Swim for it!

Selling out the polar bears ... or smart climate politics? 7

<<< Back to first page of the article

Additional reactions:

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chair of Senate Environment Committee: “I disagree with the Department of Interior’s decision to limit the tools we have available under the Endangered Species Act to save the polar bear from extinction.  Monitoring the situation will not tell us more than we know now - that the polar bear is threatened and we need to act.”

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), noted climate denier and ranking Republican on Senate Environment Committee: “I applaud the Secretary of Interior for making the right call and applying a common-sense approach to the Endangered Species Act. Secretary Salazar is absolutely correct: ‘The Endangered Species Act is not the proper mechanism for controlling our nation’s carbon emissions.’ The same is also true of the Clean Air Act or any other federal law.”

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R): “We all want to preserve and protect the polar bear using the best possible tools, but there is absolutely no need to change the 4(d) rule to accomplish this purpose. I want to thank Secretary Salazar for his careful review of the science and the administrative record that led to this decision.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska): “I’m pleased that the department has chosen to retain the existing polar bear listing rule, which provides rational measures for the protection of polar bears within their natural range. ... I appreciate the Obama administration’s position that the ESA should not be used to address global climate change, but I remain concerned about the ability of this rule to be misused through third-party lawsuits to block important projects anywhere in the country.”

Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska): “This reaches far beyond the scope of protecting polar bears. It was a political ploy influenced by the extreme environmentalists to hurt our economy, and put Americans out of jobs.  Want to add more livestock to your herd?  You can’t, unless you run it past Fish and Wildlife first.  Want to build a school or church thousands of miles away from the nearest polar bear?  Make sure you add the Department of Interior to the list of government officials you need to check with.  What happened to our civil liberties?  Revoking the rule would have set a dangerous precedent; it would impede our economy and hurt Americans.  I commend the Secretary for maintaining the 4(d) special rule for polar bears.  This is a victory for Alaska as we move toward securing our energy future.”

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), ranking Republican on House Natural Resources Committee: “On the same day the Administration announced the highest unemployment rate since 1983, I applaud Secretary Salazar for making a common sense decision that will ensure more jobs are not lost due to excessive regulations of greenhouse gases by the government.  This decision will help protect crucial projects needed to stimulate our economy from becoming the target of frivolous lawsuits by environmental groups designed to stop economic development in our country. We all want to preserve and protect the polar bear, and I am pleased the Administration has recognized that we can do that without shutting down the economies of cities and states that are thousands of miles away from the Arctic.”

Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope: “If polar bears are going to survive global warming, they will need far greater protections than what the law currently offers. The Bush administration enacted this special rule in an effort to delay action in the face of overwhelming evidence that global warming poses a very real and immediate threat to polar bears. It’s unfortunate that this rule is still lingering as a reminder of the Bush administration’s denial of science and failure to act.”

David Dickson, director of the Alaska Wilderness League‘s Western Arctic and Oceans Program: “We’re extremely displeased in Secretary Salazar’s decision to keep the previous administration’s polar bear policy in place.  We think the title of his press release—‘Salazar Retains Conservation Rule for Polar Bears’—is a little bit ironic.  That rule basically keeps in place protection of the polar bear under the Marine Mammal Protection Act instead of the Endangered Species Act, which the polar bear should fall under. We are hopeful that with this administration we can work with the secretary and Department of Interior to develop a rational and sound policy for the conservation of the arctic, and thus the polar bear.  The polar bear is an iconic species of a habitat that is critically threatened.

Melanie Duchin, Greenpeace‘s global warming campaigner in Alaska: “Secretary Salazar’s failure to rescind this regulation only serves to cement the Bush administration’s legacy of ignoring global warming science, thus putting the polar bear at further risk of extinction. Regrettably, it seems to reflect an emerging willingness by the Obama administration to ignore clear scientific imperatives on global warming in the face of industry pressure.”

<<< Back to first page of the article

Jonathan Hiskes is a Grist staff writer. He reports, tweets, eats, asks questions, self-promotes, looks out windows, and wonders if it could be like this.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. roncram Posted 5:55 am
    09 May 2009

    The polar bears are not in trouble.  In the 1950s, polar bear population was 5,000.  Now it is about 20,000.  Don't be fooled by pictures of bears floating on ice.  They are not about to drown.  Polar bears are very strong swimmers who are often seen swimming tens of miles from land...er, ice.  They swim for a while and then float on their backs.  Obama is not rushing to protect them because they do not need protection.  It's that simple. BTW, Steven Chu really messed up when he was testifying before Congress.  Grist reported the story wrong.  Grist made it look like Joe Barton did not know what he was talking about.  Andy Revkin disagrees and sent one of his stories off to Chu to inform him of the facts. Here's the story he sent.http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/science/earth/30core.html I would have made this comment on the correct Grist story but comments were closed on it.

