For The Hugh Hewitt
Daily Brief
What's Hot | Search |
Back to Townhall.com Hugh Hewitt Home Page
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Hugh Hewitt :: Townhall.com Columnist
PBIP: The Approach and Outbreak of Polar Bear-Induced Paralysis
by Hugh Hewitt
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 

In January of 2007, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service published a proposed rule in the Federal Register intending to notify the public and seek their comments on the idea of adding the polar bear to the list of threatened and endangered species.

A raft of comments came in, and the government's biologists went off to consider them.

The Service returned to the Federal Register a second time, in October of 2007, and requested more comments. The window closed again.

More than 670,000 comments have been received urging that the polar bear be listed as a "threatened species."

Ask yourself why there was such an outpouring of comments for such an obscure issue.

A variety of environmental groups orchestrated the tsunami of testimonials to the desperate condition of the polar bear because they understand—as much of the public and Congress does not—that a listing of the polar bear will have vast implications, and may in fact be a backdoor to implementation of the Kyoto protocol.

By way of background, I have practiced natural resources law since I left the Reagan Administration in early 1989. Wetlands, jurisdictional waters, and endangered species are my areas of expertise, and if you ever need a lesson on the Stephens' kangaroo rat, the Delhi sands flower-loving fly, the California gnat catcher, the Desert tortoise or any of a couple dozen other plants and animals throughout the west that are protected under the federal or state Endangered Species Act, drop me an e-mail.

All of those species and many more have fairly predictable aftermaths of their listing --a period of great confusion about where they live and breed, what can and cannot be done near them, and lots of meetings and negotiations with federal officials over habitat conservation plans, Section 7 consultations etc. There are lots of landowners and businesses that lose a lot because of this law, but in the past, the impact zone of a listing was at least limited to the area in which the listed species lived.

That won't be the case with any listing of the polar bear, which is why it is the focus of so much zeal among the groups. The reach of the listing wil be immense because of the rationale offered for its protection.

The proposed listing states that the polar bear may be threatened because it is losing the ice it needs to live on due to climate change. If the government agrees with the models that project a dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice over the next few decades, and further agrees that this loss would imperil the polar bear's survivability, the bear gets listed.

Once listed, the Federal Endangered Species Act is very clear: Any federal action that might impact the polar bear must be reviewed by the U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Act.

What sort of federal actions? The most obvious would be any activity on or near Arctic ice, but that's not the gold ring the environmentalists are reaching for.

They will argue that every federal permit that allows directly or indirectly for increased emissions of hydrocarbons is a federal act that might impact the polar bear --every port expansion, every refinery opening or repair, every Army Corps of Engineers permit that allows for more homes or office buildings to rise.

Don't believe me. Believe the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the plaintiffs in the suit filed to force the listing. From the Center's website:

“Protection under the Endangered Species Act will provide concrete help to polar bears and could revolutionize American climate policy. Since U.S. resistance to curbing greenhouse gases has allowed other countries to shirk their responsibilities as well, major changes in American policy are likely to have a powerful domino effect, catalyzing change in climate policy worldwide. The polar bear’s protected status will require a new level of environmental review before oil and gas development continue in polar bear habitat in the American Arctic. Even more critically, because it is illegal to harm threatened species or jeopardize their survival, the polar bear listing could mean that all U.S. industries emitting large quantities of greenhouse gases — and requiring a federal permit to do so — will come under the purview of the Endangered Species Act. From polluting power plants in the Midwest to auto manufacturers, a vast array of industries may have to clean up their acts to give the polar bear a chance to survive.”
Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Hugh Hewitt is host of a nationally syndicated radio talk show. Hugh Hewitt's new book is The War On The West.

Be the first to read Hugh Hewitt's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Amendments Indeed.
It is very plain to see the need for a Constitutional Amendment, granting the federal gov't, as well as the federal courts, along with the President of the US, jurisdiction over the weather. Were they not granted this ministry in the original document?

Bengal
Absolutely, and that's one of the troubling things about McCain. It's more than drinking the pseudoscience Kool-Aid: it's the whole mindset of sitting around worrying that people are living too high on the hog, and apocalyptic catastrophes are to be predicted from that.

This point is never brought out, but if you buy into "AGW" (which they are now calling "climate change," since the +0.6F has been wiped out by the cold of the last couple of winters), the most basic problem of all is that people live so much longer today than they did 80 or 100 years ago.

This leaves far more of us alive at any one time to breath CO2 into the air and try to keep ourselves warm, and make our food supply reliable by using internal combustion engines to transport it. Population is so great today, in spite of decling fertility in much of the world, because WE LIVE SO LONG NOW.

If we really want to address the impact of man on the planet, the shortest-distance method is to decrease life spans. The proposal of AGW advocates to reduce mankind's overall reliance on CO2-releasing processes will have precisely that consequence. Modern public utilities, sanitation, housing, universal and higher education, agriculture, food markets, and medicine -- all the things that have lengthened our life spans -- depend on such processes. Man will, willy-nilly, release less CO2 overall if he dies before 50 instead of living into his 60s, 70s, or 80s. And vice versa.

Weaning us off of releasing CO2, with the state of today's technology, means weaning us off of living past 50. It's wide availability of minimum basics that keeps lots of people alive -- not privilege for a few. AGW advocates may feel guilty about having their privileges, but I don't feel a bit bad about how comparatively easy it is today for millions of poor people to stay warm in the winter, and have enough to eat, and avoid contracting diseases -- and therefore not die off early, as they once did.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.