A (Polar) Bear of a Problem:
Last week, the Interior Department announced its decision to list the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) as a "threatened species" under the Endangered Species Act due to the expected loss of polar bear habitat, specifically arctic sea ice, due to global warming. The listing decision and other related documents are available here. This is the first time a species has been listed under the ESA due to climate change, but it might not be the last. More significantly, the polar bear listing could become a powerful weapon for environmental groups seeking more stringent controls on greenhouse gas emissions, as I discuss in this NRO column.
Related Posts (on one page):
- PLF Challenges Polar Bear Listing:
- "An Animal to Save the World":
- Polar Bear Panel at AEI:
- A (Polar) Bear of a Problem:
Imagine the next Kelo-type eminent-domain taking. Justification: increasing commerce and thus an increased local tax-base. Counterattack: the newly-generated automobile traffic will increase global warming and hence damage the environment of the threatened polar bear.
The decision was made based on the recent (i.e. past 30 years) of evidence of its shrinking habitat. Similar "threatened" labels have been applied to other animals for the same reason, regardless of the cause of the shrinking habitat.
[Fixed. Thanks. -- JHA]
Weather patterns. Changing weather patterns. During the Medieval Warm Period, Greenland was warm for different reasons than are melting the arctic ice now. This also explains why temperate zones can have record cold while the earth is on balance warming up.
Considering the theory under which these bears are listed, there will probably be some looney recovery plan, but recovery plans are non-binding and have no time tables. I suppose this gives the EPA an excuse to cram speculative claims about climate change into pretty much every EIS they prepare, but I fully expected the next administration to do that anyway and there was nothing stopping them even if this hadn't happened.
One question: I know there's a citizen-suit provision in the ESA, but I presume standing rules still apply? Under the Lujan framework, who could meet standing requirements for an animal that resides outside our borders?
I see the global-warming hype as a battle over whether the left can control the economy indirectly, given that its direct attacks, especially in the U.S., have been mostly rebuffed.
Absolutely. 'Global warming' is a hoax aimed at government control of the means of production - ie, Communism - in the name of 'protecting the environment', in the same way that Darwinian evolution is a hoax designed to indoctrinate schoolchildren into atheism. And, just like Darwinism, it falls apart if anyone takes an unbiased look at the evidence.
The global warming believers should be subject to the same level of derision as the intelligent design people.
I don't think that statement is accurate. I just read that only 1 of the 15 identified polar bear populations is decreasing. The Hudson Bay area. They are also hunted by humans, which is the real problem. I think they killed 56 last year. When you start looking at the data, blaming global warming for the decline in the Hudson Bay area doesn't add up.
http://www.cbc.ca
If we care about saving polar bears it appears focusing on the hunting and killing of them would be more productive. Granted the Canadians whose lives are at stake might have a problem with us. But hey, what's an evil empire to do?
http://www.ctv.ca
On another note, I am sure you are aware that ice in the arctic is greater now than at anytime in the last 15 years.
http://sermitsiaq.gl
An interesting discussion about it here...
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com
Your impression is incorrect. Most climatologists agree that because of global warming, there will be places that get cooler, just as some places will get wetter vs. others that will get dryer.
Ithaqua: " And, just like Darwinism, it falls apart if anyone takes an unbiased look at the evidence."
And we all know that the earth really is flat, except for those few idiots who only want to contradict the church's true teachings on the matter.
That could be, I haven't really read much about this specific issue. And I'm certainly not in the group blaming global warming.
Yeah, I realized that a little bit ago. I had a brain fart earlier this morning. For some reason, I was thinking that they were native to Antarctic regions, not Arctic regions.
Otherwise, polar bears seem to be doing just fine on land as well as on ice; I would call this another negative side effect of the global warming scare.
The evidence which supports man made global warming consists of the "expert" opinion contained in numerous studies and global climate models. Typically, the authors of the studies used to support man made global warming refuse to share the data and the associated computer programs on which their conclusions are based. Litigation of the issue will force disclosure of that data.
Obviously, we are beholding the evolution of Polar Bear into Solar Bear.
