Center for Biological Diversity — a multi-million dollar environmental litigation factory
by Hugh Holub on Jun. 03, 2011, under Center for Biological Diversity, climate change, endangered species act, environment water and energy, global warming, litigious environmental groups, politicsFrom High Country News: http://www.hcn.org/issues/41.22/firebrand-ways
‘Firebrand ways’
A visit with one of the founders of the Center for Biological Diversity
by Tony Davis
Twenty years ago, they were Earth Firsters, living in tepees, trying to save spotted owls and grafting together a shoestring budget from their unemployment checks. Today, the Center for Biological Diversity has a budget of $7 million, 62 full-time staffers and 15 offices nationally, in locations from Washington, D.C., to Silver City, N.M. By filing 600 lawsuits and countless petitions against the federal government, the center has won the listing of 380 species as threatened or endangered. It also says it has secured 110 million acres of critical habitat and proposed another 130 million acres. CBD has won a reputation as the country’s most militant large environmental group, one that seldom shrinks from controversy.
From its Tucson headquarters, it’s expanded its species-saving tactics to protect rivers, stop sprawl, battle overgrazing and even tackle climate change. Last year, the group helped get the polar bear listed as a threatened species. Here, one of CBD’s founders, 45-year-old director Kieran (pronounced Keer-Onh) Suckling, looks back at how the group got where it is and explains how it differs from the “Big 10″ green groups
….HCN What role do lawsuits play in your strategy to list endangered species?
SUCKLING They are one tool in a larger campaign, but we use lawsuits to help shift the balance of power from industry and government agencies, toward protecting endangered species. That plays out on many levels. At its simplest, by obtaining an injunction to shut down logging or prevent the filling of a dam, the power shifts to our hands. The Forest Service needs our agreement to get back to work, and we are in the position of being able to powerfully negotiate the terms of releasing the injunction.
New injunctions, new species listings and new bad press take a terrible toll on agency morale. When we stop the same timber sale three or four times running, the timber planners want to tear their hair out. They feel like their careers are being mocked and destroyed — and they are. So they become much more willing to play by our rules and at least get something done. Psychological warfare is a very underappreciated aspect of environmental campaigning. …
The Tucson based Center for Biological Diversity has been waging a nation-wide war against ranchers, mines, military bases and other land uses.
In a form filed with the IRS for 2008 the Center for Biological Diversity repoprted the following salaries for its top officials:
Peter Galvin, Director $94,922
Todd Schulke Treasurer 51,500
Robin D. Silver Secretary 81,500
Kieran Suckling Exec Dir 104,313
The Center for Biological Diversity is also one of the targets in federal efforts to stop litigious environmental groups from soaking US taxpayers with a tsunami of law suits.
According to the 2008 IRS filing, the Center received $1,398,161 for its legal fees and costs from suing the government. That dropped to $ 1,173,517 in 2009 and to $ 685,981 in 2010 according to its annual reports for a toital of $ 3,257,659 over a 3 year period.
The CBD received $ 1,423,127 in foundation grants in 2009 and $ 1,876,800 in foundation grants in 2010.
The CBD received $ 4,795,424 in memberships and donations in 2009 and $ 5,389,003 in memberships and donations in 2010.
Total revenue from legal fees, foundations and memberships was $7, 392,068 in 2008 and $ 7,951,784 in 2010.
Obviously fighting for the environment is a serious business financially.
______________________________
Here is some publicly available financial information about the Center for Biological Diversity:
From the IRS 2008 form 990 posted at http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/850/850420285/850420285_200812_990.pdf
Cost recovery for environments litigation $1,398,161
List all states in which the organization is registered or licensed to solicit funds or has been notified it is exempt from
registration or licensing.
AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, IL, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, VA, WA, WI
Compensation of Officers , Directors , Trustees , Key Employees
Peter Galvin, Director $94,922
Todd Schulke Treasurer 51,500
Robin D. Silver Secretary 81,500
Kieran Suckling Exec Dir 104,313
Center for Biological Diversity 2009 2010 from annual report
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications/reports/AnnualRpt2010.pdf
SUPPORT AND REVENUE 2009 2010
Grants and donations
Foundation grants $ 1,423,127 $ 1,876,800
Membership and donations 4,795,424 5,389,003
Revenue
Legal returns $ 1,173,517 $ 685,981
Contracts 5,780 7,354
Miscellaneous 15,162 52,017
Investment income 69,531 14,104
EXPENSES
Program services
Endangered Species 1,261,075 1,339,726
Climate 987,648 1,118,601
Public Lands 1,368,117 1,586,664
International 207,108 171,880
Oceans 638,570 735,379
Urban Wildlands 369,136 528,052
General and administrative 284,064 414,437
Fundraising 675,408 445,361
_____________________________
More
Army of Western Lawmakers to Introduce Legislation to Combat Frivolous Lawsuits on Taxpayer Dime
Extreme environmental groups hurt environmental cause
Center for Biological Diversity seeks to destroy Fort Huachuca to save the San Pedro River
White House reveals plan to streamline Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act series of articles:
Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1
Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land
Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly
Background info on Endangered Species Act:
Endangered Species Act — an Introduction
Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?
Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation
Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections
Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm” and “Take”
Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat
Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans
_________________________________________________________
News about litigious environment group activities:
Dispatches from the litigious environmental group war on America
Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog
Judge puts WildEarth Guardian endangered species agreement on hold
Center for Biological Diversity fights imperiled species deal
Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled
Desert Pupfish Forces Border Agents to Patrol on Foot
New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation
EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups
Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions
June 3rd, 2011 on 5:38 am
When I read this, Hugh, it is clear that there is an assumption on your part that, were things in their correct balance, there should be no way that the CBD should have anywhere near the power to affect the direction of things to the extent that they can.
You seem to be bringing out the salaries of the principals to back up your contention that their real motivation is greed, but the numbers actually refute that point. Why not list the salaries of some the CEO’s and board members of for-profit businesses that the CBD is up against in this fight? I think you have a POV that the financial, political and legal balance of power should naturally and rightly be in the hands of capitalists seeking to profit, whereas groups opposing those interests should naturally and rightly remain as a few college kids holding signs, standing in front of bulldozers and getting arrested before the bulldozing goes on as planned.
The CBD received 1.4 million in legal fees in 2008? This is the big rip-off you’re talking about? Mountain out of molehill, Hugh.
June 3rd, 2011 on 7:21 am
Actually the way I see it CBD looks more like a Marxist venture…destroy capitalism…except in the name of protecting the workers they want to protect the critters.
And a million dollars of taxpayer money is still a lot of money to ordinary folks. And few people make $100 grand a year.
June 3rd, 2011 on 10:24 am
“…CBD looks more like a Marxist venture…destroy capitalism…”
There’s nothing about CBD that is Marxist. Never have I heard them espouse Marxist theory in the name of protecting the environment. The Marxist POV is that capitalism, with its emphasis on short-term profit over sustainability, is incompatible with effective stewardship of the commons. So, yes, there may be some common interest there in environmental protection, but this does not create a complete similarity of purpose overall.
The impression I get of CBD is more like the Little Dutch Boy with his finger in the dam (or maybe that of David up against Goliath). The impression you are trying to create is that of CBD as a slobbering behemoth laying waste to America. This leads me to believe you are opposed to any efforts that are in the least effective in impeding industry’s unrestricted use of the land.
That a million dollars is a lot of money to ordinary workers is simply not relevant in the context of the economics of national and governmental organizations. You can’t even run for dogcatcher anymore for less than a million, nor can you take a large corporation to court for the kind of money the average American worker sees.
June 3rd, 2011 on 11:20 am
Where Marxism, communism and a lot of other “isms” fail is there is always an elite that thinks it is able to run the show for the benefit of everyone else because they are either smarter, richer, or better intentioned than everyone else. If one definition of “marxism” is anti-capitalism…then read the CBD stuff.
As far as “managing the comons”…that is a really interesting problem because communism was one of the worst managers of the commons.
The problem has always been short term gain and fear someone else will catch all the fish first or graze the grass first …and deflecting the cost consequences (negative externalities) onto someone else who wasn’t part of the decision or benefit community.
There is a need always for a balance between self interest and that of the long term survivial of an entire community…and we rock back and forth between extremes…like more government regulation versus less government regulation…but as a culture we have problems looking down several generations….i.e. the Social Security and Medicare fight.
A lot to be learned from cultures who achieve that balance….few actually have.
It never works using authority to command as the sole tool….must have broad society-wide consensus where individuals will act in community interest as well as self interest.
I think there is a basic genetic sense of community in people…we just don’t have a lot of ways to express this…except when there is a natural disaster and people start opening up their homes to srangers from New Orleans, or as I saw last night, a whole town full of Republicans ready to house and feed the fire fighters.
June 3rd, 2011 on 5:53 pm
“Where Marxism, communism and a lot of other “isms” fail is there is always an elite that thinks it is able to run the show for the benefit of everyone else because they are either smarter, richer, or better intentioned than everyone else.”
Sounds exactly like the situation under Corporatism.
June 3rd, 2011 on 11:20 pm
It’s settled! They both suck.
June 30th, 2011 on 1:30 pm
Since 1999 they have shut down our fishing streams in Littlerock CA for an imaginary toad no one has ever seen but the center for Bio diversity. They have killed all of our trout. As if that would save a toad? This organization is a communist cancer. The damage this hand full of people have done to this country is insurmountable. There has to be a legal way to stop them from hurting us any more than they already have. How can they have gotten away with everything they’ve done with hardly a wimper from the American people?