Image: iStockPhoto
-
What a Plant Knows
How does a Venus flytrap know when to snap shut? Can it actually feel an insect’s tiny, spindly legs? And how do cherry blossoms know when to bloom? Can they...
Read More »
A federal judge Tuesday ordered the Bush administration to stop dragging its feet on the fate of polar bears and decide by May 15 whether declining sea ice in the Arctic threatens their existence. The ruling marks a victory for a coalition of environmentalists—the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)—which sued to force the U.S. Department of the Interior to decide whether to protect the hoary Arctic predators under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which it had committed to do by January 9.
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland, Calif., ruled that any further delay would be a violation of the intent of the ESA.
"The federal court has thrown this incredible animal a lifeline," Andrew Wetzler, director of NRDC's endangered species project, said in a statement. "The science is absolutely unambiguous that the polar bear deserves protection."
Wilken rejected the Interior Department's request to postpone its decision on polar bears until June 30, saying to do so violates "congressional intent that time is of the essence in listing threatened species" and ruled further that the agency had failed to prove that waiting "will not pose a threat to the polar bear."
According to the World Wildlife Fund, some polar bears are already starving as a result of changing conditions in the Arctic. And the U.S. Geological Survey recently reported that polar bear populations could drop precipitously in coming decades as the sea ice they rely on to hunt recedes as the globe warms. This past September, the National Snow and Ice Data Center, which collects polar and ice information for the government, announced that there was less sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean than at any time since satellite measurements began in 1979.
Critics of designating the animals as endangered charge that such a move is merely a smoke screen for efforts to stem global warming, such as curbs on greenhouse gas emissions. "What has become clear through this heavily litigated process is that listing the polar bear as a threatened species is not about protecting the polar bear but rather advancing a particular political agenda," Sen. James Inhofe (R–Okla.) said in a statement. Inhofe has previously called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
Interior Department spokesman Shane Wolfe said that the agency is reviewing the ruling and "will evaluate the legal options and will decide the appropriate course of action." But environmentalists hailed the decision.
"By May 15th, the polar bear should receive the protections it deserves under the Endangered Species Act," said attorney Kassie Siegel, Climate, Air and Energy Program director at the Center for Biological Diversity. That "is the first step toward saving the polar bear and the entire Arctic ecosystem from global warming."
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentWhen all is said & done, just what positive steps do we take to protect this species. It's obvious we won't be able to restore their habitat anytime soon, so what's the game plan in the worst case scenario? It might lend some credibility to the argument if some group (or groups) was making known they were heading up a plan of action. Otherwise the opposition will seize on this as just another smoke screen for some hidden agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswell, we could start with curtailing our greenhouse gas emmisions - that would help the polar bear, and all the rest of us too. We really need to get started on this process, before the myriad effects of global warming get us in a real pickle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince atmospheric water vapor has 15,000 times the warming effect of CO2 curtailing CO2 emissions is meaningless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, it's all meaningless anyway. Polar bear populations are increasing.
de nile ain't just a river...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am represented by Inhofe, yes, I confess, I am an Okie. And so I know very well just where he is coming from - oil country. His rhetoric and his "facts" (which are not in any fashion tied to reality) are all about protecting his constituents (at least the large oil and gas businesses) and about protecting the energy intensive way of life we have all become accustomed to. But the facts (the ones that actually reflect the real world) show that our lifestyle is profoundly damaging to the environment and is un-sustainable to boot. We need to face these facts and begin to develop technology that assists us in transforming our lives and society into something that can last, instead of getting rudely bumped into some kind of dark ages because we choose not to see or act and just kept on driving our SUV's 90 to nothing right to the bitter end and let everything get really really awful. That would be Bad, not just for us, but for the polar bear and lots of other species (yes, I think non-human beings matter, for their own sake, even when we can't "use" them for anything. There, I've said it.)
History gives us countless examples of vanished civilizations, but only recently are we finding reasons for their demise. Easter Island being a glaring example of myopic perceptions. Jared Diamond devotes an entire book ("Collapse") to such shortsightedness to this and similar disasters. Certainly everyone of us shares to some degree in this coming catastrophe, but not to at least acknowledge we have a clear and present danger here I find the most disturbing. And what prey tell is the basis for such flippant and irresponsible comments as "it's getting colder" and "polar bear populations are expanding"! If your purpose is to bait people, it's getting tedious!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPolar bears are at a historic high in population. No way they can claim they are endangered. Besides, villages need to be able to shoot nuisance bears. Relocation won't work for them. Alaska doesn't need outsiders to tell them how to manage their wildlife.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell,the step of the Bush's government will be more rapid when it can make enough profit from protecting the polar bear as it made in the war with Iraq,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Since atmospheric water vapor has 15,000 times the warming effect of CO2 curtailing CO2 emissions is meaningless."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this15000 times? Not so much. 4 times is a more realistic estimate. Plus, water vapor concentration in the atmosphere is basically constant because water comes from and is returned to the oceans over a short time scale. We aren't rapidly increasing water vapor in the atmosphere,
Why hasn't the US Government made the oil companies uncap those oil drilling holes in the Alaskan area, where oil was found by straight and slant drilling, (this work was done in the early 1900s by several oil companies) and then force our refineries to produce the gasoline the people need now? Are they hiding something or are they waiting until the price of gasoline equals that of the rest of the world? And the environment would not suffers so much if NASA in Florida would limit the number of needless launchings. They really puts much in the atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this