I think this proposal is…

I think this proposal is dangerous in two ways.

First, the proposal contains this alarming sentence: "The government would also have discretion to remove protected species from the list." And second, the proposal is clear in its impatience with regulation that asks developers to show how they are taking into account environmental considerations in their projects.

Regarding the first example, NO government should have the discretionary power to remove protected species from such a list. These decisions should be science-based, and the responsibility of an accredited, arms-length board, NOT politicians who are subject to the short-term pressures of their constituents or industry. This relates to my second objection: wildlife operates on a longer timespan than quarterly reports or election cycles. There needs to be time to explore environmental consequences. Not give developers free reign to begin their projects after merely registering them.

I don't see any difference in this proposal and Trump's notion of 'Drill, baby, drill'. Except this proposal uses a bland, Orwellian language: this is not a 'Species Conservation Act' It's a 'Species Extermination Act'.