Game of Thrones creator George R.R. Martin has come out and told us a very real message that lies behind the franchise.

He's revealed there is a 'certain parallel' between his original book, A Game of Thrones - which is part of epic fantasy novel series A Song of Ice and Fire - and the increasing threat of climate change.

Asked about whether his books offered a metaphor for understanding climate change, Martin told the New York Times: "It's kind of ironic because I started writing Game of Thrones all the way back in 1991, long before anybody was talking about climate change.

"But there is - in a very broad sense - there's a certain parallel there. And the people in Westeros are fighting their individual battles over power and status and wealth.

"Those [battles] are so distracting them that they're ignoring the threat of 'winter is coming', which has the potential to destroy all of them and to destroy their world.

"And there is a great parallel there to what I see this planet doing here, where we're fighting our own battles."


Martin continued: "We're fighting over issues, important issues, mind you - foreign policy, domestic policy, civil rights, social responsibility, social justice.

"All of these things are important. But while we're tearing ourselves apart over this and expending so much energy, there exists this threat of climate change, which, to my mind, is conclusively proved by most of the data and 99.9 percent of the scientific community. And it really has the potential to destroy our world.


"And we're ignoring that while we worry about the next election and issues that people are concerned about, like jobs. Jobs are a very important issue, of course. All of these things are important issues. But none of them are important if, like, we're dead and our cities are under the ocean.

"So really, climate change should be the number one priority for any politician who is capable of looking past the next election. But unfortunately, there are only a handful of those."

Martin added: "We spend 10 times as much energy and thought and debate in the media discussing whether or not NFL players should stand for the national anthem than this threat that's going to destroy our world."
Source

On Tuesday the Trump administration offered more than 150,000 acres of public lands for fossil-fuel extraction near some of Utah's most iconic landscapes, including Arches and Canyonlands national parks

Dozens of Utahns gathered at the state Capitol to protest the lease sale, which included lands within 10 miles of internationally known protected areas. In addition to Arches and Canyonlands, the Bureau of Land Management leased public lands for fracking near Bears Ears, Canyons of the Ancients and Hovenweep national monuments and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.

"Utahns have demonstrated their commitment to transition away from dirty fossil fuels through clean energy resolutions passed in municipalities across our state. Yet, these commitments continue to be undermined by rampant oil and gas lease sales, which threaten our public health, public lands, and economy. While Utah's recreational and tourism economies continue to flourish, these attempts to develop sacred cultural, environmental, and recreational spaces for dirty fuels remain a grave and growing threat." said Ashley Soltysiak, director of the Utah Sierra Club. "Utah is our home and the reckless sale of our public lands with limited public engagement is simply unacceptable and short-sighted."

Fracking in these areas threatens sensitive plants and animals, including the black-footed ferret, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker and Graham's beardtongue. It also will worsen air pollution problems in the Uinta Basin and use tremendous amounts of groundwater. Utah just experienced its driest year in recorded history.

"This is a reckless fire sale of spectacular public lands for dirty drilling and fracking," said Ryan Beam, a public lands campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity. "These red-rock wonderlands are some of the West's most iconic landscapes, and we can't afford to lose a single acre. Fracking here will waste precious water, foul the air and destroy beautiful wild places that should be held in trust for generations to come."

This lease sale is part of a larger agenda by Trump and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to ramp up fossil fuel extraction on public lands, threatening wildlife, public health and the climate. This year the BLM has offered more than 420,000 acres of public land in Utah for oil and gas extraction. The agency plans to auction another 215,000 acres in March. The Trump administration also has issued new policies, which are being challenged in court, to shorten public-comment periods and avoid substantive environmental reviews.


"BLM's shortsighted decision threatens Utah's red rock wilderness as well as significant cultural and archaeological resources," said Landon Newell, staff attorney with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. "BLM's 'lease everything, lease everywhere' approach to oil and gas development needlessly threatens iconic red-rock landscapes and irreplaceable cultural history in the ill-conceived push for 'energy dominance.'"

Fracking destroys public lands and wildlife habitat with networks of fracking wells, compressor stations, pipelines and roads. Injecting toxic wastewater into the ground pollutes rivers and groundwater and causes earthquakes that damage infrastructure and property. Oil industry activities also pollute the air with dangerous toxins linked to human illness and death. The federal government's own report shows that oil and gas production on public land contributes significantly to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Source

Conservation groups today sued the Trump administration for failing to consider protections for Africa’s rapidly dwindling giraffe population under the Endangered Species Act.

Today’s lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C, comes weeks after the International Union for the Conservation of Nature updated its assessment of Africa’s giraffes, reaffirming the species is “vulnerable” to extinction and classifying two subspecies as “critically endangered.”

The suit challenges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s refusal to act on an April 2017 petition seeking Endangered Species Act protection for giraffes. The agency was required to respond within 90 days, but 19 months have passed without action.

“Giraffes capture our imaginations from childhood on, but many people don’t realize how few are left in the wild,” said Tanya Sanerib, international legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Instead of throwing these unique animals a lifeline under the Endangered Species Act, Trump officials are twiddling their thumbs. Trump will be to blame if future generations know giraffes only as toys and not the long-necked icons of Africa.”

