Trump Rollback Allows Hunters to Kill Bears and Wolves in Their Dens

• Read original article here

Trump Rollback Allows Hunters to Kill Bears and Wolves in Their Dens
The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Sign Up
May. 28, 2020 11:55AM EST Politics
Wolf pups with their mother at their den site. Design Pics / Getty Images
In another reversal of Obama-era regulations, the Trump administration is having the National Park Service rescind a 2015 order that protected bears and wolves within protected lands.
The new rule, remarkable in its cruelty, will allow hunters to shoot bears, wolves, along with their cubs and pups while the animals are in their dens in the popular Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. It also puts ends a ban on some nefarious practices like luring bears with doughnuts, according to The Guardian .
Jesse Prentice-Dunn, policy director for the Center for Western Priorities, told The Guardian that the rule change is "amazingly cruel" and said it was "just the latest in a string of efforts to reduce protections for America's wildlife at the behest of oil companies and trophy hunters."
The National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued separate statements that their actions are designed to align federal and state law, according to the Anchorage Daily News . The National Park Service manages 10 preserves in the state, including Denali National Park and Preserve. The Kenai National Wildlife Refuge lies west of the park.
NPS Alaska spokesperson Pete Christian told Alaska Public Media that although practices like killing bears and wolves in dens go against the Park Service's mission, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which created or expanded many of Alaska's national preserves, grants the state management authority.
"It supercedes, to some extent, the NPS Organic Act and some of our regular management policies, and so the parks up here were designed to have preserve units in them which allow for hunting and trapping as per state law," Christian said.
The Park Service decision to defer to the state is the latest move in a legal conflict around who has ultimate authority over the protected lands. The conflict dates back to 2015, when the Obama administration initially banned certain state-permitted predator harvests on Alaska's preserve lands, as Alaska Public Media reported.
While the number of hunters that will actually plow ahead into the national preserve to hunt bears and wolves in their dens is probably quite small, the spirit of the practice is extreme and inconsistent with the values of the national preserve, according to Pat Lavin with the Defenders of Wildlife in Anchorage who spoke to Alaska Public Media .
"The Trump administration has shockingly reached a new low in its treatment of wildlife," Defenders of Wildlife President Jamie Rappaport Clark said, as the CBC reported. "Allowing the killing of bear cubs and wolf pups in their dens is barbaric and inhumane."
The new rule also allows hunters to shoot caribou from traveling motorboats and to kill swimming caribou, according to the CBC .
As The Guardian noted, the move is part and parcel with a pattern from Trump's Department of the Interior, which has consistently sought to expand access to public lands to hunters and fossil fuel companies. Last month, it proposed expanding public hunting and fishing access by more than 2.3 million acres on 97 national wildlife refuges and nine national fish hatcheries.
From Your Site Articles
Politics
Brian Sims ranted in a Facebook Live video that went viral about the hypocrisy of Republican lawmakers who are pushing to reopen the state even though one of their members had a positive COVID-19 test. Brian Sims / Facebook
Brian Sims, a Democratic representative in the Pennsylvania legislature, ranted in a Facebook Live video that went viral about the hypocrisy of Republican lawmakers who are pushing to reopen the state even though one of their members had a positive COVID-19 test.
Sims, the first openly gay person elected to the Pennsylvania legislature, raged against the callousness of Republican members of the state House who control the legislature and demanded in-person committee meetings in Harrisburg to argue that businesses should reopen even though they knew they had been exposed to the virus.
Sims notes that the Republicans did not let the Democrats know that they had been exposed to the virus, arguing that such a revelation would hurt their argument to reopen the state.
The issue at hand is that Republicans have been arguing to reopen businesses in Pennsylvania and reopen the state legislature while knowing that Republican representative Andrew Lewis had tested positive for COVID-19. Lewis posted a Facebook Live video as well, saying that he did not share his diagnosis because he wanted to protect his family's privacy and the people around him.
"Out of respect for my family, and those who I may have exposed, I chose to keep my positive case private," Lewis said in a statement, as NBC News reported.
Lewis said he tested positive on May 20 and quickly informed health officials and the people he was in contact with when he was last at the capital on May 14.
