Climate Politics

Polar bear is endangered, but ‘Rule will allow continuation of vital energy production in Alaska’

The Department of Interior suffers from a rare form of bipolar disorder called bye-polar disorder. There is one major symptom of this disorder: You list the polar bear as "threatened" because of its melting polar sea ice habitat, but then do nothing to actually protect that polar habitat from its primary threat, greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion.

The disorder is accompanied by an occasional burst of logic, as when the DOI noted:

John Edwards endorses Barack Obama

Former presidential hopeful John Edwards has at long last endorsed a candidate: Barack Obama. Edwards, whose strong stances on the environment pushed his Democratic rivals to toughen their green proposals, said of his choice, “Democratic voters in America have made their choice and so have I.” Hillary Clinton‘s campaign, which had also pursued Edwards’ endorsement, […]

Bush admin to list polar bears as threatened; advocates pledge to continue the fight

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne was flanked by two large television screens rolling video of polar bears as he discussed his department’s decision Wednesday to declare the bears “threatened.” The video bears — and the bears in the many photos on display at the press conference — were fat and happy, wrestling on solid ice floes […]

Lisa Heinzerling responds to Richard Revesz on cost-benefit analysis

The efficient wasteland

In his essay, Richard Revesz argues in favor of a "cost-benefit environmentalism" that embraces economic analysis and "uses both reason and compassion to justify strong environmental rules." It is wonderful to have such a prominent fan of cost-benefit analysis explicitly embrace environmental values; this doesn't happen every day. The trouble is, however, that cost-benefit analysis is at odds with fundamental premises of environmentalism, and it's not particularly good at either reason or compassion.

Environmentalism has many subtleties and variations, but I think most environmentalists share certain core beliefs. They are convinced that the future matters -- that we should protect the earth and its inhabitants into the indefinite future. They worry about other people and other living creatures and about their own complicity in causing others' suffering through environmental degradation. They prefer concreteness over abstraction: They don't just want to read about nature; they want to experience it. They understand the reasons that reason cannot know: the small shiver of joy upon seeing spring's first warbler, the glimpse of the infinite in a summer storm.

Race mattered in the W.Va. primary, but will it keep mattering?

This is the second in a series of dispatches from Melinda Henneberger, who's talking to voters around the U.S. about their views on the election.

Charleston, W.Va. -- According to the exit polls, I was hanging out with a bunch of racially challenged Hillary supporters at last night's victory party here.

One in five West Virginia voters fessed up that race was an important factor in their choice of a candidate –- and they didn't mean they saw Obama's diverse heritage as a positive. How do we know that? Because of those who walked right up to pollsters and said out loud that race was the elephant in their donkey-party living room, 81 percent voted for Clinton. Not only that, but 7 percent of West Virginia voters went for John Edwards –- who ended his run decades ago, as measured in political time –- but was the only white dude still on the ballot. What does that tell us? Nothing we want to hear.

Talking about where the candidates stand on climate and environmental policy

Shameless self-promotion alert: I was on the program “The Conversation,” which airs on the Seattle NPR affiliate KUOW, last night talking about McCain’s climate plan and where the presidential contenders stand on environmental policy. I’m about 10 minutes in, and as you can tell by the smattering of “uhs” and “ums,” there’s a reason why […]

Will McCain bring conservatives with him on climate?

A President McCain would have no magic wand to get conservatives to join a cause they simply don't believe in, much as he wasn't able to get them to join the cause for his McCain-Lieberman climate bill. As E&E News ($ub. req'd) reports today:

Polar bears threatened, but drilling in their habitat still OK, says Interior

Polar bears are a threatened species, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced Wednesday — but that doesn’t mean we can’t drill in their habitat! The “threatened” designation means the bear could become endangered if conservation steps aren’t taken; it puts polar bears on the endangered-species list but in effect allows Interior to pick and choose which […]

McCain promotes eco-cred, while his advisers push for more Bush-style policies

In honor of John McCain’s eco-week, both the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee have launched sites where folks can make personal pledges to protect the planet. The McCain campaign has also put out a line of “eco-friendly” swag — shirts, hats, tote bags, etc. Meanwhile, McCain adviser Kevin Hassett, who is also the […]

Polar bear decision expected today from Bush administration

This just in from Associated Press:

The Interior Department has scheduled a news conference for Wednesday to announce a decision on whether to list the polar bear as threatened and in need of protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne proposed such protection 15 months ago because of the disappearance of Arctic sea ice, which is a primary habitat for the bear. Last September, scientists said up to two-thirds of the polar bears could disappear by mid-century because of sea ice loss due to global warming.

However, it's not certain the bear will be listed as threatened. Recently the United States and Canada agreed to conduct additional research into the future survival of the bear. That memorandum did not mention global warming.

You can read that memorandum of understanding signed by Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne here [PDF]. It was signed back on May 8 but I haven't seen it reported anywhere. Weird.

The science couldn't be more clear -- the polar bear is threatened by climate change and could be gone from U.S. soil (and ice) by mid-century. It's hard to imagine a decision not to protect the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, even from the Bush administration. That would completely contradict evidence presented by the administration's own biologists and show that obstruction on climate action is more of a priority than protecting the polar bear.