Major Polar Bear Protection Decision Looms

Interior Dept. Due To Rule On Putting It On Endangered Species List

(CBS)  The heated debate over global warming has ensnared an animal that can survive in the world's harshest conditions -- the polar bear -- putting it at the center of a fierce political tug-of-war between environmentalists and business interests over protecting the polar bear's habitat and drilling for oil.

As CBS News Science and Technology correspondent Daniel Sieberg explains, the Interior Department has until Thursday to rule on whether the polar bear should be placed on the Endangered Species List.

"The Bush administration has its legal obligation to finalize its decision on the polar bear," says Sen. Barbara Boxer (D, Calif.), head of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, "and we all have a moral obligation to see that they do it."

There are an estimated 20,000 - 25,000 polar bears in the Arctic region, but environmentalists warn that rising temperatures and disappearing sea ice will cause a 30 percent decline in their population over the next 50 years.

"We are now beginning to see declines in a number of populations of polar bears, and that's because of global warming," says John Kostyack of the National Wildlife Federation. "Effectively, the polar bears are starving."

But The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, argues that putting the polar bear on the endangered species list might do more harm than good.

"There's a real question," says the foundation's Ben Lieberman, "whether the polar bear is threatened in the first place, and the Endangered Species Act, the way it would work, would actually do quite a bit of economic damage, and may or may not actually impact the bears."

The polar bear would be the first animal to be listed as endangered or threatened as a result of global warming -- which could mean two things, some observers say. One -- some northern exploration for oil could be stalled, possibly leading to even higher energy prices at home. And two -- environmental groups could be empowered to sue any company or governmental agency contributing to the increase of greenhouse gases.

But the Wildlife Federation disputes that theory.

"What we're expecting the Endangered Species Act to be used for," says Kostyack, "is something that's much more direct, which is these immediate threats to the polar bear in their habitat from oil and gas development."

The polar bear is an iconic symbol of the Arctic, Sieberg notes, "so, in some ways, critics are saying, it's just being used to try to limit greenhouse gases. But environmentalists are very outspoken. They say it is absolutely essential to look at this issue and to try to do something about their habitat, which is the disappearing ice."

[johnstossel]

In a nutshell; should we protect innocent animals or get more oil to allow people who drive an SUV to continue to waste our planet''s natural resources? This is a no-brainer!

[rf35]

The fact that at least 20,000 remain makes me wonder what constitutes "endangered" these days. In a major predator species with a limited habitat, 20,000+ seems to be an appropriate number. I am all for protecting animals that are truly threatened, but to place one on the endangered list just to make a few puffed up special interest groups feel like they%u2019ve done something useful is NOT a good enough reason. Especially considering the harm it could do to our already tanking economy.

As far as good ole global warming, are we supposed to think that putting the polar bear on the list is going to help? Will it reverse the natural warming cycle? Will it clean up the atmosphere? Will it do anything useful at all? Leave the bears to evolve. Survival of the fittest will allow the bears that adapt to the warmer planet to carry on and breed. The ones that can%u2019t adapt will perish. I consider myself to be pro-environment, but this sounds more like a con to me. There are more important environmental issues to spend our effort on.

I believe that we could build a way to simulate the ice that they need to hunt on by constructing large "islands" that serve as the ice does now to provide a means of covering the sea surface so that they will have an artificial ice on which to live.
It won''t be easy and it won''t be cheap but if there is to be any recovery of the elements that combine to make their habitat similar to what they need to survive, a sort of "Noah''s Ark" might be considered to, in the short term, start looking at a means to maintain what they need to live as they are now. As a stop-gap to doing nothing!

[msay3]

If Alaska were the size of a coffee table, then ANWR takes up about as much space as one table leg....We could drill for oil and still preserve the habitat.

[au_fait]

You have to be F*ing kidding me. They just put these animals on the endangered list. These animals have seen an explosion in there numbers. From 5k to over 20k in a little over two decades. You should not be able to argue that due to two isolated populations decreasing that they should be added to the list. That is cr@p. Also with record ice measurements for this year, the most since the late 70''s. What habitat dissapearing. I am so sick of people expecting the world to be static in nature. Nature is dynamic and if something falls off here, by nature it will rise elsewhere. As seen with the PB population. I understand responsibility to nature and our habitat, but this was uncalled for!!!!!!! This is not about oil, this is about responsible judgement and now bending to those who have accepted beliefs associated with GW.

[starkgranger]

The studies I have seen support the increase in the population in some areas and stable in others. The areas where the numbers have declined are over hunted areas.
Republicans might as well forget trying to appease the environmental religionist. Only a Democrat can do that. We can take care of the environment and let it take care of us without letting human life suffer.

[clestes-2009]

About f*cking time! Big oil is on its way OUT of the Artic just like the rep are on their way out of Washington.

They are planning and scheming about 2010 and 2012, but the truth is, they have screwed up so bad it could be decades before they are back and it is for certain that the whole neo-conservative movement is DEAD.

Anyone catch Douglas Feith telling Jon Stewart that the American public only thought we were told that Iraq was going to be quick and easy??

He says that no such claims were made and we just dreamed it all.

What a pathetic little wimp he is! Doomed to spend the rest of his life trying to rewrite history, showing how the neo-cons were taken advantage of by the incompetency of the shrub admin.

His books will go out of print and no one will pay to hear his speeches and he will end his days as an example of a neo-con has been. A footnote in the endless books about how badly Iraq was bungled.

[ilovemydoggy]

Endangered bears and endangered humans in this economy. Is the wolf at the door? I just read a good post here: http://www.Vaboomer.com We need a new vision. I applaud the step taken today. Let us stop lamenting "Why don''t THEY do something about global warming?" It is US.

[holden6098]

As I have read the above posted comments it has struck me that a majority of Americans are just stupid sheep not capable cognative thought on their own. Here are the facts about Polar Bears;

1. They are growing in population across the board.
2. Oil research and recovery will have 0% impact on an animal that is largely tolerant to humans.
3. As to the "Clestes" comment above about big oil being on its way out of the artic and linking the Iraq war to this issue please go back to my original comments about stupid Americans. ( By the way for the fools benifit Iraq has been the most one sided war in the planets history and anyone delusional enough to think we were only going to be involved for a short time is once again an idiot-Korea is a good example of occupation and they don''t have natural recources we need. God Bless America