more on bears

These guys make great news, huh?
The Washington Post's Juliet Eilperin wrote a story on Sunday about how the Department of the Interior did consider climate change in deciding whether to recommend listing polar bears as threatened, but said it didn't.

One section, for example, refers to a 2005 study by NASA scientist James E. Hansen that suggests "the warming trend would change considerably if actions were taken soon enough to keep the atmospheric gases from increasing." By contrast, the listing proposal omits this line and says that when it comes to climate change in the Arctic, "there are few, if any, processes that are capable of altering this trajectory."

Kieran Suckling, policy director for the advocacy group Center for Biological Diversity, said the editing highlights the extent to which the Bush administration is underplaying the connection between climate change and the polar bear's predicament.

"At every single turn the administration has suppressed science on polar bears and global warming, so while this is incredibly disappointing, it's not surprising," Suckling said. "They're deeply afraid the Endangered Species Act will create a clear regulatory requirement to limit greenhouse gas emissions."

In late December, Kempthorne and other officials said they believed polar bears deserved federal protection because the sea ice they depend on is disappearing as Arctic temperatures rise. However, Kempthorne emphasized at a press conference announcing the listing that his department did not examine the connection between global warming and shrinking sea ice.

"While the proposal to list the species as threatened cites the threat of receding sea ice, it does not include a scientific analysis of the causes of climate change," he said in his opening statement. "That analysis is beyond the scope of the Endangered Species Act review process, which focuses on information about the polar bear and its habitat conditions including sea ice."

When resolutions opposing the listing were flying through the state Legislature here a few weeks ago, lawmakers argued the listing could ultimately lead to regulation of greenhouse gases and effect a wide range of industrial projects, including our beloved natural gas pipeline.
Ditto with our governor, Sarah Palin.
"We know listing polar bears as endangered or threatened will not impact polar bear numbers or cause sea water to freeze," she wrote in a December letter to Kempthorne opposing the listing. "What we don't know are all the unintended effects of listing. It is highly probably that among them will be third-party law suits, from litigants with a variety of motivations, to list large portions of Alaska's North Slope as Critical Habitat or to limit the emission of greenhouse gases throughout the United States."
In Eilperin's story, US Fish and Wildlife Service director Dale Hall's comments suggest Endangered Species Act protections could ultimately include limits to greenhouse gas emissions.

Hall added that if the polar bear makes it onto the endangered species list, then his agency would ask climate scientists about addressing global warming: "We would ask, 'Is there anything that could be done in the next 45 years that could keep it from becoming endangered?' "

See the full story here.