Hintergrund
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/media-archive/PBListEdTX5-5-08.pdf[*QUOTE*]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1
Monday
May 5, 2008
â ¢ Editorial â ¢
Judge orders government to decide on polar bearsSea ice and glaciers are melting. Snow caves, where
female seals bear their young, collapse. Young seals
have no blubber for protection so they die when cold
weather comes. As seals die, so do polar bears. Because
of melting ice and fewer seals, polar bears struggle to
survive. They swim from ice floe to ice floe in search
of seals. As the ice melts, floes drift further apart and
undernourished bears drown in between.
Science thus paints a dim picture of the polar bearâ ™s
future.
The summer sea-ice, which the bears need to hunt
seals, shrank last year to a record low, with about 40
per cent less ice than the long-term average between
1979 and 2000. Scientists report that polar bears are
resorting to cannibalism and that their reproduction
rates are steadily falling.
Last year, the U.S. Geological Survey predicted that
two-thirds of the worldâ ™s polar bear population would
likely be extinct by 2050. Several leading scientists
predict that the Arctic could be ice-free by the summer
by 2012.
Stone-walling
The polar bear is under a growing threat of extinction
because of the significant loss of Arctic sea ice related
to global warming. But the Bush administration has
been dragging its feet on whether to list the polar bear
under the Endangered Species Act.
Democrats on Capitol Hill say the Bush administration
has been stone-walling because it plans to sell a multi-
billion-dollar oil and gas lease on the Chukchi Sea, off
the Alaskan coast, a region rich with polar bears.
This foot-dragging -- if thatâ ™s what is -- may change
soon.
Last Monday, a federal judge in California ordered the
Bush administration to decide by May 15 whether the
polar bear deserves protection under the act.
U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilkenâ ™s ruling -- if
it stands on appeal -- will force the Interior Department
to determine whether climate change is pushing polar
bears toward extinction. The agency had first proposed
listing polar bears in December 2006 because warmer
temperatures are shrinking the sea ice they depend on
for survival. But then officials delayed a final decision
on the matter for months.
After the Interior Department missed its own January
2008 deadline, three environmental advocacy groups
-- the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural
Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace -- sued
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne and the Fish and
Wildlife Service in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.
In a court filing, Interiorâ ™s Kempthorne proposed
making a final decision by June 30. But Judge Wilken
rejected that plan.
The judge wrote that, â œDefendants offer no specific
facts that would justify the existing delay, much less
further delay. To allow Defendants more time would
violate the mandated listing deadlines under the (act)
and congressional intent that time is of the essence in
listing threatened species.â
The ruling in California is a big victory for those
worried about the extinction of the polar bear. A
Washington Post story quoted Kassie Siegel, climate
program director at the Tucson, Ariz.-based Center for
Biological Diversity, who was the lead author of the
2005 petition that prompted Interior to consider listing
the species.
Page 2
â œBy May 15th,â Siegel said, â œthe polar bear should
receivethe protections it deserves under the Endangered
Species Act, which is the first step toward saving the
polar bear and the entire Arctic ecosystem from global
warming.â
As Siegel notes, the final ruling on the polar bearâ ™s
status under the Endangered Species Act could have
far-reaching implications for the nationâ ™s climate
policy.
Simply listing the species as endangered would force
federal agencies to take steps to ensure that any action
they authorize or fund or carry out will not jeopardize
the polar bearsâ ™ continued survival or adversely affect
the bearsâ ™ critical habitat. And, if listed under the
act, the Fish and Wildlife Service will be required to
prepare a recovery plan that includes specific measures
for the bearsâ ™protection.
If Judge Wilkenâ ™s ruling stands, it could be a lifeline
for the clearly endangered polar bear. And it could be a
seismic shift in our political approach to the problems
caused by global warming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]