Talk:Environmental Defense Fund

Headquarters

EDF's headquarters are in New York, unlike the image caption claims. (See http://www.linkedin.com/companies/environmental-defense.) I am deleting image and caption. It doesn't make sense to keep the image, even if it does show EDF's Washington office building, since EDF's office occupies only a small fraction of the building. Dan kirshner (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Name Change

According to the preprint of their annual report [[1]], they will be changing their name back to "Environmental Defense Fund" "early in 2008". So in, perhaps, a few days, someone should alter the lede paragraph of this article. S. Ugarte (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

what can we get for good hair and visual arts?

The organization advocates using sound science, good economics and good law to find solutions that work.

It's a good thing 'law' and 'science' are hyperlinked, so I can look those up, but what are "good law", "sound science", and "solutions that work"? 216.145.54.158 (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"This is as sure a way to get rid of them as any."

To what does that quote refer to? Who are the "them"? Mosquitos, or people living in regions with high incidences of malaria? I find the latter unlikely. S. Ugarte (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your criticism. I removed the quotation. It's not corroborated anywhere, nor is a page number even given. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Darkwind has now given Horner's book's page for the quotation, but not for Horner's argument re: EDF. If it's not substantiated, it could be the original article editor editorializing, so it should be removed if that's the case. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What I can see of Horner's book in the Amazon preview makes me even more suspicious of this quote. Please either substantiate or remove it! --Lindakp (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Wurster quote. It is questionable/poorly sourced (from a partisan secondary source) and in clear violation of WP guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Quotations), since Wurster is still living. --EAHull 10:47, 18 May 2011

Repeated attempts to re-insert this quotation are questionable. The DeGregori book cites another book called Toxic Terror (Elizabeth Whelan) for the quote, who cites yet another source, "Remarks made by J. Gordon Edwards Before International Meeting on Pesticides, Pakistan, August 1980," which cannot be verified. There is no neutral corroboration or a reliable original source for this quotation, and Wurster himself denies saying it. Including it in the article is in clear violation of WP guidelines: "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article." --EAHull 11:50, 18 May 2011

To my understanding, that’s not how WP:RS works. We don’t have to verify citations in books. If the source is a WP:RS, and the three cited references certainly are, that’s the bar for inclusion. If you have an issue with this, please take it to WP:RSN or WP:BLPN for an outside opinion. ZHurlihee (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Concern about neutrality on this page

I'm writing this because I think there are a couple of places in this article that convey a bias against Environmental Defense Fund. I want to highlight some examples and see if others agree so that a couple of minor edits can take place.

First, the History section. Saying that EDF “claims” to advocate using sound science, economics, and law to find environmental solutions is both prejudicial and incorrect. This is what EDF advocates. You can argue that the science, economics, and law they cite is inaccurate, but it cannot be argued that they don’t advocate using these tools. I hope we can change this sentence accordingly.

The History section also states, “Some environmentalists claim that Environmental Defense Fund is controlled by big business.” Isn't this a biased characterization?

As sources, the page cites articles from the New York Times and the Boston Globe. But here’s the relevant passage in the Times article:

“The Environmental Defense Fund periodically comes under fire from colleagues who view its ties to industry as too close. Fred Krupp, the organization’s executive director, said his goal was not to attack big business but to ‘get environmental results.’”

If you read the Globe article cited (http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/03/18/climate_shift/), you’ll find that some environmentalists were critical of EDF's effort to get the Texas utility TXU to scale back its plans to build coal-fired power plants.

Nowhere in either article, however, will you find anyone alleging they are “controlled by big business.” If you review EDF's website , I think you’ll agree that although they often cooperate with business, it’s difficult to conclude that they’re “controlled” by business.

I will stop and get feedback for these changes before I add a few more. Thanks!

Lguite (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! As for "claim", see WP:CLAIM, and from what you have presented here, it does sound like those segments could be copy-edited to be more WP:NPOV. Just be bold and update the article! Siawase (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those resources! I will make those changes.

I also have concerns about the sources cited in the "Critiques" section. Any resources that you know of to help me with that would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks for the warm welcome! Lguite (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem with "Criticism" section

Isn't even placing a criticism section on a Wikipedia article a violation of providing a neutral point of view ?

I'm a little puzzled that there is a “Criticism” section on this Wikipedia page, since many of EDF's sister environmental organizations, including the Natural Resources Defense Council , Conservation International , the World Wildlife , and the National Wildlife Federation have no such section on their pages. But if this page must feature a “criticism” section, the criticisms should be accurate.