That did not sit well with Sims, who said he donated a kidney recently to one of his neighbors who was suffering renal failure.
"I didn't donate my kidney to save someone else's life so I could die at the hands of Republicans who are being callous liars," Sims said in his 12-minute tirade.
He was particularly stung that the Republicans had kept the revelation of the diagnosis to only their members.
"Every single day of this crisis this State Government Committee in Pennsylvania has met so that their members could line up one after one after one and explain that it was safe to go back to work," said Sims. "During that time period they were testing positive. They were notifying one another.
"And they didn't notify us. I never ever, ever knew that the Republican leadership of this state would put so many of us at risk for partisanship to cover up a lie. And that lie is that we're all safe from COVID."
As NBC News reported, the state house Democratic Caucus accused Lewis and some of the Republican colleagues who knew about his status of keeping colleagues in the dark.
"While we are pleased to learn that this House member seems to have recovered, it is simply unacceptable that some House Republicans knew about this for more than a week and sat on that knowledge," Democratic Leader Frank Dermody of Allegheny said in a statement Wednesday night.
Sims, on the other hand, believes their actions are worthy of a criminal investigation.
"Any member of leadership that has known what's been going on, any member of Republican leadership that knew that members were testing positive, that other members were being quarantined, and did not tell those of us that were exposed to those members needs to be investigated by the attorney general and I think that they needs to be prosecutions," he said.
He also noted the callousness of the secrecy, considering there are members in the House who have immune-compromised children at home.
"I'm in a building right now surrounded by members who can't go see their kids, that are having to call their husbands, having to call their wives, saying 'honey, I might have exposed you and everyone I love in this world because one of my colleagues tested positive but he was protecting his family and not protecting mine. And Republican leadership protected him,'" said Sims.
"How dare you put our lives at risk, Sims added. "How dare you put our families at risk and pretend it was about looking out for your own."
From Your Site Articles
World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus says this is a historic step for the group. FABRICE COFFRINI / AFP / Getty Images
By Linda Lacina
World Health Organization officials today announced the launch of the WHO Foundation, a legally separate body that will help expand the agency's donor base and allow it to take donations from the general public.
The foundation will accept funding from non-traditional sources, including individual major donors, corporate partners and the general public. Until now the WHO has been one of the few international organizations which has not traditionally received donations from the general public.
"This is a historic step," said Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General.
 
The group's funding has gained unprecedented scrutiny in recent weeks after US President Trump has paused funding to the WHO.
While the group has a relatively modest budget for its scope ($ 2.3 billion , similar to a mid-sized hospital in the developed world, as explained last week ), flexible funding sources have been needed for some time, said the Director-General.
The agency's funding comprises contributions from member states, which are flexible, and voluntary contributions earmarked for fixed purposes. Whereas 40 years ago, 80% of the funding was flexible and could be used at the organization's discretion, now that share has shrunk to 20%, the Director-General said recently .
"In effect, that means WHO has little discretion over the way it spends its funds, almost 80% of its funds," he said at today's briefing. "In order to improve flexibility, we need to have additional resources and un-earmarked resources."
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
The foundation has been in development since February 2018 , said the Director-General, and was not created in response to the recent US funding pause. The idea surfaced through a regular 'Open Hour" session where WHO staff are encouraged to come to the Director-General and "generate crazy ideas" to transform the organization.
A COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund, launched this spring, helped serve as a proof of concept for the foundation. The fund, created in response to the coronavirus crisis, has raised $214 million USD from more than 400,000 individuals and companies in just two and a half months.
The Response Fund will continue to assist the coronavirus effort, buying lab diagnostics, personal protective equipment, and funding research and development. The WHO Foundation, meanwhile, will have a broader mission, funding all elements of WHO's public health work including: mental health, noncommunicable diseases, emergency preparedness, and health system strengthening.
"The foundation will enhance and complement the global health's ecosystem by providing agility flexibility in receiving contributions and grant making, accelerating WHO-led evidence-based interventions, and focusing on high impact intervention and partnerships," explained Professor Thomas Zeltner, a Swiss physician who serves as chair of the board of the WHO Foundation.
A WHO representative will attend foundation board meetings and report to member states on its interaction with the foundation and funds received from it.
