Why it Should’t be Listed Under Endangered Species Act
From Red State
The Washington Post devoted its KidsPost page today to a sympathetic plea for the polar bear — the predatory creature that environmentalists want listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. With a decision looming on Thursday for the Bush administration, the Post is apparently pulling out all stops, including liberal spin for kids.
Although the Post devotes just one paragraph in a 534-word article to the negative ramifications of listing the polar bear, there are plenty of reasons for Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to ignore the advice of environmentalists. Let’s start with a few of the consequences outlined by nine U.S. senators in a letter to Kempthorne last week:
• The worldwide polar bear population is somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 today — more than double the 8,000 to 10,000 that were living in the 1960s. If and when the Endangered Species Act is used, it should protect species with declining populations.
• Listing the polar bear is really just a ploy by environmentalists to shut down any chance of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or explore for oil in other parts of Alaska. Bloomberg columnist Kevin Hassett says listing the polar bear could mean $200-a-barrel oil. At a time when America is growing increasingly dependent on foreign sources of oil, now is not the time to clamp down on domestic exploration.
• Set aside all the compassionate gibberish from WWF and it becomes clear why the polar bear is just a pawn: environmentalists will turn to activist judges citing the Endangered Species Act to halt construction of new power plants and factories that emit fossil fuels. The Green Policy Fairness Coalition already cites efforts by global warming alarmists to use lawsuits against the federal and state governments bypass the legislative process.
Read the Rest of this piece at Red State.
This decision has already been made by the department of Interior. They listed the polar bear as threatened.
Why Do We Care If Polar Bears Become Extinct?
This is not any sort of revelation: Polar bears declared a threatened species , but it does raise the question: Why do we care? By some estimates, 90% of all species that once existed are now extinct and new species are always taking their place. For the species that’s going to become extinct, for whatever reason, extinction is the end of it. However, for the species that remain, is the extinction of another species good or bad. When Europeans first colonized North America, there was an estimated five (5) billion Passenger Pigeons alive and well in North America. In 1914, they were extinct. Passenger Pigeons didn’t live in little groups, but huge flocks that required extraordinary quantities of hardwood forests for them to feed, breed and survive. Deforestation to build homes, create farmland and over hunting for cheap food decimated their population. The westward drive to grow the United States in the 1800s and early 1900s was incompatible with the needs of the Passenger Pigeon and they literally could not survive in the new North America being carved out by the U.S. economy. The interesting thing about the Passenger Pigeon was the impact its extinction had on another species—man. That impact was essentially none. Man continued to find ways to feed himself through agriculture and other technologies and the United States and its citizens continued to prosper from the early 20th century till today. Whether or not Polar Bears become extinct because of Global Climate Change or other reasons, we need to address the larger question of: Do we care and why? One of the ways a nation, its citizens and the global community can answer that question is addressed by John A. Warden III in Thinking Strategically About Global Climate Change. He asks some interesting biodiversity questions in his post to include How Many Species Is the Right Number and Which Ones?
I don’t think anyone really wants to see the polar bears become extinct. There is no evidence that they are endangered, though and the nefarious part of the equation is that the supposed danger to polar bears posed by global warming provides another tool to tax, regulate and restrict progress. A new power plant in New Mexico could be halted by the courts based on arguements that it will hurt (now “endangered”) polar bears in the North Pole!
The polulation of polar bears has been on the rise. Predictions of their extinction are based on computer software-generated climate change models, not actual scientific observation.
People, people, people. Puuhhlease! Listing the Polar Bear as endangered is going to raise oil to $200/barrel ??!! Only someone very stupid or simple-minded is going to even entertain that preposterous notion. Use the brain God gave you willya? The powers that be and the oil industry simply want to maintain the status quo for as long as possible so they can extract as much oil from the earth and money from your pocket no matter what the consequences are. America is ADDICTED to cheap oil, and we need to use our intelligence to come up with alternatives, and we WILL- it’s inevitable. Oil does not, I repeat does NOT renew itself. There is a limited supply and no matter what we do from here on out, there will be less of it, and it will cost more to obtain, etc. etc. etc. Don’t be fooled by the rich who may have to sell one or two of their several homes to change from a carbon based economy to something cleaner and renewable !! Don’t be a chump for the rich and powerful, and I’m not talking about Al Gore (do you really think he’s powerful??!!- if so you are deluded… sorry but hey, facing reality is a good thing, really, it helps a lot !
I’ll be the first in line to buy a hydrogen-powered car.
And, actually, there’s evidence that oil does renew itself, just not as fast as we are pumping it out. Old tapped out wells are producing again after decades of being dormant.
