Comments on: Bye-polar Kempthorne: Polar bear IS endangered, but “Rule will allow continuation of vital energy production in Alaska” http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/14/bye-polar-kempthorne-polar-bear-is-endangered-but-rule-will-allow-continuation-of-vital-energy-production-in-alaska/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:17:35 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: annoyed http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/14/bye-polar-kempthorne-polar-bear-is-endangered-but-rule-will-allow-continuation-of-vital-energy-production-in-alaska/#comment-14532 annoyed Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:29:08 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/14/bye-polar-kempthorne-polar-bear-is-endangered-but-rule-will-allow-continuation-of-vital-energy-production-in-alaska/#comment-14532 Exusian, you don't seem to get it. Canada bases the quotas on the polar bear population, not hunting demand from Americans, so the quotas will remain approximately the same. Because an American hunter that purchases a tag has ONE shot at hunting, and the tag is then "used", it actually reduces the number of animals killed. Native hunters are allowed to recycle their tags until a kill is made. Since hunts are nowhere near 100% successful, all the American listing did was ensure that more bears will be killed by non-US citizens (Native Canadians) while a bunch of lawyers and politicians in DC and California (where the SCI suits are currently under way) argue the merits of a bunch of scientific surveys which are all equally plausible and all equally contradictory. So, while the environmentalists clearly fought for this to protect the bear, their true purpose (reduction of emissions) may not take effect until after their cover-up purpose (reduce American hunting and importation) has already damaged polar bear populations. I applaud the ends, but the means were among the least effective they could have chosen. Exusian, you don’t seem to get it. Canada bases the quotas on the polar bear population, not hunting demand from Americans, so the quotas will remain approximately the same. Because an American hunter that purchases a tag has ONE shot at hunting, and the tag is then “used”, it actually reduces the number of animals killed. Native hunters are allowed to recycle their tags until a kill is made. Since hunts are nowhere near 100% successful, all the American listing did was ensure that more bears will be killed by non-US citizens (Native Canadians) while a bunch of lawyers and politicians in DC and California (where the SCI suits are currently under way) argue the merits of a bunch of scientific surveys which are all equally plausible and all equally contradictory. So, while the environmentalists clearly fought for this to protect the bear, their true purpose (reduction of emissions) may not take effect until after their cover-up purpose (reduce American hunting and importation) has already damaged polar bear populations. I applaud the ends, but the means were among the least effective they could have chosen.

]]> By: bi -- Intl. J. Inact. http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/14/bye-polar-kempthorne-polar-bear-is-endangered-but-rule-will-allow-continuation-of-vital-energy-production-in-alaska/#comment-12704 bi -- Intl. J. Inact. Thu, 15 May 2008 15:17:02 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/14/bye-polar-kempthorne-polar-bear-is-endangered-but-rule-will-allow-continuation-of-vital-energy-production-in-alaska/#comment-12704 andrew: There's already a law: the Endangered Species Act. The Department of Interior ignored it. That's why we need courts and judges -- to <em>enforce</em> the law. What's the point of having Congress pass yet another law, if the new law's simply going to be ignored again? -- bi, <a href="http://frankbi.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow"><i>International Journal of Inactivism</i></a> andrew:

There’s already a law: the Endangered Species Act. The Department of Interior ignored it. That’s why we need courts and judges — to enforce the law. What’s the point of having Congress pass yet another law, if the new law’s simply going to be ignored again?

– bi, International Journal of Inactivism

]]> By: Sun Tzu http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/14/bye-polar-kempthorne-polar-bear-is-endangered-but-rule-will-allow-continuation-of-vital-energy-production-in-alaska/#comment-12696 Sun Tzu Thu, 15 May 2008 14:18:10 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/14/bye-polar-kempthorne-polar-bear-is-endangered-but-rule-will-allow-continuation-of-vital-energy-production-in-alaska/#comment-12696 <b>Why Do We Care If Polar Bears Become Extinct?</b> This is not any sort of revelation: <a href="http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/080514a.html" rel="nofollow"> Polar bears declared a threatened species </a>, but it does raise the question: <i>Why do we care?</i> 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: <i>Do we care and why?</i> One of the ways a nation, its citizens and the global community can answer that question is addressed by John A. Warden III in <a href="http://venturist.com/wordpress/?p=33" rel="nofollow"> Thinking Strategically About Global Climate Change. </a> He asks some interesting biodiversity questions in his post to include <i>How Many Species Is the Right Number and Which Ones?</i> 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?