Fewer than 100,000 giraffes remain in the wild, and the population dropped nearly 40 percent over the past three decades. The species is gravely imperiled by habitat loss, civil unrest, and illegal hunting for meat, and is also threatened by the international trade in bone carvings, skins and trophies.

Anna Frostic, managing wildlife attorney for the Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society International, said: “The United States cannot stand idly by and allow thousands of U.S. imports of giraffe parts every year without any regulation while these animals are on a path to extinction. It is time that the United States stands tall for giraffes and gives this at-risk species the protection that it urgently needs.”


Endangered Species Act protection would help track and curb imports of giraffe bones, trophies and other parts and increase funding for conservation efforts in Africa. On average the United States imports more than one giraffe hunting trophy a day, and the country imported more than 21,400 giraffe-bone carvings between 2006 and 2015.

“The Trump administration would rather allow its rich donors to mount giraffe trophies on their walls than protect giraffes,” said Elly Pepper, deputy director of NRDC’s Wildlife Trade Initiative. “Giraffes are headed toward extinction, in part due to our country’s importation of giraffe parts and trophies. It’s shameful — though unsurprising — that the Interior Department has refused to protect them under the Endangered Species Act and I hope the courts will agree.”

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., by the Center for Biological Diversity, Humane Society International, Humane Society of the United States and Natural Resources Defense Council.
 Source

A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration endangered public health by keeping the widely used pesticide chlorpyrifos on the market despite extensive scientific evidence that even tiny levels of exposure can harm babies' brains.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to remove chlorpyrifos from sale in the United States within 60 days.

A coalition of farmworkers and environmental groups sued last year after then-EPA chief Scott Pruitt reversed an Obama-era effort to ban chlorpyrifos, which is widely sprayed on citrus fruits, apples and other crops. The attorneys general for several states joined the case against EPA, including California, New York and Massachusetts.

In a split decision, the court said Thursday that Pruitt, a Republican forced to resign earlier this summer amid ethics scandals, violated federal law by ignoring the conclusions of agency scientists that chlorpyrifos is harmful.

"The panel held that there was no justification for the EPA's decision in its 2017 order to maintain a tolerance for chlorpyrifos in the face of scientific evidence that its residue on food causes neurodevelopmental damage to children," Appeals Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff wrote in the majority's opinion.

EPA spokesman Michael Abboud said the agency was reviewing the decision. It could appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.


Environmental groups and public health advocates hailed the court's action as a major victory.

"Some things are too sacred to play politics with, and our kids top the list," said Erik Olson, senior director of health and food at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The court has made it clear that children's health must come before powerful polluters. This is a victory for parents everywhere who want to feed their kids fruits and veggies without fear it's harming their brains or poisoning communities."

Chlorpyrifos was created by Dow Chemical Co. in the 1960s. It remains among the most widely used agricultural pesticides in the United States, with the chemical giant selling about 5 million pounds domestically each year through its subsidiary Dow AgroSciences.


Dow did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. In past statements, the company has contended the chemical helps American farmers feed the world "with full respect for human health and the environment."

Chlorpyrifos belongs to a family of organophosphate pesticides that are chemically similar to a chemical warfare agent developed by Nazi Germany before World War II.

As a result of its wide use as a pesticide over the past four decades, traces of chlorpyrifos are commonly found in sources of drinking water. A 2012 study at the University of California at Berkeley found that 87 percent of umbilical-cord blood samples tested from newborn babies contained detectable levels of the pesticide.

Under pressure from federal regulators, Dow voluntarily withdrew chlorpyrifos for use as a home insecticide in 2000. EPA also placed "no-spray" buffer zones around sensitive sites, such as schools, in 2012.

In October 2015, the Obama administration proposed banning the pesticide's use on food. Pruitt reversed that effort in March 2017, adopting Dow's position that the science showing chlorpyrifos is harmful was inconclusive and flawed.
Source

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has objected to a wetland permit for the proposed Back Forty Mine in Michigan's western Upper Peninsula near the Wisconsin border.

The Menominee Indians across the border in Wisconsin—but whose tribal lands once encompassed the mine site—have fought Michigan's permitting process for years, saying the state was ignoring their concerns both about the project's threat to water quality and sacred cultural artifacts nearby.

Mining opponents cheered the federal action Friday. The EPA's letter, they said, places significant hurdles before the state and the developers.

"There's no one small fix the company can do," said Kathleen Heideman of the Upper Peninsula's Mining Action Group, which opposes the mine. "The company would have to fix it in so many ways it would become a different permit, or a different project."

The mine—a proposed 83-acre open pit gold, zinc and copper mine by Aquila Resources— has been making its way through the state's permitting process for years despite opposition from the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, other regional tribes, local residents and environmental groups.

The tribe considers the land sacred, even though—thanks to a series of treaty revisions and land grabs over the past 150 years—the Menominee reservation is about 80 miles away, across the state line in Wisconsin.


The mine would sit within 150 feet of the Menominee River, a core part of the tribe's creation story, and near burial sites, centuries-old raised garden beds.

The river forms the border between Wisconsin and Michigan and is the largest watershed in the Upper Peninsula, covering about 4,000 square miles. More than 100 tributaries drain into the river. It supports large populations of bass, pike, walleye and spawning grounds for sturgeon.

The tribe has fought the mine for years, citing neglect for cultural impact.

In the letter, the EPA suggested the state had not fully addressed the tribe's concerns.


"The applicant has not provided sufficient information to support the assertion that the proposed project would likely not impact potentially eligible or eligible resources. Historical and cultural resources should be addressed for the entire expanded project site," the letter read.

Environmental Health News highlighted the Menominee's fight in the 2016 series "Sacred Water," a national look at how culturally significant water resources get sullied, destroyed and defaced by activities often happening beyond Native Americans' control.

The EPA letter, sent to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, which is overseeing state permitting, also said the mine project does not comply with Clean Water Act guidelines. The EPA, wrote agency Water Division director Christopher Korleski, "objects to the issuance of a permit for this project as proposed."


Some areas where the permit was lacking:

Information on how historical, cultural resources will be protected.
A complete project and site layout description
Information on how bluffs near the mine will be kept stable
Details on how discharges will be brought up to water quality standards
Full wetland mitigation details

Aquila did not return requests for comment.

The letter comes two months after the Menominee filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA claiming the agencies had failed to take "primary responsibility" for wetland permitting.

Menominee Tribal Chairman Doug Cox was traveling and unable to comment on the EPA's letter.

Environmental groups and regional fishing associations applauded the letter. "We are thrilled to see EPA leading the charge to protect Michigan's world-class waters and habitat from the potentially devastating impacts of the Aquila mine development," said Cheryl Kallio, associate director for Great Lakes-based nonprofit Freshwater Future, in a statement.

Jerry Pasdo, president of the Wisconsin Smallmouth Alliance, said in a statement: "We are working to protect water quality for our safe enjoyment of the Menominee waterway – and Lake Michigan. We hope the entire wetland application gets turned down – flatly."

The EPA letter, which represented the comments from the EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of Engineers, gives the Michigan DEQ 90 days to work with Aquila on the permitting issues. If that doesn't happen, the wetland permitting authority transfers to the Army Corps.
 Source

Red-rock canyons, wide-open plateaus and steep, rugged mountains: Utah has been my home for over half a century.

 I feel a strong sense of connection to this state, its people and its landscapes, as many of us feel toward the places we call home.

Here in the rural American West, that connection to the land is still very much alive, especially for the cultures that are inextricably linked to these sandstone mesas and high alpine meadows. Ranchers are intimately familiar with the lands on which they run livestock. Hunters know where to find elk and deer in late fall. Native Americans have inhabited these landscapes since time immemorial and still harvest herbs, collect firewood and perform ceremonies on their ancestral grounds. As Westerners, we feel a sense of ownership over public lands not only because we use them, but because we belong to them and have stewarded them for generations.

Over time, our national monuments commemorate the contributions of underrepresented portions of our history and population. Today there is a proposal for a new national monument in Utah that recognizes and celebrates human relationships to land.

Bears Ears National Monument has been proposed by an unprecedented coalition of Native American tribes whose connections to this cultural landscape run millennia deep.

Named for a pair of iconic twin buttes that in every Native language translate as “Bears Ears,” the proposed monument encompasses 1.9 million acres of high desert plateau in southeast Utah. All five tribes of the coalition trace an unbroken line of ancestry here, reaching back thousands of years. Within the proposed boundary lie more than 100,000 archaeological sites that Native people recognize as the dwelling places of their Ancestors. Every canyon and alcove holds significance for tribal members who utilize these lands for subsistence and ceremony.


Despite the cultural significance of this area for Native people—and in a sense, because of it—Bears Ears is facing serious threats. Looting, vandalism and grave robbing continue to this day, with half a dozen cases reported so far in 2016 alone. As Americans, we would never tolerate desecration of the cemeteries of our pioneers or founding fathers. Yet that is precisely what is taking place within Bears Ears. Oil and gas speculation, as well as uranium and potash mining, also threaten to disrupt the ecosystems upon which we all depend.


The Bears Ears proposal is unique in that it celebrates the timeless bond between people and place. We all feel that bond, whether you’re a cowboy working the land for a living, a passerby enjoying the freedom of the open range or a Native American whose people have lived here since time immemorial, with stories and songs that run as deep as the canyons of the Colorado River.


That is why I stand with the tribes and a broad coalition of supporters throughout Utah and across the United States. These 1.9 million acres and the cultures connected to them are profoundly deserving of our respect. Bears Ears National Monument is an opportunity to honor the land and all the people by moving forward, together.

Written by Robert Redford, actor, director and trustee of the Natural Resources Defense Council

The Hopi, Navajo, Ute, Mountain Ute and Zuni tribal governments plan to file that lawsuit to stop the reductions of the monuments, which they call an attack on their people, culture and history.

 Join Tribes To Save America's Most Significant Unprotected Cultural Landscape