From Michelle Malkin  

Politics and the polar bear
It’s been in the works for quite some time, but now the decision is official. Polar bears have been listed by the Bush Interior Department as a “threatened” species. This is the first listing attributed to global warming.
What’s really going on here?
Kenneth Green at AEI exposes the politics behind the eco-radicals’ polar bear campaign and the consequences:

Listing the polar bear as a threatened species would have significant public policy consequences. It would set a new precedent, representing the first linkage of species endangerment with global warming. Such a listing would basically wall off the entire Arctic region to exploration, resource extraction, and development–at least by U.S. companies–and a threatened species listing would give environmental groups the ability to sue future U.S. governments to force them to reverse climate change by whatever means necessary.
There is little doubt that such lawsuits would be filed quickly. According to the NRDC:
Listing the polar bear guarantees federal agencies will be obligated to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out will not jeopardize the polar bears’ continued existence or adversely modify their critical habitat, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be required to prepare a recovery plan for the polar bear, specifying measures necessary for its protection.
…

The bottom line for rational cost-benefit analysts:

At present, polar bear populations are robust and, according to native people, are considerably larger than they were in previous decades. Predictions of polar bear endangerment are based on two sets of computer models: one set predicts how much Arctic sea ice will melt as a result of global warming, and the other predicts how polar bear populations will respond. But computer models of climate are known to be fraught with problems, and the ecological models used to predict polar bear response are equally limited.
Because of extreme limitations in data, it is essentially impossible to decide whether polar bears are endangered and whether their habitat is threatened by man-made global warming or other natural climate cycles. This is acknowledged by the experts themselves–the actual IUCN/SSC report is more broad in naming causes and more conservative about estimating their effects.
What we do know about polar bears is that, contrary to media portrayals, they are not fragile “canary in the coal mine” animals, but are robust creatures that have survived past periods of extensive deglaciation. Polar bear fossils have been dated to over one hundred thousand years, which means that polar bears have already survived an interglacial period when temperatures were considerably warmer than they are at present and when, quite probably, levels of summertime Arctic sea ice were correspondingly low.
In discussions of whether to drill in the Arctic, one of the arguments raised by environmentalists is that this would harm the habitats of the many creatures, including polar bears, that make their homes in Alaska. If polar bears are placed on the endangered species list, the legal hurdles to oil and gas drilling will increase. There are two subpopulations of polar bears in Alaska. One of them, the Southern Beaufort Sea population, is shared with Canada, and the other, the Chukchi Sea population, with Russia. Best estimates for these areas show approximately 3,500 polar bears total in these two subpopulations. Last year, Shell Offshore Inc. was about to start drilling in the Beaufort Sea area when a court order halted the activity on the grounds that the federal government did not thoroughly assess the environmental impact before granting permission to drill.
In petitioning against the drilling, environmental groups invoked sea ducks, whales, and, of course, polar bears, as well as the effect that drilling could have on native populations. The U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that the area holds the potential for 7 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 32 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. With oil at over $100 a barrel and natural gas at $7.60 per one thousand cubic feet, these are some very expensive polar bears.

The thing is, the ESA prohibits the "taking" of any endangered or threatened species.  Here's the definition of the term "to take" under the ESA:

The term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.

It's good to note that the term "harm" has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean just about anything which either does -- or MIGHT -- cause ANY kind of harm to the endangered/threatened species.  

Thus, the Court's direct linking of this ESA listing to Global Warming (something never done before) means that ANYTHING that MIGHT contribute to Global Warming MIGHT harm the Polar Bear, and would thus constitute a prohibited "taking" under the Act.  Last year, CO2 emissions, REGARDLESS OF SOURCE, were deemed by Congress and EPA to be "Pollutants" contributing to Global Warming.  Based on the title of the post, I think you can see where I'm going with this.

If you think that this is an impossibly extreme interpretation, consider this:
Section 4 of the Act requires that species be listed "without reference to economic or other impacts." And in 1978, based on one Senator's statement in the legislative record, the Supreme Court said that this means that "the value of endangered species is incalculable".  In other words, any endangered or threatened species MUST be protected from any "taking" REGARDLESS OF COST (economic or otherwise) -- NO EXCEPTIONS.

Oh, BTW, this whole idea was instigated/suggested/promoted by Dirk Kempthorne, the Secretary of the Interior appointed by George W. Bush.

I've said before that the ESA is THE worst legislation ever passed in this country.  That's a bold statement considering the wide variety of stupidity and wrong-headedness that has come out of Congress since 1789.  But if you think I'm exaggerating, take a look at the history of how the ESA has repeatedly been interpreted by the Supreme Court.  The language of the Act is ABSOLUTE.  It is comprehensive (applies to EVERYONE and EVERYTHING) and provides neither wiggle-room, nor allows ANY other considerations other than possible harm to the listed species.

People are totally failing to understand the implications of this decision.  It doesn't just prevent the type of development or land use (including drilling for oil) typically prohibited under the ESA.  The LINKING of the threatened status of the Polar Bear to a specific cause (i.e. Global Warming) essentially outlaws, NATIONWIDE, anything that does, or might, contribute to Global Warming.  This means that, as of Today, all use of fossil fuels -- whether to produce electricity, or to fuel cars -- is NOW illegal.  As is human respiration.

Now, obviously this result is absurd; but when push comes to shove on these issues, when it comes before the Supreme Court there is ample precedent for fully upholding this decision and very little to recommend overturning it (This is Congress' retarded child, not the Courts').

