The Butterfly Effect

NDRC files suit against EPA for decline of Monarch butterflies

According to the National Resources Defense Council, the US Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for the decline of Monarch butterfly populations in the United States.

The non-governmental environmental conservation group has accused the EPA of failing to respond to an urgent petition that sought to limit pesticide use in order to curtail the destruction of Monarch habitat in the US. Ignoring the petition has led to significant and ongoing harm to the already vulnerable butterfly population, the the NRDC added. The group filed the initial petition more than a year ago.

Monarch butterflies are famous for making annual migrations from Canada down through the US and on into central Mexico’s forested mountain ranges, a trip that takes 2,500 miles one way. Last month, the NRDC says that there were only 56.5 million Monarchs found in Mexico; while this sounds like a burgeoning population, it’s actually the second lowest count ever estimated since records began being kept on Monarch populations.

According to the World Wildlife Fund, the count was indeed the second lowest ever. However the WWF did say that populations had increased slightly over the previous year. The global wildlife conservation group reports coverage in square acres instead of an estimated number of butterflies; in 2014 only 2.79 acres were covered in the creatures – an increase of 69 percent over 2013’s record low, but nothing in comparison to the 27.48 acres of coverage recorded in 1993.

This seems like a stretch. The only reason they're switching to acres as a measurement is because 50 million sounds like a lot of butterflies. I would like to see the source of these numbers. There were so many monarch butterflies that this fall a huge blob of them showed up on weather radar over Illinois and Missouri. How many is a big blob? I don't know, but it's a bunch.

NDRC maintains that the main driver behind the collapse of the Monarch population is the widespread use of glyphosate, a herbicide marketed as Roundup, which has been wiping out milkweed – one of the primary food sources for the butterflies. However, critics say that while glyphosate use has gone up and milkweed has declined, there has been no direct causal link made between the two, claiming it’s merely a correlation.

I thought liberals were all about the science? Why would you try to ban something before the science was in? Maybe saving the Monarchs isn't the point as much as banning glyphosate?

The EPA says that it’s currently examining a number of factors that could be leading to the decline of the butterflies. The agency stated that it’s taking several measures to protect pollinators such as the Monarch, even as the NRDC issues the warning that one severe weather event could devastate the species at its current population level.

My guess is that the NRDC is trying for a "sue and settle" agreement, where EPA, after nominal resistance, agrees to ban glyphosate, (unlikely given its widespread use in agriculture, and resistance from farmers and Monsanto). It may also be the start, or more the continuation of a campaign to extort money from Monsanto for "butterfly projects", which will not grow many butterflies, but lots of money for NGO execs.  I would also not discount the possibility that this is an opening of a new front on GMO crops, since many crops are made glyphosate resistant using genetic modification so that glyphosate can be sprayed on the whole field to kill weeds.

I've already seen a post on Facebook trying to drum up support for planting Milkweed (fine with me) and going after Monsanto (not fine)