– The Criticism section has Dr. Charles Wurster saying of the potential malaria epidemic that a DDT ban might cause, “Probably - so what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. This is as good a way to get rid of them as any.”

If such an outrageous quote resides on a Wikipedia page, it should have a credible source, like a mainstream newspaper or magazine. (The source cited is conservative author and global warming denier Chris Horner, under the imprint of right-wing publisher Regnery. He is simply repeating what he read elsewhere.) If there is no credible original source, I would like that reference to be dropped.

– Regarding the criticism on fisheries, the piece in Fisherman’s News was an op-ed – it was not written by a reporter. Small local operators in the Pacific Northwest don’t trawl. Big boats also have an interest in protecting fisheries – a powerful economic interest. The other concerns cited here are all true, but EDF is openly dealing with them through an approach called catch-shares .

– Finally, John Berlau, author of the book Eco-Freaks, argues that EDF and later the Clinton administration, due to an “earth-worshiping mentality,” interfered with operations of the US Army Corps of Engineers via judicial activism with the aid of Judge Charles Schwartz, forestalling levee reinforcement that led to Katrinagate shortly after Hurricane Katrina. Berlau sees “contempt for human life and safety, all for the sake of a few fish and mosquitoes.”

Berlau’s claim that, if built, the project would have protected New Orleans from Katrina, is not accurate. After Katrina, several studies were undertaken to determine what went wrong. None concluded that the failure to build the system was a factor in the flooding of New Orleans. In fact, a 2005 GAO report found that, if the barriers had built, the flooding would have been worse.

According to one of the post-Katrina studies, “The USACE [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] was aware of GNO [Greater New Orleans] HPS [Hurricane Protection System] vulnerabilities, but appeared to accept the inadequacy of the system with a complacency that undercut efforts to sound alarms and begin pressing for improvement.”

For these reasons, I support removing the "Criticism" section from this page. 69.140.37.132 (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have restored it with certain modifications. ZHurlihee (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

My name is Kent Strauss. I am part of the Oceans Program at Environmental Defense Fund and am seeking help from the Wikipedia community in clarifying what our organization views as inaccuracies, biased claims and unsubstantiated criticism to the Environmental Defense Fund Wikipedia entry. While we find much of the discussion of catch shares in the EDF article to be questionable in terms of verifiability and neutral point of view, below are three particularly egregious statements we would like to request be revised or removed:

1. “The EDF has been accused of funding and disseminating studies [120] that utilize questionable science and economics [121] in their promotion of catch share fishery management.”

A. The first source, Rust, 2012 “System turn US fishing….”, reports that EDF funds and disseminates scientific studies. It goes on to question the quality, with little or no evidence provided. (The one study cited, Worm et al. (2006) is misrepresented by the author of the news story. She suggests the article “predicts” widespread fishery collapse by 2048. Worm et al. (2006) actually project, or extrapolate, current trends and do not predict this is actually going to occur. The study was based on the available data at the time and provided a cautionary note.)

The report gives a specific example of study that was withdrawn from the author due to scientific inaccuracies that EDF continued to disseminate after the paper was declared invalid. The nuance in "predict" vs "project" is irrelevant; the cited paper was known to be of poor science as extrapolation is not a legitimate method used in population models. It is beyond question that the EDF has been "accused" funding and disseminating poor studies, since the first citation contains these accusations. You may dispute whether the studies actually are of poor quality (which really isn't disputable), but these accusations are an important part of the development of EDF and has played a major role in their controversial history. Omitting these chapters in EDF's history would be a certain bias, whether or not members of this organization object. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.82.233 (talk • contribs) 23 March 2013 (UTC)

B. The second source, Bromley (2009), is a perspectives article (not scientific consensus, as evidenced by published responses included in the same journal). It seems to make more sense to characterize this as a perspective of the author (eg. Daniel Bromley criticizes the science and economic theory…).

I'm not sure what you mean by a "perspective article." It's a widely cited economic paper that questions the legitimacy of the economics behind EDF's claim. Nowhere is it stated that it represents a consensus, but instead that there are open disputes with EDF's representation of the programs they advocate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.82.233 (talk • contribs) 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. At EDF, we do fund and disseminate scientific studies. (This is something we are proud of! We were founded by scientists and continue to base our work on science, with many staff publishing in peer-reviewed and internationally respected journals such as Marine Policy, Ocean & Coastal Management and Conservation Biology). Perhaps we can also agree that science and economics are evolving fields, and as such it is important to take careful review when new data or opposing arguments are made. This is what our organization strives to do, and has done in regards to the various papers examining the status of global fisheries. This includes the study published in Science, Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services, (Worm et al., 2006) referenced above. Kent 20:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

2. “Additionally, they have employed substantial political lobbying [122] [123] to promote fisheries policies that tend to force out smaller fishing businesses in favor of consolidated, corporate owned fleets [124] , while denying any adverse effects these programs have on fishing families and communities. [125]”

A. Brewer (2011, here 124) does not mention corporate fleets. Rather, it suggests that catch share may continue (“perpetuate”) industry consolidation, not cause it.

B. Grimm et al. (2011, here 125), does not state that EDF denies social impacts of catch shares:

“…while major concentrations in fleet ownership did not result from catch share programs, the viability of some small-scale operators and ports may indeed be reduced as fishing businesses adapt.

Fortunately, as we discuss in this report, the careful design of catch share programs can mitigate these transition costs, and the substantial new value generated by catch shares makes it possible to do so.” p.5

Here's the abstract from Grimm et al.

"In a study of all major United States federal catch share fisheries and associated shared stock fisheries in British Columbia, catch shares result in environmental improvements, economic improvements, and a mixture of changes in social performance, relative to the race for fish under traditional management. Environmentally, compliance with total allowable catch increases and discards decrease. Economically, vessel yields rise, total revenues grow, and longterm stock increases are encouraged. Socially, safety increases, some port areas modestly consolidate, needed processing capacity often reduces, and labor markets shift from part time jobs to full time jobs with similar total employment. Newer catch shares address many social concerns through careful design."

Statements such as "port areas modestly consolidate" and "labor markets shift from part time jobs to full time jobs with similar total employment" are known inaccuracies and misrepresentations of catch share programs. In fact, it is difficult to find a paper on catch shares that doesn't directly contradict these claims. Grimm et al. provides no evidence of only "modest consolidation," though it makes these claims without any quantification. Such claims and studies are unique to EDF's research and are important part of the history of this organization as their work has been used in the application of fishery management programs around the world. Again, it would an extreme bias to omit this part the organization's history, as it has impacted tens of thousands of lives and is thus critical to the public understanding of EDF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.82.233 (talk • contribs) 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. It’s important to consider the impacts of consolidation and concentration of the fishing industry under any management system, including catch shares. In reference to the original Wikipedia edit, I think we can agree that our organization has recognized consolidation and concentration in fisheries, including those managed with catch shares. To suggest that EDF denies these potential impacts is wrong. Additionally, Brewer (2011) still does not provide evidence of increased corporatization due to catch shares. As such I suggest revising the sentence to,

“Additionally, they have employed substantial political lobbying (EDF, 2012; Gloucester Time, 2011 – currently [122] [123]) to promote fisheries policies associated with consolidation and concentration of fishing fleets (Brewer, 2011; currently [124]).” Kent 20:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, except the part about your organization not recognizing that catch shares cause consolidation and wealth concentration. This is a non-debatable fact of these programs, that you still fail to recognize even in a wikipedia talk page. The referenced article and your last statement seems to indicate that you still believe that consolidation under catch shares somehow mirrors a general trend in fisheries consolidation, but this is certainly false. Catch shares, by all accounts except those at EDF, are designed to consolidate the fleets. The cited article actively denies this, and fails to recognize any causation between fleet consolidation and catch shares. It is at best misleading, but more aptly described as a known false statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.82.233 (talk • contribs) 4 April 2013

Thank you again for your response. I think we agree on the edit to the page as stated above with the exception of deleting the second clause ("while denying any adverse effects these programs have on fishing families and communities"). The paper cited in the sentence clearly recognizes these effects and I continue to suggest the sentence be revised to accurately reflect the source. Kent 20:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

3. “Recent studies [131] [132] [133] show that despite the EDF’s claims, catch shares do not end overfishing and typically result in no long term environmental gains.”

There are two problems with this statement. First, the only direct citation (131) to a study is Essington et al. (2012). The others are reviews and interpretations of the results of academic literature. Second, the sentence wrongly interprets the results (Altogether, there are three academic papers referred to directly or indirectly in the edit). The paper directly cited, Essington et al., 2012 (here as 131), contains this sentence, “There is growing evidence that catch shares have detectable impacts on marine living resources and ecosystems.”

The studies directly and indirectly cited in the above sentence find that catch shares tend to,

- Have lower likelihood of overfishing (Melnychuck et al 2012, indirectly cited in 132)

- Have greater compliance with catch limits (Melnychuck et al 2012, indirectly cited in 132)

- Reduce the mean level of discards (Essington 2010, indirectly cited in 131 and 132)

- Reduce inter-annual variance in landings and exploitation rates (Esstington 2010, indirectly cited in 131 and 132).

Those are other findings in these papers, but they do not contradict the fact that it was found that catch shares don't end over fishing and sometimes lead to overfishing, as has been the case in the East Coast groundfish fishery, along with the pacific halibut and and sablefish fisheries. The claim isn't that catch share don't have "detectable impacts," it's that these programs don't "promote sustainability", as EDF claims. Melnychuck et al, should have also been cited. I will change the citations from the reviews to the papers themselves, if that's the issue, but the point is the same: though the EDF widely claims that catch shares uniquely and result in long term ecological sustainability, but this has not been found to be true in any modern scientific comparisons between catch share programs and other modern (output control) management methods. Again, this is an extremely important aspect of this organization and represents the widespread perception of EDF. The EDF did submit a policy paper to president Obama in 2008 that made what are now widely considered to be false claims about the state of the world's fisheries along with the solutions to fishery problems. That lead to monumental and contentious changes in fishery management for the last four years. "Unbias" and "neutral" doesn't mean "positive." There are some important aspects of EDF that can be interpreted as negative, but that doesn't mean that they should omitted from their history as they are critical to the public understanding of this organization. These claims about the EDF are commonly made by politicians, academics, members of fishing communities and journalists. This is an objective part of the organization's legacy and must be included in the wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.82.233 (talk • contribs) 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. We seem to agree that these papers suggest catch shares reduce the likelihood of excessive overfishing and have had, on average, some long-term environmental benefits (eg. greater compliance with catch limits, lower discards and lower inter-annual variance in landings and exploitation rates). Based on this, I suggest revising the statement to include criticism that catch share do not always end overfishing and either remove or revise the claim that they do not have long-term environment benefits (to be consistent with the papers being cited). Here is a possible revised statement,

“Recent studies (Essington, 2010; Melnychuk et al., 2012; Essington et al., 2012) show that despite the EDF’s claims, catch shares do not always end overfishing. However, these same studies (Essington, 2010; Melnychuk et al., 2012; Essington et al., 2012) found catch shares have a lower likelihood of overfishing as well as additional environmental outcomes such as compliance with catch limits, lower discards and more stable landings and exploitation rates.” Kent 20:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Not agreed. These studies concluded that catch shares do not have long term ecological gains. Here's a few quotes from the essington paper

"I tested the hypothesis that catch share systems lead to improved ecological stewardship and status of exploited populations. Impacts of catch share programs were measured through comparisons of fisheries with catch shares to fisheries without catch shares or by comparing fisheries before and after catch shares were implemented. The average levels of most indicators were unaffected by catch share implementation: only discard rate, which declined significantly in catch share fisheries, showed a significant response."

"However, Chu (22) examined trends in the biomass levels of harvested populations and found little evidence for changes in mean levels or in the rates of population change following catch share implementation."

"Catch shares generally do not correct overfishing"

"This paper provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of how implementing catch shares affects the status of fished populations and identifies the attributes of fishery and catch shares that make effects more pronounced."

"Contrary to the expectation, the fitted response did not show a strong relationship to precatch share conditions (here, averaged over the 5 years prior to catch share implementation, though similar results were obtained by using the entire precatch share period; Figure 2). This result was particularly striking for population biomass, where the majority of stocks had B:BMSY <1, yet many populations exhibited declines in biomass after catch share implementation (Figure 2)."

Kent, I suggest you take a long hard look at what you're doing and why you're doing it. It appears that fish populations do not respond to your ideology, but the livelihoods of thousands of fishermen do, and you have effectively destroyed entire communities and families for no real gain. I'll agree with the change of wording for the corporations, even though the article clearly suggests that catch shares lead to corporatization of fisheries. The rest of your suggested edits are designed to mislead the reader, and are not appropriate for a wikipedia page. You have many forums to spread your version of the truth, but here it must conform to reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.82.233 (talk • contribs) 4 April 2013

Thank you again for your response. The papers clearly show ecological gains, finding lower likelihood of overfishing, greater compliance with catch limits, lower discards, and more stable fisheries. All of these fall into the category of "long-term ecological benefits." The paper you are citing above was published in 2010, and since that time, Essington and colleagues have published with larger data sets and improved methodologies. These papers, as referenced above, add to our knowledge of the ecological benefit of catch shares in the long term.