]]> By: exusian http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/14/bye-polar-kempthorne-polar-bear-is-endangered-but-rule-will-allow-continuation-of-vital-energy-production-in-alaska/#comment-12694 exusian Thu, 15 May 2008 13:24:05 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/14/bye-polar-kempthorne-polar-bear-is-endangered-but-rule-will-allow-continuation-of-vital-energy-production-in-alaska/#comment-12694 Greg, since hunting pressure on polar bears in the Canadian Arctic overwhelmingly comes from US sports hunters, the US decision de facto applies to the polar bear hunt in Canada by preventing US hunters from bringing their trophies into the US. The US decision basically makes Baird's decision moot. And that's a good thing. Greg, since hunting pressure on polar bears in the Canadian Arctic overwhelmingly comes from US sports hunters, the US decision de facto applies to the polar bear hunt in Canada by preventing US hunters from bringing their trophies into the US. The US decision basically makes Baird’s decision moot.

And that’s a good thing.

]]> By: mauri pelto http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/14/bye-polar-kempthorne-polar-bear-is-endangered-but-rule-will-allow-continuation-of-vital-energy-production-in-alaska/#comment-12693 mauri pelto Thu, 15 May 2008 13:21:49 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/14/bye-polar-kempthorne-polar-bear-is-endangered-but-rule-will-allow-continuation-of-vital-energy-production-in-alaska/#comment-12693 Kempthorne noted that..."I have now experienced the reality that the current E.S.A. is among the most inflexible laws Congress has passed. It prevents me, as secretary, from taking into account economic conditions and adverse consequences in making listing decisions." Seems he fails to understand that this was the whole point of the ESA that economics always trumps species, and when virtual extinction was a concern that economics had to be set aside. This does make it flexible, but standards need to be inflexible when they are the bare minimum for species survival. The same can be said thus far for climate change, economics always trumps adjusting, thank goodness for high oil prices or no change would be happening now either I suspect. Of course paying $60 for a tankful is not fun, but I did by reel (non-motorized) lawnmower. Kempthorne noted that…”I have now experienced the reality that the current E.S.A. is among the most inflexible laws Congress has passed. It prevents me, as secretary, from taking into account economic conditions and adverse consequences in making listing decisions.” Seems he fails to understand that this was the whole point of the ESA that economics always trumps species, and when virtual extinction was a concern that economics had to be set aside. This does make it flexible, but standards need to be inflexible when they are the bare minimum for species survival. The same can be said thus far for climate change, economics always trumps adjusting, thank goodness for high oil prices or no change would be happening now either I suspect. Of course paying $60 for a tankful is not fun, but I did by reel (non-motorized) lawnmower.