Following this case should be interesting.

Eyas wrote:I've said before that the ESA is THE worst legislation ever passed in this country.  That's a bold statement considering the wide variety of stupidity and wrong-headedness that has come out of Congress since 1789.  But if you think I'm exaggerating, take a look at the history of how the ESA has repeatedly been interpreted by the Supreme Court.  The language of the Act is ABSOLUTE.  It is comprehensive (applies to EVERYONE and EVERYTHING) and provides neither wiggle-room, nor allows ANY other considerations other than possible harm to the listed species.

People are totally failing to understand the implications of this decision.  It doesn't just prevent the type of development or land use (including drilling for oil) typically prohibited under the ESA.  The LINKING of the threatened status of the Polar Bear to a specific cause (i.e. Global Warming) essentially outlaws, NATIONWIDE, anything that does, or might, contribute to Global Warming.  This means that, as of Today, all use of fossil fuels -- whether to produce electricity, or to fuel cars -- is NOW illegal.  As is human respiration.

Now, obviously this result is absurd; but when push comes to shove on these issues, when it comes before the Supreme Court there is ample precedent for fully upholding this decision and very little to recommend overturning it (This is Congress' retarded child, not the Courts').

Following this case should be interesting.

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY and the LIBERAL ELITIE fail to see the UNINTENDED PROBLEMS of BIG GOVERNMENT. WE ARE FALLING behind the REST OF THE WORLD on OIL DRILING, thanks to these HIPPIES who run CONGRESS. ANY REALISTIC SOLUTION to the (NON-EXISTANT) OIL PROBLEM is SALMMED by WHINY IVY LEAUGE ELITE college professors, and replaced with TAX AND SPEND, BIG GOVERNMENT, RUBBER STAMP trash like this. IF these POT SMOKING HIPPIES would GET OUT  of the WAY OF AMERICAN BUSINESS, we would have NO energy problem.

But it looks like FIGHTING THE "MAN" is more important to these PEOPLE  than THE SUCESS OF AMERICA. WHAT A DISGRACE.

Layla 27 wrote:
THE DEMOCRAT PARTY and the LIBERAL ELITIE fail to see the UNINTENDED PROBLEMS of BIG GOVERNMENT. WE ARE FALLING behind the REST OF THE WORLD on OIL DRILING, thanks to these HIPPIES who run CONGRESS. ANY REALISTIC SOLUTION to the (NON-EXISTANT) OIL PROBLEM is SALMMED by WHINY IVY LEAUGE ELITE college professors, and replaced with TAX AND SPEND, BIG GOVERNMENT, RUBBER STAMP trash like this. IF these POT SMOKING HIPPIES would GET OUT  of the WAY OF AMERICAN BUSINESS, we would have NO energy problem.

But it looks like FIGHTING THE "MAN" is more important to these PEOPLE  than THE SUCESS OF AMERICA. WHAT A DISGRACE.

Why do you assume this outcome is UNINTENDED?   Frankly, it is obvious that the limits to economic development were the INTENDED result of legislation like ESA and related regulations all along and the protection of any given species of animals was a smoke screen.  

Eyas is right on the money on this one.  If ESA isn't the worst piece of legislation ever it is in the top 5.  The net impact of this decision will be to destroy the US economy.  That in turn will bring down the world economy as we buy all the stuff the rest of the world makes.  It is only a matter of time.  If you thought the Great Depression was big this stunningly moronic Bush decision has the potential to dwarf it.  

I wonder how much our stimulus checks will be when this idiocy plays out?  50% unemployment?  $50 gallon gas?  $1,000 a month electric bills for homes?  Mandated AC free days?  Mandated "lights out" times?  Rolling blackouts?  Welcome to the newly emerging 3rd world.

Anyone recall Rainbow Six, Tom Clancy. A group of enviro-wackos plotted to murder humanity to save the planet from man's destruction. The global warming kooks are not advocating mass extermination, yet. But, I agree, the economic damage they are seeking to wrought may very well be a worse fate.

Fortunately, socialists, communists and tyrants always underestimate, or completely discount, the inherent yearning for liberty and freedom in the soul of the mob. Their arrogance is their Achilles' Heel. They will overplay their hand and common sense will prevail, eventually. History is full of examples.

Rainbox Six may have been Clancy's last good book.  They may not be publically advocating genocide but they are making heroes of those who refuse to reproduce.  And the distance from that to genocide is a very short logical step.  Is there a word for destroying the whole human race?  If not, there will be soon.  

I appreciate your optimism but history is more full of examples of freedom being stamped down by despots.  If not, the world would be largely free and we would not the incredibly unique exception that we are.

I have a plan to help the Polar Bears and the nation.  Conservatives should only breathe on days that end in "day."  Liberals should breathe only on days that don't.  Problem solved.  Just consider it my "modest proposal."

paleocon wrote:Rainbox Six may have been Clancy's last good book. They may not be publically advocating genocide but they are making heroes of those who refuse to reproduce. And the distance from that to genocide is a very short logical step. Is there a word for destroying the whole human race? If not, there will be soon.  

I appreciate your optimism but history is more full of examples of freedom being stamped down by despots. If not, the world would be largely free and we would not the incredibly unique exception that we are.

Omnicide. The definition I found, Wikipedia, related to nuclear or environmental holocaust. However, I think it may fit your point.