EPA is yet to examine the impact of approved pesticides on this speciesThe Center for Biological Diversity has said it will sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to consider impacts to the polar bear and its Arctic habitat from toxic contamination from pesticide use in the US.
EPA-approved pesticides reach the Arctic via various atmospheric, oceanic, and biotic pathways and end up in the food eated by polar bears, the apex predators of the Arctic.
Pesticides and related contaminants cause increased cub mortality in polar bears. Human subsistence hunters in the Arctic, who share the top spot on the food web with the polar bear, also face increased risks from exposure to these contaminants.
“The poisoning of the Arctic is a silent crisis that threatens not just the polar bear, but the entire Arctic ecosystem, as well as the people and communities that live within it,” said Rebecca Noblin, with the Center for Biological Diversity in Anchorage.
“Because the polar bear sits at the top of the food pyramid, if we do what is necessary to protect the bear from pesticides, we will also be protecting the Arctic ecosystem and the people that depend upon it.”
EPA is responsible
Courts have held that the agency must examine the impacts of any pesticide it approves on species protected under the Endangered Species Act. The polar bear is protected under this Act. But the EPA has yet to examine the impacts of any approved pesticide on the species.
“The US has lagged far behind the international community in taking action to protect the species and people of the Arctic from contaminants,” said Brendan Cummings, a senior attorney at the Center.
“But with the listing of the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, the EPA now has not just the opportunity but the legal obligation to take meaningful steps to address the poisoning of the Arctic.”
Threats to polar bear
The IUCN’s Polar Bear Specialist Group, comprised of the world’s leading polar bear scientists, met last week in Copenhagen and highlighted adverse health impacts from contaminants as one of the leading threats to the polar bear.
Polar bears also face threats from increased oil and gas development in their habitat and the proliferation of shipping routes in an increasingly ice-free Arctic. These activities bring heightened risk of oil spills and rising levels of noise
pollution and other kinds of human disturbance.
The Centre said that the 60-day notice is a legally required precursor before a lawsuit can be filed under the Endangered Species Act to compel the EPA to comply with the law.
The Center has brought several successful lawsuits against the EPA over the impacts of pesticides in the lower 48 states.
In 2006 the Center reached a settlement with the agency over the use of 66 pesticides in the habitat of an imperiled amphibian in California, while last week, as a result of a settlement of another Center lawsuit, the EPA proposed restrictions on 74 pesticides due to their impacts on 11 threatened and endangered species in California.
EPA-approved pesticides reach the Arctic via various atmospheric, oceanic, and biotic pathways and end up in the food eated by polar bears, the apex predators of the Arctic.
Pesticides and related contaminants cause increased cub mortality in polar bears. Human subsistence hunters in the Arctic, who share the top spot on the food web with the polar bear, also face increased risks from exposure to these contaminants.
“The poisoning of the Arctic is a silent crisis that threatens not just the polar bear, but the entire Arctic ecosystem, as well as the people and communities that live within it,” said Rebecca Noblin, with the Center for Biological Diversity in Anchorage.
“Because the polar bear sits at the top of the food pyramid, if we do what is necessary to protect the bear from pesticides, we will also be protecting the Arctic ecosystem and the people that depend upon it.”
EPA is responsible
Courts have held that the agency must examine the impacts of any pesticide it approves on species protected under the Endangered Species Act. The polar bear is protected under this Act. But the EPA has yet to examine the impacts of any approved pesticide on the species.
“The US has lagged far behind the international community in taking action to protect the species and people of the Arctic from contaminants,” said Brendan Cummings, a senior attorney at the Center.
“But with the listing of the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, the EPA now has not just the opportunity but the legal obligation to take meaningful steps to address the poisoning of the Arctic.”
Threats to polar bear
The IUCN’s Polar Bear Specialist Group, comprised of the world’s leading polar bear scientists, met last week in Copenhagen and highlighted adverse health impacts from contaminants as one of the leading threats to the polar bear.
Polar bears also face threats from increased oil and gas development in their habitat and the proliferation of shipping routes in an increasingly ice-free Arctic. These activities bring heightened risk of oil spills and rising levels of noise
pollution and other kinds of human disturbance.
The Centre said that the 60-day notice is a legally required precursor before a lawsuit can be filed under the Endangered Species Act to compel the EPA to comply with the law.
The Center has brought several successful lawsuits against the EPA over the impacts of pesticides in the lower 48 states.
In 2006 the Center reached a settlement with the agency over the use of 66 pesticides in the habitat of an imperiled amphibian in California, while last week, as a result of a settlement of another Center lawsuit, the EPA proposed restrictions on 74 pesticides due to their impacts on 11 threatened and endangered species in California.
No comments:
Post a Comment