]]> By: Greg http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/14/bye-polar-kempthorne-polar-bear-is-endangered-but-rule-will-allow-continuation-of-vital-energy-production-in-alaska/#comment-12679 Greg Thu, 15 May 2008 04:40:51 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/14/bye-polar-kempthorne-polar-bear-is-endangered-but-rule-will-allow-continuation-of-vital-energy-production-in-alaska/#comment-12679 Perhaps I'm missing something with today's announcement, but shouldn't we be paying attention to Canada's current listing of polars bears as a species of "special concern" but not "threatened" under their Species at Risk Registry, and the fact that 2/3 of the world's polar bear population are in Canada not Alaska? No where in the Secretary of the Interior's speech today is there any mention just how important it would be for the U.S. to urge Canada to upgrade their listing of polar bears from "special concern" to "threatened", and cite the same reason as loss of sea ice due to global warming. I believe we should also be asking Secretary Kempthorne what exactly was this "Memorandum of Understanding" he signed with his Canadian counterpart, John Baird, last week in Canada. And it won't be until August that Baird will make his decision if Canada will even bother to reclassify polar bears listing from "special concern" to "threatened" according to Canadian law. It seems to me the pressure should be on the Canadian government to take action, especially since they have 2/3 of the polar bear population. Ideally I'd like to see Canada reclassify polar bears as "threatened" and cite sea ice loss due to global warming as the reason. Then both the Canada and U.S. join forces to pass new climate change laws that keep an eye on emissions from oil and gas companies operating in the Canadian and American backyards of polar bears. Perhaps I’m missing something with today’s announcement, but shouldn’t we be paying attention to Canada’s current listing of polars bears as a species of “special concern” but not “threatened” under their Species at Risk Registry, and the fact that 2/3 of the world’s polar bear population are in Canada not Alaska?

No where in the Secretary of the Interior’s speech today is there any mention just how important it would be for the U.S. to urge Canada to upgrade their listing of polar bears from “special concern” to “threatened”, and cite the same reason as loss of sea ice due to global warming.

I believe we should also be asking Secretary Kempthorne what exactly was this “Memorandum of Understanding” he signed with his Canadian counterpart, John Baird, last week in Canada. And it won’t be until August that Baird will make his decision if Canada will even bother to reclassify polar bears listing from “special concern” to “threatened” according to Canadian law.

It seems to me the pressure should be on the Canadian government to take action, especially since they have 2/3 of the polar bear population.

Ideally I’d like to see Canada reclassify polar bears as “threatened” and cite sea ice loss due to global warming as the reason. Then both the Canada and U.S. join forces to pass new climate change laws that keep
an eye on emissions from oil and gas companies operating in the Canadian and American backyards of polar bears.

]]> By: andrew http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/14/bye-polar-kempthorne-polar-bear-is-endangered-but-rule-will-allow-continuation-of-vital-energy-production-in-alaska/#comment-12662 andrew Wed, 14 May 2008 22:41:56 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/14/bye-polar-kempthorne-polar-bear-is-endangered-but-rule-will-allow-continuation-of-vital-energy-production-in-alaska/#comment-12662 Surely, you're not saying that the preffered venue for making national climate policy is by a rulemaking by some bureaucrats huddled up in the Department of Interior? Or some lawyer looking for loopholes riddled through the clean air act? Surely the environmental community doesn't believe we that we should undercut our nation's economy because of a federal rulemaking. Isn't it far more democratic to have Congress do it? Isn't that where major choices about the nation's future should be made? Get involved -- write your Congressman... but don't go out and hire a lawyer. Surely, you’re not saying that the preffered venue for making national climate policy is by a rulemaking by some bureaucrats huddled up in the Department of Interior? Or some lawyer looking for loopholes riddled through the clean air act? Surely the environmental community doesn’t believe we that we should undercut our nation’s economy because of a federal rulemaking. Isn’t it far more democratic to have Congress do it? Isn’t that where major choices about the nation’s future should be made?

Get involved — write your Congressman… but don’t go out and hire a lawyer.

]]> By: Sarah http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/14/bye-polar-kempthorne-polar-bear-is-endangered-but-rule-will-allow-continuation-of-vital-energy-production-in-alaska/#comment-12654 Sarah Wed, 14 May 2008 20:49:06 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/14/bye-polar-kempthorne-polar-bear-is-endangered-but-rule-will-allow-continuation-of-vital-energy-production-in-alaska/#comment-12654 You can view the Center for Biological Diversity's press release here: http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0514-18.htm Kassie Siegel is the Director of the Center's Climate, Air and Energy program, and lead lawyer and author of the polar bear listing petition. You can view the Center for Biological Diversity’s press release here: http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0514-18.htm
Kassie Siegel is the Director of the Center’s Climate, Air and Energy program, and lead lawyer and author of the polar bear listing petition.

]]>