Day: September 29, 2021

BILLINGS, Mont. — Death’s come knocking a last time for the splendid ivory-billed woodpecker and 22 more birds, fish and other species: The U.S. government is declaring them extinct.

It’s a rare move for wildlife officials to give up hope on a plant or animal, but government scientists say they’ve exhausted efforts to find these 23. And they warn climate change, on top of other pressures, could make such disappearances more common as a warming planet adds to the dangers facing imperiled plants and wildlife.

The ivory-billed woodpecker was perhaps the best known species the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Wednesday will announce is extinct. It went out stubbornly and with fanfare, making unconfirmed appearances in recent decades that ignited a frenzy of ultimately fruitless searches in the swamps of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida.

Others such as the flat pigtoe, a freshwater mussel in the southeastern U.S., were identified in the wild only a few times and never seen again, meaning by the time they got a name they were fading from existence.

“When I see one of those really rare ones, it’s always in the back of my mind that I might be the last one to see this animal again,” said Anthony “Andy” Ford, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist in Tennessee who specializes in freshwater mussels.

The factors behind the disappearances vary — too much development, water pollution, logging, competition from invasive species, birds killed for feathers and animals captured by private collectors. In each case, humans were the ultimate cause.

Another thing they share: All 23 were thought to have at least a slim chance of survival when added to the endangered species list beginning in the 1960s. Only 11 species previously have been removed due to extinction in the almost half-century since the Endangered Species Act was signed into law. Wednesday’s announcement kicks off a three-month comment period before the species status changes become final.

Around the globe, some 902 species have been documented as extinct. The actual number is thought to be much higher because some are never formally identified, and many scientists warn the earth is in an “extinction crisis” with flora and fauna now disappearing at 1,000 times the historical rate.

It’s possible one or more of the 23 species included in Wednesday’s announcement could reappear, several scientists said.

A leading figure in the hunt for the ivory-billed woodpecker said it was premature to call off the effort, after millions of dollars spent on searches and habitat preservation efforts.

“Little is gained and much is lost” with an extinction declaration, said Cornell University bird biologist John Fitzpatrick, lead author of a 2005 study that claimed the woodpecker had been rediscovered in eastern Arkansas.

“A bird this iconic, and this representative of the major old-growth forests of the southeast, keeping it on the list of endangered species keeps attention on it, keeps states thinking about managing habitat on the off chance it still exists,” he said.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature, a Switzerland-based group that tracks extinctions globally, is not putting the ivory-billed woodpecker into its extinction column because it’s possible the birds still exist in Cuba, said the group’s Craig Hilton-Taylor.

Hilton-Taylor said there can be unintended but damaging consequences if extinction is declared prematurely. “Suddenly the (conservation) money is no longer there, and then suddenly you do drive it to extinction because you stop investing in it,” he said.

Federal officials said the extinctions declaration was driven by a desire to clear a backlog of recommended status changes for species that had not been acted upon for years. They said it would free up resources for on-the-ground conservation efforts for species that still have a chance for recovery.

What’s lost when those efforts fail are creatures often uniquely adapted to their environments. Freshwater mussel species like the ones the government says have gone extinct reproduce by attracting fish with a lure-like appendage, then sending out a cloud of larvae that attach to gills of fish until they’ve grown enough to drop off and live on their own.

The odds are slim against any mussel surviving into adulthood — a one in a million chance, according to Ford of the wildlife service — but those that do can live a century or longer.

Hawaii has the most species on the list — eight woodland birds and one plant. That’s in part because the islands have so many plants and animals that many have extremely small ranges and can blink out quickly.

The most recent to go extinct was the teeny po’ouli, a type of bird known as a honeycreeper discovered in 1973.

By the late 1990s just three remained — a male and two females. After failures to mate them in the wild, the male was captured for potential breeding and died in 2004. The two females were never seen again.

The fate of Hawaii’s birds helped push Duke University extinction expert Stuart Pimm into his field. Despite the grim nature of the government’s proposal to move more species into the extinct column, Pimm said the toll would probably have been much higher without the Endangered Species Act.

“It’s a shame we didn’t get to those species in time, but when we do, we are usually able to save species,” he said.

Since 1975, 54 species have left the endangered list after recovering, including the bald eagle, brown pelican and most humpback whales.

Climate change is making species recovery harder, bringing drought, floods, wildfires and temperature swings that compound the threats species already faced.

How they are saved also is changing. No longer is the focus on individual species, let alone individual birds. Officials say the broader goal now is to preserve their habitat, which boosts species of all types that live there.