The foundation will ultimately help the WHO focus efforts on promoting good health, rather than just grappling with disease. Additional funding can help the agency invest in some of its least funded areas such as diet or air quality.
"Our focus should not be in managing disease," said the Director-General, "but in preventing it from happening and in helping people to lead a healthy life."
Because of social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic, in-person sessions are less possible. Merlas / Getty Images
By Nicholas Joyce
The coronavirus has resulted in stress, anxiety and fear – symptoms that might motivate a person to see a therapist. Because of social distancing, however, in-person sessions are less possible. For many, this has raised the prospect of online therapy. For clients in need of warmth and reassurance, could this work? Studies and my experience suggests it does.
I am a psychologist and counselor at the University of South Florida. When our center named me its online assisted therapies coordinator, many of the staff initially pushed back at the notion of providing services through the screen. These negative attitudes toward telehealth should have surprised me. After all, its antecedent, telephone crisis lines, have been accepted and effective for decades.
But my field of therapy has often been disdainful of telehealth, opposed to "warm" psychotherapy work performed via a "cold" screen. Its resistance to the concept has changed little over the years.
Research suggests , however, that online therapy works just as well as traditional face-to-face therapy. Studies, looking at outcomes for clients and the quality of their relationships with therapists, found them equal across telehealth and in-person conditions. Since this meta-analysis (92 studies and 9,000 clients), many other studies have confirmed the value of teletherapy.
Telehealth Versus Traditional Therapy
Private insurance companies like Cigna and Aetna, have come around; they now provide coverage for what they see as a "legitimate" service. And surveys show consumers are receptive to telehealth counseling: no driving to an appointment, no searching for a parking space, no worries about childcare while they're away, no need to switch providers if they move, and no problem if the specialist happens to be far away.
Online therapy opens doors for clients who wouldn't otherwise seek help, particularly patients who feel stigmatized by therapy or intimidated by a stranger sitting across the room from them. Often, people open up more easily in telehealth sessions. Firsthand accounts have detailed positive experiences from consumers .
Overcoming Prejudices About Online Counseling
Now COVID-19 is forcing most traditional psychotherapists to adapt their practice to online counseling . After experiencing the medium, they are overcoming their prejudices . Many will convert some or all of their caseloads to telehealth after the pandemic ends. Most of our clients seem to be good with it: responding to a satisfaction survey, 85% of USF students strongly or somewhat agreed their telehealth experience was comparable to an in-person visit.
All this allows a continuity of care for clients that before was impossible; there is, however, a caveat. Because of the coronavirus, some of my clients at USF who live out-of-state have moved back home. That means, legally, I can no longer serve them. Even though they are still USF students, my license is valid only in Florida.
For telehealth to work effectively, our national system of licensing and regulation law needs to adapt. Although the federal government temporarily halted HIPAA regulations to promote telehealth during this time, not all states are allowing out-of-state practice. The coronavirus may not be here forever, but spring break and Christmas holidays always will. We need seamless telehealth across state lines.
That said, my own counseling center quickly transitioned to remote-only. Although most of the therapists can't wait to get back into the office, they are appreciative they can serve students in need. Certainly many clients and therapists will gladly return to face-to-face sessions, but now they know the tool of telehealth will always be available, if and when needed.
So much is changing. Now, consumers can easily access online therapy. Free e-books are available; one dealing directly with the pandemic is " FACE COVID ," by Russ Harris. Apps are around too – some free, some paid. Check out the website psyberguide.org to vet them. Asking for suggestions online will help as well.
Your insurance may allow you to talk to a licensed professional who does online therapy. Most major insurers have a list of them on their website. If you're uninsured, most communities have free or low-cost mental health clinics. Many universities have them too. Also, online directories can point you to places that offer services on a sliding scale, depending on your income, from pro bono to US$60 a session.
After years of dismissing telemedicine, practitioners are getting past their biases in barely a few weeks. Telehealth has allowed psychotherapy to continue unabated. More people who need help will now get it. I'm sad our profession needed COVID-19 to address telehealth, but the benefits will last for generations.
Nicholas Joyce is a Psychologist at University of South Florida.
