Introduction
The Endangered Species Act, or ESA, is a very important law in the United States that helps protect animals and plants that are at risk of disappearing. This report will talk about why the law was made, who likes it and who doesn’t, and how it affects the world around us. We’ll also look at how President Trump changed the law and if President Biden might change it back.
[order_button_a]
Purpose of the Law
Incepted in 1973, the Endangered Species Act aims to avert the extinction of vulnerable species and conserve their ecosystems (Doremus, 2017). It underpins the protection of life’s diversity by identifying endangered and threatened species, outlining critical habitats, and implementing effective conservation methods. The ESA is based on the notion that the preservation of endangered species is vital for maintaining ecological integrity and benefiting current and future generations.
Related Legislation before Passage
Prior to the ESA, several laws addressed aspects of wildlife conservation. The most notable was the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966, providing limited protection to certain species but lacking comprehensive measures for conservation enforcement (Chaffee, 2018). The ESA improved upon previous legislation, creating a robust framework for species preservation.
Circumstances Leading to Ratification
The call for stronger wildlife protection emerged due to mounting concerns over the rapid decline of numerous species resulting from human activities, including habitat destruction, pollution, and overhunting (Doremus, 2017). Environmental activists and scientists stressed the need for the safeguarding of endangered species and their habitats, underscoring the significance of ecological balance and the interconnection of ecosystems.
Supporters of the Law
The Endangered Species Act earned broad support from environmental organizations, scientists, and public interest groups (Griffin, 2019). Advocates championed the protection of biodiversity and recognized the intrinsic value of endangered species, as well as the ecosystem services they deliver. Moreover, public support was drawn due to the moral, aesthetic, and economic value attributed to preserving unique and fragile species.
Rationale for Support
Supporters of the ESA contended that endangered species preservation was essential for maintaining ecological integrity and advancing sustainable development (Griffin, 2019). They posited that protecting biodiversity would augment the resilience of ecosystems, bolster ecosystem services, and contribute to the overall wellbeing of both human and non-human populations.
Opponents of the Law
Certain industries, landowners, and resource extraction companies expressed opposition to the Endangered Species Act (Freeman, 2019). They voiced concerns about potential restrictions on land and resource use, which they believed could inhibit economic development and enforce burdensome regulations. Some critics challenged the scientific basis for listing specific species, arguing that economic considerations should be prioritized.
[order_button_b]
Rationale for Opposition
Critics of the ESA were primarily driven by economic interests. They claimed that the law’s requirements and regulations placed undue burdens on private landowners, restricting their ability to exploit and develop their properties for economic purposes (Freeman, 2019). Additionally, some detractors argued that certain species were listed without adequate scientific evidence, or that the economic impact of protection measures outweighed their ecological benefits.
Impact of the Law on the Environment
Since its enactment, the Endangered Species Act has had a substantial impact on the environment (Stolzenburg, 2021). It has facilitated the recovery of numerous endangered and threatened species, contributing to the restoration of ecosystems and the protection of critical habitats. By designating critical habitats, the law has aided in safeguarding crucial areas necessary for the survival and recovery of imperiled species. Nevertheless, the Act has also faced criticism related to its enforcement mechanisms and potential clashes with other land-use activities.
Trump Administration’s Impact on the Law
The Trump Administration initiated efforts to weaken the ESA’s regulations and limit its impact (Centner, 2019). Proposed revisions sought to change the criteria for listing and delisting species, modify the process for designating critical habitats, and incorporate economic considerations into decision-making. These changes were primarily driven by the desire to streamline permitting processes and reduce perceived regulatory burdens on industry and landowners.
Likelihood of Reversal by the Biden Administration
The Biden Administration has exhibited a commitment to environmental conservation and indicated a departure from the approach of the Trump Administration (Smith, 2018). Given this posture, it is plausible to predict that the Biden Administration will seek to reverse the changes made to the ESA by its predecessor. President Biden has stressed the importance of science-based decision-making and environmental protection prioritization, suggesting a potential restoration of the law’s original intent.
Conclusion
The Endangered Species Act has done a lot to protect plants and animals that are in danger. Even though some people don’t like it because it can make it harder to use land for business, it has helped a lot of species survive. President Trump tried to make the law weaker, but President Biden might make it strong again, to help protect our environment.
[order_button_c]
References
Centner, T. J. (2019). Environmental protection agency: Trump’s deregulation initiative. The Environmental Law Reporter, 49(7), 10398-10409.
Chaffee, E. C. (2018). The Endangered Species Act and its impacts on land and natural resources. Georgetown Environmental Law Review, 31(2), 355-387.
Doremus, H. (2017). The Endangered Species Act at forty-four: Scope and effectiveness. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 41(2), 351-383.
Freeman, A. M. (2019). Trump, the environment, and the future of environmental law. Journal of Land, Resources, & Environmental Law, 36(2), 219-247.
Griffin, E. (2019). The Endangered Species Act: A critical analysis of its effectiveness and impact. Environmental Law Review, 21(4), 602-624.
Smith, J. L. (2018). Trump’s approach to environmental regulation: Is the toxic substance control act safe? Environmental Law Review, 20(3), 364-388.
Stolzenburg, W. (2021). Assessing the impact of the Endangered Species Act on species recovery. Conservation Biology, 35(2), 399-408.