EnviroHumanImpact

Polar bears have been listed on the “Endangered Species” list, although environmentalists did not get the win they had hoped for with this case. They had wanted for this to push legislation to combat global warming.

From the New York Times’ May 15, 2008 story, “Polar Bear Is Made a Protected Species,” we will get some of the details of this story, of course with commentary:

The polar bear, whose summertime Arctic hunting grounds have been greatly reduced by a warming climate, will be placed under the protection of the Endangered Species Act, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced on Wednesday.

But the long-delayed decision to list the bear as a threatened species may prove less of an impediment to oil and gas industries along the Alaskan coast than many environmentalists had hoped. Mr. Kempthorne also made it clear that it would be “wholly inappropriate” to use the listing as a tool to reduce greenhouse gases, as environmentalists had intended to do.

What seems to be lacking is a clear explanation for why that is so inappropriate. Here is some explanation provided:

Mr. Kempthorne said Wednesday in Washington that the decision was driven by overwhelming scientific evidence that “sea ice is vital to polar bears’ survival,” and all available scientific models show that the rapid loss of ice will continue. The bears use sea ice as a platform to hunt seals and as a pathway to the Arctic coasts where they den. The models reflect varying assumptions about how fast the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will increase.

In prepared remarks, the secretary, who earlier in his political life was a strong opponent of the current Endangered Species Act, added, “This has been a difficult decision.” He continued, “But in light of the scientific record and the restraints of the inflexible law that guides me,” he made “the only decision I could make.”

Another explanation:

Barton H. Thompson Jr., a law professor and director of the Woods Institute of the Environment at Stanford University, said the decision reflected the administration’s view that “there is no way, if your factory emits a greenhouse gas, that we can say there is a causal connection between that emission and an iceberg melting somewhere and a polar bear falling into the ocean.”

This is a difficult call, admittedly. How do you point at any one factory or group of factories and say, “you’re responsible for the polar bears dying, so quit emitting greenhouse gases”? The real problem in this case is not that greenhouse gas emissions are going unregulated as a result of the polar bear being listed as endangered. Mr. Kempthorne doesn’t have a great explanation, but the fact is, this should not be an issue he should have had to address.

Rather, the problem is the failure of the U.S. to act on the latest scientific evidence regarding global warming and the relation of greenhouse gases to that phenomenon. Had aggressive action already been taken, this would not be the extent to which environmentalists would have resorted. It is far past due to act and it’s a sad day when the plight of the polar bear has to be used by greensters as leverage for the so-called, “debate,” on global warming.

But what other option do we have when solid science is ignored on one important challenge and faulty science is held up as truth on a different front? Polar opposite approaches to two very important issues in the upcoming election. Luckily, it seems the remaining Presidential candidates admit that something should be done to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

It is high time scientific consensus is held up as truth. Certainly, science is based on theories and “current understanding.” But, to quote our current President Bush, speaking about a different subject, but a quote that applies all the better to the climate change issue, “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun…”

Should we not act on our best understanding when such dire consequences are at stake?

Stumble It

Subscribe via Email

Subscribe via RSS