Disclosure statement: Nicholas Joyce is affiliated with USF and his private practice.
Animals
A 17-year periodical cicada. Education Images / Universal Images Group via Getty Images
As many parts of the planet continue to open their doors after pandemic closures, a new pest is expected to make its way into the world. After spending more than a decade underground, millions of cicadas are expected to emerge in regions of the southeastern U.S.
The scale of the emergence events is "astounding," according to Virginia Tech . Experts note that people living in Virginia, West Virginia and in parts of North Carolina are now set to see their hatch in the earlier part of the summer as an estimated 1.5 million insects per acre of land emerge from the soil, reports BBC . This "unique natural phenomenon" has not occurred in the region since 2003.
"Communities and farms with large numbers of cicadas emerging at once may have a substantial noise issue," said Eric Day, Virginia Cooperative Extension entomologist in Virginia Tech's Department of Entomology in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences . "Hopefully, any annoyance at the disturbance is tempered by just how infrequent — and amazing — this event is."
It comes after roughly a billion cicadas took over parts of the northeastern U.S. in 2016, reported EcoWatch at the time. The group of insects is made up of roughly 15 "broods," with Brood IX emerging this year following a Brood V emergence four years ago.
Cicadas are some of the longest-lived insects in the world, yet they spend most of their lives underground as part of their nymph stage, feeding off of roots for periods lasting between 13 and 17 years before emerging from the soil through mud tubes known as "cicada huts."
During such events, the finger-sized insects crawl out to molt into winged adults and mate. The specific timing behind this unique life cycle largely remains a mystery, though some experts speculate that it could have evolved as a method to avoid syncing with predator cycles, according to ABC News . As such, the New York Times notes that cicadas' best defense is their incredible numbers emerging in synchronicity.
After their surfacing, the insects live outside of the ground for around a month and though they are not harmful to humans — and can actually serve as an important source of food for animals — they can wreak havoc on important crops, vines and saplings, according to a fact sheet provided by Virginia Cooperative Extension.
"Cicadas can occur in overwhelming numbers and growers in predicted areas of activity should be watchful," said Doug Pfeiffer, a professor and Extension specialist in the Department of Entomology.
The dramatic timeline is short-lived. Cicada egg-laying takes place over the course of about four to six weeks before the generation dies off. Entomologists at Virginia Tech suggest that tree growers wait a year or two before major emergence events before planting new trees as existing treatment options, such as netting or sprays, don't have a large effect on the bugs.
People living in the southeast can expect a loud singing sound caused by the vibrating membrane of the insects' abdomens in what entomologists liken to a "field of out-of-tune car radios." Others may see the casted skins on trees as large swarms of cicadas as they congregate.
"This insect is really fascinating, and if you don't have fruit trees or grapevines to protect, you can enjoy this phenomenon while it lasts," said Pfeiffer.
From Your Site Articles
"Most of this fossil fuel finance flowed to wealthier countries," the report says, noting that China (pictured), Canada, Japan, and Korea provided the most public finance for dirty energy projects from 2016 to 2018.
Kevin Frayer / Stringer / Getty Images
By Jessica Corbett
Even after the world's largest economies adopted the landmark Paris agreement to tackle the climate crisis in late 2015, governments continued to pour $77 billion a year in public finance into propping up the fossil fuel industry, according to a report released Wednesday.
The new report , from Oil Change International and Friends of the Earth (FOE) U.S., focuses on financing for oil, gas, and coal projects from members of the Group of 20 ( G20 ), which comprises governments and central bank governors from 19 countries and the European Union.
Although U.S. President Donald Trump began the one-year withdrawal process for ditching the Paris accord in November 2019 after years of threats , other G20 nations remain committed to the agreement, which aims to keep global temperature rise well below 2°C (35.6 F) and further limit it to 1.5°C (34.7 F) by 2100.
Despite their public commitments to the Paris agreement, "G20 countries continue to subsidize the fossil fuel industry even as it makes bad business decisions that hurt people and the planet," FOE U.S. senior international policy analyst Kate DeAngelis said in a statement.
