Eric Biber

Winning coalitions for climate policy

Green industrial policy builds support for carbon regulation The gap is wide between the implications of climate science and the achievements of climate policy. Natural sciences tell us with increasing certainty that climate change is real, dangerous, and solvable; social sciences report that key constituencies largely support action. But current and planned policy remains weak and will allow a long-term increase in temperature of 3.6°C (1). How can we address the gap between science and policy? From the political successes of climate policy leaders, we identify key strategies for building winning coalitions for decarbonization of domestic economies. Green industrial policy provides direct incentives for growth of green industries, which builds political support for carbon regulation.

Statistical inference, Type II error, and decision making under the US Endangered Species Act

Critical conservation decisions have been made based on the spurious belief that “no statistically significant difference between two groups means the groups are the same”. We demonstrate this using the case of the Prebles meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei), an endangered species in the US. Such faulty statistical logic has been recognized before, but ecologists have typically recommended assessing post hoc statistical power as a remedy. Statisticians, however, have shown that observed power will necessarily be low when no differences are found between two populations. Alternatives to assessments of statistical power include equivalence testing (a method rarely used by ecologists) and Bayesian or likelihood methods. Although scientists play a central role in ameliorating this problem, the courts could also assist by requiring litigated federal agency decisions to consider the risks of both Type I and Type II errors.

Merging paleobiology with conservation biology to guide the future of terrestrial ecosystems

Looking back to move forward The current impacts of humanity on nature are rapid and destructive, but species turnover and change have occurred throughout the history of life. Although there is much debate about the best approaches to take in conservation, ultimately, we need to permit or enhance the resilience of natural systems so that they can continue to adapt and function into the future. In a Review, Barnosky et al. argue that the best way to do this is to look back at paleontological history as a way to understand how ecological resilience is maintained, even in the face of change. Science, this issue p. eaah4787 BACKGROUND The pace and magnitude of human-caused global change has accelerated dramatically over the past 50 years, overwhelming the capacity of many ecosystems and species to maintain themselves as they have under the more stable conditions that prevailed for at least 11,000 years. The next few decades threaten even more rapid transformations because by 2050, the human population is projected to grow by 3 billion while simultaneously increasing per capita consumption. Thus, to avoid losing many species and the crucial aspects of ecosystems that we need—for both our physical and emotional well-being—new conservation paradigms and integration of information from conservation biology, paleobiology, and the Earth sciences are required. ADVANCES Rather than attempting to hold ecosystems to an idealized conception of the past, as has been the prevailing conservation paradigm until recently, maintaining vibrant ecosystems for the future now requires new approaches that use both historical and novel conservation landscapes, enhance adaptive capacity for ecosystems and organisms, facilitate connectedness, and manage ecosystems for functional integrity rather than focusing entirely on particular species. Scientific breakthroughs needed to underpin such a paradigm shift are emerging at the intersection of ecology and paleobiology, revealing (i) which species and ecosystems will need human intervention to persist; (ii) how to foster population connectivity that anticipates rapidly changing climate and land use; (iii) functional attributes that characterize ecosystems through thousands to millions of years, irrespective of the species that are involved; and (iv) the range of compositional and functional variation that ecosystems have exhibited over their long histories. Such information is necessary for recognizing which current changes foretell transitions to less robust ecological states and which changes may signal benign ecosystem shifts that will cause no substantial loss of ecosystem function or services. Conservation success will also increasingly hinge on choosing among different, sometimes mutually exclusive approaches to best achieve three conceptually distinct goals: maximizing biodiversity, maximizing ecosystem services, and preserving wilderness. These goals vary in applicability depending on whether historical or novel ecosystems are the conservation target. Tradeoffs already occur—for example, managing to maximize certain ecosystem services upon which people depend (such as food production on farm or rangelands) versus maintaining healthy populations of vulnerable species (such as wolves, lions, or elephants). In the future, the choices will be starker, likely involving decisions such as which species are candidates for managed relocation and to which areas, and whether certain areas should be off limits for intensive management, even if it means losing some species that now live there. Developing the capacity to make those choices will require conservation in both historical and novel ecosystems and effective collaboration of scientists, governmental officials, nongovernmental organizations, the legal community, and other stakeholders. OUTLOOK Conservation efforts are currently in a state of transition, with active debate about the relative importance of preserving historical landscapes with minimal human impact on one end of the ideological spectrum versus manipulating novel ecosystems that result from human activities on the other. Although the two approaches are often presented as dichotomous, in fact they are connected by a continuum of practices, and both are needed. In most landscapes, maximizing conservation success will require more integration of paleobiology and conservation biology because in a rapidly changing world, a long-term perspective (encompassing at least millennia) is necessary to specify and select appropriate conservation targets and plans. Although adding this long-term perspective will be essential to sustain biodiversity and all of the facets of nature that humans need as we continue to rapidly change the world over the next few decades, maximizing the chances of success will also require dealing with the root causes of the conservation crisis: rapid growth of the human population, increasing per capita consumption especially in developed countries, and anthropogenic climate change that is rapidly pushing habitats outside the bounds experienced by today’s species. Fewer than 900 mountain gorillas are left in the world, and their continued existence depends upon the choices humans make, exemplifying the state of many species and ecosystems. Can conservation biology save biodiversity and all the aspects of nature that people need and value as 3 billion more of us are added to the planet by 2050, while climate continues to change to states outside the bounds that most of today’s ecosystems have ever experienced? Photo: E. A. Hadly, at Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda Conservation of species and ecosystems is increasingly difficult because anthropogenic impacts are pervasive and accelerating. Under this rapid global change, maximizing conservation success requires a paradigm shift from maintaining ecosystems in idealized past states toward facilitating their adaptive and functional capacities, even as species ebb and flow individually. Developing effective strategies under this new paradigm will require deeper understanding of the long-term dynamics that govern ecosystem persistence and reconciliation of conflicts among approaches to conserving historical versus novel ecosystems. Integrating emerging information from conservation biology, paleobiology, and the Earth sciences is an important step forward on the path to success. Maintaining nature in all its aspects will also entail immediately addressing the overarching threats of growing human population, overconsumption, pollution, and climate change.

