Science and Society
The Latest Developments in Science and Technology
Ned Potter is the science correspondent for ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson." He has reported on such topics as space exploration, the human genome and climate change.
RECENT POSTS
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Pitched Battle over the Polar Bear
May 14, 2008 12:28 PM
What is to become of this iconic creature -- not in the Arctic where it lives, but in Washington, where it is the object of a spirited debate?
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne is to make an announcement this afternoon on whether the bears are to be listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. Environmental groups had sought this status for them on grounds rarely used before: that the bears are losing habitat because of the Earth's warming climate.
The Interior Department had fought making a decision, and lost. The court-imposed deadline is tomorrow. Environmentalists from Alaska to Washington are abuzz over what's going to be said.
There are two schools of thought:
--Mr. Kempthorne will announce that he is not going to invoke the Endangered Species Act, with all the restrictions it implies. Instead, he will cite a Memorandum of Understanding with the Canadian Wildlife Service, in which the two countries pledge to protect the bears. Find the text HERE.
Some of the logic in this scenario: some Interior staffers argued that if the bears were given Endangered-Species protection on global-warming grounds, the department could, in effect, be placed in the position of regulating carbon dioxide emissions -- something the administration had fought. You'll recall the the Environmental Protection Agency took this issue to the Supreme Court, and lost last year.
--The second school of thought is that the department will give the bears Endangered-Species protection, but with caveats so that oil and gas drilling in the Arctic are not impeded. That's been a sore point -- oil companies see reserves dwindling elsewhere and want to expand drilling in northern Alaska and the Arctic Ocean nearby, while environmental groups say that's precisely why we have global warming. Just this month, talking about high gasoline prices, President Bush faulted Congress for refusing to allow oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northeastern Alaska.
"This has been going back and forth by the hour," one person said to me late this morning. More when we get it.
May 14, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (14)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The bears and the environment come first. We have to consider the future of the species and the planet and can't afford to be so self centered and selfish for those that are here now. We will survive and find other energy sources. The oil and gas company's may lose a buck or two but its for the good of mankind and the world
Posted by: Brenda | May 14, 2008 12:57:14 PM
Is any life sacred anymore? We kill wildlife without a second thought: Canadians allow seal "clubbing" for their pelts; trophy hunters kill for thrills and the "trophy" to stroke their egos, and we would rather let the Arctic habitat for these bears disappear before anyone would lift a finger to take action.
And America is supposed to be civilized??
Convince me.
Posted by: Carol | May 14, 2008 1:03:16 PM
The oil companies be damned and Bush and his administration along with them.
Posted by: Chet | May 14, 2008 1:06:10 PM
It's not just the bears that are endangered, it's all of us.
Drilling for more oil is a 1955 solution to a 2008 problem. We need to spend money on solutions involving non-poluting, renewable energy instead of just drilling another hole.
Posted by: Pete | May 14, 2008 1:07:22 PM
I would rather have US companies drilling, with our level of concern for the enviornment and technology than have Russia or some other nation drilling in our own back yard.
oh, why did I bother sending this so far you have only posted pro polar bear comments. Hey how about my grand kids.
Gordon, Al
Posted by: GORDON HOOD | May 14, 2008 1:41:57 PM
How ridiculous. How does invoking the act automatically attribute a cause to global warming. Whatever the cause (man made, natural warming, god's farting) the ice is melting here in the real world and so there should be concern for the polar bear.
I think they are just terrified little government flunkies who hate the idea of even *seeming* to cross the boss.
Posted by: bubba | May 14, 2008 1:55:59 PM
Are the bears endangered? How many of them are there? How many were there last year or the year before? What does endangered mean? It used to mean in danger of becoming extinct - and politics had nothing to do with it. I remember seeing the Whooping Cranes when there were only 43 or so left. Now that is endangered. If the bears are endangered, they should get the protection. If they are not, they shouldn't - no matter who you vote for or what you think of global warming. Is everything about politics now?
Posted by: Mark | May 14, 2008 2:01:38 PM
Seriously! what is going on with this world! Im very shocked to know this. It's not fair what we are doing to the environment. How many bears are endangered? Can we do anything to safe them?
Posted by: Fanie | May 14, 2008 2:09:28 PM
In this world of governments the OIL Interest comes first. Money is always the winner in this world. Common Sense does not count in this world. Someday it will be to late to correct this attitude and money will be worthless.
Posted by: Luis Young | May 14, 2008 2:09:33 PM
We are overdue for new fuel for our cars and trucks. One by one because of human over consumption, polution, and mismanagement of the planet, animals, plant life, rain forests are at risk. Will human life be at risk next? Is human life at risk now?
Posted by: Juanita | May 14, 2008 2:17:56 PM
My understanding is that the total polar bear population has been increasing from a low of around 5,000 in the 1980s to over 25,000 now. Seems strange to call this endangered.
Posted by: ragebot | May 14, 2008 2:20:26 PM
The bears should be protected. Looking at a map of Alaska and Canada however, illustrates that U.S. policy will probably have little effect on Polar Bears when Canada has a much larger polar bear population than the U.S. While many of our pollutants are both air and water borne, it seems to me that by leveraging the terms of NAFTA, the Canadians could make a strong case that U.S. policies (or lack thereof) to control our emissions are impacting their economy. Politicians have never responded with much sincerity to ecological concerns, but squeeze their wallets and they'll jump.
Posted by: Owen | May 14, 2008 3:11:30 PM
The Polar Bear is not endangered and in fact their numbers have grown. This is about habitat loss. But they are closely ralated to the Grizzly and share some habitat with them already so it is obvious thst adaptation is not an issue.
Posted by: Quietman | May 14, 2008 3:56:25 PM
They are a threatened species officially as of today. Computer models show they could be fully endangered by 2050.
It was just last year that NASA recorded the lowest levels of sea ice since records have been kept. It's not hard to see that a species that relies on sea ice isnt going to respond well to that.
[/quote]Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne cited dramatic declines in sea ice over the last three decades and projections of continued losses. These declines, he told a news conference, mean the polar bear is a species likely to be in danger of extinction in the near future.
Kempthorne also said, though, that it would be "inappropriate" to use the protection of the bear to reduce greenhouse gases, or to broadly address climate change.[/quote]
Pure comedy. CYA all the way.
Posted by: bubba | May 14, 2008 6:20:37 PM
Post a comment