"Our planet is hurtling towards climate catastrophe and these countries are pouring gasoline on the fire to the tune of billions," she said. "We must hold G20 governments accountable for their promises to move countries toward clean energy. They have an opportunity to reflect and change their financing so that it supports clean energy solutions that will not exacerbate bad health outcomes and put workers at greater risk."
The new report— Still Digging: G20 Governments Continue to Finance the Climate Crisis (pdf)—warns that "with the health and livelihoods of billions at immediate risk from Covid-19, governments around the world are preparing public spending packages of a magnitude they previously deemed unthinkable."
In normal times, development finance institutions (DFIs), export credit agencies (ECAs), and multilateral development banks (MDBs) already had an outsized impact on the overall energy landscape and more capacity than their private sector peers to act on the climate crisis. In the current moment, their potential influence has multiplied, and it is imperative that they change course. The fossil fuel sector was showing long-term signs of systemic decline before Covid-19 and has been quick to seize on this crisis with requests for massive subsidies and bailouts. We cannot afford for the wave of public finance that is being prepared for relief and recovery efforts to prop up the fossil fuel industry as it has in the past. Business as usual would exacerbate the next crisis—the climate crisis—that is already on our doorstep.
As Oil Change International research analyst Bronwen Tucker put it: "Fossil fuel corporations know their days are numbered. Their lobbyists are using the Covid-19 crisis as cover to try to secure the massive new government handouts they need to survive."
Echoing recent calls from climate campaigners, advocacy groups, progressive policymakers, and healthcare professionals, the report urges G20 governments and multilateral development banks to support a global, just recovery to the coronavirus pandemic.
"Government money must instead support a just transition from fossil fuels that protects workers, communities, and the climate—both at home and beyond their borders," said Tucker. "Instead of bankrolling another major crisis—climate change—our governments should invest in a resilient future."
Based on information from Oil Change International's Shift the Subsidies database, the report details financing from public institutions controlled by G20 governments—DFIs, ECAs, and MDBs. Key findings include that support for the fossil fuel industry has "stayed steady" since the Paris agreement and ECAs are "the worst public finance actors."
"Most of this fossil fuel finance flowed to wealthier countries," the report says, noting that China, Canada, Japan, and Korea provided the most public finance for dirty energy projects from 2016 to 2018.
 
Still Digging examines just one way these nations support planet-wrecking oil, gas, and coal projects, acknowledging that "unlike the 2017 version of this report, Talk is Cheap , it does not include public finance directly from G20 government departments due to a gross lack of transparency."
The report also doesn't cover "majority government-owned banks without a clear policy mandate, sovereign wealth funds, or public finance institutions with subnational governance," or "subsidies to fossil fuel production at the national level in G20 state budgets, which previous analysis has indicated may provide an additional $80 billion per year in support to fossil fuel production."
However, Still Digging suggests that G20 public finance institutions—as entities owned by governments party to the Paris accord—could be catalysts for more climate-friendly financing decisions "due to their economic and political power."
"Private and public financial investors alike will need to shift rapidly," the report says, "but the role of public institutions is unique because of both their outsized influence on energy finance and their capacity and mandate to lead on climate action."
 
More than 30 groups from across the globe endorsed the report—including Justica Ambiental, or FOE Mozambique, which has worked to raise alarm about international public finance supporting the expansion of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in southern African country.
"It is unacceptable that such a high investment, which will provide billions of profits for foreign companies like Total, is contributing to the impoverishment and oppression of already vulnerable local communities," said Justica Ambiental director Anabela Lemos.
"Peasant and fishing families have lost their livelihoods for a lifetime," Lemos added. "The discovery of gas has stolen their identity and failed to provide them with the conditions stipulated in the so-called community consultation processes."
Politics
An aerial view shows new vehicles that were offloaded from ships at Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics on April 26, 2020 in Wilmington, California. "Vehicles are the biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in America," said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. David McNew / Getty Images
Twenty-three states and Washington, DC launched a suit Wednesday to stop the Trump administration rollback of Obama-era fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks.
The Trump rollback, finalized in March , slashed a requirement that automakers increase fuel efficiency by five percent a year through 2026 to 1.5 percent, Reuters reported . The lower standard undid the single greatest U.S. attempt to fight the climate crisis , The New York Times pointed out , and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) own scientists warned it could increase deadly air pollution .
