Bye-polar Kempthorne

Polar bear is endangered, but 'Rule will allow continuation of vital energy production in Alaska'

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 10:16 PM on 14 May 2008

The Department of Interior suffers from a rare form of bipolar disorder called bye-polar disorder. There is one major symptom of this disorder: You list the polar bear as "threatened" because of its melting polar sea ice habitat, but then do nothing to actually protect that polar habitat from its primary threat, greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion.

The disorder is accompanied by an occasional burst of logic, as when the DOI noted:

The polar bears need sea ice for feeding.
The sea ice is being destroyed by human-caused emissions, faster than the models had predicted.
Thus, the polar bear is endangered.

On the other hand, the disorder makes it physically, or at least psychologically, impossible for the patient to take any action based on that burst of logic. The quote in this post's subtitle is from the DOI press release's own subhead. Someone will need to explain how producing fossil fuels -- whose combustion is destroying the polar bear's habitat -- is consistent with preserving an endangered species.

The disorder is also marked by unintentional bursts of irony, as in the use of the phrase "Rule will allow continuation of vital energy production." The word 'vital' means "Necessary to the continuation of life; life-sustaining."

Kempthorne said:

Listing the polar bear as threatened can reduce avoidable losses of polar bears. But it should not open the door to use of the ESA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from automobiles, power plants, and other sources. That would be a wholly inappropriate use of the ESA law. The ESA is not the right tool to set U.S. climate policy.

Sadly, doctors say bye-polar disorder is incurable. Worse, since global warming is opening up the Arctic to more fossil fuel drilling, victims of bye-polar disorder tend to suffer a progressively deteriorating condition.

If you want to become an expert on polar bears and their habitat, read the actual 368-page DOI rule here [big PDF]. You can see the Wonk Room's comments here. Sierra Club's view is here.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

For story: Bye-polar Kempthorne
5 Comments | Post a Comment

Are They Declining?

From p. 22 of the DOI rule, several polar bear populations are stable, two are increasing, and several are declining and many are "data deficient". In the paragraph above the quote, it seems like some of the data has only been kept since 2000 and some in the last few years.

Interesting...

On the basis of information presented above, two polar bear populations are
designated as increasing (Viscount Melville Sound and M'Clintock Channel--both were severely reduced in the past and are recovering under conservative harvest limits); six populations are stable (Northern Beaufort Sea, Southern Hudson Bay, Davis Strait, Lancaster Sound, Gulf of Bothia, Foxe Basin); five populations are declining (Southern Beaufort Sea, Norwegian Bay, Western Hudson Bay, Kane Basin, Baffin Bay); and six populations are designated as data deficient (Barents Sea, Kara Sea, Laptev Sea, Chukchi Sea, Arctic Basin, East Greenland) with no estimate of trend. The two populations with the most extensive time series of data, Western Hudson Bay and Southern Beaufort Sea, are both considered to be declining.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 11:12 PM on 14 May 2008

Yes, they're declining...

...and please take note that of the stable and increased populations, none are in the United States (if I'm readin' this correctly, that is).

And since the ESA is concerned with species populations in the United States, it still qualifies.

Also, if you compare the stable and increasing populations to the decreasing populations, the decreaseing populations still far outweigh any gains.

In other words, net loss.

by Tasermons Partner at 12:39 AM on 15 May 2008

Polar bears and the law

In a sense, declining to regulate GHGs because of polar bears is fair enough. Creating something as comprehensive as a greenhouse gas mitigation strategy in response to concern about a single species is definitely a backwards-seeming way to go about it. At the same time, one is reminded of how somewhat awkward justifications have sometimes been used in the past to secure legal outcomes: for instance, the use of the `interstate commerce' clause in the US Constitution to assert federal jurisdiction, or even the indictment of Al Capone on tax evasion charges, rather than those directly associated with organized crime.

The point here is less whether concern about polar bears does or does not create a legal obligation to act on climate change. Rather, this is another demonstration of how virtually all conservation planning now requires the consideration of climate change effects. This is just one of a thousand cuts through which federal reluctance to effectively regulate greenhouse gasses will need to be eliminated.

a sibilant intake of breath

by sindark at 8:27 AM on 15 May 2008

What Are We Talking About?

...and please take note that of the stable and increased populations, none are in the United States (if I'm readin' this correctly, that is).

But I thought this was about 'global' warming.

If some populations are increasing, and others are decreasing, in different countries, then what could it possibly have to do with global climate?

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 2:48 PM on 15 May 2008

Net loss...

But I thought this was about 'global' warming.

If some populations are increasing, and others are decreasing, in different countries, then what could it possibly have to do with global climate?

Several possible reasons for small population increases, as noted in the report.

First, until recently, populations of polar bears had nearly doubled since the 1960s (when many northern countries either banned or put restrictions on hunting), and some populations are still feeling the effects.

Two, several populations of polar bears have turned into "trash feeders", where they've given up their natural diet to scrounge the garbage dumps of northern human populations in order to feed themselves. Though this had led to an increase in population, it's also lead to individuals who are malnourished and unhealthy due to the diet of trash.

Three, melting sea ice, and the effects associated with it (decrease in salinity, warming of ocean waters that were previously protected by ice reflectiong the sun, etc.), has begun to shift ocean currents in the Arctic. In a few places, the colder currents have shifted closer to some shorelines, resulting in increased ice coverage in remote locations. It has also altered the distribution of certain seal populations to areas where polar bears reside in greater numbers, resulting in a temporary one-to-two generation increase in food stocks.

However, compared to the amount of ice lost, any gain due to this is extremely small.

Four, as I said earlier, even taking the increased populations into account, comparing their numbers to the decline in other populations, the total is still a major net loss.

And there's a very good possibility that those populations which are currently stable or increasing won't be so for much longer, as conditions degrade, with increased competition as habitat literally melts and seal populations (polar bears' food source) begin to die-off as ice shrinks further.

by Tasermons Partner at 6:14 PM on 15 May 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.