Obama Sides with Bush on Polar Bears and Climate

categories: Arctic & Antarctic, Greenhouse Gas, Policy & Legislation, Wildlife & Biodiversity

Published May 08, 2009 @ 12:24PM PT

Polar bear standing on iceberg. Credit: NOAA

The Obama administration announced today that it is embracing a last-minute "midnight rule" created by President Bush that eviscerates protections for the imperiled polar bear.

This rule, celebrated by Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and now adopted by Obama, bars the government from using the polar bear's protected status to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as an extinction threat if those emissions originate outside the animal's Arctic habitat. It is known as the "4(d) rule" after the section of the Endangered Species Act that it amends.

However, as the official listing of the polar bear acknowledged, it is exactly those remote emissions -- and the climate change they cause -- that are destroying the polar bear's sea-ice habitat, driving the creatures into extinction. The rule not only violates the intent of the Endangered Species Act, environmentalists have argued, but also dooms the polar bear as a wild species.

In making the announcement, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar promised continued, vigorous action to rescue the polar bear. But he said the Bush rule made sense, as the Obama administration intends to use different methods of combatting global warming.

"We must do all we can to help the polar bear recover, recognizing that the greatest threat to the polar bear is the melting of Arctic sea ice caused by climate change," Salazar said. "However, the Endangered Species Act is not the proper mechanism for controlling our nation's carbon emissions."

This was the same argument the Bush administration employed, asserting that it would be wrong to use the Endangered Species Act as a "back door" method of regulating greenhouse gas pollution. But environmentalists have argued that the broad intent of the Endangered Species Act unequivocally requires a response to all human-caused extinction threats, including global warming. They've advocated that the powerful law should be viewed as a valuable tool and opportunity to tackle the climate crisis.

Congress passed legislation giving President Obama authority to overturn this and other Bush midnight rules with the stroke of a pen -- authority that expires tomorrow, May 9. 8 senators (including both California senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer), 41 congressman, 130 conservation groups, and more than 1300 scientists wrote the president, urging him to overturn the special polar bear rule.

But Salazar had been telegraphing for months that the rule would likely be left in place, a move he said today would "avoid uncertainty and confusion about the management of the species."

Last week, environmentalists celebrated the administration's decision to rescind another Bush midnight rule, restoring the requirement that federal agencies consult with scientists in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries services before undertaking projects that might have an impact on endangered or threatened species.

Now activist groups including the Center for Biological Diversity, which led the effort to secure protections for polar bears, are decrying today's decision. "For Salazar to adopt Bush's polar bear extinction plan is confirming the worst fears of his tenure as Secretary of Interior," said Noah Greenwald, biodiversity program director for the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement. "Secretary Salazar would apparently prefer to please Sarah Palin than protect polar bears."

A coalition of environmental groups has already gone to court to overturn the Bush adminstration's "4(d) rule" as a violation of the Endangered Species Act -- a legal battle that will continue, according to Greenwald, who asserts that greenhouse gases should be treated like any other pollutant that can harm an endangered species.

Several groups have joined the government's side in the lawsuit, which means the Obama admnistration will have on its side Sarah Palin, the oil industry, and numerous trade associations representing major greenhouse gas emitters.

----

Image credit: NOAA

Share this Post

Comments (16)

While I'm glad to see that my Senators, Feinstein and Boxer, realize the significance of reversing this irrational piece of legislation, Secretary Salazar's decision was disappointing (at best), and something I consider to be a monumental failure on his behalf. President Obama will be our only hope in seeing this travesty of legislation be undone. I am hopeful he will make the right decision, but realize this may not be one of his top priorities and thus may be overlooked by the President. There is no rational, scientific reason to keep this loophole, or rather "rule" in place. The only motivation to do this is purely political, and politics should never under any circumstances be allowed to pre-empt the fate, the survival of an entire species.

Posted by Alan Haggard on 05/08/2009 @ 05:00PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- 4 people like this comment. Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Alan
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
One of the journalists should bring this up in President Obama's next national television addresses.

Posted by C W on 05/09/2009 @ 02:44AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- 4 people like this comment. Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by C
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
Out of the blue and into the black,
They give you this, but you pay for that,
And once you're gone, you can never come back...

Shame on Obama. He pulled a bait and switch. We get one midnight decision overturn as some compensation for the eventual destruction of the polar bears in their now compromised habitat. Shame on political administrations that sacrifice living creatures. This is very bad karma.

