97
a wide variety of other parties—that ESA protections for sage-grouse are
not necessary. The exchange continues to be represented as relevant and
vibrant,
3
despite the fact that zero offsets have been created under this
governance mechanism and the buyer of offsets has publicly announced
their unwillingness to participate. Therefore, it seems reasonable to argue
that the exchange serves to legitimate business as usual. The exchange
functions to sustain the cognitive dissonance—that is, capacity to reconcile contradictions—attached to existing socioecological relations (Walker
et al. 2009). The capacity of the exchange to organise and sustain dialogue
in the policy field appears to be sufficient to maintain the legitimacy of
existing socioecological relations. According to the co-evolutionary model
sketched above (Fig. 8.1), there are no accountability tests and no selection pressure to advance structural or technical changes that could be recognised as a sustainability transition. That said, if a significant political
bloc were to commit to conservation, and federal and state regulators
were to reverse their position and require firms to purchase offsets (Green
2018), the exchange would be a critical element of the infrastructure supporting governance and sage-grouse conservation. In this sense, it is possible to interpret the exchange as all of the following: a failure, a distraction,
and an accomplishment.
8.3.2
Quantification Tools
The technical core of the Colorado sage-grouse habitat exchange is the
Habitat Quantification Tool (HQT) sage-grouse exchange. This habitat
suitability model produces an integrated assessment of how site-specific
land use/land cover changes affect the productivity of land for sage-grouse
feeding, reproduction, nesting and fledging. HQT scores specify the magnitude of the habitat degradation (debits) associated with direct (e.g., oil
and gas well pad and road and electricity service to the well) and indirect
effects (e.g., spill overs from disturbed sites that degrade surrounding
habitat values, measured through a distance-decay function) sage-grouse.
The HQT also scores the positive contributions (credits) associated with
conservation activities (e.g., ecological restoration, habitat enhancements,
3
See, for instance, https://www.thepwc.org/habitat-exchangeexchange/ and https://
hickenlooper-signs-executive-order-furthering-conservation-and-clarifying-mitigation-ofthe-greater-sage-grouse/.
8 ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE REGULATION OF LEGITIMACY…
a wide variety of other parties—that ESA protections for sage-grouse are
not necessary. The exchange continues to be represented as relevant and
vibrant,
3
despite the fact that zero offsets have been created under this
governance mechanism and the buyer of offsets has publicly announced
their unwillingness to participate. Therefore, it seems reasonable to argue
that the exchange serves to legitimate business as usual. The exchange
functions to sustain the cognitive dissonance—that is, capacity to reconcile contradictions—attached to existing socioecological relations (Walker
et al. 2009). The capacity of the exchange to organise and sustain dialogue
in the policy field appears to be sufficient to maintain the legitimacy of
existing socioecological relations. According to the co-evolutionary model
sketched above (Fig. 8.1), there are no accountability tests and no selection pressure to advance structural or technical changes that could be recognised as a sustainability transition. That said, if a significant political
bloc were to commit to conservation, and federal and state regulators
were to reverse their position and require firms to purchase offsets (Green
2018), the exchange would be a critical element of the infrastructure supporting governance and sage-grouse conservation. In this sense, it is possible to interpret the exchange as all of the following: a failure, a distraction,
and an accomplishment.
8.3.2
Quantification Tools
The technical core of the Colorado sage-grouse habitat exchange is the
Habitat Quantification Tool (HQT) sage-grouse exchange. This habitat
suitability model produces an integrated assessment of how site-specific
land use/land cover changes affect the productivity of land for sage-grouse
feeding, reproduction, nesting and fledging. HQT scores specify the magnitude of the habitat degradation (debits) associated with direct (e.g., oil
and gas well pad and road and electricity service to the well) and indirect
effects (e.g., spill overs from disturbed sites that degrade surrounding
habitat values, measured through a distance-decay function) sage-grouse.
The HQT also scores the positive contributions (credits) associated with
conservation activities (e.g., ecological restoration, habitat enhancements,
3
See, for instance, https://www.thepwc.org/habitat-exchangeexchange/ and https://
hickenlooper-signs-executive-order-furthering-conservation-and-clarifying-mitigation-ofthe-greater-sage-grouse/.
8 ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE REGULATION OF LEGITIMACY…