Long ago, miners used canaries to measure the build up of toxic gases in the mines where they were working. If the canary died, it was time to head out because the air was dangerous. We don’t use canaries in mines anymore. Now we use polar bears in the Arctic. The threat to the bear serves as a monitoring mechanism of sorts for the global threat from carbon emissions in the atmosphere.
As you may recall, the impending demise of polar bears due to habitat destruction attributed to global warming generated some hooha not too long ago. W’s Interior Secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, hemmed and hawed for as long as possible before finally declaring the bear a “threatened” species under the Endangered Species Act. That designation would normally require federal action to address the cause (global warming) of the bear’s habitat. However, the Bushies propounded a rule — later embraced by the Obama Administration, excluding carbon emissions from regulation under the ESA. That made the bear’s victory (such as it was) pyrrhic at best. Nonetheless, in the heady optimism of the time, many (including me) felt that it was perhaps better to wait for a statute explicitly aimed at mitigating national emissions rather than to use the blunt instrument of the ESA to accomplish a very complex regulatory act.
Fast forward a few years to the present, where the current Congress has shown itself utterly incapable of legislating on the most critical environmental issue of our time, with elections looming that will apparently render it even more so. The Obama EPA has struggled mightily and has actually succeeded in pushing the nation toward some comprehensive mitigation strategies but the road ahead is bumpy and long. All of which leads us back to the polar bear.
A federal judge has ordered the Interior Department to clarify why the bear should not be listed as “endangered” rather than merely threatened. Listing it as endangered could renew the argument over whether climate mitigation steps should be necessary under the law. First, however, the parties must argue about whether the bear is in fact endangered. While there are currently 20,000+ polar bears, the rapid loss of their arctic habitat loss means that their survival is imperiled.
The Fish & Wildlife Service argues that the statute requires that the threat of extinction be “imminent” in order for the bear to qualify for endangered status and that the large current population means that no such designation is appropriate. The Center for Biological Diversity argues that the law says no such thing (which, indeed, it does not) and that no such meaning should be read into it. That lack of plain language in the statute regarding the immediacy of the threat means that FWS is arguably not entitled to the same level of judicial deference for its interpretation of the law (for the lawyers among you, the question boils down to whether it is a Chevron Step 1 or Chevron Step 2 analysis). Judge Sullivan has given the government 30 days to brief the issue. He wants to schedule a hearing for January 2011.
In the meantime, the bears (and the rest of us) will shvitz and wait. When the canary died, the miners left the mine. I wonder where we’ll all go when the polar bears die.
Filed under: animal law, climate change, endangered species, environmental law, marine animals Tagged: | animal ethics, animal law, animal welfare, bush administration, Center for Biological Diversity, climate change, Department of Interior, Dirk Kempthorne, endangered species, Endangered Species Act, environmental advocacy, environmental law, EPA, ESA, Fish & Wildlife Service, FWS, global warming, Obama Administration, polar bears