“I hope we’re up to the challenge,” said biologist Michelle Bogardus with the wildlife service in Hawaii. “We don’t have the resources to prevent extinctions unilaterally. We have to think proactively about ecosystem health and how do we maintain it, given all these threats.”

Jerry Taylor, the co-founder and president of the Niskanen Center, recently resigned from the Washington, D.C.-based think tank after being charged with violently attacking his wife, according to court records obtained by POLITICO.

Taylor, who previously had been a longtime top official of the Cato Institute, was arrested in early June on a misdemeanor charge of assault and battery of a family member in Arlington, Va.

He denies the accusations, but says he pleaded guilty in exchange for the charges being dismissed as long as he successfully completes a domestic violence and substance abuse prevention program.

On the night in question, Taylor had been up late after celebrating his son’s high school graduation. When his wife saw him drinking and using his iPad, she urged him to go to bed and threw his iPad in the trash, according to what she told a police officer who responded to the scene and wrote handwritten notes for a criminal complaint.

Taylor, 58, then allegedly pushed her onto the kitchen floor and put his hands around her neck and slapped her, the officer recorded in her notes. After she told him he shouldn’t do that, Taylor allegedly pushed her out of the house and pushed her down the front steps, injuring her, according to the complaint.

The officer, who responded at around 1 a.m., said in her police report that she observed “fresh scrape marks on her left leg and left ankle” of Taylor’s wife and that the woman also complained about pain from her right shoulder and her back. He had no visible injuries.

According to the complaint, Taylor told the officer that his wife had thrown his iPad down the front steps, smashing the device, and then turned around and pushed him. He said he pushed her back, causing her to fall down the steps. He denied slapping her or putting his hands around her neck and said she was emotionally and psychologically abusive to him, the complaint said. Taylor was arrested that night and held in custody for around a day and half.

The Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court in Arlington found on July 20 that the facts were sufficient in the case to sustain a conviction but deferred a finding on the case until next July as long as Taylor exhibits good behavior, completes an “abuser’s intervention program,” undergoes a substance abuse evaluation, follows all treatment recommendations and abides by a protective order requiring him to forgo any contact with the complainant and her daughter. Taylor is appealing the protective order.

Two weeks after the incident, Taylor’s wife filed for divorce, claiming she had been abused.

In his divorce response, he said she had started the fight and tried to force him to leave the house. He acknowledged that he “very lightly smacked her” and claimed that “such a theatrical gesture would get her attention and wake her up to what she was doing.”

In a statement in the criminal case file seen by POLITICO, Taylor’s wife said he was an alcoholic who “cannot stop once he starts.”

“He has totaled a car under [the] influence, broke his foot under [the] influence, yelled, made crazy comments and has used abusive language. His drinking got worse over time, with extremely drunken episodes occurring more than once in a week,” she wrote, adding that he drinks almost five days a week and has called her expletive-laden names.

“The alcohol makes him a person who is aggressive, self-centered and abusive,” she said in the statement filed to the court.

She also said that she had told him to attend Alcoholics Anonymous, but he told her the group had informed him he didn’t have a problem with alcohol.

“My wife’s allegations about the events that evening are not grounded in reality. Those events for the most part did not occur and I’m confident that the charges will ultimately be dismissed,” Taylor said in a statement. “I sincerely wish my wife the best as she wrestles with the issues she’s dealing with.”

A lawyer for Taylor, Nicholas Balland, said in a statement: “There’s no corroboration to her representations. There were no witnesses present, and she never requested medical attention or medical treatment until two weeks after this occurred.”

Taylor’s wife, who POLITICO is not naming because she’s not a public figure, did not respond to a request for comment. Kathryn Leckey, an attorney for Taylor’s wife, declined to comment citing ongoing litigation.

Louisa Tavlas, a spokesperson for Niskanen, also declined to comment, but a person close to Niskanen said the board was made aware of the incident in early September and immediately put Taylor on administrative leave. He resigned a few days later, on Sept. 6.

POLITICO reported last week that Taylor had resigned from Niskanen and that Tavlas did not disclose a reason for the departure.

Tavlas said in a statement at the time that the board of directors thanked Taylor, who co-founded the think tank in 2014, “for his leadership in building one of the most effective, principled, and strategic thought leadership institutions in the political world.”

The think tank has attracted attention for supporting a carbon tax to fight climate change and has advocated for libertarian and conservative policies on issues like immigration and regulation.

Health workers who don’t get paid if they contract Covid-19. Over 6,000 migrant workers dead after helping with World Cup construction in the Middle East. As the head of the world’s largest union confederation, it’s Sharan Burrow’s priority to protect workers against abuses like these and hold offending governments accountable. But as she tells host Ryan Heath, she’s walking a tightrope between convincing governments to change and keeping her seat at the table.

