polar bear listed as threatened

OK, so today the bears were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
I honestly haven't been tracking this that closely, but here's what I do know. The state -- including the AK Legislature, Gov. Palin, and the Congressional delegation -- was pushing hard against it. Palin stuck with the bad science argument, but others argued a listing could shut down oil and gas activity, threaten the gas pipeline, and get in the way of power plants as far away as Florida -- the idea being that a listing would essentially open the doors to regulating greenhouse gases. (The Fish and Wildlife Service denied this would be the case.) Enviro groups charged that the Interior Department's delay in making announcing a decision was linked to leasing for oil and gas development offshore in the Chukchi Sea -- bear habitat. (Today's announcement was court-ordered.)
The Interior Department listed the bears as threatened (not endangered) under the Act, but with a provision stipulating that if something (development-wise) is allowed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, it will also be allowed under the ESA.
The result was that Alaska politicians and enviro groups both complained about the decision.
U.S. Sens. Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski, both of whom have recently been fairly active in climate-related legislation, came out swinging.
Stevens said in a statement he was "disappointed and disturbed."

Scientists have observed that there are now three times as many polar bears in the Arctic than there were in the 1970s. (Not sure where he got that information or if it's accurate.)

Never before has a species been listed as endangered or threatened while occupying its entire geographic range.

This decision was made without any research demonstrating dangerously low population levels in polar bears, but rather on speculation regarding how ice levels will affect Arctic wildlife. Worse yet, today’s decision cannot and will not do anything to reverse sea ice decline.

Instead, this action by the Fish and Wildlife Service sets a dangerous precedent with far-reaching social and economic ramifications. It opens the door for many other Arctic species to be listed, which would severely hamper Alaska’s ability to tap its vast natural resources. Reinterpreting the Endangered Species Act in this way is an unequivocal victory for extreme environmentalists who want to block all development in our state.

Stevens then attacked Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity (one of the original petitioners), accusing her of using the listing to make the point that global warming is not a future threat.
Murkowski also argued the listing was unnecessary and could harm development.

I can’t express how extremely disappointed I am . . . . I believe it is grossly premature, even with qualifications, to recommend this action based on highly variable climate change models and projected impacts of loss of summer sea ice on a currently healthy population. . . .

I am concerned that a threatened listing could have serious ramifications for the State of Alaska and the development of all of our natural resources. I certainly don’t believe a threatened listing should affect the construction of an Alaskan natural gas pipeline, or of any other oil and gas projects, since there is zero evidence that any such project has harmed bear populations in the least. Clearly we want to promote the use of clean-burning natural gas to reduce carbon emissions.

So, I also agree with the agency that subsistence hunting and oil and gas development in Alaska are not a threat to the polar bear and welcome their qualified listing decision. Clearly the Marine Mammal Protection Act offers more protection for polar bears than the ESA does and current regulations should remain in place for these activities. But the qualified listing still doesn’t alleviate my deep concern that outside interests will now try to use the courts to expand the impact of this decision in ways never intended when the ESA became law.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne makes it clear in his statement that the goal is not to use the listing to regulate greenhouse gases or stop development. (Most of the ID's press release is about what the listing won't do.) But Murkowski and others are concerned that the full impact of the listing will be realized in court.
Here's a statement from the head of the Alaska Wilderness League suggesting Murkowski has cause for concern.

While we don’t yet know the implications of this decision, we are glad to see that Secretary Kempthorne is finally taking steps to protect this imperiled species. However, the most important steps are yet to come. We now ask that all oil and gas related activities in prime polar bear habitat – the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas – be suspended until the Department of Interior can guarantee vital protections for the polar bear.

The truth of the matter is that the polar bear won’t survive just because we are acknowledging that it is threatened. What matters for the bear is that quick, effective and significant steps are taken to protect its Arctic habitat. That means keeping oil and gas activities away from the imperiled bear.

And here's what the Center for Biological Diversity (and Siegel) had to say.

While the polar bear listing is one of the administration's clearest acknowledgments to date of the urgent threat posed by global warming, the administration is simultaneously attempting to reduce the protections the bear will receive under the Act. It claims in the listing decision that federal agencies need not consider the impact of global warming pollution on the polar bear; it has also proposed a separate regulation reducing the protections the polar bear would otherwise receive.

“This decision is a watershed event because it has forced the Bush administration to acknowledge global warming's brutal impacts,” said Kassie Siegel, climate program director at the Center for Biological Diversity and lead author of the 2005 petition. “It’s not too late to save the polar bear, and we'll keep fighting to ensure that the polar bear gets the help it needs through the full protections of the Endangered Species Act. The administration's attempts to reduce protection to the polar bear from greenhouse gas emissions are illegal and won't hold up in court.”

Palin was more conciliatory than Stevens and Murkowski but said the state's AG would be reviewing the decision to see if there were any "significant defects that merit judicial scrutiny."
"Alaskans take our public trust responsibilities for our resources very seriously, and we welcome the opportunity to work with the federal agencies to address the conservation needs of these magnificent animals," she said. "We will continue to take the steps necessary to ensure that polar bears continue to thrive for generations to come."
It's been somewhat ironic all along that Alaska -- the home to the bears and the state that has the most to lose by losing them -- has been fighting the efforts to protect them.
Edward Itta, the mayor of the North Slope Borough, offered his explanation in a statement today.

Itta said he knows that arctic sea ice retreat could jeopardize the future health of Alaska’s polar bear population, but he questioned whether an ESA listing will do anything to protect the bears or slow the disappearance of the ice pack.

“My fear is that this will lull many Americans into believing that now we’re protecting the bears. The problem is that polar bears are not endangered by human activity in the Arctic, and the ESA listing only restricts activities up here. So it quite possibly will interfere with our Inupiat subsistence hunting and fishing, which does not get at the problem but does impact us,” he said.

Mayor Itta said he will work with federal agencies to limit impacts on North Slope residents and their traditional subsistence activities, “but the Endangered Species Act is a very big hammer, and it could easily land on us even if the agencies don’t want it to,” he said.

The North Slope Borough relies heavily on oil and gas development, but also on bowhead whales, walrus, and so on.
So the big questions are still whether the listing will slow or stop oil and gas leasing or development in polar bear habitat, and to what extent, if any, the listing will have on carbon regulation.
Here's Deb Williams' take. Williams used to work for the Interior Department and is now head of an enviro group focused on climate change in Alaska.

1) A tremendously important decision for polar bears, people who care about polar bears, and the legal consequences of global warming.

2) Kempthorne correctly listed polar bears as threatened for clear, unassailable scientific and legal reasons. It is especially noteworthy that he accepted future projections about the impacts of global warming on Arctic sea ice as one of the three major rationales for his decision.

3) He explicitly rejected the arguments made by the State of Alaska.

4) This decision has many immediate positive benefits for polar bears: the creation of a recovery plan, immediate consultation requirements, and probably more funding. It also acknowledges the applicability of the Endangered Species Act to species whose habitat is being adversely affected by climate change.

5) While I disagree with several points presented by Secretary Kempthorne, especially his statement that the Marine Mammal Protection Act affords more protection than the ESA, and that current science does not permit a finding of harm associated with any sources of emissions, the courts will have the opportunity to correctly interpret the law going forward.

And here, finally, is the NY Times story.