Two Arctic species – the two which happen to be the cutest and cuddliest, the poster children for Arctic wildlife conservation movements – have been in the news lately: polar bears and seals. I’ll cover the seal issue in my next post.
Polar Bears
To the disappointment of environmentalists, the Department of the Interior will uphold the special rule passed under the Bush administration limiting the use of the Endangered Species Act as a means to restrict greenhouse gas emissions – the so-called “polar bear 4(d) rule.” Secretary Ken Salazar qualified his decision by saying that the Department is open to increasing the amount of protected habitat for polar bears.
In May 2008, polar bears were put on the list of threatened species – the first species to be in danger due to global warming. Although the polar bear population has doubled since the 1960s after recovering from losses caused by aerial hunting and now hovers around 25,000, the loss of Arctic sea ice could reduce numbers by 15,000 – a huge step backwards. Some even claim polar bears could go extinct by 2050. Scientists believe that the greatest threat to the species’ existence is global warming, which itself is caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Salazar concurred that global warming is the main threat to polar bears, but observed that “the Endangered Species Act is not the appropriate tool for us to deal with what is a global issue, and that is the issue of global warming.”
By upholding the rule, actions taken outside of the polar bear’s actual habitat will not be considered as putting the species in jeopardy. Therefore, heavy contributors to global warming, such as coal-fired power plants and oil wells, for example, cannot be stopped with the reasoning that they will harm polar bears. A question-and-answer page from the Interior’s website said,
“It is currently not possible to directly link the emission of greenhouse gases from a specific power plant, etc. to effects on specific bears or bear populations.”
But oddly, other “indirect” pollutants, such as DDT and mercury, are allowed to be used as factors when judging the effect of a factory on a threatened or endangered species.
The Interior had also been worried that if they withdrew the rule, it would lead to “unnecessary confusion among the people of Alaska and regulated industries,” because a final special rule very similar to the current 4(d) rule is about to be put in place. The only difference between the two rules is that while the current interim 4(d) rule bans from consideration actions outside of Alaska, the final rule applies to actions outside of the polar bear’s habitat proper. Indeed, the oil industry and its benefactors were satisfied with the retention of the 4(d) rule. American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard announced, “This decision serves to protect the polar bear while providing greater regulatory certainty not only to the oil and natural gas industry but also to all U.S. manufacturers.” Alaska Governor Sarah Palin declared that the decision was “a clear victory for Alaska.”
Conversely, environmentalists were furious about the Interior’s decision. Noah Greenwald, the biodiversity program director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said, “For Salazar to adopt Bush’s polar bear extinction plan is confirming the worst fears of his tenure as Secretary of the Interior. Secretary Salazar would apparently prefer to please Sarah Palin than to protect polar bears.” Under Governor Palin, the state of Alaska was one of several groups to file a lawsuit against granting protection to polar bears, believing them not to be threatened.
Environmentalists have filed a lawsuit against the Interior for its decision on the 4(d) rule, on top of other lawsuits seeking to raise the status of polar bears from merely threatened to endangered. All six filings have been compiled into one lawsuit at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, for which a conference will be held later this month.
You can listen to a podcast of Secretary Salazar’s remarks here.
News links
“Interior will keep Bush’s polar bear rule,” New York Times
“The Thin Green Line: Polar Bear Protection,” The San Francisco Chronicle (includes press releases from the NRDC and Greenpeace)
A few months ago, I wrote about the early stages of the conflict in Ukraine through the lens of Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. While it appears likely that the war will carry on into the foreseeable future, enough time has passed for us to make an honest assessment of each side’s relative […]
The Ukrainian Army has made dramatic strides in the last few weeks. Ukraine’s tactical commanders have outfoxed their Russian counterparts, and by issuing a feint towards the south the UA has been able to earn substantial gains in the north of their country. The impact of these efforts have been compounded by the steady stream […]
In mid-May the Irish political party, Sinn Féin, won the plurality of seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Many American readers might not fully understand the significance of Sinn Féin’s political victory- but rest assured that subjects of the United Kingdom and a wide range of political movements the world over have heard the message […]
The first wave of the Russian offensive in Ukraine has fallen short of Russian autocrat Vladmir Putin’s ambitions. Most analysts deduced that Putin had hoped to achieve a decapitation strike of the Ukrainian government- taking Kiev and replacing Ukrainian President Vladimir Zolinski with a pro-Kremlin voice. Kiev has been threatened repeatedly through the course of […]
On the weekend of March 26th, the notorious MS-13 gang went on a massive killing spree in El Salvador which left more than 70 people dead by Sunday. Even for a country where powerful gangs hold massive sway, this recent tragedy stands out considering that it was the bloodiest day on record since the civil […]