On why she’s conflicted about attending the World Economic Forum in Davos

“If you don’t have people on the outside demanding change, you have no legitimacy on the inside to negotiate for change. … We can do more work negotiating workplace outcomes for workers in a week [at Davos] than you could do in a year. You can lobby more governments in a week around policy on the big issues of the day. But equally, you never feel comfortable because I think many people there will never feel like the insiders or would never want to…But is it now a forum that’s had its day? I think the jury’s out on that.”

— Sharan Burrow, general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation

On how to talk about climate change with workers in affected industries, like coal mining

“You can’t lie to workers. We have to base our demands for a secure future on the basis of what’s real. So that’s why we fought for a good 15 years to get a ‘just transition’ in the Paris climate agreement: we failed in Copenhagen (the 2009 U.N. climate conference). And now, of course, we educate, train, promote partnerships, join movements to get workers and their unions at the table to design the transition with just transition measures, so no one is left behind. People make the mistake of thinking if we do the job on coal, it’s done. Every sector has to transition. … We need to climate and employment-proof our future.”

On what underscores her fight for worker’s rights

“Work-life balance is essential. It sounds really sappy, but having people you care about and people who care about you is the heart of what a decent life is all about. So, trade unionism for many, many millions of us is an extension of that. If you genuinely care about other people, if you genuinely think we should build inclusive futures, then that’s returned in spades, frankly.”

Option A: On trade unions fighting modern day slavery

“Where are working people at risk? Where do you have to fight for and demand rights? In the Gulf states, a group of countries perpetuating modern slavery, we used the FIFA World Cup as leverage to bring this to the attention of the world. Now, it doesn’t mean that it was any worse than in the UAE, which is still running a kafala system and is in our target sites now, or Saudi Arabia or other areas of the Gulf states. But the Qataris decided they would negotiate with the ILO, the International Labor Organization, which is the parliament of global standards and of course, ourselves. And since then, the laws in Qatar are vastly different. The kafala system has ended…That couldn’t have happened 10 years ago, but now it shows you the trust and the relationships unions build with employers and with governments where you make advances on rights, the rule of law, social justice, whatever the issues might be. Qatar is still struggling to implement all of its laws, but the goodwill and the partnerships are there.”

Now Burrow is turning her attention to the United Arab Emirates.

“They will tell you that, in fact, they have made progress. We just saw, you know, an incredible number, hundreds of African refugees deported, some being tortured to indeed get on the planes with cattle prods and tasers. Yeah, and so they’re in our sights. It’s that simple. So, you know, it’s all about building a consciousness, establishing the rights base, having the relationships to actually negotiate or in this case, request help for others who are fighting for democracy and rights in other countries.”

POLITICO contacted the United Arab Emirates government for comment about its treatment of workers, but did not receive a reply.

Top generals told lawmakers under oath on Tuesday that they advised President Joe Biden early this year to keep several thousand troops in Afghanistan — directly contradicting the president’s comments in August that no one warned him not to withdraw troops from the country.

The remarkable testimony pits top military brass against the commander-in-chief as the Biden administration continues to face tough questions about what critics are calling a botched withdrawal that directly led to the deaths of 13 American service members, scenes of chaos at the Kabul airport, and the abandonment of American citizens and at-risk Afghans in the war-torn country.

Gen. Kenneth “Frank” McKenzie, the commander of U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services in a hearing Tuesday that he recommended maintaining a small force of 2,500 troops in Afghanistan earlier this year.

He also noted that in the fall of 2020, during the Trump administration, he advised that the U.S. maintain a force almost double the size, of 4,500 troops, in Afghanistan.

In answering questions from Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) about his advice, McKenzie said he would not share his “personal recommendation” to the president.

But he went on to say that his “personal view,” which he said shaped his recommendations, was that withdrawing those forces “would lead inevitably to the collapse of the Afghan military forces and, eventually, the Afghan government.”

McKenzie also acknowledged that he talked to Biden directly about the recommendation by Gen. Scott Miller, the commander of U.S. Forces Afghanistan until July, that the military leave a few thousand troops on the ground, which Miller detailed in closed testimony last week.

“I was present when that discussion occurred and I am confident that the president heard all the recommendations and listened to them very thoughtfully,” McKenzie said.

McKenzie’s remarks directly contradict Biden’s comments in an Aug. 19 interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, in which he said that “no one” that he “can recall” advised him to keep a force of about 2,500 troops in Afghanistan.

During the interview, Stephanopoulos asked Biden point blank: “So no one told — your military advisers did not tell you, “No, we should just keep 2,500 troops. It’s been a stable situation for the last several years. We can do that. We can continue to do that”?