"Vehicles are the biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in America, and pollution-related respiratory illnesses make people more susceptible to Covid-19," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra told The New York Times.
#BREAKING : we’re suing the Trump Administration over its reckless rollback of national #CleanCarStandards . @RealDonaldTrump ’s so-called SAFE rule is a job killer and a public health hazard. #SaveCleanCars https://t.co/1dILJu88yC pic.twitter.com/6ceaoC8F2t
A food delivery courier packs an order in Bangkok on March 25, 2020, after the government limited restaurants to takeout during the COVID-19 pandemic. MLADEN ANTONOV / AFP / Getty Images
By Tanika Godbole
Southeast Asia is one of the biggest sources of plastic waste from land to the ocean, and Thailand is among the top five contributors. In January, Thailand placed a ban on single-use plastic, and was looking to reduce its plastic waste by 30% this year.
But the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting lockdown has led to a huge rise in the country's plastic waste. According to the Thailand Environment Institute (TEI), the average amount of plastic waste went from 2,120 tons per day in 2019 to approximately 3,440 tons per day between January and April 2020. The rise in the month of April alone was nearly 62%.
Food Delivery
One of the biggest contributors to the plastic problem is food delivery. As people have been housebound, their tendency to order food delivery has risen, resulting in increased usage of plastic containers and wrapping material.
Grab, a Singaporean food delivery app, saw a surge of 400% in orders. Other such apps like Line Man and Foodpanda Thailand, too, have seen a rise of 300% and 50% in their orders, respectively.
Waste from a single delivery could contain several plastic items such as containers, seasoning packets, beverage holders, chopsticks, spoons, forks and so on.
"Plastic containers for food are often contaminated, the waste separation and collection are not systematic, and there is no regulation on waste separation and enforcement," said Wijarn Simachaya, President of TEI.
Waste Management
While countries across North America, Europe and Japan also contribute high levels of plastic waste, they have relatively efficient waste management systems in place.
The Thai government had released a "Plastic Waste Management Road Map," to phase out the use of plastic by 2030. One of the initiatives of this plan was the single-use plastic ban that has been enforced since January.
According to data released by the Department of Environment and Quality Promotion, an average person in Thailand uses about 8 plastic bags per day, which adds up to 200 billion per year.
According to Greenpeace, imported plastic waste is also adding to Thailand's plastic crisis. Their research has revealed that imports of plastic waste into the country jumped two years ago, mostly due to China's decision to ban imports at the start of 2018.
"This has put added pressure on a waste system which is already failing to deal with domestic demand. Making matters worse, much of it is mislabeled as 'recyclable' even though the shipments constitute hundreds of thousands of tons of contaminated plastic and other mixed wastes from developed countries that cannot be processed," said Pichmol Rugrod, team leader of Plastic Free Future, Greenpeace Thailand.
"Thailand is in the grip of a growing plastic waste crisis - both domestically, through overproduction and consumption, and via the importation of plastic waste from abroad," Rugrod told DW. "Much of this plastic simply ends up in landfill sites or dumped in our streets because of a lack of waste management options, exacerbating urban flooding, or polluting rivers, seas and oceans - killing wildlife and affecting the food chain."
Widespread
Some say the pandemic has merely brought to the surface an already existing problem for the country. Experts believe that greater awareness and lifestyle changes among the masses could help address this issue.
The effects of plastic waste are long term. The pollution affects the oceans, aquatic life and also humans.
"Plastic pollution may also be contaminating the air that we breathe every day. Plastics do not biodegrade, therefore once they are introduced into an animal's system, they will stay there for a long time. Therefore, consuming these plastics leads to malnutrition, digestive blockage and slow poisoning effects due to plastic's heightened toxicity," Simachaya told DW.
While the pandemic may have been a setback to Thailand's struggle to eliminate plastic waste, Simachaya believes a change in awareness and habits will lead to a gradual decrease in plastic waste.
Thailand is slowly starting to ease lockdown rules. While it is too premature to say whether the plastic waste levels are expected to go down, some delivery outlets have started offering bio-degradable containers and cutlery. Some online shopping companies are also giving the option of receiving packages without the use of plastic.