But Dan you can’t even begin to think that even if what you say is true that this “new oil” is somehow going to regenerate at a rate that could be more than a fraction of a fraction of the original amounts. At the rate of use this is not a reasonable phenomenon to bet on (talk about wishful thinking!). Why shouldn’t we conserve and use renewables as much as possible and use the remaining oil for things not easily substituted for. Why must we be hell-bent on consuming something as quickly as possible until it is more or less completely depleted? For example, why not make personal vehicles electric, hybrid, hydrogen fueled etc. and let trucks continue using diesel. the we wouldn’t have to worry about running out and paying more to truck all the things we survive on? Why couldn’t we do that, why? And Dan why won’t you “be the first” to buy a Prius?
Hydrogen cars need nuclear power to truly be green. When are environmentalists going to realize that you can’t get something for nothing. I’m all for saving the environment, but greenies need to pull their heads out of their nether regions on some issues. Some birds may have to die so that we can get some wind power. Polar bears are not even dying and people are screaming “just wait!” Well, we’re waiting, and I think we will always be waiting. Then the greenies will claim they saved everything in the end if nothing comes of this warming hysteria. It’s never-ending shenanigans.
Brett, you assume too much, and you know what happens then… Anyway, us “greenies” are generally speaking brighter and more realistic (reality-based) than many other people, in my humble opinion. We know there are trade-offs, to everything. What we are stiving for is what might currently the best option, or offer many good options, based upon current problems, including what is currently feasible based on currrent technology. Why is that so hard to understand? Things change Brett, always have and always will. Conservatives often seem to have a tendency to fight progress no matter what- and that makes no sense to me at all. Simple fear of the unknown? I don’t know the anwer to that. However, I’m sure you or a fellow conservative brethren will enlightn me and other greenies about that. Do you really know what’s best for the majority Brett? You see, us greenies don’t really pretend to know everything- you only project that onto us. We are busy looking for solutions while people like you fight to keep the status quo. If we don’t evolve Brett, we devolve, and become extinct…
Sorry I am late with a reply, Davion. I don’t really consider myself a conservative, I consider myself practical and logical. I believe you are projecting on me as much as I am projecting on you. I am not fighting to keep the status quo, I would love a renewable energy source. I just don’t believe in global warming and Al Gore’s carbon credit scam.
Here is an idea to prevent global warming. 8)
Check here:
http://www.jjcomics.com/how_to_stop_global_warming_cartoon_comic.htm
why must everything come down to oil. We need to realize that the level of species extinction has increased because of the doings of man. Yes extinction happens naturally, but what has been happening lately is unnatural. How many species on the IUCN Red List of Engangered Species are on it because of humans. For example the Yang Tse river dolphin is believed to be extinct , due to severe water pollution and harmful commercial fishing practices not because of natural selection and survival of the fittest. True polar bear numbers may still be high, but has their mortality rate increased? that is the question and if it has , how long until those numbers get really low ? If we wait to find out it may be too late for the bears. Who cares? we all should. Every species occupies a specific niche,the more we lose the more out of wack our environmental system of checks and balances will be effected. At what point will things get so messed up that we won’t be able to adapt fast enough. If the ice is melting, what effect will it have on humans ? simple a large percentage of the world’s population can be found near coast lines. In the future sea levels could rise enough to start and cover these low lieing coastal areas, but lets just wait and see what happens. right? or “It won’t happen while i’m alive.” I’ve heard this before and this is the wrong attitude to have. we can’t wait , we need to start now for future generations , for anyone who has childrenof their own or in their extensive families, lets make the Earth better for them and us.
Polar bear populations are increasing. Given that simple fact, it should be obvious that they should not now be listed as a threatened species. The entire reasoning for listing them as threatened is based on theories based on unreliable computer models that indicate global warming might someday impact their environment – if everything plays out like the (constantly proven wrong) software predicts. This is nothing but a political ploy to hold up polar bears in the arctic as a reason to halt production of a new power plant in, say, Texas. There is no evidence that polar bears are in trouble. In fact, they are thriving!
that is so sad global warming needs to stop:( Animals are getting killed because of global warming!!!!!!!! GET IT TO STOP PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SO 20,000 polar bears is too many? At what number would you consider them to be endangered then? Do you get that when the north pole completely melts they will be extinct? And it will all melt. I like how you posted a picture of an angry polar bear.
Sounds to me like we need to start thinning the herd with selective hunts each year. The 1950 count was around 5000 and now is 20000-25000. How can there be enough food to sustain the growing numbers? Next it will be the seals need protection due to their declining numbers from being one of the
primary food sources of the bears. Al Gore is making lots of money with his green companies. Did you know the polar bears floating on the small pieces of broken ice do this on purpose to commute? They use the current to get from ‘point a’ to ‘point b’ as it sure beats having to swim to get to their nextl feeding ground of the soon to be endangered seals.