Politics and the polar bear
It’s been in the works for quite some time, but now the decision is official. Polar bears have been listed by the Bush Interior Department as a “threatened” species. This is the first listing attributed to global warming.
What’s really going on here?
Kenneth Green at AEI exposes the politics behind the eco-radicals’ polar bear campaign and the consequences:
Listing the polar bear as a threatened species would have significant public policy consequences. It would set a new precedent, representing the first linkage of species endangerment with global warming. Such a listing would basically wall off the entire Arctic region to exploration, resource extraction, and development–at least by U.S. companies–and a threatened species listing would give environmental groups the ability to sue future U.S. governments to force them to reverse climate change by whatever means necessary.
There is little doubt that such lawsuits would be filed quickly. According to the NRDC:
Listing the polar bear guarantees federal agencies will be obligated to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out will not jeopardize the polar bears’ continued existence or adversely modify their critical habitat, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be required to prepare a recovery plan for the polar bear, specifying measures necessary for its protection.
…
The bottom line for rational cost-benefit analysts:
At present, polar bear populations are robust and, according to native people, are considerably larger than they were in previous decades. Predictions of polar bear endangerment are based on two sets of computer models: one set predicts how much Arctic sea ice will melt as a result of global warming, and the other predicts how polar bear populations will respond. But computer models of climate are known to be fraught with problems, and the ecological models used to predict polar bear response are equally limited.
Because of extreme limitations in data, it is essentially impossible to decide whether polar bears are endangered and whether their habitat is threatened by man-made global warming or other natural climate cycles. This is acknowledged by the experts themselves–the actual IUCN/SSC report is more broad in naming causes and more conservative about estimating their effects.
What we do know about polar bears is that, contrary to media portrayals, they are not fragile “canary in the coal mine” animals, but are robust creatures that have survived past periods of extensive deglaciation. Polar bear fossils have been dated to over one hundred thousand years, which means that polar bears have already survived an interglacial period when temperatures were considerably warmer than they are at present and when, quite probably, levels of summertime Arctic sea ice were correspondingly low.
In discussions of whether to drill in the Arctic, one of the arguments raised by environmentalists is that this would harm the habitats of the many creatures, including polar bears, that make their homes in Alaska. If polar bears are placed on the endangered species list, the legal hurdles to oil and gas drilling will increase. There are two subpopulations of polar bears in Alaska. One of them, the Southern Beaufort Sea population, is shared with Canada, and the other, the Chukchi Sea population, with Russia. Best estimates for these areas show approximately 3,500 polar bears total in these two subpopulations. Last year, Shell Offshore Inc. was about to start drilling in the Beaufort Sea area when a court order halted the activity on the grounds that the federal government did not thoroughly assess the environmental impact before granting permission to drill.
In petitioning against the drilling, environmental groups invoked sea ducks, whales, and, of course, polar bears, as well as the effect that drilling could have on native populations. The U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that the area holds the potential for 7 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 32 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. With oil at over $100 a barrel and natural gas at $7.60 per one thousand cubic feet, these are some very expensive polar bears.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Department of Interior Opts To List Polar Bear As Threatened - Black Bear Blog - Black Bear Blog is for hunters, fishermen, and outdoor enthusiasts.
- Democrat=Socialist
- PrestoPundit
- Seven Links « The Reluctant Optimist
- Leaning Straight Up
- Michelle Malkin » First, the polar bear…now, the Pacific walrus
- The Words ‘Global’ and ‘Climate’ Shouldn’t Lead to Political Babble « Variable Interest
- Al Gore’s Little White Lie: Man-Made Global Warming Causing Polar Bears To Drown « Pronk Palisades
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Enviro-nitwits
protein wisdom
» A Nannystatist Emily Litella moment [Darleen Click]
Ed Driscoll
» The University ArchipelagoNewsBusters.org
» The War on Terror Made Him Do ItEd Driscoll
» First We Take Chicago, Then We Take BerlinNewsBusters.org
» Matthews on Ft. Hood Suspect Warning Signal: 'That's Not a Crime to Call al Qaeda, Is It?'Pundit & Pundette
» Westboro haters have enough to go around for everyoneTigerHawk
» Abortion and health care "reform"Weekly Standard
» The Federal Bureau of Non-Investigation
These global warming wackos need to remember that Greenland once had a temperate climate and now is a frozen tundra. I think there were polar bears back then. It is quite possible that a warm Greenland is the norm and frozen ice packs are not. The polar bears will adjust to the climate changes as they always have.In the meantime, we have to put up with all the junk science alarmists.
