EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Polar Bears in Limbo as Drilling Leases Go Forward
BROOKLIN, Canada - A coalition of environmental groups sued the George W. Bush administration Monday for delaying a decision to protect polar bears threatened with extinction due to the melting ice in its Arctic habitat. Polar bears could be the first species officially threatened by climate change.
The huge loss of summer sea ice in 2007 has caused many scientists to project that the Arctic could be ice-free in summer by as soon as 2012. Although excellent swimmers, polar bears are not very good at catching seals in the water. Seals comprise the main diet for these giant bears, which are far larger than their grizzly bear cousins.
While legally required to make a decision Jan. 9, US Fish and Wildlife (U.S. FWS) officials have been silent. Meanwhile on Feb. 6, 2.6 billion dollars in oil and gas leases were auctioned off to energy companies on nearly 30 million acres of prime polar bear habitat in the Alaska's Chukchi Sea.
"Coincidence? I doubt it, but I don't have the smoking gun to prove it," said Kassie Siegel of the Centre for Biological Diversity (CBD), an environmental non-governmental organisation based in Joshua Tree, California.
The CBD, along with Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defence Council, filed the suit for missing the legal deadline for issuing a final decision on whether to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act due to global warming.
"There was absolutely no urgency to hold that lease sale and plenty of public opposition to it as well," Siegel told IPS.
Had U.S. FWS listed polar bears as threatened on Jan. 9, then the Chukchi Sea lease sale could not have gone ahead without some studies to assess the potential impacts on polar bears, she said.
Should the polar bears be listed as threatened in the near future then the U.S. government has an obligation to protect their habitat and that might mean having to buy back the Chukchi leases from the energy companies, and at a premium price. The Centre for Biological Diversity has also filed a lawsuit over the lease sale but that could still mean U.S. taxpayers would have to pay the energy companies for those leases, says Siegel.
These lawsuits, which first commenced in 2005, have much more to do with climate change than protecting polar bears, the environmental groups acknowledge. It's a roundabout way of getting the U.S. government to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. If polar bears are threatened by climate change, then U.S. federal agencies are obligated under the Endangered Species Act to reduce their emissions of the climate altering gases.
"It's no substitute for a federal cap on emissions, but it's something," Siegel said. "We're not going to magically reduce our emissions with a snap of our fingers. We need many solutions."
Although the Arctic region is being transformed by climate change that will only worsen, there is intense opposition to listing polar bears as threatened in Alaska by many native peoples in Canada. U.S. trophy hunting of polar bears is a 2-million-dollar a year business for the Arctic region of Nunavut in northwest Canada.
Canada is home to 60 percent of the world's estimated 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears. Nearly hunted to extinction in the 1970s, polar bear populations have rebounded thanks to strict hunting quotas. However, recent studies of some polar bear groups over the vast Arctic region show poor survival rates for cubs and adults that are much lighter in weight than in the past.
That's not the case for the bears in parts of Nunavut, according to Government of Nunavut's wildlife officials. Davis Strait, one of their southern-most roaming grounds, is "crawling with polar bears", Mitchell Taylor, director of wildlife research, told the Nunatsiaq News last fall. By Taylor's estimates, there may be 1,500 more bears in the region than previous counts.
However, the greatest Arctic ice losses have been mostly confined to the western Arctic, not the southern region as commonly supposed. And that's the area where the bears have been hit hardest -- the Beaufort Sea and the Western Hudson Bay populations, according to Andrew Derocher of the University of Alberta, and head of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) Polar Bear Specialist Group.
Monitoring a few thousand white bears on white snow and ice over an area twice the size of the continental U.S. is challenging to say the least. Derocher has told IPS in previous interviews that experts do not have good data on some of the bear populations. However, what satellite pictures make very clear is that the ice in the region is deteriorating and very quickly, he said.
That loss of ice will affect the bears, and whether they can adapt to the fast changing conditions by finding different food sources is an open question. It could be argued that opening up their territory to oil and gas drilling may be a more direct and immediate threat than climate change.
