Read Porter

Current Practices and Future Opportunities for Policy on Climate Change and Invasive Species

Climate change and invasive species are often treated as important, but independent, issues. Nevertheless, they have strong connections: changes in climate and societal responses to climate change may exacerbate the impacts of invasive species, whereas invasive species may affect the magnitude, rate, and impact of climate change. We argue that the design and implementation of climate-change policy in the United States should specifically consider the implications for invasive species; conversely, invasive-species policy should address consequences for climate change. The development of such policies should be based on (1) characterization of interactions between invasive species and climate change, (2) identification of areas where climate-change policies could negatively affect invasive-species management, and (3) identification of areas where policies could benefit from synergies between climate change and invasive-species management.

Global approaches to addressing biofuel-related invasive species risks and incorporation into U.S. laws and policies

Biofuels are being pursued for their potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions benefits, among other reasons. In order to maximize productivity, avoid food–fuel conflicts, and minimize GHG emissions, many advanced biofuel feedstock crops, such as those desired by the aviation community, are under consideration based on traits, such as high biomass and/or seed production, tolerance of marginal cultivation conditions, and short generation times, that may also be predictors of potential invasiveness risk. Biofuel-related invasion risks can be mitigated through careful feedstock crop selection and cultivation techniques developed from the invasion science literature. Existing voluntary best practices and some state and federal regulatory requirements in the United States recommend and/or require the use of such risk mitigation strategies. However, other policies and programs allow or provide incentives for biofuel production without conditions requiring the use of these strategies. We have synthesized informat...

Weed Risk Assessments Are an Effective Component of Invasion Risk Management

Doria R. Gordon, S. Luke Flory, Deah Lieurance, Philip E. Hulme, Chris Buddenhagen, Barney Caton, Paul D. Champion, Theresa M. Culley, Curt Daehler, Franz Essl, Jeffrey E. Hill, Reuben P. Keller, Lisa Kohl, Anthony L. Koop, Sabrina Kumschick, David M. Lodge, Richard N. Mack, Laura A. Meyerson, Godshen R. Pallipparambil, F. Dane Panetta, Read Porter, Petr Pysek, Lauren D. Quinn, David M. Richardson, Daniel Simberloff, and Montserrat Vila*

Reassessing the Value of U.S. Coast Guard At-Sea Fishery Enforcement

The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is responsible for enforcing federal fisheries laws at sea. The USCG routinely reports high compliance rates and uses them as evidence that its program is successful at deterring fisheries violations. Research presented in this article indicates that high USCG-reported compliance rates vastly overestimate the actual rates and enforcement success because USCG at-sea inspections fail to detect many actual violations. Using high USCG-observed compliance rates as an indicator of successful enforcement is misleading, adversely influencing voluntary compliance with fishing regulations, and prevents fishery managers from recognizing illegal fishing as a significant problem and creating strategies for addressing it.

Chapter 8 – Addressing the Risks of Nanomaterials under United States and European Union Regulatory Frameworks for Chemicals*,†

This chapter examines the tools that are at the forefront of addressing the risks posed by nanomaterials—the laws and regulations in the United States and European Union (EU) that are used to regulate chemicals. The chapter first examines the use of U.S. chemicals laws to regulate nanomaterials and then turns to the EU’s chemical regulations. Its ends by comparing the U.S. and EU approaches. A hypothetical scenario is used to demonstrate the manner in which the same nanomaterial could be addressed under the differing regulatory regimes.