Untitled Document

Mar. 19— A milestone study of British birds, butterflies and wild flowers has revealed the strongest evidence yet that we are on the verge of a mass extinction of global wildlife -- the sixth mass extinction in the history of life on Earth.

Scientists have accumulated the most detailed data to date indicating that human activity is systematically stripping the planet of its rich biodiversity.

Nearly a third of native British plants have significantly decreased in 40 years, more than half of native birds have declined in just two decades and nearly three-quarters of British butterflies have fallen in numbers in 20 years.

The study involved about 20,000 naturalists who inspected the entire British landscape to compile three atlases of native birds, butterflies and wild plants. The information they gathered on the presence or absence of more than 1,500 species in each six mile square of countryside they surveyed was compared directly with similar atlases compiled 20 or 40 years previously.

In the relatively short period between the past and present surveys, the scientists found a dramatic decline of all three major groups of wildlife, with one-third of all species studied disappearing from at least one part of the UK they had occupied 20 or 40 years ago. Jeremy Thomas, the leader of the study from the Center for Ecology and Hydrology in Dorset, said the decline in butterflies was much worse than expected and far worse than that of birds or plants. “The results are appalling,” he said. “In Britain 71 percent of all butterfly species have declined in the last 20 years.

“For the first time we can say that in the UK one group of insects has suffered as badly as birds or plants -- this adds enormous strength to the hypothesis that the world is approaching its sixth major extinction event.”

For more than a decade scientists have constructed computer models of the rate at which species are going extinct. Such models suggested a rate of anywhere between a hundred to many thousands of times greater than normal “background” rates.

The information used for these models was based on the fossil record and what little was known about the rate of extinction within certain well-studied but rather unrepresentative groups, such as birds, fish, certain mammals and palm plants. But Britain has good records of wildlife that could help to fill many of the gaps.

“There are simply no data sets that approach this detail and scale anywhere in the world,” Thomas said. “Even though UK butterflies are a tiny proportion of the world’s insects, and although the UK is a small country, this is the first time it has been possible to compare for any group of insects with the better recorded groups [of animals and plants].

“The gloomy result is that this group has indeed declined as rapidly as plants and birds and it’s because of this we believe it provides tentative support of the sixth mass extinction event,” he added.

In 1999, Lord May of Oxford, the president of the Royal Society and the Prime Minister’s former chief scientific adviser, estimated that the current extinction rate could be up to 10,000 times higher than it should be under normal circumstances.

In a speech at the time to the World Conservation Union, he said: “This represents the sixth great wave of extinction, fully compatible with the big five mass extinctions of the geological past, but different in that it results from the activities of a single other species [humans] rather than from external environmental changes.”

Yesterday, Lord May said the latest study, showing a 28 percent decline of native plants, a 54 percent decrease in abundance of native birds and a 71 per cent decline of butterflies, supported the belief that the world was on the cusp of another mass extinction. “These are dismaying trends,” he said. “If this pattern holds more generally then estimates of global extinction rates -- which are mainly based on birds and mammals -- could err on the optimistic side.”

The study, funded by the Natural Environment Research Council and published in the journal Science, is important because of its focus on a major group of insects.

“Butterflies have declined by an order of magnitude greater than either birds or plants. This was an unexpected result and it has implications both nationally and globally. We tentatively suggest that this provides the first objective support for any group of insects for the hypothesis that the world is experiencing the sixth major extinction event in the history of life.”

Since the last British butterfly survey 20 years ago, two species - the large blue and the large tortoiseshell - have gone extinct in the UK. Of the 58 native species studied, the high brown fritillary has declined most, down by 71 percent.

Thomas said this was probably because of changes in the way woodlands are managed, which have made woodland floors shadier places, hampering the survival of caterpillars that live on forest violets.

Loss of habitat is the overwhelming reason for the decline of both wild animals and plants. The ploughing of heathland and the draining of wetlands have resulted in complete destruction of some habitats, while others have become degraded as a result of other forms of human activity, such as pollution.

Professor Georgia Mace, director of science at the Institute of Zoology in London, who has studied extinction rates, said that the latest study suggests the problem could be far worse than previously imagined. “According to the results here, we could be seriously underestimating the severity of the problem,” Professor Mace said.

back to top

Groups ask court to block EPA’s
weakened air pollution rules

Washington, DC, Mar. 18 — Seven environmental and public health groups today filed a lawsuit in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to block implementation of controversial, industry-backed rules from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that would weaken pollution monitoring standards and lead to increased emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide and other toxic pollutants linked to childhood diseases, heart disease and premature death.

EPA’s rules would allow polluters to monitor themselves and to do so as infrequently as twice every five years, according to the lawsuit filed by the Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Clean Air Council, Our Children’s Earth Foundation and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center. Eric Schaeffer, director of the Environmental Integrity Project, said: “The problem is simple: inadequate monitoring results in higher emissions. The Clean Air Act requires monitoring sufficient to assure compliance; EPA is replacing that with a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy for air pollution.” Hilton Kelley, a petitioner in the lawsuit and resident of Port Arthur, Texas, said: “My house is a few blocks from several large refineries and chemical plants. When something goes wrong, I see them flaring, I smell the pollution, my eyes start watering and my throat burns. I’m sure they’re emitting illegal pollution, but without regular monitoring, I can’t prove it and can’t get the state or EPA to do anything about it.”

“EPA has repeatedly acknowledged that, without adequate monitoring, pollution limits aren’t worth the paper they are written on,” said David McIntosh, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “EPA’s new rule shows dangerous disregard for whether or not the industry is complying with air pollution laws.”

EPA’s new rule, announced on January 22, 2004, eliminates the requirement that air permits for large air emission sources require monitoring sufficient to allow the public and regulators to determine whether or not the sources are complying with the law. Instead, EPA will allow sources of pollution to use outdated monitoring EPA has repeatedly acknowledged is inadequate to determine compliance.

The EPA decision to allow this inadequate monitoring was made despite the fact that numerous scientific studies over the past year have confirmed the links between air pollution and deaths, asthma and other lung diseases, strokes and heart attacks.

Physicians for Social Responsibility President and CEO Robert K. Musil, Ph.D M.P.H., said: “There is no doubt that air pollution adversely affects people’s health. We’re facing an epidemic of childhood asthma. EPA’s decision to hide its head in the sand and pretend that industry will just comply with the law voluntarily will only make the problem worse.” The new rule requiring less monitoring will mean there is less information on which to base health and environmental decisions and less likelihood of identifying illegal polluters. EPA’s rulemaking proceeded without the opportunity for public notice and comment, which are required by law, and reflects yet another closed door deal with industry.

“This rule is a complete reversal of longstanding EPA policy recognizing the importance of monitoring and requiring that air permits include adequate monitoring,” said Joseph Otis Minott, executive director of the Clean Air Council. “The fact that EPA did this as a backroom deal with industry and evaded the normal public participation process is appalling.” Pat Gallagher, Sierra Club director of environmental law, said: “The EPA has taken a position that is completely at odds with the longstanding advice of its own experts. This is yet another example of the Bush Administration ignoring sound science and doing favors for its industry friends at the expense of public health.”

EPA agreed to adopt its new rule weakening monitoring requirements in order to settle a lawsuit brought by power plant and auto manufacturing associations challenging EPA’s monitoring rules. An almost identical suit by many of these same industry associations was thrown out of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals last year. Yet instead of fighting this suit, EPA simply agreed to change its interpretation of the rules as desired by industry, gutting the monitoring requirements.

Over 50 health and environmental groups and six states -- New York, Illinois, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania -- went on record in opposition to the EPA “settlement.” The states noted that EPA’s interpretation “would make oversight and enforcement by states, the EPA, and citizens extremely difficult, if not virtually impossible.” Tiffany Schauer, executive director of Our Children’s Earth in San Francisco, California, said: “We’ve used the citizen participation provisions of Title V to improve requirements, including monitoring, in numerous Title V permits. EPA is now caving to industry and eliminating our ability to insist on adequate monitoring in federal air permits in order to protect our communities.”

The monitoring requirements at issue in the lawsuit over the EPA rule are included in Title V of the federal Clean Air Act. Title V requires permits that include monitoring “sufficient to assure compliance with the permit terms and conditions.” Title V permits list all of the air pollution limits that apply to a particular large industrial source and add monitoring and reporting as necessary to allow the public and regulators to track the source’s compliance with those requirements. The permits are intended to supplement any preexisting monitoring so that, for each air pollution limit or standard, there is monitoring that is sufficient to assure compliance. Traditionally, EPA has interpreted this requirement to mean monitoring must be frequent enough and reliable enough to detect any noncompliance.

Source: Environmental Integrity Project