requires some deep thinking about how to proceed: renewable energy sounds good, but it’s going to be a lot harder to implement. It’s the best solution, but it’s not the easy one.

On the climate change front, I’m reminded of those who want to develop cloud-seeding technologies: more clouds, higher albedo in the upper atmosphere, less sunlight reaching the earth. Genius! It’s simple and effective. But with such a proposal, all those secondary environmental problems are completely ignored. It’s like the kid who cleans his room by shoving everything into the closet. I do believe that in the next 30-50 years we’re going to solve the climate problem, but the question is whether we’ll do so in an environmentally-conscious way or not.

Paterson, J. et al. Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Threat to Biodiversity. Conservation Biology, In Press. (doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01042.x)

The win–lose trilogies are ordered mitigation, adaptation, biodiversity (e.g., lose–win–lose means a loss for mitigation, a win for adaptation, and a loss for biodiversity).

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne has proposed changing the way that federal agencies evaluate projects under the Endangered Species Act. Until now, projects proposed by the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Reclamation (for example) have had to contract the US Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct the evaluation. The Bush administration believes most agencies have the capacity to do such evaluations in house. Conservationists are up in arms, calling it “an assault on the heart of the Endangered Species Act,” and pointing out that these rules are mostly in reaction to the listing of the polar bear. Keith Rizzardi at the ESA Blawg (“The Law Blog discussing the Endangered Species Act”) suggests that the ESA could use some updating, and that some in-house evaluations might be appropriate. As with most things with the current administration, however, it appears that the solutions they propose probably aren’t the right ones.

The 30 day comment period begins soon. If you’d like to send a boilerplate e-mail to the Interior Department, the National Wildlife Federation has just the ticket. I hear that hand-written letters from grandmothers work best, though. Those can be sent to Mr. Kempthorne himself at:

U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240

Or hey maybe you’re a big shot and you want to testify in front of Congress. Get the House subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans to hold some hearings. I’m sure the honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-GU), chairwoman, would be glad to hear from you.
Update: More reactions from some famous people.