On Politics and Polar Bears
In case you missed the whole kerfluffle last year, polar bears are listed as threatened, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), *because* of the decline in arctic sea ice due to global warming. The official reason is an expected population reduction of 30% within 3 years, which is a worrying figure... but this figure is based almost completely on the assumed continued effects of global warming (read full justification here).
When Bush agreed to list them, though, he did so with a special rule: essentially, any action outside of the bears' arctic habitat could not be considered as endangering its survival. That rules out using the ESA to force Global Warming legislation. Now, however, Congress has authorized the Secretary of the Interior to overturn that rule. He has until tomorrow to decide if he will do so.
My gut says that the two should remain separate (polar bears/other endangered species, and climate change). However, looking over the ESA (which I also studied in depth in college) indicates that the issue is more complex:
-Firstly, the reduction of habitat is one provision under which a species can be listed.
-Secondly, the designation and protection of critical habitat is part of the responsibility of the Secretary
which seems to indicate that as long as the best available scientific data show that Global Warming is causing loss of arctic sea ice (a note on this at the bottom), steps to protect critical habitat could include reducing global warming.
HOWEVER. The ESA goes on to discuss what, exactly, is prohibited under the law, and it's really only one thing: taking the endangered species. "Taking" in this case has a specific meaning: "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." This does include accidental taking, which is why, for example, you can't cut down big old trees during the times when Indiana Bats might be roosting in them (about 1/2 the year), if you live in Indiana Bat territory. (Taking for the purposes of scientific study is allowed in a limited capacity, and indigenous people also have limited taking permits on specific animals). Trade in these animals is also prohibited, but taking is the big thing.
Therefore, since taking is the source of the regulation, I do not believe that it was intended to be a source of sweeping policy changes, like a greenhouse gas legislation would be. Accidental taking in the form of *maybe* causing sea ice loss which is *perhaps* caused by human emissions of GHGs... honestly who would you prosecute? The American people? The world? The ESA is not intended to address these kinds of issues.
But, laws are enforced on the basis of what they say. I am not a lawyer; it will take someone with more knowledge of environmental law and legal procedure to deconstruct it further. All I can end by saying is that 1) my personal reaction is that the ESA should not be used to induce sweeping policy changes, especially on the federal level; and 2) I do see, however, how the ESA could be used in this manner in this case (and, perhaps, in others).
A note on the scientific-ness of global warming: I don't know. Maybe. I'm inclined to think other factors are significantly more the cause than humans. I do think climate is changing *somehow*, but that it's just as likely or even more so to be a natural cycle. However, the prevailing (political) current in Washington is that global warming is proven fact, so for purposes of speaking here it's best to stick with that. Then again, there is another point to be made: people are constantly trying to find ways to add species to the ESA. One main reason for the existence of "sub-species" is to make them protected. But I don't know which direction this is going: if allowed, would this lead to more species being listed as endangered because they are threatened by global warming, or would it mean that more *already listed* species would have secondary things assigned, which cause more sweeping policy changes? More than one or the other, I fear both.
When Bush agreed to list them, though, he did so with a special rule: essentially, any action outside of the bears' arctic habitat could not be considered as endangering its survival. That rules out using the ESA to force Global Warming legislation. Now, however, Congress has authorized the Secretary of the Interior to overturn that rule. He has until tomorrow to decide if he will do so.
My gut says that the two should remain separate (polar bears/other endangered species, and climate change). However, looking over the ESA (which I also studied in depth in college) indicates that the issue is more complex:
-Firstly, the reduction of habitat is one provision under which a species can be listed.
-Secondly, the designation and protection of critical habitat is part of the responsibility of the Secretary
which seems to indicate that as long as the best available scientific data show that Global Warming is causing loss of arctic sea ice (a note on this at the bottom), steps to protect critical habitat could include reducing global warming.
HOWEVER. The ESA goes on to discuss what, exactly, is prohibited under the law, and it's really only one thing: taking the endangered species. "Taking" in this case has a specific meaning: "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." This does include accidental taking, which is why, for example, you can't cut down big old trees during the times when Indiana Bats might be roosting in them (about 1/2 the year), if you live in Indiana Bat territory. (Taking for the purposes of scientific study is allowed in a limited capacity, and indigenous people also have limited taking permits on specific animals). Trade in these animals is also prohibited, but taking is the big thing.
Therefore, since taking is the source of the regulation, I do not believe that it was intended to be a source of sweeping policy changes, like a greenhouse gas legislation would be. Accidental taking in the form of *maybe* causing sea ice loss which is *perhaps* caused by human emissions of GHGs... honestly who would you prosecute? The American people? The world? The ESA is not intended to address these kinds of issues.
But, laws are enforced on the basis of what they say. I am not a lawyer; it will take someone with more knowledge of environmental law and legal procedure to deconstruct it further. All I can end by saying is that 1) my personal reaction is that the ESA should not be used to induce sweeping policy changes, especially on the federal level; and 2) I do see, however, how the ESA could be used in this manner in this case (and, perhaps, in others).
A note on the scientific-ness of global warming: I don't know. Maybe. I'm inclined to think other factors are significantly more the cause than humans. I do think climate is changing *somehow*, but that it's just as likely or even more so to be a natural cycle. However, the prevailing (political) current in Washington is that global warming is proven fact, so for purposes of speaking here it's best to stick with that. Then again, there is another point to be made: people are constantly trying to find ways to add species to the ESA. One main reason for the existence of "sub-species" is to make them protected. But I don't know which direction this is going: if allowed, would this lead to more species being listed as endangered because they are threatened by global warming, or would it mean that more *already listed* species would have secondary things assigned, which cause more sweeping policy changes? More than one or the other, I fear both.