Obama Administration Will Stick With Bush Climate Ruling

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Obama Administration Will Stick With Bush Climate Ruling stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

H. JOSEF HEBERT | May 8, 2009 05:43 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
FILE - This undated file photo from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Alaska Image Library shows a polar bear.The Interior Department is letting stand a Bush administration regulation that limits protection of polar bears from global warming, three people familiar with the decision told The Associated Press. (AP Photo/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FILE)

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, which promised a sharp break from the Bush White House on global warming, declared Friday it would stick with a Bush-era policy against expanding protection for climate-threatened polar bears and ruled out a broad new attack on greenhouse gases.

To the dismay of environmentalists, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar refused to rescind a Bush administration rule that says actions that threaten the polar bear's survival cannot be considered when safeguarding the iconic mammal if they occur outside the bear's Arctic home.

The rule was aimed at heading off the possibility that the bear's survival could be cited by opponents of power plants and other facilities that produce carbon dioxide, a leading pollutant blamed for global warming.

The Endangered Species Act requires that a threatened or endangered species must have its habitat protected. Environmentalists say that in the case of the polar bear, the biggest threat comes from pollution _ mainly carbon dioxide from faraway power plants, factories and cars _ that is warming the Earth and melting Arctic sea ice.

Salazar agreed that global warming was "the single greatest threat" to the bear's survival, but disagreed that the federal law protecting animals, plants and fish should be used to address climate change.

"The Endangered Species Act is not the appropriate tool for us to deal with what is a global issue, and that is the issue of global warming," said Salazar, echoing much the same view of his Republican predecessor, Dirk Kempthorne, who had declared the polar bear officially threatened and in need of protection under the federal species law.

Kempthorne at the same time issued the "special rule" that limited the scope of the bear's protection to actions within its Arctic home.

The iconic polar bear _ some 25,000 of the mammals can be found across the Arctic region from Alaska to Greenland _ has become a symbol of the potential ravages of climate change. Scientists say while the bear population has more than doubled since the 1960s, as many as 15,000 could be lost in the coming decades because of the loss of Arctic sea ice, a key element of its habitat.

Story continues below

Environmentalists and some members of Congress had strongly urged Salazar to rescind the Bush regulation, arguing the bear is not being given the full protection required under the species law.

Others, including most of the business community, argue that making the bear a reason for curtailing greenhouse gases thousands of miles from its home would cause economic chaos.

Reaction to Salazar's decision Friday was sharply divided.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin hailed the decision as a "clear victory for Alaska" because it removes the link between bear protection and climate change and should help North Slope oil and gas development. Both of Alaska's senators and its only House member also praised the decision and rejected claims the bear won't be protected.

Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, a global warming skeptic and the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment Committee, applauded Salazar "for making the right call and applying a commonsense approach to the Endangered Species Act" and climate.

But environmentalists and some of their leading advocates in Congress were disappointed.

"The polar bear is threatened, and we need to act," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who chairs the environment panel, adding that she disagreed with Salazar's decision not to revoke the Bush regulation.

Andrew Wetzler, director of wildlife conservation at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the Endangered Species Act should be part of the government's arsenal in fighting climate change "and it shouldn't be unilaterally disarming itself for no reason."

"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, of the Center for Biological Diversity, which along with the NRDC and Greenpeace has a lawsuit pending challenging the bear rule.

Salazar noted that he has overturned a string of Bush-era regulations, including last week restoring a requirement that agencies consult with the government's most knowledgeable biologists when taking actions that could harm species. "We must do all we can to protect the polar bear," he said, but that using the species protection law "is not the right way to go."

The way to deal with climate change is a broad cap on greenhouse gases, he said.

Congress is considering cap-and-trade legislation forcing a reduction on greenhouse gases, and, separately, the Environmental Protection Agency has begun working on a climate regulation under the Clean Air Act. Last month, the EPA declared carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases a danger to public health.

The last word is still to be heard on linking species protection and climate change.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began a review of whether the American pika, a tiny rabbit relative living in high altitudes of 10 Western states, is threatened by climate change because the mountain areas are becoming warmer.

The American pika is no polar bear, but the arguments may be the same.

___

On the Net:

Interior Department: http://www.interior.gov

Center for Biological Diversity: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, which promised a sharp break from the Bush White House on global warming, declared Friday it would stick with a Bush-era policy against expanding protectio...
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, which promised a sharp break from the Bush White House on global warming, declared Friday it would stick with a Bush-era policy against expanding protectio...
Filed by Dave Burdick  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
669
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next › Last » (12 pages total)

As the polar bear goes, so we go.
As the glaciers and oceans go, so we go.
I voted for the President because I was sure he would ardently protect
and move to save the environment. He spoke of protecting our children's
future. What is that future without his support for the biosphere?
I knew he made promises he could not keep but I never
believed our environment would be one of them.
I was confident he would steadily over turn Bush's
disastrous, heinous, unconscionable, anti-environmental acts.
On a purely self-serving note,
every species we abandon is another step towards our own demise.
The magnificent polar bear is not just beautiful or cute. That is not why it deserves to be protected and rescued. It is an environmental barometer, a touchstone, and quite literally
the perfect example of whether Life on earth swims or sinks. The polar bears' popularity draws millions of people to the cause of protecting the planet.
I believe we are meant to be the custodians of this place. To choose not to fiercely protect. aide, and set an example with our endangered species act and other new and more adamant legislation is to abandon ourselves and the globe.
Watching the polar bear starve and drown will be exactly like looking in a mirror.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:51 PM on 05/09/2009
- radmul I'm a Fan of radmul 5 fans permalink

Meet the new boss same as the old boss. Obama has proven to be a huge lying sack of crap on all things progressive.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:11 PM on 05/09/2009
photo

