on polar bears and politics

Polar bears came through the capitol so fast last month I couldn't capture them. Now that I've done a little bit of research, here's what happened, as far as I can tell.
On March 29, the head of the Senate minority -- a group of five Republicans -- said he was planning to introduce a resolution the next day opposing the US Fish and Wildlife proposal to list the polar bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. The listing would have serious consequences for the state, he said, and would clear the way for lawsuits against any project that would increase greenhouse gas emissions (which could be accused of melting the bears' habitat), including the state's coveted natural gas pipeline from the North Slope.
And not just projects in Alaska, said the senator, Gene Therriault, a Republican from a town near Fairbanks called North Pole. "It could be the beginning of a new front to all kinds of things across the nation."
Therriault accused the USFWS of selectively choosing scientific studies and said he wanted to get the state's opposition on the record. A public comment period on the USFWS proposal ended April 9.
The next day, Therriault introduced the resolution, which spelled out his stance and claimed that polar bear populations were "healthy." (One Whereas claimed the listing would violate the intent of Alaska's Statehood Compact, which detailed how Alaska should take care of itself -- through development of natural resources -- if the US made it a state. That happened in 1959, a few years before the Rolling Stones got together.)
A resolution isn't law -- it's just a statement of opinion -- but Therriault's idea was to send the resolution on to the governors and legislative heads of the other 49 states, as well as Alaska's two US senators and one congressman.
Another Republican state senator, a former Army Ranger and a member of the majority bipartisan coalition, suggested sending it to President Bush and the head of the USFWS instead of the other states, and the Senate went with that.
On the resolution, the vote was split down party lines, with Republicans voting for and Democrats against, except for Albert Kookesh, a Native Alaskan and Democrat from Angoon, a roadless village in Southeast Alaska. I didn't catch why, but all the Native lawmakers voted for the resolution or a similar version in the state House, where a representative from a town on the Chukchi Sea gave a floor speech that included a description of polar bear meat as "the other white meat."
A few days later, the House passed a resolution with feistier language. It claimed the USFWS proposal was based on "studies that are limited in scope, are speculative in nature, disregard the views of numerous other scientific studies, do not recognize the health of current polar bear populations, and, instead, favor worst-case predictions for future populations." All Republicans and some Democrats voted for it, and this version went to the governors, the president, and the Alaska delegation. (One Democrat who voted against it told me later he thought it was crazy that lawmakers would make a judgement on a body of scientific research after a few hours at most of debate.)
Alaska's past and current governor also want to keep the bears unlisted.
Former governor Frank Murkowski wrote to the USFWS last year to oppose listing the bears, which he said wasn't necessary. He added that it's uncertain that ice conditions will continue to change in the future and noted -- without ever mentioning climate change -- that oil and gas developments in Alaska comprise only a small portion of worldwide emissions. (More on this later.)
Our new governor, Sarah Palin, continued along the same lines in a December follow-up to Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne. She sent another letter Monday.
And when Therriault pitched his resolution, he included a statement by a special assistant at the state's Department of Fish and Game that also challenged the science used by the USFWS and suggested that polar bears' ability to adapt was underestimated. (Therriault also said he got information from a professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, Matt Cronin, with whom I have not spoken.)
The news Tuesday was that the USFWS got over a half million comments on the proposal, with thanks or blame going to e-mail campaigns.
My guess is that most comments support the listing, which puts the state in a funny position. The polar bear has become the poster child for climate change, the "charismatic megafauna" that embodies the loss people associate with global warming. But when there's an effort to protect the bears, the state and people that risk losing them come out swinging, arguing the bears are doing just fine.
Here's what I'd like to know:
-What do scientists say about the health of and threats to polar bears in Alaska?
-What impact would listing polar bears have on development in Alaska and elsewhere?
-And would the USFWS really start regulating greenhouse gas emissions?