NEWS: polar bears, the endangered species act, and climate change
29/05/08 09:44
DC is very hot this week — it was 97 degrees F when I landed on Monday, and yesterday was much hotter. And very humid. On landing, I needed to get to my B & B quickly and decided to opt for a cab. Taxis are a little out of favor in the climate change world, especially in cities with a decent mass transit system like DC. But I didn’t see an alternative. Popping out of the terminal, I took the first cab in line. The small man in the front seat turned to me and said in a thick accent, Hello. Where are you going? Seventeenth and Lanier, near Adams-Morgan, I said. Where’s that? I leaned back, suddenly very hot and very tired.
UPDATE: Nice annotated blog on the decision on the New York Times site.
____________________________________
The big news on 24 May was the long-awaited listing of polar bears as a threatened species on the Endangered Species Act by the Bush administration. The primary threat, of course, is climate change impacts that are greatly accelerated relative to the rest of the planet at high latitudes. Unfortunately, there have rapidly been criticisms of the action. Most attacks have been from the people saying that the listing allows development — especially oil drilling and mining — to occur unabated in some of the regions where the threats are greatest. From Senator John Kerry:
“Today’s announcement is both a victory and a lifeline for our last remaining polar bears. The next step is to secure the long-term survival of the species by ensuring that the polar bear habitat in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas is protected from the threat of oil and gas drilling. Even while the Interior Department was taking steps to give these bears ESA protection, the Bush Administration opened almost 30 million acres of polar bear habitat to oil and gas exploration, which -- by their own admission -- may ultimately kill polar bears. We need to protect the bears’ habitat, and we must do so now. The polar bear has become the mascot of all we could lose to climate change and it is critical that we fight to save this species even as we wage a larger battle against global warming.”
But a few, including Oklahoma's great senator James Inhofe, called the listing "political" rather than scientific. According to the senator:
“Unfortunately, the decision to list the polar bear as ‘threatened’ appears to be based more on politics than science. With the number of polar bears substantially up over the past forty years, the decision announced today appears to be based entirely on unproven computer models. The decision, therefore, is simply a case of reality versus unproven computer models, the methodology of which has been challenged by many scientists and forecasting experts. If the models are invalid, then the decision based on them is not justified. It’s disappointing that Secretary Kempthorne failed to stand up to liberal special interest groups who advocated this listing.
“Lost in the debate is the fact that polar bear numbers have dramatically increased over the past forty years – a fact even liberal environmental activists are forced to concede. According to Canadian scientists, 11 of the 13 bear populations are stable, with some increasing. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service now estimates that there are currently 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears. These numbers are substantially up from lows estimates in the range of 5,000-10,000 in the 1950s and 1960s. Credit should be given to protection already provided the polar bear by way of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the several international conservation treaties including the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears and the U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Conservation and Management Act of 2006, as well as conservation, education, and outreach agreement with native peoples.
“Today’s decision will have far reaching consequences. Liberal special interests have employed hundreds of lawyers to try and convert current environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act into climate laws. Yet the ESA is simply not equipped to regulate economy-wide greenhouse gases, nor does the Fish and Wildlife Service have the expertise to be a pollution control agency. The regulatory tools of the ESA function best when at-risk species are faced with local, tangible threats. Greenhouse gas emissions are not local. The implications of today’s decision, therefore, will undoubtedly lead to a drastic increase in litigation and eager lawyers ready to use this listing to do exactly what they have intended to do all along – shut down energy production.”
Senator Inhofe is perhaps most famous for calling climate change the great hoax ever put over U.S. citizens. He is a toxic civil servant. I wish he would live long enough to rue his words, but surely his children and grandchildren will.
____________________________________
The big news on 24 May was the long-awaited listing of polar bears as a threatened species on the Endangered Species Act by the Bush administration. The primary threat, of course, is climate change impacts that are greatly accelerated relative to the rest of the planet at high latitudes. Unfortunately, there have rapidly been criticisms of the action. Most attacks have been from the people saying that the listing allows development — especially oil drilling and mining — to occur unabated in some of the regions where the threats are greatest. From Senator John Kerry:
“Today’s announcement is both a victory and a lifeline for our last remaining polar bears. The next step is to secure the long-term survival of the species by ensuring that the polar bear habitat in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas is protected from the threat of oil and gas drilling. Even while the Interior Department was taking steps to give these bears ESA protection, the Bush Administration opened almost 30 million acres of polar bear habitat to oil and gas exploration, which -- by their own admission -- may ultimately kill polar bears. We need to protect the bears’ habitat, and we must do so now. The polar bear has become the mascot of all we could lose to climate change and it is critical that we fight to save this species even as we wage a larger battle against global warming.”
But a few, including Oklahoma's great senator James Inhofe, called the listing "political" rather than scientific. According to the senator:
“Unfortunately, the decision to list the polar bear as ‘threatened’ appears to be based more on politics than science. With the number of polar bears substantially up over the past forty years, the decision announced today appears to be based entirely on unproven computer models. The decision, therefore, is simply a case of reality versus unproven computer models, the methodology of which has been challenged by many scientists and forecasting experts. If the models are invalid, then the decision based on them is not justified. It’s disappointing that Secretary Kempthorne failed to stand up to liberal special interest groups who advocated this listing.
“Lost in the debate is the fact that polar bear numbers have dramatically increased over the past forty years – a fact even liberal environmental activists are forced to concede. According to Canadian scientists, 11 of the 13 bear populations are stable, with some increasing. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service now estimates that there are currently 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears. These numbers are substantially up from lows estimates in the range of 5,000-10,000 in the 1950s and 1960s. Credit should be given to protection already provided the polar bear by way of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the several international conservation treaties including the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears and the U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Conservation and Management Act of 2006, as well as conservation, education, and outreach agreement with native peoples.
“Today’s decision will have far reaching consequences. Liberal special interests have employed hundreds of lawyers to try and convert current environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act into climate laws. Yet the ESA is simply not equipped to regulate economy-wide greenhouse gases, nor does the Fish and Wildlife Service have the expertise to be a pollution control agency. The regulatory tools of the ESA function best when at-risk species are faced with local, tangible threats. Greenhouse gas emissions are not local. The implications of today’s decision, therefore, will undoubtedly lead to a drastic increase in litigation and eager lawyers ready to use this listing to do exactly what they have intended to do all along – shut down energy production.”
Senator Inhofe is perhaps most famous for calling climate change the great hoax ever put over U.S. citizens. He is a toxic civil servant. I wish he would live long enough to rue his words, but surely his children and grandchildren will.
blog comments powered by Disqus
