My question: How can concern for species extinction, and the wider natural world, fit into a new Democratic platform?
It's barely beginning to happen -- and it urgently needs to.
The good news:
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced a resolution designating March 8, 2006 as nationwide "Endangered Species Day" to raise awareness (voting this week, call your Senators).
The devastating rewrite of the Endangered Species Act (HR 3824, Pombo, R-CA) has thus far been kept in the Senate committee.
The bad news:
According to one report, the oceans may not recover from overfishing. (You can see which fish to choose so you don't contribute here.)
Apes and chimps may be extinct in the wild in one human generation.
Hundreds of species may go extinct before the government gets around to even listing them on the endangered species list, due to governmental foot-dragging and the underfunding of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
And did you know that blasts of sound from Navy sonar are causing whales to get stranded or even die -- bleeding from their eardrums? (background, latest).
"The marine biologist recalled that one pod of orcas appeared agitated and were moving haphazardly, attempting to lift their heads free of the water. "It's like they where searching for some way out of the sound field," Balcomb said."
Without getting on a soapbox, I just want to say: Turning away from this is the same mentality we use to turn away from torture of humans.
And that's just the new bad news.
The big picture is that a quarter of mammals face extinction within thirty years. Scientists agree that we're on the brink of a wave of mass extinction.
"We are deluged with facts but we have lost or are losing our human ability to feel them." -- Archibald Macleish
And this topic is rich in political fodder. Our survival. Justice and poverty (who fishes at the marina?) Medicines. Disney characters. Learning about ourselves. National security. Noah's ark. The miracle of life.
A recent Harris poll found that even though only 12% of Americans consider themselves "environmentalists:"
Three in four U.S. adults (74%) agree that "protecting the environment is so important that requirements and standards cannot be too high, and continuing environmental improvements must be made regardless of cost." In addition, a plurality of adults (47%) agree that "there is too little government regulation and involvement in the area of environmental protection." These attitudes are significantly more pro-environment than in 2000, the last time Harris Interactive examined these issues.
Species extinction wasn't provided as an option, so we don't know how important it is relative to other environmental issues. But we know that in general, environmental issues are important.
Environmentalism is beginning to be reframed quite successfully. "Energy independence" is gaining steam. and Barack Obama just confronted the EPA over lead paint and environmental health.
What other ways of reframing environmentalism are catching your eye? How do we fit species extinction, and a much wider concern for the natural world, into this changing picture?