According to environmentalists, the U.S. government has received approximately 670,000 comments in support of protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, including letters from eminent polar bear experts, climate scientists, and more than 60 members of Congress.
"If the federal government is really serious about protecting the polar bear, then its next steps will be to cancel lease sales in the Chukchi Sea and immediately implement a plan for deep cuts in U.S. global warming pollution," said Kert Davies, research director at Greenpeace USA, in a statement.
© 2008 Inter Press Service
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

5 Comments so far
Show AllAh there are very definite smoking guns all over this situation- but right now more importently there are two excellent bills stuck in committee- one in the House by Ed Markey HR5058 which has strong cosponser support and in the Senate John Kerry S2568 which likewise has very strong cosponsers- let's get these bills out of comittee and into law- - here's the lowdown from the fine PBS/Now investigative report Oil,Politics & Bribes- it's really great and well worth it- but more specific politicians have been formally indited since this production date- let's do this thing- check this out:
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/
Here's some of the cosponsers on Ed Markey's HR 5058 bill to stop the oil lease sale- Barbara Lee, Henry Waxman, Lynn Woolsey, Barney Frank, Lloyd Doggett, John Lewis, and Jim McDermott- for John Kerry's S 2568 the cosponsers are Joe Biden, Mira Cantwell, and Berny Sanders- so to read these bills and to see what's happening visit the Library of Congress- your tax dollars at work:
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Bowing to public outrage, the government will buy back the leases at a premium. How sweet for the oil company, wasn't it BP? Another transfer of our funds to the corporations for not much work on their part. I wonder how many lawyers and lobbyists it took to pull think this out and pull it off.? It is a win-win for the oil company, especially if they're betting on public outrage.
Babalouie, watching your PBS video. As long as big oil is spreading around the schmiergelder, I am sure that some of it is landing in the pockets of Canadian Politicans as well. I think that the pipe that takes the oil out of Alaska is going through Alberta.
When talking about oil and Canada, lets not forget about the Alberta Oil Sands also - the right tends to reuse strategies:
Monday, March 10, 2008
Mr. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' record on greenhouse gas production, including development of the oil sands, is catastrophic. This is what the Prime Minister said, "Kyoto is basically a socialist plot to suck money out of wealthy countries".
The Conservatives are always talking about respecting law and order. Do they realize that failing to comply with our international obligations may have disastrous consequences for future generations and for Canada's reputation today?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I do think it is a stain on the Government of Canada that the previous government was unable to not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but to sit back and watch them rise by some 33% above the commitments that it signed.
That is why the member will be excited to learn that we are moving aggressively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 17 sectors of the Canadian economy and mandating carbon capture and storage for new oil sands projects, something the previous government lacked the resolve to do.
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we heard the government today claim that it cares about pollution from the tar sands but let us look at the truth of the matter because what the government is saying does not amount to anything more than hot air.
Last week the Federal Court said that the environmental assessments being done of the tar sands were full of holes.
The Canadian ambassador to the United States wrote to the Americans and asked that the tar sands be exempted from American environmental controls.
Why is the government trying to weasel out from environmental controls both here in Canada and in the United States when it comes to the tar sands?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. We are taking real action, the toughest action ever taken in Canadian history. We have among the toughest industry regulations in the world.
I am starting to get the feeling that we are losing the confidence of the NDP. However, the good news is that it is nice to be able to count on the support of the Liberal Party of Canada.
(NOTE: The Tories never miss an opportunity to bash the Liberals regardless as to who is asking the question)
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/chambersittings.aspx?View=H&Parl=39&Ses=2&Language=E&Mode=1
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of the Environment introduced his brown plan. He missed another opportunity to act. Since the Conservatives came to power, they have picked up where the Liberals left off. No green legislation has been adopted and no regulations have been announced. The NDP has no confidence in this government, because it refuses to take action against pollution.