I am sooooo disapoointed .. this was one of the major reasons why i worked so hard to get Obama elected. Absolutely dejected.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:53 AM on 05/09/2009

I could have predicted that. He doesn't follow through with anything he says. That's why I didnt vote for him.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:34 PM on 05/09/2009
photo

I am as green as a person can be. After reading the WHOLE COLUMN, (because the majority of you just read the title and start commenting) it is clear to me that the decision taken under Bush and being upheld now under Obama is the correct one. It is not about refusing to protect polar bears, it is about refusing to take a radical stance that will carry tremendous economic and political consequences with it and end up being impracticable. Do you really think it would be possible to actually hold the Chinese responsible under the US environmental laws for what is happening to the polar bears because the Chinese run power plants that pollute like hell? If not, why then put an American power plant, and consequently the American Manufacturing Industry at a disadvantage? And then you complain when your jobs are shipped overseas? So, you see, it is a lot more complicated than it seems.

But if the problem is left under the realm of Climate Change, then it is going to confronted globally and effectively, with every participant paying their due share of the price!

So, instead of reading titles and getting outraged, take the time to read the entire article and make a genuine effort to understand it, then give some thought of your own to it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:31 AM on 05/09/2009

who cares what the Chinese do... the USA can do something about it and they should... according to you commercial interests trumps everything, not even life is valuable enough if it means commercial interests will be effected

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:45 AM on 05/09/2009
- MJinCanada I'm a Fan of MJinCanada 123 fans permalink

Whatever happened to the US being a global leader?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:50 AM on 05/09/2009

A radical stance is the only thing that will save us now.

You, and others like you will be the ones screaming the loudest to be saved 20 years from now from the killing droughts or the torrential floods and the ocean pounding at your doorstep.

Reasonable has left the building, we are looking at the melting of the permafrost and the methane gas it hold being released into the atmosphere. That is on our doorstep right now. Once that starts, all bets are off of the hell on earth we will have to survive in.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:28 PM on 05/09/2009
photo

You're right about that. Efforts to save endangered wildlife because of climate change should be a concerted move between all countries. Reforms that reduces greenhouse emissions within the US alone will not be enough to slow down Global Climate Change. Everyone has to play its part for the sustainable and green programs to effectively work.

But like many of the other commentators are saying, should the US be one of the first countries to successfully put in place an efficient, working, and affordable environmental polices, it sets a precedent for other countries to follow. And besides, green reform would do the US good. Developing cleaner energy and a clean-running economy promotes the growth of new green industries that then provide more jobs. The costs are only in the short run.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:51 PM on 05/09/2009
- iplaw I'm a Fan of iplaw 30 fans permalink

Wow someone who actually thinks. If only you could teach others this skill. Environmentalists are amazingly short sighted. They do not analyze the full environmental effects of recycling newspaper, growing corn fuel (recently they are waking up), CO2 produced by composting, etc.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:49 PM on 05/09/2009
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 91 fans permalink
photo

Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario
James Hansen*,†, Makiko Sato*,‡, Reto Ruedy*, Andrew Lacis*, and Valdar Oinas*,§
+Author Affiliations

*National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies, ‡Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University Earth Institute, and §Center for Environmental Prediction, Rutgers University, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025
Contributed by James Hansen

Abstract

A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires composition-specific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:47 AM on 05/09/2009
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 91 fans permalink
photo

GOBAMA!!!

good call.. the CO2 angle is bull twinkies!

go after our soot not our CO2..

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LT461035.htm

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:43 AM on 05/09/2009
- patianneb I'm a Fan of patianneb 18 fans permalink
photo

b a s t a r d s.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:30 AM on 05/09/2009
- YewNeekId I'm a Fan of YewNeekId 26 fans permalink

Obama is such a terrible disappointment. He promised everything and delivered nothing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:18 AM on 05/09/2009
photo

The polar bears need a lobbyist with a fat checkbook.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:16 AM on 05/09/2009
photo

He's a fraud.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:07 AM on 05/09/2009
photo

barry wears the pants in the family

the mrs. decides which pair.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:24 AM on 05/09/2009
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 91 fans permalink
photo

lol.. john?

john mccain is that you?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:18 PM on 05/09/2009
photo

another disappointment with the Obama administration. Does O have no spine at all? Why did we vote somebody into the White House who promised "change"? We are stuck with more of the same Bush policies and have to put up with applause from Big Business and the Repubs who can barely hold back the joy and schadenfreude. Yuck!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:19 AM on 05/09/2009

Politicians score an awful lot of brownie points by talking about global warming, but we won't see any action until you can cook eggs on your sidewalk in Philly in December. Think mother nature's had enough of us yet? What a bunch of scumbags.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:22 AM on 05/09/2009
photo

Salazar should be drawn and quartered - slowly and painfully.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:45 AM on 05/09/2009
- bcookie I'm a Fan of bcookie 2 fans permalink

Dear Mr. President....ask your kids how they feel about this ...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:38 AM on 05/09/2009
photo

Do you think his kids are smart enough to know the complexity of what is going on?

No way.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:52 AM on 05/09/2009
- MossyOak I'm a Fan of MossyOak 63 fans permalink
photo

The adults certainly don't.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:30 AM on 05/09/2009
photo

libs: never mind about realistic results...it's more important how one FEELS about the issue.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:47 AM on 05/09/2009
- MossyOak I'm a Fan of MossyOak 63 fans permalink
photo

True, libs actually have feelings, whereas all righties care about is getting their share of the pie no matter how many bodies they have to climb over.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:31 AM on 05/09/2009
- dandypuddin I'm a Fan of dandypuddin 188 fans permalink
photo

Kind of like the rich having to pay taxes?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:59 AM on 05/09/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next › Last » (12 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect