In the wake of the decision by the Bush administration to try and neuter the Endangered Species Act, environmental groups across America have come out in opposition to the plans. The latest, the Ecological Society of America, has come out hitting hard.

"The concept of independent scientific review has been in practice since the 18th century and is crucial to ensuring that ideas and proposed work are scientifically sound," said Alison Power, president of the Society and professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University. "This overhaul of the Endangered Species Act would place the fate of rare species in the hands of government stakeholders who are not qualified to assess the environmental impacts of their activities."

However it goes even further than that, considering that many companies in existence at the moment don’t play by the rules that do exist, let alone ones that will change in the future. Can you honestly picture a company, given the opportunity to do otherwise, halt development of a project (for example) in favor of protecting a species of animal?

This move by Bush comes at the same time that he has announced he hopes to set up two new protected areas in US waters. And it seems very much as if, in his last few months in office, Bush is trying to please as many people as possible, which will only end up pissing off even more.

"What if we allowed pharmaceutical companies to approve and distribute drugs without consulting the Food and Drug Administration?" asks Power. "The result would spell potential disaster for humans. In this case, the vulnerable party is our environment."

And as often happens, humans come first, in place of the environment. A justifiable point of view, sure, until you realize that by harming the environment now, we destroy the future for humans later.

More from the GO Network

The Proposed Neutering of Our Endangered Species Act

Should All Arctic Species be Listed as Endangered?

Bush Administration Seeks Endangered Species Status for the Elusive ‘Climate Skeptic’