Burton Barnes Testimony SB 1276 9-25-12
Forest Botanist and University of Michigan Emeritus Professor Dr. Burton Barnes's testimony to the Michigan Senate on SB 1267. Barnes explains why SB 1267 should not be passed (at least not with its current articulation of intentions).
Dr. Barnes's particular points of contention with the bill include the following points (as best as I can tell):
From reading all of the above I can say this: Details AND the big picture definitely matter. When I first looked at the bill, I thought it was fine. Page 7 made a lot of sense at first until I got to line 18 and onward. The bill contains many contradictory goals.
Personally, I am opposed to SB 1276 at least for the reasons illustrated above, I'll articulate my own commentary in a future post (and letter to my representatives).
The testimony is extremely well-written for explaining the "why" of his position and cites some powerful research too. However, it's not very pithy for people unfamiliar with the bill and his core arguments might not be very clear to everyone.
Since his letter doesn't point out the particular parts of the original bill which his testimony engages, I've done my best to interpret and present them here with particular sections of the bill quoted below.
Since his letter doesn't point out the particular parts of the original bill which his testimony engages, I've done my best to interpret and present them here with particular sections of the bill quoted below.
Senate Floor Summary (1 page): http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billanalysis/Senate/pdf/2011-SFA-1276-F.pdf
The bill (10 pages): http://www.legislature...
The bill (10 pages): http://www.legislature...
The Testimony from Dr. Burton Barnes (6 pages): http://www.scribd.com/doc/108581396/Burton-Barnes-Testimony-SB-1276-9-25-12
Dr. Barnes's particular points of contention with the bill include the following points (as best as I can tell):
- Biodiversity management necessitates the scientific and regulatory capacity of state agencies/departments.
[quoted from Page 7 of the bill, SB 1276--sorry about the strange spacing]
18 (2) This part does not require a state department or agency to
19alterDO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: 20 (A) ALTER its regulatory functions.
21 (B) DESIGNATE OR CLASSIFY AN AREA OF LAND SPECIFICALLY FOR THE
22 PURPOSE OF ACHIEVING OR MAINTAINING BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY.
- Conservation/natural resource management from a state agency/department is necessary for the well-being of our state's economy because the MDNR is among the few, if not the only, entities which knows the value of natural resources within our state to a fair extent.
[quoted from Page 8 of SB 1276]
23 (iii) Manage SUBJECT TO SECTION 504(7), MANAGE the quality and24 distribution of wildlife habitats andcontribute to the
25conservation of biological diversity by developing and implementing
2627 diversity and the conservation of forest plants and animalsstand and landscape-levelCONSIDER measures that promote habitat
[quote continued Page 9]
1including aquatic flora and fauna and unique ecosystems.WHILE
2 BALANCING ECONOMIC VALUES.
3 (iv) Protect forests from wildfire, pests, diseases, and other
4 damaging agents.
5 (v) Manage areas of ecologic, geologic, cultural, or historic
6 significance in a manner that recognizes their special qualities.
7 (vi) Manage activities in high conservation value forests by
8 maintainingor enhancingthe attributes that define such forests
9 WHILE BALANCING ECONOMIC VALUES.
- Conservation and conservativism in ecological and political contexts go hand-in-hand.
This claim stands as an ethical argument, but the principles for the origins of true conservativism are shared between economic and environmental practice: we conserve to live well now, and so that others may live well in the future. Biodiversity management looks to foster well-being for things beyond our own species, but make no mistake, giving proper stewardship to the land we live with does not detract from our own well-being.
Misers aside, we would rarely find issue with an individual, business, or government that strives to save money for the sake of current and future well-being. Doing conservation for the sake of appropriate, ecologically informed biodiversity ought to do the same. In this sense, conservation facilitates opportunity through discipline. In other words, conservation remains a proper priority in fiscal and environmental matters alike, even if we cannot (and ought not) assume everything we live with can be approximated to a dollar value.
We can see similar support for these ideas flesh out with more technical implications within the bill for the argument below.
Misers aside, we would rarely find issue with an individual, business, or government that strives to save money for the sake of current and future well-being. Doing conservation for the sake of appropriate, ecologically informed biodiversity ought to do the same. In this sense, conservation facilitates opportunity through discipline. In other words, conservation remains a proper priority in fiscal and environmental matters alike, even if we cannot (and ought not) assume everything we live with can be approximated to a dollar value.
We can see similar support for these ideas flesh out with more technical implications within the bill for the argument below.
- Good sustainability/conservation practices are cognizant of economics, and strive to improve or enhance the social, economic, and environmental status of a place while acknowledging its interconnecting impact on the rest of the world.
I don't have particular section of the bill to point to, this bullet point serves more like a summarizing statement of the content that appears in Barnes's testimony toward the end. However, contents throughout the bill do suggest some cognizance of sustainability awareness to me:
[quoted from Page 6]
10 Sec. 35502. The legislature finds that:[quoted from Page 7]
11 (a) The earth's biological diversity is an important natural
12 resource. Decreasing biological diversity is a concern.
13(b) Most losses of biological diversity are unintended
14consequences of human activity.
15 (B)(c)Humans depend on biological resources, including
16 plants, animals, and microorganisms, for food, medicine, shelter,
17 and other important products.
18 (C)(d)Biological diversity is valuable as a source of
19 intellectual and scientific knowledge, recreation, and aesthetic
20 pleasure.
21 (D)(e)Conserving biological diversity has economic
22 implications.
23 (E)(f)Reduced biological diversity may have potentially
24 serious consequences for human welfare as resources for research
25 and agricultural, medicinal, and industrial development are
26 diminished.
27 (F)(g)Reduced biological diversity may also potentially
02395'11 TMV
1 impact ecosystems and critical ecosystem processes that moderate[Edited 23:32 7 X 2012 ]
2 climate, govern nutrient cycles and soil conservation and
3 production, control pests and diseases, and degrade wastes and
4 pollutants.
5 (G)(h)Reduced biological diversity may diminish the raw
6 materials available for scientific and technical advancement,
7 including the development of improved varieties of cultivated
8 plants and domesticated animals.
9 (H)(i)Maintaining biological diversity through habitat
10 protection and management is often less costly and more effective
11 than efforts to save species once they become endangered.
12 (I)(j)Because biological resources will be most important
13 for future needs, study by the legislature regarding maintaining
14 the diversity of living organisms in their natural habitats and the
15 costs and benefits of doing so is prudent.
16 Sec. 35503. (1) It is the goal of this state to encourage the
17 lasting conservation of biological diversity.
From reading all of the above I can say this: Details AND the big picture definitely matter. When I first looked at the bill, I thought it was fine. Page 7 made a lot of sense at first until I got to line 18 and onward. The bill contains many contradictory goals.
Personally, I am opposed to SB 1276 at least for the reasons illustrated above, I'll articulate my own commentary in a future post (and letter to my representatives).
