under the sonar…

Interesting that the US Navy and the NRDC have come to an agreement about sonar testing and the whales, and yet, the NRDC is not talking about it.

The Navy said Saturday the deal reached with the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups requires it to continue to research how sonar affects whales and other marine mammals.

This agreement comes a month after the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the US Navy, which was not a surprise to anyone. The original complaint, filed by 5 plaintiffs including the NRDC, sought a court order to limit mid-frequency sonar, which is the method of choice for detecting submarines, because it was felt that the sonar contributed to the deaths seen amongst whales and dolphins. Federal courts had ruled in favor of the NRDC, but when taken up by the Supreme Court, the tables were turned, siting that national security against terrorism was more important than whales.

The Navy said the settlement, which was reached Friday, calls on it to spend $14.75 million over three years on marine mammal research topics of interest to both the Navy and the plaintiffs.

The Navy said the long-range research program it adopted under the settlement is basically the same as the one it set out to follow in August 2005, two months before the lawsuit was filed.

As a result of the settlement, the plaintiffs have requested that the lawsuit be withdrawn.

Many critics feel that this is a case where the whales and the environment have lost. While the settlement calls for further research into the effects of sonar on marine mammals, it is limited in stating what must be done with said research and subsequent testing. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

You can find the original article, via MSNBC, HERE.

we kind of knew this would be the result, right?

The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the Navy’s continued sonar testing, despite studies showing harm to whales. The environmental cause was defeated 5-4, with Roberts leading the charge.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts said the Navy needs to train its crews to detect enemy submarines, and it cannot be forced to turn off its sonar when whales are spotted nearby. “The public interest in conducting training exercises with active sonar under realistic conditions plainly outweighs” the concerns voiced by environmentalists, he said for a 5-4 majority.

The 4 justices, who seem to be continuously outvoted….

– John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer — dissented in whole or in part. They agreed with environmentalists that the Navy should be required to complete an environmental impact study before going ahead with its final training exercises.

You can find the whole article in the LA Times, HERE

sometimes I wonder why I fight so hard

Please pay attention to the very last quote in this excerpt.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in the long-running dispute over the Navy’s use of mid-frequency active sonar off the coast of Southern California. Environmentalists and wildlife advocates argued that restrictions on the Navy’s use of sonar imposed by lower-court judges should be upheld — at least until the Navy conducts its required environmental impact statement — citing sonar’s track record of seriously messing with whales and other marine mammals. Predictably, the Navy argues that halting or restricting sonar training exercises in any way harms national security. If the judges’ comments are any indication, the court is likely to rule in the Navy’s favor this spring. Justice Samuel Alito wondered aloud how a lone judge could ever restrict anything the Navy does, Justice Antonin Scalia characterized the required-but-still-not-done environmental impact statement as “procedural,” Chief Justice John Roberts said that if the Navy didn’t train with active sonar, another Pearl Harbor-type attack would likely happen, and even Justice Stephen Breyer said, “The whole point of the armed forces is to hurt the environment. You go on a bombing mission — do they have to prepare an environmental impact statement first?”

From grist.org