Obama faces tricky decision on polar bear, climate change

Just as President Obama faces a Congress that promises to be more skeptical of climate-related environmental regulation, a federal court has tossed a controversial case back in his lap: the polar bear.

The bear was the first species to be listed as threatened due to climate change, setting off a furor among the Alaska delegation -- Lisa Murkowski, among the critics, appears to be a winner in her write-in campaign. Murkowski, Alaska's senior senator, has tried to undermine the endangered-species finding.

The protection, granted in 2008 after much delay by the Bush administration, was not the most stringent under the Endangered Species Act. The bear is "threatened," not "endangered," which can make a big difference in regulation that follows listing under the act.

An "endangered" designation, for instance, would have made it impossible for then-Secretary of Interior Dirk Kempthorne to have passed a special rule that limited the scope of the listing, saying it could not be used to limit greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global warming and melting ice in the Arctic Ocean.

Environmentalists sued almost immediately to boost the bear into the "endangered" camp, and a federal judge agreed Wednesday that the Department of Interior should review the bear's protected status, which will remain the same in the meantime.

That review could put Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar -- a bete noir to conservatives after his ban on deep-water drilling following the BP spill -- back into the hot seat.

If the Obama administration puts the bear into the endangered category, it potentially opens the door to litigation against new power plants and other industrial facilities that belch greenhouse gases far away from the bear's territory -- an untested interpretation of the Endangered Species Act.

The Obama administration last month proposed a vast area as "critical habitat" for the polar bear: more than 200,000 square miles on the Alaska coast. That sparked immediate criticism from Alaska's Department of Fish and Game.

The new Congress, including presumptive House Speaker John Boehner, is decidedly less friendly to climate-change regulation. Republicans in the House of Representatives and elsewhere have made it clear they will examine the Environmental Protection Agency's climate-related activities, which include its "endangerment" ruling that found carbon dioxide emissions threatened human health by contributing to climate change.

The agency, however, is under order from a federal court to begin regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. But environmentalists note that it will be worth watching how EPA acts in the coming months, with a more hostile Congress looking over its shoulder.

The administration was notably quiet about the decision Wednesday.

-- Geoff Mohan

Related: Obama revisits energy policy, cap-and-trade and EPA regulation

Photo: Jonathan Hayward / Canadian Press

Comments

[Elissa Sangi]

Thetaking of core samples of ice has shown the earth was almost 2 degrees warmer than it is now. Every xx,000 thousands of years, the earth goes thru its' changes. (Almost like Global Menopause). There is so much ice UNDER the South Pole, it will take hundredas or thousands of years to melt. The Eastern Seaboard will never be underwater in my or younger generations lifetimes. They are making chaos out of nothing, because the biggest fear of man is the unknown.

[Roy Hogue]

Would it interest anyone that the government of Canada -- Canada is home to 2/3 of all Polar Bears in the world -- does not think they are endangered or even threatened. From 2008 when I first looked until now, Environment Canada does not list the Polar Bear as endangered or threatened. Only the United States is in thrall to this Polar Bear is about to disappear nonsense.

Al Gore, you did your work well. Not very wisely but well.

[Christina Irvin]

The threat facing polar bears is an extension of the threat facing humans, and thus, they should be moved to the endangered species list. There are certain ethics regarding the right to life for all living things and an overarching "community" that includes humans, animals and land that need to be upheld. Philosophers like Leopold and Rolston argue for a biocentric approach to human interaction and policy with regards to nature. Leopold does not negate that humans need to use the earth's resources for survival but he claims that we need to try to let the ecosystems return to their natural states. Humans cannot survive if our ecosystems fail because we did not take care of them. We are now seeing this as our polar ice increasingly melts and the first ecosystem failure we will experience is the loss of polar bears. Bigger issues result from increased melting such as the loss of highly lucrative Arctic fisheries because of the change in water composition. There will be increased sea level due to the excessive melting, flooding multiple communities on the sea line. Decreased ice and snow also cause a positive feedback cycle that only perpetuates climate change, also known as the Albedo Effect. In other words, the loss of polar bears indicates much more catastrophic events other than the loss of a beautiful and incredible animal.

Moving the bears to the endangered species list "potentially opens the door to litigation against new power plants and other industrial facilities that belch greenhouse gases." I do not see why this is a bad thing. We need to start transitioning into clean-burning, alternative fuels that will sustain the nation for the next hundred years and reduce emissions that are causing surface warming. Not only will this reduce the environmental risks and threats of ecosystem destruction, but it will also lower the "risks that found carbon dioxide emissions threatened human health by contributing to climate change" as studied by the EPA. I have to wonder though, why has the Clean Air Act not been more strictly enforced considering that mobile emissions are a main contributor to carbon dioxide levels and legislation for regulation was passed in 2007? It should be very interesting to see what happens between Obama and his proposal to create a critical habitat for polar bears to reduce their risk of extinction, Salazar, and the new and more conservative Congress.