I again suggest the following edit, which conveys both sides of the issue and accurately summarizes the research findings: “Recent studies (Essington, 2010; Melnychuk et al., 2012; Essington et al., 2012) show that despite the EDF’s claims, catch shares do not always end overfishing. However, these same studies (Essington, 2010; Melnychuk et al., 2012; Essington et al., 2012) found catch shares have a lower likelihood of overfishing as well as additional environmental outcomes such as compliance with catch limits, lower discards and more stable landings and exploitation rates.” Kent 20:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

None of those fall into the category of "long-term ecological gains," since they don't translate into larger mean fish biomass, which is the primary measure of ecological health. What you are describing may be more aptly described as management gains, however, since catch shares are the most expensive and complex form of fishery management, it would be misleading to describe these fisheries as more manageable. The later papers, which are cited indirectly in the Wikipedia article, only reaffirmed the same conclusions from the 2010 paper, hence the title of the summary of findings "NEW STUDY FINDS CATCH SHARES IMPROVE CONSISTENCY, NOT HEALTH, OF FISHERIES." Your proposed edit is highly misleading and implies results that are in direct contradiction to scientific findings. For example, stating that catch shares "do not always end overfishing" implies that they normally do end overfishing, which is absolutely false. See the quote that I provided earlier. Also, "overfishing" isn't defined based on ecological impacts in those papers, it is defined in terms of management targets, and the difference between catch shares and fisheries managed with catch limits was slight, and likely within the margin of error of the study(that figure was not provided, but you could contact the authors directly). Your attempts to deceive the Wikipedia community are inappropriate and I again suggest that you find other means of disseminating your unique depiction of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.83.19 (talk • contribs) 6 June 2013

I signed the previously unsigned comments inserted by 65.74.82.233 into above narrative, to make it clearer who wrote what. EAHull (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Some environmentalists claim that Environmental Defense Fund is controlled by big business.

As sources, the page cites articles from the New York Times and the Boston Globe. But here’s the relevant passage in the Times article:

“The Environmental Defense Fund periodically comes under fire from colleagues who view its ties to industry as too close. Fred Krupp, the organization’s executive director, said his goal was not to attack big business but to ‘get environmental results.’”

If you read the Globe article cited (http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/03/18/climate_shift/), you’ll find that some environmentalists were critical of EDF's effort to get the Texas utility TXU to scale back its plans to build coal-fired power plants.

Nowhere in either article, however, will you find anyone alleging they are “controlled by big business.” If you review EDF's website, I think you’ll agree that although they often cooperate with business, it’s difficult to conclude that they’re “controlled” by business.

Lguite (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Moved section about EDF's connections to big business to Criticisms section and reworded/expanded to more accurately summarize the two articles cited; at no point do articles point to concern that EDF is "controlled" by big business.--EAHull (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed sentence from intro: “The Wall Street Journal referred to EDF as a 'business-friendly, market-loving strain of environmentalism.'" Sentence is confusingly worded. Author did not cite Wall Street Journal article, but a secondary source. EDF's work with big business is already addressed (and the same article cited) in the Criticisms section (see Talk above). --EAHull (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Criticism Defense Problem

I'd like the original author to make the following change: The "criticisms" section includes the statement, "But with many reports suggesting that most of the world's commercial fisheries could collapse within decades," however only one citation, not "many", is given and that citation is for a BBC article on a 2008 report on the economic inefficiencies in fishery management not on the likelihood of widespread fishery collapse. There are no citations for reports indicating that most of the world's commercial fisheries could collapse within decades. Please provide multiple legitimate citations to back this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.82.233 (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Remove section?

I'd like to remove the following section entirely. The book is listed but not the pages and I have no idea what it is all about. We do know for a fact that the Army Corps of Engineers eventually admitted that the numerous studies were correct in naming them at fault for building an extremely inadequate levee system. That is well-covered in our article, which incidentally has no mention of Berlau's claim. Thoughts?

John Berlau, author of the book Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism Is Hazardous to Your Health! argues that EDF and later the Clinton administration interfered with operations of the US Army Corps of Engineers via judicial activism with the aid of Judge Charles Schwartz, forestalling levee reinforcement before Hurricane Katrina.[116]

However, Berlau’s claim that, if built, the levee reinforcement system would have protected New Orleans from Katrina, is inaccurate. After Katrina, several studies were undertaken to determine what went wrong. None concluded that the failure to build the system was a factor in the flooding of New Orleans. In fact, a 2005 GAO report found that, if the barriers had built, the flooding would have been worse.[117]

According to one of the post-Katrina studies, “The USACE [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] was aware of GNO [Greater New Orleans] HPS [Hurricane Protection System] vulnerabilities, but appeared to accept the inadequacy of the system with a complacency that undercut efforts to sound alarms and begin pressing for improvement.”[118] Gandydancer (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree that this section should be removed, and will do so. It's confusing and unnecessary, as Berlau's claims have been solidly disproven. --EAHull (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)