The Challenge of Collecting and Using Environmental Monitoring Data

The monitoring of ambient environmental conditions is essential to environmental management and regulation. However, effective monitoring is subject to a range of institutional, political, and legal constraints, constraints that are a product of the need for monitoring to be continuous, long lived, and well matched to the resources being studied. Political pressure or myopia, conflicting agency goals, the need for institutional autonomy, or a reluctance of agency scientists to pursue monitoring all may make it difficult for ambient monitoring to be effectively undertaken. Even if effective monitoring data is gathered, it may not be used in decision making. The inevitable residual uncertainty in monitoring data allows stakeholders to contest the use of monitoring in decision making. Structural solutions, e.g., the creation of agencies to conduct monitoring separate from management or regulation and prompt use of that data in decision making, may be the most promising solutions.

Citizen Involvement in the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Data on listed species refute critiques of citizen involvement in the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been controversial since it became law nearly 40 years ago. One of its most-debated provisions is citizen involvement in selecting species that become formally protected under the law (“listing”). Citizens can petition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to list any unprotected species and can independently use litigation to challenge any FWS listing decision (1, 2). Some contend that these provisions interfere with the ability of FWS to prioritize scarce resources for species that most need protection (e.g., 3, 4).

Social and Legal Effects on Monitoring and Adaptive Management: A Case Study of National Forest Grazing Allotments, 1927–2007

Monitoring is a critical component of adaptive management but often weak or missing in practice. We examined grazing allotment files to identify patterns in monitoring and management practices on the Coronado National Forest from 1927 to 2007, and conducted interviews with key informants to understand the mechanisms behind those patterns. Standardized, documented monitoring occurred on a near-annual basis on all allotments until 1978; ceased abruptly from 1978 to 1998; then resumed. Before 1978, monitoring frequently indicated excessive stocking, but reductions often did not occur. Interviews revealed that monitoring ceased for this reason, as agency employees turned to more informal methods in hopes of affecting management. Monitoring resumed in response to litigation by environmental groups. Curiously, more effective adaptive management of grazing allotments appears to have begun during the period when standardized monitoring was not occurring.

