pageok
pageok
pageok
Industry Groups Join Polar Bear Litigation:

The National Association of Manufacturers, American Iron and Steel Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Petroleum Institute have filed another challenge to the Fish & Wildlife Service's decision to list polar bears as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. Interestingly, one aspect of the listing they are challenging is the federal government's differential treatment of energy projects in Alaska.

They object to what they call the "Alaska Gap" in relation to the special rule the federal government issued in May in conjunction with the polar bear's protected status. The rule, meant to prevent the polar bear's status from being used as a tool for imposing greenhouse gas limits, exempts projects in all states except Alaska from undergoing review in relation to emissions.

NAM Vice President Keith McCoy said the group sees the rule as unfairly subjecting Alaskan industry to greenhouse gas controls and also opening a back door for greenhouse gas regulation nationwide.

"This could significantly curtail oil and gas exploration," especially on Alaska's North Slope, he said. "It's discrimination against the state of Alaska. During a time when gas prices are high and we need to look at all options, to issue something that shuts off a viable resource" is ill-advised, he said.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the D.C. Circuit, notes that greenhouse gas emissions worldwide contribute to global warming. It says projects in Alaska should not be subject to special scrutiny because of the polar bear's status.

Not having read the briefs (yet), this seems to me like a more fruitful avenue of attack than a frontal challenge to the listing itself. Overturning a listing decision is quite difficult, and I don't expect any of the lawsuits to be successful on that front.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Industry Groups Join Polar Bear Litigation:
  2. Can Polar Bears Save the World?
  3. Will Walruses Follow Polar Bears?
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
Why does this rule have any connection with reality, with the polar bear population world wide apparently expanding quite nicely already, before this ban?
8.31.2008 1:10pm
Mac (mail):
It doesn't have any connection with reality. It's just a way to keep us from getting oil and natural gas.

There is a dream that there is an alternative energy that we would use if we didn't have oil and gas. It doesn't exist and won't for some time to come at least, not in the quantities we need, but when you are dealing with a "belief system" i.e. the religion of global warming, rather than science, facts don't matter much.
8.31.2008 5:41pm
pmorem (mail):
I think the claimed belief in some alternate energy is a charade. For some people, the objective is the dramatic reduction of accessible energy, and the subsequent de-industrialization.
8.31.2008 7:33pm
Bozo:
Thank god (we know he exist from Gustav heading to Twin Cities), the next VP will be a woman. The only problem might happen is this: she gives next birth during the attack on Iran. Polar bears may need to wait, then.
8.31.2008 7:48pm
RPT (mail):
"It doesn't have any connection with reality. It's just a way to keep us from getting oil and natural gas."

And what is the motivation for this policy, along with pmorem's "subsequent deindustrialization"? Who actually espouses this policy?
8.31.2008 10:49pm
Mac (mail):

And what is the motivation for this policy, along with pmorem's "subsequent deindustrialization"? Who actually espouses this policy?


Penance for mankind's evils. The belief that everything mankind does hurts the environment or some creature. The belief that mankind is evil and deserves to suffer. Very religious stuff, actually.


Who espouses it? Greenpeace and The Center For Biodiversity among many others. The Center is busy now making sure north central Az. can't get at any water to sustain our people just like they were busy stopping forest thinning projects before the Rodeo-Chedeski fire which burned almost 500,000 acres here in Az. Then they denied (and lied) I might add by claiming that they had not stopped any forest thinning. An independent study by the Denver paper (Post, isn't it?) showed that environmental groups had stopped or delayed 71% of all proposed thinning projects. Colorado was very hard hit by fire as well, if you recall.

The co-founder of Greenpeace, whose name I can't recall, has broken with Greenpeace in disgust over their politicizing of forest management practices.
There was a billboard in Payson, AZ put up after the fire thanking the environmentalists for making the fire season 'All it could be".

In addition, if you want more proof, I vividly recall the current President of Greenpeace, justifying stopping mining in Rumania even though it is an extremely poor country that is desperate for jobs and a boost to it's economy because it might do harm to the environment and "the people there are poor but are actually happy as they smile a lot". He sounded just like a white Republican of 50 years ago or Marie Antoinette. (I know she didn't really say it, but she should have, it is such a great line.)
8.31.2008 11:47pm
GaryC (mail):

RPT:
"It doesn't have any connection with reality. It's just a way to keep us from getting oil and natural gas."

And what is the motivation for this policy, along with pmorem's "subsequent deindustrialization"? Who actually espouses this policy?

Back in 1989, when Fleishmann and Pons first announced their results on Cold Fusion, before the attacks from the hot fusion community, there were environmentalists who said that an inexpensive, nonpolluting, and practically unlimited energy source was a disaster for humanity.

Jeremy Rifkin, "The fusion findings are the worst news that ever happened. Right when we are beginning to develop a global awareness of the problems of global society, here come some scientists saying we don't have to deal with these problems."

Amory Lovins, "Most of the costs of fusion will be in the stuff you wrap around it to get electricity, from the turbine, to the plant site, to the health physicists and other clean up services you need, all of which will make it at least as expensive as fission. The right place for a fusion reactor is where we have one—in the Sun, 93 million miles away."

Note that Lovins' concern with respect to "health physicists and other clean up services" makes sense for fission and hot fusion, but not for cold fusion if it turns out to be real. Cold fusion does not appear to create the high-energy neutrons and protons that fission and hot fusion do, which irradiate hardware and create radioactive isotopes and embrittle critical pipes and chambers. His other concerns would apply to any concentrated energy source.

By the way, I am not completely convinced that cold fusion is real, but I am convinced that the reaction of the physics community to the original report back in 1989 was irrational and that has impeded the scientific work that needs to be done to find out if the anomalies observed in the lab can be turned into a reproducible phenomenon and then explained. I think we are close the point at which there will be a reproducible lab experiment that shows energy production inconsistent with any non-nuclear explanation, but it has taken much longer than it should have.
9.1.2008 8:40pm
GaryC (mail):

Mac:
The co-founder of Greenpeace, whose name I can't recall, has broken with Greenpeace in disgust over their politicizing of forest management practices.
There was a billboard in Payson, AZ put up after the fire thanking the environmentalists for making the fire season 'All it could be".

I think you are referring to Patrick Moore.
9.1.2008 8:47pm
Mac (mail):
GaryC,

Yes, thank you.
9.2.2008 6:16pm