Biden answered: “No. No one said that to me that I can recall.”

During the hearing on Tuesday, Inhofe next asked Gen. Mark Milley, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, if he agreed with the recommendation to leave 2,500 troops on the ground. Milley answered affirmatively.

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) attempted to pin Milley down on Biden’s August remarks, repeatedly asking the general whether the comments constituted “a false statement.”

Milley declined to give a direct answer, saying only that “I’m not going to characterize a statement of the president of the United States.”

Sullivan then grilled McKenzie about the accuracy of the president’s statement, stressing that the general does not “have a duty to cover for the president when he’s not telling the truth.”

McKenzie again declined to criticize the president, saying only that “I’ve given you my opinion and judgment.”

Later in the hearing, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) asked Milley if he should have resigned when the president decided to fully withdraw from Afghanistan against the generals’ advice.

Milley argued that resigning in protest would have been a “political act,” and that the president has no obligation to agree with his military advice. “It would be an incredible act of political defiance for a commissioned officer to just resign because my advice is not taken,” Milley said. “This country doesn’t want generals figuring out what orders we are going to accept and do or not. That’s not our job.”

Milley added that his decision was also informed by the experience of his father, who fought at Iwo Jima.

“[My father] didn’t get a choice to resign,” Milley said.

“Those kids there at Abbey Gate, they don’t get a choice to resign,” Milley said, referring to the 13 American service members who died during the evacuation from Kabul in late August when an ISIS-K suicide bomber detonated an explosive vest. “They can’t resign so I’m not going to resign. There’s no way.”

Colorado’s new independent redistricting commission passed a congressional map late Tuesday that would give Republicans a decent shot at controlling four of eight House seats in a fast-growing state that’s become reliably blue.

In a marathon, six-and-a-half-hour Zoom meeting, all but one of the 12 commissioners agreed on one of nine proposals just minutes before their midnight Mountain Time deadline. The map now goes to the state Supreme Court, which is almost certain to give its sign-off.

The new map’s breakdown: four Democratic-leaning seats, three where the GOP has an advantage and one competitive district. It’s a disappointing result for Democrats who have been ascendant in the state over the last four years, winning a House seat, a Senate seat and notching their largest presidential victory margin in decades.

Yet even as Colorado grows more blue, Democrats may still only control four of the state’s eight House seats. They currently have a 4-3 edge over the GOP and hoped that the state’s new House seat gained through reapportionment would be a blue district. Instead, it’s likely to be among the mostly closely contested seats in the country.

The commissioners’ virtual meeting Tuesday oscillated between friendly banter, terse sniping and emotional pleas as the hours ticked by. But, ultimately, their seventh round of voting resulted in an 11-1 tally for the new map, with only one Democratic commissioner opposing it.

“We had our spats. We had our Kumbaya moments,” said Simon Tafoya, the Democratic commissioner who voted against the plan. “And I think at the end of the day we’ve all learned a lot, and through this experiment we call democracy.”

Barring the unlikely event that the state Supreme Court determines the commission “abused its discretion” in applying the criteria for the new map — these will be the new set of political boundaries for the next decade in a rapidly diversifying swing state.

The new redistricting marks the first time that Colorado amended its boundaries through an independent commission. Its creation was a bipartisan compromise from 2018. The Democratic state house and the GOP state Senate referred an amendment creating the commission to the ballot that year, and voters overwhelmingly approved it.

The commission includes four Democrats, four Republicans and four unaffiliated members.

Privately, some Democrats in the state were wary of ceding control over redistricting in a year when it seemed likely they would control both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship when it came time to draw the maps

In considering a new map, the commission had to take into account communities of interest, the location of existing counties and towns and the competitiveness of a given district. They are not, however, allowed to enact any map that has “been drawn for the purpose of protecting one or more members of or candidates for congress or a political party.”

“The plan we have is competitive,” said Danny Moore, a GOP commissioner, “But we didn’t sacrifice community of interest for competitiveness. No plan itself is perfect, but I believe this plan reflects the will of the people of the state of Colorado.”

This map would leave all incumbents in a strong position to win reelection. According to a POLITICO analysis, Democratic Reps. Diana DeGette, Joe Neguse and Jason Crow would all have districts that Joe Biden won by at least 25 points. Democratic Rep. Ed Perlmutter would have a seat Biden won by about 15 points.

Republican Reps. Doug Lamborn and Ken Buck would represent districts Donald Trump carried by double-digits; he would have carried fellow GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert’s seat by roughly 8 points.

The new 8th District would be the most competitive seat in the state by far. Joe Biden would have carried that by roughly 5 points last year, though now-Democratic Sen. John Hickenlooper won it by only 2 points in the same election.