HABITAT ANALYSIS OF A RARE DRAGONFLY (WILLIAMSONIA LINTNERI) IN RHODE ISLAND

Abstract Williamsonia lintneri is a rare dragonfly species restricted to southern New England and some northern states. In 1999, I tested the hypothesis that upland development around wetlands reduces habitat suitability for W. lintneri through increased nutrient runoff. I examined 27 wetlands and analyzed water quality and depth data, the composition of aquatic invertebrate assemblages, and land use patterns. Sites where W. lintneri was present did not differ in water quality from sites where it was absent (i.e., null sites). However, W. lintneri sites had significantly deeper levels of water throughout the summer, were dry for shorter periods of time, and had significantly lower levels of development in the surrounding uplands than did null sites. These results suggest that both hydrologic cycle and upland development are important in limiting the local distribution of this species.

When Does Legal Flexibility Work in Environmental Law

Environmental law scholars, practitioners, and policymakers have wrestled for some time with the implications of climate change for environmental law. There is widespread, although not universal, agreement that climate change requires greater flexibility in environmental legal systems. Flexibility — reduced procedural requirements for administrative agency decision making and less rigid substantive standards — would allow the agencies that implement environmental law to adapt to a future world characterized by dynamic, uncertain changes in natural resource systems. According to its proponents, flexibility would make it easier for agencies to more frequently update their management or regulatory decisions to respond to changed conditions, and also to facilitate adaptive management. However, there has been little exploration of the conditions under which flexibility improves or undermines the effectiveness of environmental law.This Article examines two areas of environmental law that have historically had a great deal of flexibility: hunting law and marine fisheries law. In both areas, management and regulatory decisions are updated on a regular basis by the relevant agencies, often annually. Procedural requirements for making decisions are often streamlined. And the substantive standards that apply to agency decisions are often quite broad and flexible, leaving substantial discretion to the agency. Yet these two areas of environmental law have experienced very different outcomes in terms of implementation: fisheries management in the United States is often perceived as failing, while hunting law is seen as quite successful in achieving its goals.This Article concludes that these different outcomes are the result of the interaction of legal flexibility with two other factors: the level of uncertainty about the condition or status of the natural resource being managed and the political context for regulatory or management decisions. Fisheries management is characterized by much greater levels of uncertainty about population levels than hunting management. Moreover, fisheries are the one area in the U.S. economy where there is still a substantial commercial industry based on the capture of wildlife for human use. The combination of scientific uncertainty and flexible law creates a substantial discretionary space in which decision makers can operate. In other words, decision makers have a wide range of legally defensible management choices. The fishing industry is able to exploit this fact to argue for weaker, but still legally defensible, regulation. The industry has every incentive to organize in pursuit of this goal. In contrast,commercial hunting was eliminated in the United States in the nineteenth century. Thus, there are no major interest groups with a stake in increasing hunting quotas, and therefore there is no substantial effort to manipulate a flexible legal system to weaken regulatory standards. Whether flexibility will be successful in a regulatory or management system will depend in part on the scientific and political context for the resource being protected or managed. Flexibility is not a panacea that can be applied uniformly throughout environmental law.

Sequencing to ratchet up climate policy stringency

The Paris Agreement formulates the goal of GHG neutrality in the second half of this century. Given that Nationally Determined Contributions are as yet insufficient, the question is through which policies can this goal be realized? Identifying policy pathways to ratchet up stringency is instrumental, but little guidance is available. We propose a policy sequencing framework and substantiate it using the cases of Germany and California. Its core elements are policy options to overcome barriers to stringency over time. Such sequencing can advance policy design and hopefully reconcile the controversy between first-best and second-best approaches.Meeting the Paris Agreement climate goals requires increasingly ambitious climate policy. A framework for ratcheting up stringency through policy sequencing is proposed and illustrated using the cases of Germany and California, USA.