Environmental groups challenge restrictions on polar bear listing
Originally published Tuesday, May 20, 2008 at 10:03 a.m.
Updated Tuesday, May 20, 2008 at 3:58 p.m.
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!WASHINGTON -- Several environmental groups are challenging the U.S. Interior Department over its decision to create a rule limiting increased protection of the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act.
The Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council are asking a federal judge to overturn an action by Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne that would prohibit the Endangered Species Act from being used to regulate greenhouse gas emissions -- the primary cause of Arctic sea ice melt, which is affecting critical polar bear habitat.
"The back-door regulations weaken polar bear protections and were announced without any public process or the environmental analysis required by law," said Andrew Wetzler, of the National Resource Defense Council. "We are confident the rules won't survive court review."
The groups filed an amendment to their existing lawsuit in federal District Court in California on Friday asking the judge to throw out Kempthorne's special rule.
The determination that the polar bear is threatened by melting sea ice caused as a result of global warming requires the Bush administration to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming, the environmental groups argue.
Kempthorne announced last week that he was listing the polar bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, but with the caveat that the decision would have no bearing on efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
The disappearance of Arctic sea ice caused by rising temperatures poses a major threat to the future sustainability of the polar bear, Kempthorne said. But, he said, there was no scientific evidence showing that specific oil and gas activity in the Arctic or greenhouse gas emissions from sources elsewhere were directly responsible for the loss of polar bear habitat.
The new rule would restrict protections for the polar bear to what is already provided by the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Kassie Siegel, climate program director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the listing triggers a responsibility to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing the loss of polar bear habitat.
"The Endangered Species Act requires the government to identify and then eliminate threats to a species," Siegel said. "The administration's attempt to create an exemption for greenhouse gas emissions, the primary threat to the polar bear, violates both logic and the law."
Siegel said the listing of the polar bear was a "momentous event," but the bear won't survive unless the full protections of the law are implemented.
The Interior Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this story.
The polar bear is the first species to be listed as a result of global warming.
Critics of listing the polar bear argue that the environmental community will use the Endangered Species Act to challenge any development across the country that emits greenhouse gases, which will affect the oil and gas industry and manufacturing sector.
The U.S. Geological Survey has put out a study showing that up to two-thirds of the world's polar bears could disappear by mid-century because of melting sea ice. There are an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears in the Arctic regions of the world.
The polar bear's listing prompted the Sierra Club and other environmental groups to call on Royal Dutch Shell to halt its plans to drill off Alaska's northern coast for oil and gas.
Shell, spurred by skyrocketing oil prices, spent $2.1 billion in February to obtain offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea. The company also holds all or part of 179 federal offshore leases in the Beaufort Sea.
Several environmental groups, including Friends of Earth and Pacific Environment, said they sent a letter to the company laying out concerns about drilling in prime polar bear habitat in Alaska.
"If Shell proceeds with its plans, the activists will work with shareholders to file a resolution against drilling at the next annual meeting," the groups said.
"Shell has a chance to improve its environmental and human rights record today," said Trish Rolfe, Alaska representative for the Sierra Club. "Shareholders can ask the company to reinvent what Shell's policy of being a good neighbor really means. Otherwise they can expect escalating conflicts worldwide that will threaten Shell's position in the industry."
Curtis Smith, a spokesman for Shell, said the company was committed to working with federal regulators and would adopt any new mitigation measures deemed necessary to operate in the Arctic.
Shell is waiting for the 9th Circuit Court to issue a decision in a challenge by environmental and Alaska Native groups to the company's plan to drill three wells in the Beaufort Sea this summer. Curtis said a decision was expected any day.
Shell is also planning to conduct seismic work in the Beaufort and the Chukchi seas this summer. Environmental groups have filed a lawsuit challenging Shell's Chukchi seismic plans as well.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
So, ... the environmentalists want the U.S. administration to fight countless other countries over their policies in regard to greenhouse gas emissions and their policcies regarding the polar bear and want to curtail any and all development of our (U.S.) own resources, thereby continuing our reliance on imported oil and gas.
Ummm, exactly what do you want?
It'll be hard to convince that we are the only ones that can make a for the total species when we'll be the only ones that'll be responsible to once the law did go into affect. Russia,Canada,Greenland and others,but where the only ones that even really has the endangered species act wondered what would happen if they tried to force Russia to comply.
