MASCOT FOR CHANGE: Polar bears have long been a cute face for anti-global warming campaigns, but their fate is tied up in debates on climate change legislation in Washington, D.C.
Image: FLICKR/JUST BEING MYSELF
More In This Article
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Prominent House Democrats and environmental groups are pressuring the Obama administration to overturn a special rule on polar bears from the Bush administration – part of an effort to provide another federal tool for addressing climate change and curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
The Interior Department has until Saturday to throw out the contested polar bear rule, a move that could open the door to scrutinizing the potential emissions of greenhouse gases of a wide range of projects – from power plant proposals to new housing developments and interstate highway expansions – as threats to polar-bear habitat.
The special rule in question limits the use of the Endangered Species Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Bush administration finalized the rule in December, six months after it listed the polar bear as a threatened species due to the melting of its sea-ice habitat.
With the departure of President George W. Bush and the strengthening of Democratic majorities on Capitol Hill, Congress this year passed a provision to the massive omnibus spending bill allowing the Obama administration to swiftly reverse the polar bear rule and another of Bush's Endangered Species Act revisions, which eliminated a need that agencies consult with federal biologists on projects that might affect endangered species.
Last week, the administration reversed the consultation rule. But Interior officials say they are still considering the polar bear rule.
"The [consultation rule] repeal was a huge victory in favor of sound science and common sense, but it's only half the pie," said Bill Snape, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. "We need to get rid of that bad Bush rule on polar bears and global warming to allow a fresh start for all wildlife under the Obama administration."
Industry groups are fighting to make sure that reversal of the "4(d) rule" for the polar bear does not happen. The National Association of Home Builders is among the groups arguing that the narrowed requirements in both of the Bush rule revisions gave some certainty about what would be required of them as more species gain protection against habitat damage linked to climate change.
"The only comfort, if any, we would get is from the 4(d) rule," said Mike Mittelholzer, who works in NAHB's environmental policy department.
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentI hope and pray that these villians and murderers can conceive a way to slice up the planet into portions; that they may inhabit theirs in the hottest nova around; and that the rest of us survive in peace.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe global population of polar bears is 22,000, about double what it was just four decades ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisListing the polar bear as threatened on the basis of projected future global warming is ridiculous, especially since the recent period of gw ended in 1998 and we're now in a period of global cooling, according to credible scientists .
Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Forecasting Expert Asserts....
Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School says, To list a species that is currently in good health as an endangered species requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions. Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then level off.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm
If only the polar bear have the means to shoot humans for their trophy, then I would call it a fair game. I believe the hominids were far more sensible species than some of us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole polar bear thing is just another ridiculous argument to augment the "global warming" scam and keep the environmentalists making the big bucks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPolar Bears themselves may not be very important, but they are a good "poster child" to help get the general public concerned about the problem. They are also a good "canary in a coal mine" showing how people are causing environmental changes far faster than slow-reproducing animals can adapt. All the extinctions we have been seeing over the past century (and are contuening to see) are certainly not good for the human species, either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBetter environmentalists than greedy industrialists!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen money is allocated to environmentalists, they are funded, not "paid", resulting in studies done for the greater good, employing people, and furthering technology. Now, it may be in your opinion that these stuides aren't important, but when it is given to industry, it is used to lobby for their cause, furthuring a change in policy towards their good. Now, either way policy seems to change...but for you to get all uppity over the environmentalists getting some cash, it seems that you were ignoring the past couple decades of that money going towards CEO's and WalMart tax evasion policy changes. When Exxon starts a new oil drill site, it is the president that is getting richer, not the people drilling.
I appreciate your point, but I also think that it is not the current number of polar bears, nor the fact that they can be predicted to suffer in numbers in the future. The issue is that their actual habitat is being destroyed, and so if trends continue, and ice continues to melt, then they will have no where to live. Scientists have already seen a reduction in their food sources as a result of this. But I think you would disagree with this, if you believe we are in a state of global cooling. I also have to agree with those saying that the polar bear is being used as a poster child to push for emission regulation. But obviously the current administration does not see this as the best way to pursue this goal, or they would be behind it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this