The Pacific Legal Foundation has filed a notice of intent to sue the Fish & Wildlife Service challenging the listing of the polar bear as a "threatened species" under the ESA on behalf of the California Cattleman's Association, California Forestry Association, and the Congress on Racial Equality. There's more on the planned suit here.
While I like much of PLF's work, I think they're on the wrong side of this one. However pointless or mischievous the polar bear listing may be -- and however speculative some of the scientific data upon which the listing is based may be -- I believe the "best available" science easily supports the FWS decision. (See this article and my posts below.) Further, given the deference a reviewing court should show to the FWS' decision and scientific determination, their lawsuit should not fare particularly well. This may be bad policy, but it's the law.
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:
The best available science is speculative, pointless, and mischevious, and that supports a policy decision? Are you sure?
Sk
The key points that I saw were::
1. A "threatened" species is one which may become "endangered" over all or a substantial part of its range in the foreseeable future.
2. An "endangered" species is one which is in danger of becoming extinct over all or a substantial part of its range.
3. Right now there are something in the order of 25,000 polar bears, in contrast to the 5-10,000 in the colder 1950's and 1960's.
4. Even the U.N. only forecast a 10-22% decline in habitat, with some 75% of today's polar bear population surviving.
So, I'm convinced!
The Notice also contained other very interesting points, all of which are worth reading.
OK. Just how pointless, mischievous, and speculative does the justification have to be before you would oppose the FWS?
CORE claims in the letter--and I would have to agree--that environmental regulations disproportionately affect the poor, thus disproportionately affecting African-Americans.
But it seems to me that's a much more tenuous connection than the
"But it seems to me that's a much more tenuous connection than the CA Cattlemen's and CA Forestry Associations can show."
I fully support reforming the ESA because its requirements are often pointless or mischievous. But so long as the law is the law, the FWS is required to follow it, and courts must apply it as it is written.
In this case, there are lots of holes and unanswered questions in the science on polar bear populations. Nonetheless, the "best available" scientific evidence supports the finding that it is foreseeable that the polar bear will become endangered in some of its range. So the listing is legally defensible.
JHA
I read on one of the enviro/legal sites that the enviros are now seeking protection for the polar bears food sources and habitat. At least some human habitation may now be protected.
Given that Polar bears are supposed to be one of the few animals that deliberately hunt humans, it would seem that people are to be protected, although from what is uncertain.
So, since drilling for oil in the ANWR and other presumed polar bear habitat areas would guarantee that a polar bear food source (oil well drillers) was present, drilling in the ANWR should be encouraged so that polar bears don't starve to death, even if they might get heat stroke. Maybe we could recruit the enviros and their lawyers to drill the oil wells in the ANWR....
Polar bear populations are at an all time high. Scientists are publicly questioning the reality of man-made global warming. If global temperatures happen to be driven mainly by solar flare activity, there'll be no limit to the economic burden environmentalists can impose while crying over arctic sea ice. Your "best available science" is an educated guess that ice reductions will in fact harm polar bear populations, that arctic ice will be reduced, and that that reduction will be due to man-made global warming.
I think the time has come to follow Vin Suprynowicz's suggestion of targeting liberal population centers on the east coast and California with nuisance endangered species claims. Weeds, bugs, whatever we can find. Isolated breeding pair of pigeons in a liberal suburb? "North Suburban Rock Dove," and the low population only shows how endangered it is. It wouldn't be any less politically motivated than the spotted owl and polar bear have been, just coming from the other side. Somehow I'm not sure the same standard will be applied when its in their back yard, but at least it could expose the charade for what it is.
What science? Nobody has proven that CO2 is a major driver of temperature. They just have theories and some broken models. In fact, the "best available" science, the ice cores, show that CO2 doesn't increase temperature, but high temperatures increase CO2.
Almost anything possible is "forseeable", so that standard isn't enough to make a decision. (For example, it's forseeable that pidgeons will become endangered in Central Park because of hunting by the homeless.)
It is not widely known outside Hollywood and democratic Congressional circles, but very young polar bears kept in screened boxes that drastically limit their physical movement, dress out fantastically tender and flavorful meat filets.
There are shenanigans occurring in climate science that have lead me to distrust several peoples work though temperatures are up a half degree. The listing of the polar bear as a threatened species could probably safely be put off for at least another decade.
You have to remember that to legal positivists, the court, being wholly occupied with 'legal' and 'illegal', is unable to distinguish right from wrong; that is, it is insane and proud of it.
So when it comes to polar bears being labeled as threatened, especially since the population is increasing and man's contributions to CO2 emissions are minimal, any regulations as a result of the listing cannot be justified.
Since when?
Actually it's worse than that.
As a greenhouse gas CO2 is nearly useless. If you double the amount of CO2 you won't get double the effect, you'll get far less. Instead what the computer models do, and all the global warming hysteria is based on computer models, is use the predicted rise in CO2 to trigger the formation of *water vapor*. That's right. Humidity.
It's water vapor that is the true culprit in computer models for global warming. But convincing people to give up Constitutional rights, conveniences, comfort and trillions of dollars to fight **humidity** is a very hard sell. On the other hand most people don't know much about CO2 so they tend to rely on scientists on the subject. But water vapor? Humidity? People have a lot of personal experience with that.
As for inflicting nature on blue states. It's already happened. I live in New Jersey and I get to see up close what idiotic theories about nature can result in. We've had a few instances where healthy coyotes, in suburban *New Jersey*, have attacked playgrounds full of kids. Also we've got, formerly, Canadian geese who no longer migrate but instead have permanently colonized every park and grassy common area. In California they've had a spate of cougar attacks on bikers and hikers.
It's ok to cry for Bambi's mother when you're a child. It's extremely not ok to make policy decisions based on this when you're an adult.
What evidence?
After you get done noticing the absence of warming, refer to the conclusion.
Many, if not most, "progressives, while they may be of voting age,just haven't grown up. When they want something, they want it and they could care less about the consequences. See California's refusal to build power plants and the resultant rolling blackouts.