Think they've been watching to much Simpson. They back Nuclear power but oils, a different story. Guess they don't realize there is a whole lot of rivers that nearby most towns to lot the nuclear waste out into (besides the uproar!). Yumm, 3 eyed salmons! Kinda like the church of scientology. No one can really figure it out but seems great at the present time.
The environmental groups will use every aspect of the unconstitutional endangered species act to curtail as much energy production in the U.S. as possible. Meanwhile, we're already in the midst of a national energy crisis and Barak Obama is proposing to give every American Family 1000 dollars a year for energy costs.
Ever heard of a thing called "Hyperinflation"? If not, it would be a good idea to add it to your personal vocabulary now.
That's a wee hypocritical, considering Sarah Palin is considering $1,200 for each eligible person right here in our state, don't you think?!?
How ironic that on the same day a lead article appears about the polar bears needing more protection (and it's very likely they do as do most species of life on Earth anymore) we also see an article about WHOOPS! yet another oil spill on the Slope. This was a tiny one, well-contained....but of puzzling origins for as the latest information reveals the experts are very puzzled by the rapid rate of corrosion that apparently lead to the event. Makes one feel very confident about the integrity of the pipeline and associated activities in the polar bears' domain, doesn't it?
No, I don't amgray19. Alaska has that money in the bank. Our illustrious federal government however, is 10 TRILLION dollars in the hole. Likely, Obama's plan is for the Federal Reserve to just print the money, debase the currency more than it already is, which in turn will rob us all through a nasty thing called "Hyperinflation".
Can't see a connection between an oil spill and a polar bear dropping dead.
Gas is near $4 a gallon and I am supposed to worry about polar bears that I will never see? Glad to see the enviro-nuts are still clinging to the ship rails while we go down... "don't save me, save the polar bear!"
The connection is simple to see if you take a moment to think about it. We are burning fossil fuels (oil) at an unprecedented rate. The emissions are affecting the atmosphere, global temperatures, ice formation. To any but the most boneheaded (and that is not directed at anyone in particular in this discussion) it is obvious we are changing our arctic and sub-arctic climates as both documented weather records, ice cap measurements, and recollections from Native elders along the Northern Coastal Plain demonstrate most amply.
The result is soon if this continues we will have oil drilling out in the Arctic Ocean and shipping lanes through this area will remain open throughout the year. You think the Exxon Valdez was bad? You can dig down a foot into the sands of Prince William Sound and still find oil from that spill. Imagine what it will do when the inevitable spill occurs in the Arctic Ocean where the conditions for both cleaning (and it was well-shown how inadequate were the preparations for that in PWS) and natural absorption of the oils are much less forgiving.
The ice is receding more each year due to atmospheric changes which are primarily brought about by human activity. Natural changes do not, by all indications, occur this quickly. Ice is standing offshore too far for polar bears to swim and they need pack ice to hunt. Their food, seals, are also endangered by that same receding ice. Exploration, oil spills, development in the arctic regions are all inimical to the continued survival of polar bears and once they are gone, they ain't comin' back, folks.
However, as we can see from comments like blue5011's there are always Alaskans who can't see any value beyond the oil-stained dollars in their outstretched hands. You'd think after almost 40 years up here I would no longer underestimate the greed and narrow-sightedness of some of my fellow Alaskans but once again, I am both surprised and appalled at how little we treasure this very unique land we call Alaska and how quickly some of us will sell it out for a little more gasoline to run our 4x4's.
Let me go a bit off-topic here to demonstrate a point. I'll direct this question specifically to blue5011 since he/she apparently has little concern about other species. Did you know the horseshoe crab, an animal that has been around since before dinosaurs, an animal once incredibly plentiful along the east coast of the US, is presently declining alarmingly in numbers?
Someone answer me this, ... how can anyone lay blame to drilling, oil production and exploration as the reason for polar ice decline and, subsequently, polar bear population decreases, if we are and have been basically barred from doing so? I cannot speak on behalf of other countries and their energy consumption/production practices, nor so do I believe we can bestow guilt soley on America's shoulders.
"The ice is receding more each year due to atmospheric changes which are primarily brought about by human activity."
