Screwing the Economy With Polar Bears
Last week the US Senate voted to kill the US economy with polar bear nonsense lawsuits. In a 42 to 52 vote, the Senate refuse to expunge an alteration of Department of Interior rules that in effect limited polar bear lawsuits. Now the door is wide open to sue the bejabbers out of any project that emits carbon dioxide (all of them) on the grounds that CO2 will (allegedly) cause runaway global warming and thus (allegedly) drive polar bears into extinction.
The offense clause is in the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. It is unknown (to this scribe) why a polar bear clause was inserted into the budget act, or who did it, although I suspect Nancy Pelosi. The clause was in the budget act when it came to the Senate from the House.
But there it is, a hidden little bomb that will blow up into myriad monkey-wrencher lawsuits and put a few more nails in the coffin of the US economy.
Background
Last May Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne, acting on the recommendation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act [here].
This was done despite the fact that the world polar bear population has increased 300 to 400% over the last forty years [here, here, here]
Polar bears now number 20,000-25,000 worldwide as compared to 8,000-10,000 in 1965-1973. … The current worldwide population has not significantly declined in recent years.
and
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations “may now be near historic highs.”
Kempthorne based his decision on speculative computer models that predict declining Arctic sea ice. In fact, Arctic sea ice appears not to be declining, as current levels are at their highest since 1979 [here].
Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.
Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.
The data is being reported by the University of Illinois’s Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.
Nor is Arctic sea ice a necessary factor in polar bear survival. They have survived previous Arctic sea ice nadirs in the Holocene and previous interglacials.
Kempthorne was not completely buffaloed. In his decision he waffled and did not totally embrace junk science. He invoked a special rule that limited eco-litigious Luddites from using the polar bear listing to shut down the US economy [here]
“Listing the polar bear as threatened can reduce avoidable losses of polar bears. But it should not open the door to use of the ESA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, power plants, and other sources,” said Kempthorne. “That would be a wholly inappropriate use of the ESA law. The ESA is not the right tool to set U.S. climate policy.”
The US Congress
The Senate (and the House) are controlled by one political party, and that party is determined to kill the US economy, by any means and for any reason.
The monkey-wrencher clause is Sec. 429 of Title IV, Division E (Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009) of H.R.1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009. It reads:
Sec. 429. (a) During the 60-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act-
(1) the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce may withdraw or reissue the rule described in subsection (c)(1) without regard to any provision of statute or regulation that establishes a requirement for such withdrawal; and
(2) the Secretary of the Interior may withdraw or reissue the rule referred to in subsection (c)(2) without regard to any provision of statute or regulation that establishes a requirement for such withdrawal.
(b) If the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce (or both) withdraws a rule under subsection (a), such Secretary shall implement the provisions of law under which the rule was issued in accordance with the regulations in effect under such provisions immediately before the effective date of such rule, except as otherwise provided by any Act or rule that takes effect after the effective date of the rule that is withdrawn.
(c) The rules referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
(1) The final rule relating to `Interagency Cooperation under the Endangered Species Act’, issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service and signed November 26, 2008, by the Assistant Secretary of Fish and Wildlife and Parks of the Department of the Interior and the Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Regulatory Programs of the National Marine Fisheries Service.
(2) The final rule relating to `Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Special Rule for the Polar Bear’, issued by the Assistant Secretary of Fish and Wildlife and Parks of the Department of the Interior on December 10, 2008.
Note the wording “without regard to any provision of statute or regulation that establishes a requirement for such withdrawal.” That means without public hearings, public comments, or even public notice.
The very idea of open and transparent government is anathema to the Democrats. The Democrat Party hates public involvement in this issue and seeks to thwart it. The Democrats wish to mount lawsuits to hamstring the economy in the name of polar bears; they want access to the courts and judgments that favor economic sabotage. But the Democrats do NOT want the public interfering in that.
It is fair to point the finger at the Democrats? Here is the vote tally on Senator Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) amendment to add a public comment period of 60 days to Sec. 429:
Grouped By Vote Position YEAs —42
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wicker (R-MS)
NAYs —52
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 5
Conrad (D-ND)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Ben Lieberman of The Heritage Foundation wrote on March 2, 2009 [here]
If successful, this revised polar bear policy would greatly threaten economic growth and serve as a powerful anti-stimulus measure, not just in the polar bears’ Alaskan habitat but throughout the United States. These rule changes are a costly and unnecessary form of backdoor global warming policy and have no business in a massive spending bill that is headed for quick passage with limited debate. With such drastic implications for the nation, the Senate should, at a minimum, fully debate the pros and cons of such a policy. …
Most directly, the polar bear listing could curtail energy production in Alaska. This would be unfortunate, as Alaskan oil and natural gas potential is tremendous. A 2008 U.S. Geological Survey study estimated there are 40 billion barrels of undiscovered oil above the Arctic circle—which would nearly double America’s proven reserves—as well as tremendous volumes of natural gas.[5]
The impacts of the polar bear listing stretch well beyond Alaska, though locking up Alaskan energy would be bad enough. Carbon dioxide, the ubiquitous byproduct of fossil fuel combustion, is the agent DOI blames for the warming that supposedly shrinks the ice and thus harms the bears. Consequently, any activity producing or using energy—building a new bridge in Alabama, opening a factory or power plant in Arizona, expanding a dairy operation in New York, constructing a school in Idaho—could invoke the Section 7 consultation process. Bottom line: Environmental activists could use the ESA to hold up any of thousands of projects across the U.S. This would include many if not all of the “shovel ready” projects that are funded in the stimulus package.
The debate never happened. The Democrats voted to screw the economy with polar bears without any open consideration of the propriety or consequences.
Or of the science.
Today B.H. Obama issued a memo declaring a new era of “scientific integrity” across government [here].
In no uncertain terms, Obama signaled that the federal government would be guided by science, not the other way around. In offering a repudiation of the previous administration, he also promised a new era of transparency.
“Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions,” Obama wrote in an official memorandum. “If scientific and technological information is developed and used by the federal government, it should ordinarily be made available to the public.”
Evidently the US Congress didn’t get the memo, or else the whole thing is a rude joke on the American people.
Because the science on polar bears says they are not endangered now and will not be in the future, at least not by CO2. And backdoor monkey-wrenching by elimination of public involvement (as written into the ESA) is about as far from transparency as a black hole.
Hugh Hewitt writes [here]
… chalk another loss up for economic growth, energy independence and property rights.
We can also chalk up losses for open government, democracy, real science, integrity, liberty, and sanity.
For another fine discussion of this matter, please see Tom Remington’s Black Bear Blog [here].
What essentially has happened is that the polar bear is now the largest, most powerful instrument that has ever existed and it lies at the disposal of the environmental community. And in case you haven’t figured it out yet, this isn’t about saving the polar bear. It’s about gaining control.
The only power gained is the power to destroy, to undermine, to sabotage, to impoverish. Nothing that is done via the ESA in the name of the polar bear will affect global warming or polar bears. The only ones that will be affected, the victims of this travesty, are you and me and our economic well-being.
At this time, during the most severe economic crash since the Great Depression, the actions of the Democrats in government to cripple the economy even more in such a baseless and egregious manner are despicable beyond words.
Our government is waging war on the citizenry. The power elite seek holocaust and destruction and the collapse of this nation. Everything held dear by patriotic Americans is at stake.
