Polar bears? Or environmental pawns?

Inter Lake editorial

Polar bears are now protected under the Endangered Species Act, and the consequences in the United States could be profound.

In announcing the decision last week, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne attempted to define limitations in the ability of the ESA to be used to restrict domestic greenhouse emissions. Good luck with that, Mr. Secretary.

This week, the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council announced that they will seek court intervention to force the federal government to address what they consider the greatest threat to polar bears: greenhouse gas emissions that allegedly cause global warming and melt Arctic sea ice.

"I can guarantee you this is the beginning of an endless series of court challenges and appeals that the national environmental organizations have been planning in their goal of using the polar bear issue for much larger purposes and goals," said Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska.

Our money is on Young's guarantee. The listing of the polar bear will not only become a legal sledgehammer, it will become a legal jackhammer, drill press and table saw to stop domestic industrial and energy development.

Want to develop a coal plant or refinery in Montana? The polar bear listing will become part of the legal battle that is certain to ensue.

The ESA requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to review all projects that potentially threaten a listed species and involve federal permitting or funding.

The litigation will generally pursue a theme that the U.S. is responsible for capping, taxing and regulating carbon emissions, regardless of impacts on domestic manufacturing and energy production. Never mind dirty industrial development in China or India, where the ESA does not apply. Global climate change is the fault of the United States, and saving polar bear populations will become the responsibility of the U.S., whatever the cost.

In considering this argument, people need to take two steps back, breathe deeply and carefully consider whether they believe draconian taxation and regulation in the United States alone will truly stop ice from melting and polar bear numbers from shrinking.

If the polar bear population is declining (and their numbers have been stable or growing in some areas), surely there must be more direct and effective ways to protect them. How about international protections from hunting, a measure that would save 300 to 500 bears a year?

But no. Things like that are just too practical. And they don't fit the template of the perpetual environmental litigation industry, which can and will exploit every legal means possible to coerce the federal government into a costly, futile effort to manage atmospheric chemistry. And it is an effort that will not save polar bears.