Now I can get on board with this. It’s long but makes sense.
Seems more like the Republicans should be classified as a ‘Threatened Species’
Amen brother. Speaking of innovation (this one from Guy Nègre, so not American in this case) have you seen the air car?
Air Car
Most people who have their own garage have their own air compressor too. Talk about cheap gas
Yeah, the air car is pretty impressive. They should design one for an American market. After coming back from Iraq, I decided I didn’t want my money to go to the Middle East anymore. I currently drive one FFV (ethanol) and one Diesel with a veggie conversion. The Diesel can run on number 2 diesel, biofuel 100, or straight vegetable oil. Options are out there, people just have to find them. I guess you could say I’m responsible for the food shortage. It’s more important to me that I made this decision, because my brother is now in Iraq.
Indeed, I think once they figure out how to make the car meet all the safety standards for impact it will come here to the US. Plus I think they need to add a built in air compressor on the engine that runs off the main belt. That would constantly refill the tanks while in motion, and if perfected would make a near perpetual motion car that could run for weeks non-stop.
Won’t be a huge seller anyhow for many despite the no-gas usage and no-pollution. It only gets just over 60 mph and goes 125 miles currently. It’s a city-use econo-car atm, but the technology is still new.
Thats just cruel to the bears. I can’t imagine liberals taste good at all.
Anybody here seen these bears in the wild? I have and they are impressive. When I worked on an evil drill ship in the Arctic Ocean there was one bear who would swim the 1 to 2 miles out to the ship and play with the bouys. He seemed to think they were giant toys.
At some point the silent majority is going to get fed up. The problem is no one has stepped up as a leader. The Republicans are turning their back on their constituancy and sold out to the liberals. When America wakes up then we will finally have change.
I’m personally out of hope. The signs are everywhere (a radical, racist, idiot like Obama is a step away from running (ruining?) George Washington’s Kick-ass company, etc-why go on?). The MTV generation has finally won. This (no it is NOT an exaggeration) could very well be end-game. This is exactly what they’ve been waiting for and this decision gave it to them. The slow decent has started. I won’t live to see it, but my kids may, and THEIR kids absolutely will.
JWS, I’m an glass half full guy, BUT, when the CRITICAL MASS of SOCIETY, is/are TAKERS, and when the DEMOGOGUES, Rodham being the quintessential liar, continue to FEED the beast. And those who co-dependently EXPECT something FROM someone else. WE ARE FUQQED.
Socialism/Communism had NEVER worked.
That is what Rodham and Obama are selling.
Free lunch. Someone else pays. Take EXXONS profits.
But don’t touch OBAMA nor RODHAMS book advances nor residuals.
When we American industry is completely CASTRATED and American business is REGULATED beyond profitability.
WHO PAYS FOR RETIREMENTS?
WHO has a PROFIT MOTIVE to be CREATIVE and to RESEARCH??
Meanwhile, Obama and Rodham have a “PAID SPEECH” to give.
JWS – That’s where you and I disagree, I think it’s going to be a FAST decent. The pace is quickening every day. The slow descent began many years ago.
My guess is we’ll all see it within the next few years.
Azygos – I bet liberals taste like Orcses… and they doesn’t taste very good does they precious? (Hope you’re up on LOTR)
Seems “common sense” is an endangered species of thought.
#39 LarryD said:
Thanks for the info and the link, Larry.
#72 tarpon said:
I thought I read something like that recently. So the whackos are “predicting” that the polar bear will become endangered someday. While they’re predicting, what will the weather be one week from tomorrow?
#76 soliel said:
You’re just saying that because you know animals can’t speak, right, Mr. Smartypants?
Liberals probably taste rotten, just like their politics.
That’s not an oxymoron at all. A conservative animal rights activist just understand that the rights of the human animal come first.
On May 14th, 2008 at 6:01 pm, Romeo13 said:
First of all, grants for research are not pay-for-play; you get the funding, THEN do the study. Thus, the issue is residual bias from the “gratitude” from providing funding as I was saying, not some quid pro quo arrangement as you imply. As for future expectations of funding coloring their findings, you can always pick up funding from the other side: if Exxon drops your funding b/c you’re too liberal, the US gov’t, UNESCO, G. Soros, etc will gladly pick it up.
As for the judges: um, that’s kinda what I said… I’m not sure how you’re disagreeing.
oh, and PS, relying on the statement “It is a well known fact” without some sort of further proof is itself a logical fallacy.
Well….I guess it’s time to buy the bicycle, plant a small veggie garden, and learn home canning.