Posted by Susan Bertolino on 05/09/2009 @ 04:56AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- 5 people like this comment. Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Susan
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
There is another way to approach this issue. Here it is:

John Kostyack, executive director for wildlife conservation and global warming at the National Wildlife Federation, criticized the decision to retain the rule, but admitted that ‘there was no way that the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Interior Department agency responsible for carrying out the Endangered Species Act, could handle the burden of trying to police emissions. In addition to conventional threats, a vital focus for wildlife managers should be figuring out how to help vulnerable species adapt to climate stresses, he said. “The last thing we want to do,” he said, “is saddle them with solving the causes of global warming, too.”’ Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/science/earth/09bear.html
This is a more direct way of saving the polar ecosystem: “US Wants Mandatory Cuts In Greenhouse Gases Across The Globe In Major Environmental Policy Shift" Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/us-wants-mandatory-cuts-i_n_193112.html

Forcing the slowdown/shutdown of factories throughout America by listing the polar bear as endangered would would throw tens of millions of Americans out of work simultaneously, destabilize our economy overnight and throw the world into deep depression. And it’s not clear it would even work, because unless we convince other nations to make mandatory cuts in greenhouse gases, the polar ice will keep melting.

Posted by Alexandra King on 05/09/2009 @ 08:04AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- 2 people like this comment. Like
Alexandra, please don't fall for this notion that obeying the law, in this case, the Endangered Species Act, would shut down factories or cripple the Fish and Wildlife Service. Those are right-wing talking points, and they are patently untrue.
Right now, the ESA requires an environmental review for all proposed federal projects and permits that may harm an endangered species. These reviews are done as a matter of routine, and there is a system in place for doing them. All sorts of pollutants and other environmental impacts are covered, and the law requires that these negative impacts be mitigated whenever possible in order to protect endangered species. This mechanism has been in place and served us well for decades.
Adding greenhouse gases to the long list of pollutants already studied would not shut down anything. But it would require government and industry to mitigate those emissions by using the cleanest practices and technology available. This is supposed to be our national goal, as stated by President Obama. So protecting the polar bear (and sea ice, and coastlines, etc) also save our climate and our way of life.
In other words, we have a law in place that can help us accomplish what we all know we need -- reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. And we have that law in place at a time when Congress is failing to act with a new climate change program of its own.
Why not go with what we've got, rather than embrace a Bush Administration law intended to impede action against climate change? We could use the ESA, as well as the Clean Air Act, to move forward now, instead of waiting for Congress to produce a watered down piece of legislation that likely will not go far enough anyway.

Posted by Edward Humes on 05/09/2009 @ 09:26AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- 3 people like this comment. Like
People who lose their jobs are going to have to find new jobs anyway in most cases because a lot of the jobs they have had for years are based in obsolete industries using obsolete forms of energy. Taking Polar Bears of the Endangered Species list is absolutely unconcionable. No one was surprised when GWB made that decision. We knew he did'nt care about wildlife or the environment. But Barack Obama led us to believe that things were going to be different with him. Without totally losing it I guess the only way to describe my reaction is outrage. I feel this is a betrayal.

Posted by Charlie Lammers on 05/09/2009 @ 08:45PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- 3 people like this comment. Like
What you are saying (or should I say, repeating) is that we can't save the Polar Bear without changing the fundamental way humans are obtaining and using energy. Well, yeah... But you are further saying that it will cause too much disturbance to human society to make such a change. Well, there are those of us who think humans CAN change without destroying human society. In fact, the one thing that WILL destroy human society is if we DON'T CHANGE, and we need to change quickly. It is the Republicans who have said "No we can't" and blocked change for years. You seem to be one of the CAN'TS. What do you need to feel safe to change?
A very fine native American expression says:
On the path of life, sometimes you will come to a cliff.Jump - it's not as far as you think!
Frankly, science tells us that humans are almost out of choices (and time) as everyone tries to protect their own personal property.
Obama has made a philosophical mistake by putting all his eggs in the basket of Congress, who at this very moment are huddled with the multinational corporate lobbyists who are spending tens of millions of dollars to write as weak a CO2 cap-and-trade policy as possible. Changing this Bush ruling would have put MORE PRESSURE on Congress to write a strong law.
EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE CALLING THEIR CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS EVERY DAY TO TELL THEM WE WANT CHANGE NOW!

Posted by Craig Nazor on 05/10/2009 @ 10:53AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- 3 people like this comment. Like
Climate change is a global issue. Yet outside the United States this decision is not receiving much attention. (I'm in the UK right now and I also read the Australian press and have friends there). Why? Because it's a side issue.

It's a shame but it's not that important in the scheme of things. I don't mean the polar bears or climate change aren't important, I mean that this particular decision is not that important. I go into this more in my comment in the thread below.

I just want to make the point that I'm not sure what this really tells us about Obama. It could be the old bait and switch as people have suggested and that we are not getting the person we thought we were. Or it could be that Oabama legitimately felt that this particular piece of legislation was a dead-end and problematic for other reasons and he fully intends to tackle climate change through other means. Obviously I hope it's the latter.

I strongly believe we need to focus on the Copenhagen talks later this year.

Posted by Caitlin Fitzsimmons on 05/10/2009 @ 01:44PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Like
Reply to thread
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Alexandra
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
I find this a sad and frustrating decision - I had hoped for more from President Obama. Polar bears ARE threatened by remote greenhouse emissions so I don't understand the logic behind an exemption.

