skip to main content

→ Top Stories:
Fracking
Safe Chemicals
Defending the Clean Air Act

Andrew Wetzler’s Blog

One of these things is not like the other…or is it?

Andrew Wetzler

Posted May 8, 2009 in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places, Solving Global Warming

Tags:
, , , , ,
Share | | |

In another disappointing turn of events, today Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar effectively endorsed the Bush Administration's policy of excluding the effects of global warming pollution on polar bears from consideration under the Endangered Species Act.  The Secretary decided not to repeal or modify a rule, first issued when the polar bear was listed as a threatened species, that effectively excludes global warming pollution from the prohibition against "taking" (harming or killing) polar bears.

The weird thing about the rule is that it treats global warming pollution differently than other forms of global pollution.  Mercury pollution (ironically, also emitted from coal-fired power plants) also harms wildlife, but we've never categorically ruled out its consideration under the Endangered Species Act.  The same can be said of PCBs.  Indeed, one of the impetuses for passing the Endangered Species Act as the widespread use of DDT, which endangered bird species around the globe.  My point is this: the Endangered Species Act is a valuable tool that can be used to help control many different forms of pollution.  We should treat greenhouse gasses no differently.

Another strange thing about the Secretary's decision is the fact that just last week he decided to withdraw an eleventh-hour Bush Administration regulation that changed the requirements for inter-agency consultation under the Endangered Species Act.  Those regulatory changes were in large part premised on excluding the consideration of global warming pollution during such consultation.  So why did the Department of the Interior choose to withdraw one, but not the other?

Share | | |

Comments

Linda SporsMay 9 2009 05:38 PM

Unfortunately it sounds like politics as usual with the undercurrent of big and big corporate polluters. I think there needs to be a response to the Secretary's decision, demanding an explanation. There should also be an outcry to Pres. Obama requesting...no..demanding protection for the Arctic region and its wildlife, especially the polar bears.

Neil OMay 13 2009 10:32 AM

If conditions in the Arctic are such that Polar Bears have insufficient food and habitat, a limited hunt may be a humane method to control the population and improve conditions for the remaining bears - as is done successfully for species across the globe.

http://www.digitaldirect.co.uk/

Comments are closed for this post.

About

Switchboard is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the nation’s most effective environmental group. For more about our work, including in-depth policy documents, action alerts and ways you can contribute, visit NRDC.org.

Feeds: Andrew Wetzler’s blog

Feeds: Stay Plugged In