Are Salazar and Obama Really Hanging Polar Bears Out to Dry?
- Posted by: Siobhan O'Connor
- on May 8, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Obama’s Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said today that he won’t be overturning that 11th-hour rule that Bush imposed on his way out of office. The law basically limits the scope of the Endangered Species Act to not apply to emissions of greenhouse gasses. And since greenhouse gasses are presumably the reason polar bears’ homes are melting, the law basically leaves polar bears unprotected.
Environmentalists (Greenpeace, the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife et al.) are pissed, and for very valid reasons, and say they will be taking the decision to court.
But I’m not convinced that Salazar and Obama don’t have other plans, here. I’m glad there is outcry, and I find the pressure being put on the Administration encouraging, but I have a hard time believing Salazar & Co. are just going to sit back while polar bears continue to fall into the ocean and die. Salazar has already said that “this administration is fully committed to the protection and recovery of the polar bear,” and that he is open to other solutions. We also know that this administration has made it a central goal to aggressively tackle greenhouse gas emissions. What Salazar did not want was to tackle greenhouse gas emissions through the Endangered Species Act.
There’s an interesting annotated discussion of the polar bear issue by Andrew Revkin, which he wrote when Bush did the deed in the first place. It adds insight to this idea that we shouldn’t be relying solely on the ESA to get our energy policy intact. You can read the whole thing here.
What’s your take?
DISCUSSION: 5 Comments
Does anyone read this blog? Hello? How come there are not comments ever posted? Am I alone?
I read it every day.
I read every day too. Currently global warming is the 5th leading cause of loss of biodiversity. The best way to preserve it is to help the species that we can, and we have to ask ourselves the question is it to late to save the polar bears? I don’t think it is! I believe Obama has a global responsibility to overturn the previous decision, because sooner or later global warming won’t be the 5th cause, it will be #1, and human beings will be on the threatened and endangered list.
I think it makes sense not to include emissions standards in the ESA because it avoids redundancy. We already have laws that limit emissions, we just need to focus on making them increasingly strict and expansive so that we can gradually eliminate greenhouse gases. There’s really no sense in having the ESA include provisions that do the same thing.
Whatever his plan is, the symbolism of leaving that rule in place isn’t very good.