Why does the minister think that Canadians should pay, instead of major polluters?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, polluter pays is one of the principles of our plan. The good news is this. While I do not have the confidence of the member from Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the NDP, I do have the full confidence, the full support, the full enthusiasm of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to miss the mark on pollution regulations, but I guess getting a free pass from the former Liberal environment minister makes life a little more easy. All we got from the Liberals was deny, delay, de-Liberal.
These weak regulations are a license to pollute more. They do not kick in for years. They are reliant upon unproven technologies. However, here is the kicker. Taxpayers have to flip for the bill.
Why does the government not just end the subsidies and make big polluters, not hard-working Canadians, foot the bill for all the pollution they are creating?
xxxx
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a real gift to the oil and gas companies. It has, moreover, been roundly criticized by both Quebec and Ontario. With 2006 as its reference year, this plan ignores the efforts by the Quebec manufacturing industry, which cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 20% between 1990 and 2005. In comparison, emissions resulting from oil and gas extraction in Alberta have increased 300% since 1990.
Will the minister admit that his plan to combat climate change is tailor-made for the oil and gas companies?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, not in the least. We are working very hard to regulate major industries. We have consulted with representatives of Canadian industry. We have inaugurated measures for the forest industry, acknowledging their cogeneration efforts. We have inaugurated additional measures against global warming and greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands.
We have been working hard and have achieved some real results, something that has not been done since the Bloc got here 18 years ago.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this minister is to the environment what the governor of New York State is to morality. He mentions the carbon exchange, so let us talk about that. This functions according to intensity targets, and the base year is 2006, which favours the oil and gas companies. As for his compensation system, it recognizes only a tiny percentage of the efforts made by industry between 1990 and 2006.
Let us hear a frank admission from the minister that his actions are tailor-made for the oil companies.
Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our national plan, the first real plan for Canada in this country's history, set as its goal an absolute reduction of 20% in greenhouse gas emissions. This was absolutely essential.
We are taking action. The only thing the Bloc Quebecois could do is to hold a national conversation on the environment. It talks; we take action.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative plan penalizes Quebec and parallels the Alberta government's timetable for the oil sands sector. In addition to echoing the oil companies' development calendar, it does not impose real reductions until 2018, 10 years from now.
Does the Minister of the Environment realize that his plan is hypocritical and that not only does it not reduce greenhouse gas emissions linked to the oil sands, but, according to the government's own documents, it will allow them to increase by 100% from 2006 to 2020? That is completely hypocritical.
Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have a real plan to reduce greenhouse gases by 330 megatonnes. This is the most significant plan in the history of Canada. We are taking more significant action than almost any other country in the world will take over the next 12 years. We are doing something new for this country. We have a real plan to reduce greenhouse gases, something the Bloc Quebecois has never been able to do, since it is always in opposition. This team over here is taking action.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, not only will his regulatory framework for greenhouse gases benefit oil companies to the detriment of Quebec and the manufacturing sector, but the Conservatives also announced $240 million in the recent budget for a carbon capture and storage pilot project. In addition to that gift, oil companies continue to benefit from accelerated capital cost allowance.
Does the Minister of the Environment realize that his approach is one of polluter-paid rather than polluter-pay?
(same link as above)
Hey noliesplease I feel your frustration but if you read the language of the updated bills in Congress they declare the latest sale of precious and environmentally sensitive areas in the Chukchi Sea null and void- praises for the GBD Greenpeace Earthjustice Sierra Club suite- thank the Great Spirit for people like Kassie Siegel of the CBD who will stand up against these selfserving fools
Big shout out to Vaudree- good point! a glimer of light - EcoJustice just announced on March 5 a victory in Edmunton Canada google: Environmentalists Win Landmark Tar Sands Lawsuit concerning the Kearl Tar Sands project in Alberta it is possible to fight the bastards
At the risk of repition- a partial update related to the Now/PBS piece- this of course is the sanitized version- the real story is a bit more ribald and funny- fight the power!
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200803/lol.asp