[Peter Collins]

Millions of people all over the world who care deeply about animal welfare issues such as this look to the President and America in general to set an example to the rest of the world about improving animal welfare everywhere.We hope he does not let us down.His seemingly friendly relationships with other world leaders as appear on TV at summits such as the G20 would be a good place for him to start influencing!

[phodges]

nice picture. according to AGW prognostications, because of global warming polar bears are now having only one cub. your picture refutes global warming.

[beth]

Politically, it may be tricky. otherwise, it's not. The polar bear is in trouble because its habitat is melting. Polar bear siting near human habitations may be up in some places, but if I had a choice between hanging out near a village or trying to survive hundreds of miles of open sea that weren't there yesterday, I would pick the village. No amount of politicizing science actually changes the science.

[John Cameron]

Dr Mitchell Taylor is the world’s leading expert on polar bears and had been researching their status in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years. His work has shown conclusively that polar bear numbers are in fact increasing. Given the behaviour outed by the whistle blower at the CRU, it should come as no surprise that he was banned from last year’s Copenhagen Conference and told that his views were ‘counter to human-induced climate change and extremely unhelpful’.

[Grant Jones]

Our two political parties are killing the Earth. Can't you report on reality? Can't you encourage good writing and sell newspapers with authentic stories about what's really happening. It could do magic for your reputation.
Grant Jones, Seattle

[RJ]

Daniel - " Hunting Polar Bears in the United States has not been legal for about 50 years . You might want to consider at least knowing a little bit about what you are saying before you speak?" - Perhaps you might consider that there's a whole world outside of the USA, including Canada and Russia. There's still plenty of illegal hunting.

Polar bears live for about 20 years. Once hunting is stopped, it takes a few decades for the population to increase. Last I checked their numbers were increasing.

[RJ]

Since they stopped shooting them for sport, the polar bears are doing just fine. They've survived previous warm periods. It's bullets that will kill them off - not the sunshine.

[daniel]

people talking about just a "bear" have no education because they know nothing about ecosystems. All the Dems have to do is explain how if you take away the polar bear, you have more other animals that will grow in population, change migration routes and then cause other species to die or overly increase in population affecting future fish and food issues changing supply and demand messing up prices down the road. But repubs dont care about "down the road" they are the Me First Entitled group in this country.

[John B]

I can't believe it took 8 people to author a 10" x 7" column! A first year college journalism student couild have done same in no more than 2 - 3 hours. No wonder the LA Times is loosing money and readership! But wait... maybe it's their contribution to lowering unemployment!

[Dan]

People are missing the point. Consider the source.
The "expert" who defined the Polar Bear as endangered is an employee of the CBD Center of Biological Diversity. A group which makes its money filing environmental lawsuits.
This is the same organization that had an oceanographer spouting off as an expert on a desert based forest (very low rainfall, adjacent to Mojave Desert) where he had never set foot.
This is the same organization where thier spokesman told Fox 11 news that the motorized vehicles bans only apply to off roaders, not to "us".
The same organization that hired a BLM manager shortly after that BLM manager made a major 'settlement' in CBD's favor. In direct contradiction of a congressional defined area. Same year 2 Boeing exectutives went to prison for the same type conduct.
CBD has at least 2 attorneys on staff for every ologist. And they have at least one fundraiser/publicist for every ologist.
How many bonified scientific organizations have 3-4 lawyers and organizer/fundraisers for every scientists?
See they get paid whether they win or lose. If they win, they get court costs from the loser. If they lose, federal law allows them to get reimbursed for legal costs from the federal government.

[Thomasie Panipak]

I am an Inuk born in 1952. When I was a child it was said that some day our homeland would become warm like down south and when that is happening if we become forbitten to hunt polar bears they will be gone. Because God had created them to be our harvest and thier pupose will be no more so they would have to go. At that time when I was a child we had no school but there were five camps within the area and average of two to five in families. We had five families in our camp. There was one small Hudson's Bay Company post store, with one store keeper. There was Minister of Transport weather station with seven station men from down south and there was an American Navy warning station at the coast. Inuit found out whatever you say to white man doesn't penetrate even if they know they can't live like Inuit who have survived life time in their home, Arctic. We harvest char, seal sometimes caribou and polar bear. Polar bears were highly respected second to Inuit, they still are by us from my generation. It seems we are thought of as if we can't manage our harvesting like those who love money and lust after it, when we can manage ourselve because we have. We have traditional hunting belief that were thought to us from the time we can go out and hunt for family, realatives and friends. In my heart I feel I don't need more than I can carry for my family and others in my reach who will feed from my harvest.