On the other hand, I think we have to pick our battles and fighting this one may not be the best use of resources. It's not that I don't care about the fate of the polar bear - I do - but I'm not sure that this particular law is the be all and end all of polar bear protection. It's completely over-stating the case to say that this decision "dooms the polar bear as a wild species". Climate change does that but that's part of a much bigger picture.

The problem with greenhouse emissions is global, not specific to the US. There are a lot of very good reasons to tackle climate change, whether or not there are polar bears in the picture. Thousands of species from coral to tigers are in danger from climate change. Entire island nations, our own society and western civilisation is at threat - and that's not over-stating the case.

Given the bigger picture I simply cannot imagine that this decision on the very specific question of whether you can use the Endangered Species Act to control carbon emissions will have much bearing on whether the US and the world tackle the issue of climate change with sufficient conviction and speed to turnt things around.

It made more sense to push this when you had a government in denial about climate change and you needed every lever you could to try to change that. That's no longer the case.

What's right isn't always what's best. Technically there might be a case to make for continuing to fight this issue but I don't see the point of fighting it in principle when it's unlikely to have any effect in practice.

Polar bears are a wonderful animal and a potent symbol of the climate change issue but focusing on this particular piece of legislation is a side track.

Let's concentrate our efforts on getting the strongest possible decision at the Copenhagen talks later this year. Concerted global commitments and action is what we need and we need to focus on getting that.

Posted by Caitlin Fitzsimmons on 05/09/2009 @ 09:08AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- 1 person likes this comment. Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Caitlin
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
http://www.change.org/actions/view/step_one_end_specal_interest_in_washington

WE MUST END CORPORATIONS FORM CONTROLLING OUR COUNTRY BY BUYING OUR REPRESENTATIVES.

CFJ

Posted by Cherokee Fred Jesus on 05/09/2009 @ 10:04AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- 3 people like this comment. Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Cherokee Fred
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
There is a fallacy in the human condition: namely, we think we matter more than any other living creature. We don't. We are given certain gifts--the ability to reason, the sense of the future, the skill to reflect. And what do we do with it? Destroy the planet, consume other creatures without any reverence or conscience, take without giving back, figure we are entitled to whatever is out there and refuse to learn from our mistakes. Why should we care about the polar bears? Because they were here before us, because they are organic to the planet, because they have never practiced greed as we humans have, because they didn't ask for carbon emissions and global warming, because they did nothing to get themselves endangered, because they are ALIVE. Go ahead: let the republicans and the republican/democrats get their way--pretty soon we will all be SOYLENT GREEN. What we do to animals, we will eventually do to each other.

Posted by Susan Bertolino on 05/10/2009 @ 03:24PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- 3 people like this comment. Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Susan
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
I think our beloved Obama got one wrong. This president might be teachable, let teach him. There is a feedback forum at www.whitehouse.gov Scroll down to where 5 or six things our listed, including CONTACT, it is at the right. Click and the for will be on the bottom left.

Posted by jan Lightfootlane on 05/11/2009 @ 07:30AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by jan
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
Obama is a digrace, only because he backs everything Bush has done... So I guess killing innocent polar bears for Palins corporations and Bushs Oil and all those other rich people who doesn't care for these beautiful animals.. wait they worship the GOD of money...

what a pathic president who lies about Change.. nothing has changed it is still the same..

I voted for a change, but the next election Obama lost my vote..

Posted by Lara Nunes on 05/12/2009 @ 11:06PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
So, the next election you'll vote for ... Palin?
I disagree with this decision, but the many good suggestions on how to act to encourage a better policy will be far more effective than threatening to vote against Obama next election.

Posted by John Kleckner on 05/15/2009 @ 09:25PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Like
Reply to thread
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Lara
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
I agree with CFJ. there needs to be a control on big corporations. America may not be as corrupt as other countries, but heck, if a company with a ton of dough can just buy "men of service" then i don't even want to think where America will be tomorrow.

-cushman
kefir from kefir grains

Posted by cush man on 05/13/2009 @ 09:19AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by cush
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
He just set an example to the world that chipping away at endagered species laws is perfectly fine. Even if other means are developed to curb emissions, the precedent has been set that those means do not have to be effective enough to save a species. We now have no true requirement because the only measurement is life.

Reversing the 4(d) rule would have created a layer of protection that fits in with his investment in science and green technology. So simple.

There goes the inaugural theme that the US should lead by example. I want to live in the country we envisioned that day. Obama is allowing himself to be manipulated.

Posted by Kendra Kellogg on 05/14/2009 @ 02:29PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Kendra
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

Comment

Check Spelling

Email me when there are new posts to this thread
Comment Policy

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author

Edward Humes is the author of eight critically acclaimed nonfiction books, including the bestseller Mississippi Mud and, most recently, Monkey Girl. He has received the Pulitzer Prize for his journalism and is writer-at-large for Los Angeles magazine. He lives in California. His latest book, ECO BARONS: The Dreamers, Schemers & Millionaires Who are Saving Our Planet, was published in March 2009 by Ecco/Harper Collins. To visit his blog, click here.