    Permalink

    1. Tyler Durden Posted 9:52 am
      10 May 2009

      First, this is not just about polar bears.  If this probably illegal rule did not exist, all actions that effect listed species would be subject to Endangered Species Act restrictions, giving us a great tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.Second, you are dead wrong about polar bears not being in trouble.  Scientists predict that if global warming continues apace, polar bears will become extinct before the end of the century.  And despite polar bears being strong swimmers, they are already starting to drown due to having to swim unnaturally long distances because of ice melt caused by global warming.  Also, pointing to the 1950s as an example of a good level of species population is absurd.  If you want to look at what the biologically and ecologically sound polar bear population number would be, look to the time before Europeans began causing it to be reduced.

      Permalink

      1. roncram Posted 10:23 pm
        10 May 2009

        First, based on the numbers I provided (which are not in dispute by anyone) most people with agree me that the polar bears are not in any immediate trouble.  However, scientists have predicted polar bears will decrease substantially in the future under certain conditions. Second, the scientists who offered these predictions did not follow scientific forecasting principles.  Scientific forecasting is a fairly new discipline.  The first peer-reviewed scientific forecasting journal began publishing about 25 years ago. Now four journals publish in the field. Two of the leaders of scientific forecasting were commissioned to audit the polar bears prediction and found the prediction to be worthless.  See http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=79&Itemid=131Summary:  The polar bears are not currently in trouble.  According to scientific forecasting principles, there is no reason to predict a large decrease in polar bear population.  Sea ice melt stopped in 2007 and a new cooler climate regime began in late 2007 when the PDO switched to its cool phase.  This switch to the cool phase was predicted in a peer-reviewed paper in 2002 written by Bratcher and Giese. A free full version of the paper is not available online but you can see their slide presentation at http://www.decvar.org/documents/CCR_workshop/bratcher.htm?PHPSESSID=df81bed52419c895efef9135099fb26e9   

        Permalink

  2. Steven Earl Salmony Posted 5:45 am
    11 May 2009

    Thanks for all the clear voices calling for the preservation of life as we know it and our planetary home.More voices.......we need many more voices speaking out loudly and often.  Time is being wasted by those with wealth and power who adamantly defend unsustainable status quo overconsumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities of the human species that are overwhelming and threatening to ravage the Earth in our time.  Because these distinctly human activities could soon become patently unsustainable, necessary behavior change has to occur fast.  If more members of the human family do not speak out to vigorously resist what the leaders of the human community are demanding all of us do now as we strive to ravenously overconsume Earth's resources; to relentlessly hoard wealth; and to overproduce unnecessary stuff, then the planetary home we are inhabiting and overpopulating could be made uninhabitable for our children and life as we know it by 2012.

    Permalink

  3. stopGW Posted 9:07 pm
    11 May 2009

    OBAMA THREW THE POLAR BEAR UNDER THE BUSbut the polar bear is also us.

    Kudos to Grist for leading with this story-- the biggest story in the news: one more significant step speeding step toward global warming.Obama is showing a
    terrible weakness for supporting BIG COAL, BIG OIL, BIG GAS. We already have seen since almost the first days of electioneering that Obama evinces a belief that there is such a thing as "Clean Coal".  He is from a BIG COAL state-- and they did elect him.  BIG COAL, BIG OIL and BIG GAS also did elect George W. Bush, from whose policies we are still emerging. Well-- almost.  Seems Obama agrees with the Bush Administration on the Polar Bear and its habitat.WHY THE POLAR BEAR IS "ALSO US"
    One effect of global warming which is not in dispute is that when the oceans get warm enough, massive amounts of the greenhouse gas methane  (23 times as effective as carbon dioxide) currently frozen below the surface, will suddenly escape into our atmosphere.Scroll down to "Arctic Methane Release" for details:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#FeedbackThere is no such thing as clean coal
    http://thedirtylie.com/Listen to Duke Energy CEO talk about among other things how he expects America to pay for his company's research into the unfeasible alchemy: carbon sequestration-- so called "clean coal".  These companies and their management are only interested in their own paychecks and profits, and we let them run these deadly polluting carbon-fuel businesses at the cost of our own lives
    http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenpeaceusa_blog/2009/05/05/duke_energy_ceo_does_doublespeak_on_ccsThis decision-- not to protect the Polar Bear and its habitat-- coupled
    with others where Obama is in agreement that "clean coal" is feasible--
    are fatefully flawed steps toward ever-speeding global warming.Energy Czar Steven Chu is silent on this matter. What up?

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement