<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Sage grouse is ally in preventing dangerous climate
change</title></head><body>
<div>First, it's become well-established that 75-80% of fossil fuels
must stay in the ground if humanity and the rest of life on earth
(including humans) has a chance of avoiding worst-case scenarios for
climate change. If put into policy now urged not only by
environmentalists but also by an increasing number of entities in the
business world, keeping that much coal, oil, and gas in the ground
would mean a lot of money lost by the fossil fuel companies and their
shareholders. A recent analysis by the Economist Intelligence
Unit<font size="-1">
<<http://www.economistinsights.com/sites/default/files/The%20co<span
></span>st%20of%20inaction.pdf>></font></div>
<div>confirms that coal, oil, and gas companies will lose mountains of
money if the fuels stay sequestered in the ground,<i> but goes on to
report that the losses to the economy as a whole will be far greater
if the fuels are burned.</i></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Second, the fossil fuel industry is now putting efforts into
warning that Endangered Species Act protection for the sage grouse
will stop the industry from drilling on much of the wild grouse's
range. What the industry is effectively saying is that protection of
the grouse would effectively keep a lot of fuel in the ground, where
it could not damage the environment and the economy.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>It turns out then that, while the best protection for the grouse
may be a threat to coal, oil, and gas, that same protection is also
protection not only for the grouse but also for the broader economy as
a whole.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Similar results apply to other animals, and to other places
including the Blackfeet sacred lands just south of Glacier National
Park. It is important that the elites recognize that such protection
is not a case of choosing between the environment and the economy, but
that instead it is a protection against endangering environment and
the economy at the same time.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div><font size="-1"
color="#000000"
>====================================================================<span
></span>================<br>
<font face="Verdana">"Climate change is not a new topic in biology
Observations of range shifts in parallel with climate change date
back to the mid-1700s."<br>
<br>
"A surprising result is the high proportion of species responding to
recent, relatively mild climate change (global average warming of
0.6C). The proportion of wild species impacted by climate change was
estimated at 41% of all species (655 of 1598)."<br>
<br>
Parmesan, Camille. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent
Climate Change.<i> The Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and
Systematics</i> 2006. 37:637-69. First published online as a
Review in Advance on August 24, 2006</font></font></div>
<div><font face="Bookman Old Style" size="-1" color="#000000"><br>
<br>
</font></div>
</body>
</html>