{
  "id": "R45926",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R45926",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 605291,
      "date": "2019-09-20",
      "retrieved": "2019-09-20T22:05:57.191153",
      "title": "The Endangered Species Act and Climate Change: Selected Legal Issues",
      "summary": "For more than a decade, federal agencies have grappled with how to address climate change effects when implementing the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The ESA aims to protect threatened and endangered fish, wildlife, and plants from extinction. As set forth by Congress, one of the main purposes of the ESA is to \u201cprovide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved.\u201d \nThe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, the Services) have acknowledged that the changing climate may threaten the survival of and habitat for some species. As noted by courts and legal scholars, the ESA does not expressly require the Services to consider the effect of climate change in their ESA decisions. However, the ESA and its implementing regulations (1) direct the Services to consider \u201cnatural or manmade factors affecting [a species\u2019] continued existence\u201d when determining whether a species should be protected under the ESA; and (2) require the Services to analyze cumulative effects on a species\u2019 survival when analyzing whether federal actions jeopardize a species protected under the Act. The courts and the Services have interpreted these provisions as requiring the Services to consider climate change effects in the ESA decisionmaking process. Various lawsuits have challenged the Services\u2019 interpretation of complex scientific data or models that predict short- and long-term effects from a changing global climate on specific species and their habitats.\nLegal challenges have influenced how the Services implement the ESA when climate change affects species and their habitats. Lawsuits typically focus on two main issues: (1) when the Services should list, delist, or reclassify a species as threatened or endangered because of climate change effects; and (2) whether the Services can or should regulate activities that affect the climate to protect species and their habitat. Judicial review has helped to ensure that the Services consider projected climate change effects on species in their ESA decisions. However, the courts have not required the Services to curb activities that may contribute to climate change to protect threatened or endangered species.\nStakeholders disagree on whether the ESA should play a role in addressing climate change, with some arguing that the ESA is not equipped to mitigate climate change effects. Other stakeholders believe that the Services can and should wield the ESA to protect further species threatened by climate change by curbing activities contributing to climate change. From the Services\u2019 viewpoint, the best available scientific and commercial data have been insufficient to determine whether greenhouse gas emissions from a proposed activity cause detrimental effects on a species or its habitat. In light of the judicial deference afforded to the Services, the courts have not expanded the ESA as a tool to protect listed species by regulating activities that contribute to climate change. \nThis report analyzes the courts\u2019 role in shaping how the Services have factored climate change effects into ESA decisions and recent 2019 regulatory developments that aim to clarify how the Services consider and address climate change in their ESA decisions. In August 2019, the Services finalized revisions to the ESA implementing regulations, aiming to increase transparency and effectiveness of the ESA while easing regulatory burdens. Among those changes, the Services clarified their existing policies and practices for factoring climate change effects into their ESA decisions. As legislative proposals to revise the ESA continue to develop, legal battles over the how the Services interpret climate change effects in their ESA decisions will likely continue.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45926",
          "sha1": "d0fe837f4d397db1d69ec89c587e9bfd02b2e1e9",
          "filename": "files/20190920_R45926_d0fe837f4d397db1d69ec89c587e9bfd02b2e1e9.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45926",
          "sha1": "4d410e7e9baf8ac44ff000f783a8cb1d56a81b22",
          "filename": "files/20190920_R45926_4d410e7e9baf8ac44ff000f783a8cb1d56a81b22.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}