polar bears and power plants

Here's the story I wrote for today about the Alaska Legislature asking for money to put on a big conference and PR campaign in opposition of the ESA listing of the polar bear. They're not the only ones worried about a listing leading to all kinds of carbon regulation -- US Sen. Ted Stevens has also been making the case, among others. It's unclear whether that would actually happen. The Fish and Wildlife guy I talked to said the listing itself would not. The Service is simply not set up to regulate carbon emissions. But he did say the EPA could consult with the FWS in shaping its regulation, and, more importantly, the reach of a listing will probably be determined by the courts (presumably after someone sues that a coal-fired power plant is harming an endangered species, sort of like Kivalina recently sued oil companies for causing coastal erosion).

JUNEAU — State lawmakers are planning to spend $2 million on a national conference and public relations campaign about the potential impacts of listing polar bears under the Endangered Species Act.

The money was requested by Senate President Lyda Green, R-Wasilla, and House Speaker John Harris, R-Valdez, and is included in the state’s capital budget.

Eddy Grasser, a legislative staffer working for Green and Harris, said one goal is to sort out fact from fiction in the science behind the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposal to list the animal as threatened under the act.

He said he’s done a lot of research on the issue and found there’s a “diversity of opinion” over the human role in climate change — the driving factor behind the agency’s proposal to list the bears.

Another goal is to educate people about the impacts a listing would have.

“The state’s got a huge vested interest in the outcome of that listing as far as the economics of development projects,” he said Thursday.

The listing is based on the idea that greenhouse gas emissions are threatening bears, he said, so anything that emits greenhouse gases could be affected.

Bruce Woods, a spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service, questioned that claim in an interview Thursday.

He said the Endangered Species Act requires a direct link between cause and effect.

“There has to be a direct, scientific line between your gas pipe and this dead bear,” he said. “And frankly, climate science and pollution science aren’t developed to the point to make that kind of connection.”

A listing could lead to additional habitat protections, he added, but that wouldn’t stop development projects outright.

The point of the act isn’t to block projects but to allow them to proceed in a way that minimizes environmental impacts, he said.

Woods also cautioned that the ultimate impact of a listing would likely be decided in the courts.

The Fish and Wildlife Service first proposed listing the bears in early 2007. A subsequent scientific review by the U.S. Geological Survey found that future reductions in sea ice could lead to the loss of two-thirds of the world’s polar bears within 50 years.

A decision on the proposal has not yet been announced.

The legislative budget request calls for an “academic based effort” leading to a national conference and various communications work, including a “significant national education campaign,” according to a supporting document.

“The project will include research methodologies such as computer modeling and perceived consensus,” it reads. “Research shall be non-biased to specific groups’ opinion and shall present scientifically fact based outcomes.”

“It’s economic development, and true and accurate data,” said Ginger Blaisdell, a staff member to Green.

The money would go to the Legislative Council, a joint legislative committee, and the project would go to bid through a request for proposals, according to Grasser.

The request follows two legislative resolutions approved last year in the House and Senate. Those documents also pointed to potential impacts on development and claimed the Fish and Wildlife Service was ignoring scientific data questioning the listing.

Pamela A. Miller, arctic coordinator for the Fairbanks-based Northern Alaska Environmental Center, criticized lawmakers for requesting the funding.

“If education is really needed, why aren’t we supporting the university and the Department of Fish and Game?” she said.