I hear this argument a lot from environmentalists, so I am prepared to ask a rather open-ended but necessary question. Where's the science to prove this? I assume if one is to take the side of the polar bear in this issue, then that someone also can direct me to the scientific studies that proves, without a doubt, that it is because of human activity that we are seeing rapid depletion of polar ice. If you cannot, then your opinions are based purely on speculation caused by observing a rather short period of time in our earth's history. For me, I look at the entire history of this earth (based on scientific observation) and I form a conclusion that the world is ever-changing; global temperatures rise and fall, we have ice ages, periods of global heating, etc. In short, the earth is constantly changing. Species exist and die out, new species evolve (if you believe in such things as evolution) and new species are discovered daily. For me, the earth is far more guilty of mass extinction than we humans (who like to think we are more than we are) have ever, or could ever be associated with.
I state again as I have previously, by barring oil exploration through frivolous lawsuits and court orders, ... we force our continued dependance on foreign oil and policies. These foreign countries have rules of their own and are not swayed by the sentiments of environmentalists. Those that control the supply make the rules. Sucks, but true. You want to do something about it? Let the U.S. explore our own natural resources and ultimately develop these treasures. This will decrease our dependance on other countries. When and such a time occurs, then, absolutely, hold our governement responsible for the responsible development of resources, which include a respect and proactive conservation and protection of species that may or may not be susceptible to our disturbances on their habitat. Until then, your nailing the wrong people to the cross.
Try this link: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/...
Now, you want to go into paleoclimatology, fine. Yes, the earth has changed climate many times in the past. However, if you were to look into it more closely you would find even the most dramatic change took hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. From the late Pleistocene into the Holocene was a transition covering thousands of years. What we are seeing today are changes of several degrees in a matter of decades as that site, using data from NOAA, demonstrates.
As to extinctions, sure....they happen. But the difference between a natural extinction wherein an organism is unable to adjust quickly enough to NATURALLY changing conditions as opposed to conditions where they are changing due to human activity is a vastly different set of circumstances. Your arguments sound good but are only superficially so. In truth, while extinction is a part of the evolutionary process it occurs at a gradual rate according to the fossil history. It took well over a hundred thousand years for Mammuthus primigenius to become extinct whereas the polar bear, from time of discovery (and by discovery I mean contact with sufficient kill rates by humans to affect its population negatively) to projected time of extinction is a few centuries at best. The musk ox was extinct in Alaska within 150 years of its discovery by Europeans. (The present small herds in Alaska are the result of transplants from Greenland.) The dodo took less than 50 years to go extinct from discovery to end. The passenger pigeon which estimations put at over 2 billion birds went extinct from overhunting within 200 years. And so it goes. Your specious argument attempting to equate natural extinction to manmade extinctions should be an embarrassment to you. However, since you are taking much the same tack as George Bush I guess we can't expect any better thinking (?) than he exhibits, either.
As to your George Bush thinking on oil....lordy! To summarize what you are saying and take it to its conclusion, you want us to use up all our oil first then we can go begging to other countries in the hopes they will sell us theirs. Your hero, the Bush, just tried that and, Hello! was given his hat by the Saudi Arabians and shown the door which I'm sure once it closed behind him barely masked their laughter at his sad and failed effort. So, yes...let's do what you say and use up all our resources so we can be truly beholden to other governments. At such a time we will look back on the days of $4/gallon gasoline with great nostalgia and wonder why anyone followed such a shortsighted policy of self-depletion as you suggest.
Apparently, you feel there is no need to do something to prevent an extinction until it finally happens. Golly...you think it might be too late by then?
Alright, ... first, thank you for the link, I will look at it. Second, I am not a republican, nor am I a democrat. I vote on issues as I study them. I have listened to your opinion and will soon make a determination based on it
Third, and most importantly. Why be a jerk?
"Your specious argument attempting to equate natural extinction to manmade extinctions should be an embarrassment to you. However, since you are taking much the same tack as George Bush I guess we can't expect any better thinking (?) than he exhibits, either."
Did I say anything offensive? Did I shoot my mouth off and call all any environmentalist (including you) anything other than an environmentalist? No. I'll take the high road on this one, ... you can make the best case and argument in the world, but when you resort to pathetic personal attacks, it reveals you for what you are, ... a jerk. Grow up, Dobie.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.