Endangered Species Act

[twocoach]

Gary Frazer, an assistant director at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, told reporters that the government would adhere to the law by disclosing the costs to the public, without being a factor for the officials considering the protections. 

"Nothing in here in my view is a radical change for how we have been consulting and listing species for the last decade or so," Frazer said. Instead, he said, it brings "more transparency and certainty to the public about the way we'll carry out our job."


....so what am I missing or is he lying?

What your missing is this change now allows the government by consider lost revenue from logging/oil drilling when determining whether or not to protect a species. And we all know what happens when Big Oil gets to have a say in things.

[Deleted User 276]

Gary Frazer, an assistant director at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, told reporters that the government would adhere to the law by disclosing the costs to the public, without being a factor for the officials considering the protections. 

"Nothing in here in my view is a radical change for how we have been consulting and listing species for the last decade or so," Frazer said. Instead, he said, it brings "more transparency and certainty to the public about the way we'll carry out our job."


....so what am I missing or is he lying?

What your missing is this change now allows the government by consider los revenue from logging/oil drilling when determining whether or not to protect a species. And we all know what happens when Big Oil gets to have a say in things.

I don't have the best reading comprehension, but it says in those quotes that it will "disclose costs, without that being a factor for the officials considering the protections".

Either way, I'm all for protecting the environment and whatever cost to citizens, and have no concerns for what potential losses of revenue that causes companies to incur... I'd love to know what the changes actually mean without all the political BS in the articles from MSM.

[twocoach]

If the cost analysis wasn't a factor then how does completing it make the process MORE efficient? Spending time doing a cost analysis of something that can't be factored into what you are doing is a pointless, unnecessary exercise.

So either their statement that they have made the process more efficient is a lie or their statement that the cost impact will not be factored in is a lie. Or both.