Conservation groups announce plans for polar bear lawsuit
Published Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!WASHINGTON — Conservation groups are threatening to file a lawsuit against the Bush administration for failing to take steps to better protect the polar bear from the effects of offshore oil and gas development in the Arctic.
The Center for Biological Diversity and Pacific Environment notified Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne on Monday of their intention to sue regarding the department’s decision to hold oil and gas lease sales in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas without considering the impact on polar bear habitat.
In May, Kempthorne listed the polar bear as a threatened species because of the loss of sea ice caused by warming temperatures in the Arctic. Polar bears depend on sea ice to hunt seals, walrus and other prey.
Kempthorne’s decision came with a catch: a special rule barring the use of the Endangered Species Act from being used to regulate greenhouse gas emissions — the primary cause of global warming.
Kempthorne said there was no scientific evidence connecting oil and gas activity in the Arctic with the loss of polar bear habit. Under the rule, any company or project that complied with the Marine Mammal Protection Act would be considered adequate. The conservation groups take issue with that decision.
Brendan Cummings, oceans program director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said President Bush has been in such a rush to open new areas to drilling before he leaves office that the administration has ignored the cumulative impact on U.S. polar bear populations.
The groups are specifically challenging the Interior Department’s decision to allow development in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. They want the department to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on whether the lease sales will have any impact on the region’s polar bears as required by the Endangered Species Act, Cummings said.
The law requires federal agencies to ensure that any action they carry out does not “jeopardize” a listed species, including re-examining federally authorized offshore oil industry actions affecting polar bears, Cummings said.
“The act of getting oil itself is fairly greenhouse-gas intensive,” he said. “But we believe that the law requires analysis of the indirect impacts of extracting oil and gas as well.”
There are an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears in the Arctic regions of the world, roughly a quarter of which live in Alaska. Scientists have said that as many as two-thirds of polar bears could disappear by 2050, including all of the bears in Alaska.
The groups claim the Bush administration has opened up virtually all polar bear habitat in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas to leasing by oil companies.
In February, the Minerals Management Service issued leases for 2.8 million acres in the Chukchi Sea that brought in $2.7 billion.
“The only thing keeping pace with the drastic melting of the Arctic sea ice is the breakneck speed with which the Department of the Interior is rushing to sell off polar bear habitat for fossil fuel development,” Cummings said. “For polar bears to survive in the face of global warming, we need to protect their habitat, not auction it off to oil companies.”
The groups claim offshore development directly harms the polar bear in a number of ways, including disturbances from vessels, aircraft and drilling platforms, impacts on prey from seismic surveys, and the risk of oil spills, Cummings said.
Development will also result in increases in the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases tied to climate change, which has an indirect effect on the polar bear, Cummings said.
“We don’t see how they can come to any conclusion that would allow offshore development in the Arctic,” he said.
The polar bear is the first species to be listed as a result of global warming. The Bush administration is wary of conservation groups using the listing to restrict energy development across the country.
The notice was sent to the Minerals Management Service, which oversees offshore leasing, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages polar bears. Both are agencies of the Interior Department.
The Interior Department has 60 days to respond to the notice.
Interior spokesman Shane Wolfe said it was the department’s policy not to comment on pending litigation. Wolfe declined further comment.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Bruce Woods told the Associated Press that oil and gas development were not seen as a major factor in the listing decision.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
A couple more lower 48 groups who don't know a damn thing about Alaska. Anti-progress, anti-capitalism. And they will all jump in their cars and drive home today where they will turn on their A/C because they are in places like New Mexico, Ca, and Hawaii.
God I wish these groups would just shut up about and do something construtive for a change. Would they rather everyone freeze to death, except the bear!
RIGHT ON tbear44.....A lawsuit against these groups is in order.
From a Blog by a local guy in Churchill: http://www.polarbearalley.com/polar-bear...
Polar Bear Blog - May 4, 2006
So far, it seems to be a very nice spring for polar bears in Churchill. This winter passed without any major blizzards and not many days of strong, northern winds - a classic feature of Hudson Bay. This likely means that the bears have had to use up less of their fat stores to make it through the harshest months of the winter.
March and April held above normal temperatures and a strong lead (crack in the sea ice) was visible on most days from Churchill. Polar bears wait for these consistent leads in the northwest part of the bay to form in late winter. With prime seal hunting season usually beginning in April, a mild spring means access to seals and seal birthing dens out on the ice.
High temperatures and bouts of rain (quite rare in the spring up here) will have made access to seal dens much easier for polar bears. Rain and sun ate away most of our snow by mid-April and there is no reason to think that the same thing did not happen to the seal dens. Translation: there was likely a 'bonanza' for polar bears this spring.
This May, temperatures are back to normal (between -1C and -8C) and it snows periodically almost everyday. This is really icing on the cake for Churchill's bears by holding off an early break-up of Hudson Bay due to this wonderfully, warm winter.
Too much ice is bad for these bears
First off, there is no solid, hard evidence about what is causing global warming. The job of the news media is to sell stories and if it is to dramatize every weather occurance, it will. As for the lawsuit, it is based on speculations, not facts. And it is coming at the most poorly timed in our country's economic crisis. One interesting concept spot - with food prices, shooting up, health care going through the roof, EVERYTHING going through the roof due to oil price gouging - people who donated to such groups in the past are not going to have the money the next go around. It is easy to feel warm and fuzzy when all is going well. But given a choice between food and conservation donations - one can safely say who is going to win the most votes.
Environmental groups have not shied away from using vandalism and violence in the past to get their message across. What is going to happen when the tide is turned on THEM?? This is going to get very ugly before its all over with.
dmt - I agree with everything you've said, only don't summarize news media's intent to "sell" stories.
...some of us in the industry (and there are very few), actually report the stories fair and balanced.
Thanks!
i am a polar bear and i support drilling
nygiantsfan/polarbear:
How do you feel about being hunted?
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.