Protecting the polar bears...with oil!

The polar bear is widely accepted as the unofficial symbol of global warming. Most people would suggest that the poor, drowning, computer-generated creature from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth thrust the plight of the polar bear into the national consciousness. Soon after, with the birth of little Knut in a Berlin zoo, the world had a physical being of heartbreaking cuteness to associate with the problem, though the cub, far from the Dorian Gray of his species, is susceptible to the corruption of age, as are most adolescents.

It didn’t take long for Hollywood to cast them as honorable (and rational) warriors, who’d also star in their own features and rub elbows with the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio. So when reports surfaced in 2006 that the shifting climate forced the bears into cannibalism, the public reacted with an outpouring of compassion rather than dismissing them as fearsome predators, as may have been the case in other circumstances. These days, 1993 seems a lifetime ago, when America was captivated by Coca-Cola’s dreamlike Arctic idyll.

It’s been a rough ride for our new frosty-furred friends. Though you’d think with all the fuss and fanfare that we’d make their lives a little easier (and longer), namely by placing them on the endangered species list. But, surprisingly, that has yet to happen—but not for the lack of trying. On February 16, 2005 the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to name the polar bear as a 'threatened' species under the Endangered Species Act. But, like most green issues under this administration, the request got stuck in the bureaucratic logjam. From the CBD:

On December 15, 2005, the Center and our partners NRDC and Greenpeace sued the Bush administration for ignoring our petition. In response, on February 9, 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a positive 90-day petition finding for polar bears, opened a 60-day comment period, and initiated a status review of the species. Finally, on December 27, 2006, the administration announced a proposed rule to list the polar bear as threatened. Comments will be accepted on the proposal until April 9, 2007, and the administration must make a final listing determination by January 9, 2008.

Today is February 1, and still no decision has been made. There may be a reason for that. The Minerals Management Service, an agency under the Department of the Interior, is planning to open the Chukchi Sea—an area where 20% of the Arctic’s polar bears live and hunt—to, yes, the oil companies. Of course, if the polar bear—between 20,000-25,000 exist worldwide—is awarded ‘threatened’ status under the ESA, it would result in greater federal protection for the animals, likely forestalling any drilling for a significant period of time.

The MMS, for its part, maintains that oil rigging and polar bears (let alone the Arctic environment) can harmoniously coexist (completely ignoring the fact that fossil fuel production is a fundamental part of the problem). From today’s press release:

For the Chukchi Sea sale, exploration and initial development will occur only with the approval of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Energy exploration activities will only take place in open water—at least 25 miles from shore. Although a spill is unlikely, MMS recognizes the potential for a spill and requires industry to have containment and recovery equipment on standby.

Let’s not forget that it’s important to buy American:

In 2006, about 60 percent of the petroleum consumed in America was imported from foreign countries. At the same time, foreign economies are increasing their own energy consumption, reducing supplies and increasing prices on a worldwide scale. As a result, the United Stated relies on energy from areas that are sometimes unstable, are outside our control, and don’t always have U.S. interests at heart. We need reliable, secure domestic energy production. Energy prices will only stabilize or go down if there is an increase in production.

Our decision comes down to the bare necessities: Where do we want to get our energy? Having a domestic supply is far more reliable and secure than relying upon foreign sources. Can we develop domestic supplies and provide protection for the environment and wildlife, including polar bears? Yes, we can and should.

Well, I'm convinced. If you need me I'll be wearing my fur cloak while out clubbing seals with an ivory tusk.

Related:

ExxonMobil sets annual profit record: $40.6B