This is plainly empirically untrue. Polar bears hunt primarily by catching seals poking up through holes in sea ice, or by jumping off of ice into the water. They're not built for hunting on land, which is why when bears show up on shore it means they're hungry and more likely to be harmful to humans or to cannibalize other bears.
As pointed out downthread, polar bears are native to the United States. However, from 1974 to 1995, three Australian kangaroo species were listed as endangered by the Interior Department.
I can't imagine anybody applauding this and keeping a straight face.
More reductio ad absurdum - if the entire planet is threatened by global warming, shouldn't all the species of the earth be on the list - rendering the list a ridiculous waste of time (which it is already)?
That is an incredibly simplistic and erroneous depiction of polar bear behaviour, especially for the Churchill Bay population. The Churchill Bay ice pack being as far south as it is, then it always melts in the summer months, that is nothing new. As the ice melts then the polar bears end up on bare land, many in habitated regions every spring or early summer. After a winter of feeding they are fat enough to survive until the ice comes again in the fall, but are always on the lookout for an easy meal on land.
Good job of stating the obvious. But the question is: Does anything need to be done? There does not seem to be any scientific basis for saying something does need to be done. The science seems to indicate two things: 1) Polar bear populations are not declining, 2) regulating greenhouse gas emmissions will have no appreciable affect on the climate.
So where is the basis for action?
1) population growth
2) cooler weather
3) most are not in the U.S.
All based on models that show that bear populations should be dropping due to global warming, that is also based on a models. Luckily, since they are so hard to count and most don't come to land in the U.S. anyway, the reality of the above facts can be safely ignored.
It might have been more fruitful for the Administration to engage directly with legislators on climate change-related issues - including revision of the ESA and CAA, deregulation of energy/power markets, accelerated depreciation, greater energy efficiency by government, and how to engage China, India and others - but that was a road not taken.
Neither has Congress taken any initiative itself.
I guess climate change, and efforts to use litigation as leverage against policy makers at the federal level, are all simply the fault of the evil greenies!
-“The Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate global climate change.”
-“There is a right way and wrong way to approach reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The American people deserve an honest assessment of the costs, benefits and feasibility of any proposed solution. Discussions with such far-reaching impact should not be left to unelected regulators and judges but should be debated openly and made by the elected representatives of the people they affect.”
I agree whole-heartedly with the President's words.
But does anyone besides me find it more than slightly a bit rich for the President to say that "there is a right way and wrong way to approach reducing greenhouse gas emissions", that we "deserve an honest assessment of the costs, benefits and feasibility of any proposed solution" and that "[d]iscussions with ... far-reaching impact should .... be debated openly and made by the elected representatives" - while in fact his administration pproached climate change in the same manner it approached the invasion of Iraq and the war on terror - unilaterally, with decisions made secretly behind doors, with costs, benefits and beneficiaries never clearly identified or debated?
I'm a little confused... are you talking about the Kyoto Protocol itself or Bush. Sounds alot like you are talking about Kyoto.
I guess Australia isn't relevant or the fact that China and India were excluded.
Nor that tiny New Zealand, finding it impractical to cork up their livestock, will be liable for about a billion U$ for failing to meet their Kyoto target. They're just waiting for the US to send them small bills and a battered suitcase to give to the next UN operative to land.
And that the US is far better in its greenhouse emissions than many signatories.
I guess this complaint is as good a hide for BDS as any. Not that it actually fools anybody, but it's easier to pretend to believe it than some other nonsense.
Rather, I'm talking about the blatant hypocrisy of Bush calling for an "openly debated", "honest assessment of the costs, benefits and feasibility of any proposed solution" by elected representatives that "the American people deserve", while his administration's approach to policy decisions on climate change - indeed, on a whole range of policy issues - has been clearly just the opposite. He now shows some interest in open discussion only because he's not happy to be in the box he crafted for himself.
Richard, care to actually disagree and to make a contrary case that the Bush administration's climate change approach was the model of open and honest engagement, or do you prefer the "BDS" ad hom?
Funny, I just thought this whole climate issue has been in the news and discussed every single day since Bush has been elected.
I think the BDS he is referring to would be the fact that you haven't been able to pick up on the above fact.