[mark]

This horses a$$ better start doing the right thing our he will be the next to fall like his Dumbocrat friends.

[Dan Jong]

Regardless of your views on polar bears or climate change or politics, I think (hope) we can all agree that clean, renewable energy is and can be a big improvement over non-renewable energy which pollutes our air, our oceans, and our drinking water. If you can't agree with that then you have blinders on and there is no point in arguing with you. Wake up and smell the future (it's healthier).

[Terry Black]

Paul Taylor writes, "What is clear from climategate is that partisan ideologies and cultish environmentalism...have replaced prudent science."

Actually, the ClimateGate emails from East Anglia have been exhaustively reviewed, and do not undermine the scientific conclusions on climate change:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-review-clears-scientists-dishonesty

The idea that it's "prudent" to ignore well-documented risk is nonsense.

[Lauren]

I can't wait for the day when hunting humans becomes legal. Better hide Lee!

[Hypatia]

Alas, we can expect Obama to wimp out on this as he has on so many issues.
I hoped he would grow a pair during his first 2 years, but his "concession" speech after the midterms shows that he is just as detached from reality as he has been from the outset. Now he's still talking about making nice to the mad dogs on the far Right, who have quite openly made it their priority to bring him down!
You don't "extend your hand" to your declared enemies -- said enemies being also the enemies of non-rich, non-corporate America. Wake up, Obama,
or rather "man-up" -- a phrase I initially disliked, but which has its uses.

[Doug Reyes]

Here's Lee's profile:

1) Discredits evolution because it's "just a theory"
2) Discredits science behind global warming
3) Even if global warming exists, doesn't belive human activity is contributing to global warming
3) Interprests scripture re: "humans are given a sacred edict to hold dominion over animal and plants" to mean God gave these things to mankind to utilize as we please versus to be caretakers of life
4) Doubts President Obama is a true American citizen

Summary, you can't argue or reason with such people

[Mike (Granada Hills)]

my problem with people like you Lee Hauser is that money seems to be everything that is important in your life - well when the quality of living starts to suck for most people in the southern hemisphere of this planet starts to get worse and worse as we have seen recently with flooding in Pakistan and other regions of the world even here in the Southern states - than you'll wake up and see for yourself.

I am not a nut case, but aerial hunting of wolves and bears so that oil companies that have polluted this planet for over 50 years can reap major profits is not really masculine hunting.

I guess we have to wish for a major catastrophe here in the US before you conservatives wake up.

[Danielle]

Save the polar bears!

[Thetired]

What does protesting for polar bears pay these days? The same amount as unemployment?

[eahostudio]

wait a minute! you mean on top of everything else troubling us, he now has to deal with these adorable creatures???

[Daniel]

Marcia: Hunting Polar Bears in the United States has not been legal for about 50 years (for non-Alaska Native people). You might want to consider at least knowing a little bit about what you are saying before you speak? Just a thought.

[Paul Taylor Examiner]

Too often, environmental researchers operate as a self-selected, insular, academic group with an inherent bias toward identifying environmental risks – over 600 risks implicating global warming have been published. This leads them to become personally, emotionally and financially wedded to their own theories, and rational scientific objectivity is lost.

What is clear from climategate is that partisan ideologies and cultish environmentalism (Hanscom) have replaced prudent science and rational environmental policy decisions. Militant environmentalism and green-obsessed bureaucrats have become an “axis of antagonism” that we can no longer afford.

Here are a few of the IAC findings and recommendations:
• The structure of the IPCC, and perhaps its longtime Chairman Dr. Pachauri, should be changed;
• The IPCC should adopt clear standards for who edits what in their reports;
• All contributing scientists should be screened for conflicts of interest and partisan advocacy;
• Responses to commentors on draft IPCC reports should be comprehensive, not dismissive.

[Marcia Hanscom]

One of the dirty little secrets about all of this is what big business hunting polar bears is. If the polar bear is on the endangered species list big-time expensive hunting parties (even in other countries) will be tougher to justify. And if hunting is brought out in the open as one of the big impacts to the existence of polar bears, the NRA and Sarah Palin will become quite vocal. I say transparency is in order ~ people need to know that hunting these beautiful creatures is part of what is leading to their demise.

[Lee Hauser]

Please give us all a break..the bears will be just fine. Those who care more about them than us should get a real job. These nut cases have way too much time on their hands.