Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced today that he will retain the Bush administration's controversial rule on polar bear protections, rejecting special authority given to him by Congress and the pleas of Democratic lawmakers, environmentalists and scientists to overturn the regulation.

While keeping the rule – which limits use of the Endangered Species Act to curb emissions of greenhouse gases – Salazar held open the possibility of adding habitat protections for the polar bear later.

"To see the polar bear's habitat melting and an iconic species threatened is an environmental tragedy of the modern age," Salazar said. "This administration is fully committed to the protection and recovery of the polar bear."

The rule in question was finalized by the Bush administration in December, six months after the polar bear was declared a threatened species due to the melting of its sea-ice habitat. Environmentalists, lawmakers, law professors and scientists who sent letters to Salazar urging him to toss the rule decried his decision.

"We're very disappointed that Secretary Salazar decided not to cut through the red tape and restore protections for polar bears immediately," said Jamie Rappaport Clark of Defenders of Wildlife, a former director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. "[The rule] made no sense under the Bush administration and it certainly makes no sense for the Obama administration."

Interior will now be forced to defend the rule in court. Environmental groups that sued to overturn the 4(d) rule said today that they plan to press their lawsuit.

"Thank God for the courts," said Bill Snape, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. "We feel pretty good that we're going to knock out that rule in litigation; it will just take more time and spend everyone's resources."

Some environmental groups see the polar bear listing as their best opportunity to force the government to consider harm from greenhouse gases and regulate emissions. Even though the Obama administration has pledged to address climate change, Salazar said today that such action should not come through the Endangered Species Act – the same position taken by the Bush administration.

"When the ESA was passed, it was not contemplated it would be the tool to address the issue of climate change," Salazar said. "It seems to me that using the Endangered Species Act as a way to get to that global warming framework is not the right way to go."

The Obama administration is hoping Congress will address climate change with legislation to curb emissions.

"We need to have a comprehensive global change strategy, and we're working on trying to get something through the United States House and Senate," Salazar said.

That stance was hailed by groups concerned that polar bear protections could affect their businesses.

"We welcome the administration's decision because we, like Secretary Ken Salazar, recognize that the Endangered Species Act is not the proper mechanism for controlling our nation's carbon emissions," American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard said. "Instead, we need a comprehensive, integrated energy and climate strategy to address this complex, global challenge."

3 Comments

1. 1. DavidWojick 05:38 PM 5/8/09

   Given that the only thing endangering the polar bears is the climate computer models, the bear population being at an all time high compared to 50 years ago, perhaps this ruling is designed to protect the computer models. Just kidding, sort of. Trying to regulate US industry based on a hypothetical threat to an arctic animal would have endangered the Endangered Species Act. Hence the Admin's reluctance.
   David Wojick
   http://www.climatechangedebate.org

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Nanahuatzin 12:28 PM 5/9/09

   "Let's start with polar bear numbers. First, it's important to note that scientists lack historical data on polar bear numbers—they only have guesses. What we do know, though, is that in the 1960s, polar bear populations dropped precipitously due to over-hunting. When restrictions on polar bear harvests were put in place in the early 1970s, populations rebounded. That situation was a conservation success story ... but the current threat to polar bears is entirely different, and more dire.
   
   Today's polar bears are facing the rapid loss of the sea-ice habitat that they rely on to hunt, breed, and, in some cases, to den.
   
   It is true that polar bear populations rebounded after over-hunting was restricted, but that situation has nothing to do with the threat polar bears now face: the loss of the sea ice habitat essential to their survival."
   http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/numbers/

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Nanahuatzin 12:32 PM 5/9/09

   "The current warming trend in the Arctic is taking place at a much faster pace than computer models had previously projected, with large expanses of darker, open water absorbing more heat and accelerating the process. Over the past 30 years, the Arctic sea ice has retreated dramatically, with the most extreme decline seen in the summer melt season."
   
   http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/numbers/

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this