Bear Necessities

Polar bears pictured alongside large chunks of floating ice have quickly become iconic images in the fight against global warming. In January 2007 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service petitioned the Bush administration to give the species federal protection by listing it under the Endangered Species Act. Now, after 16 months of delays, a federal judge told Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne late last month that his department has just two weeks to decide whether to give the bears this status.

The decision, though, carries significant political overtones. There are now about 25,000 polar bears in the Arctic, but scientists expect the number to decline by nearly 30 percent over the next half-century due to reduced habitat caused by melting ice caps. Listing the species as endangered would mean that Washington would be seen as acknowledging that humans have helped contribute to global warming and that they are able to play some part in fixing it. That, in turn, could require the administration to pass broad regulations limiting carbon emissions across all sectors of the economy—a far-reaching move in an effort to protect just a single species. Dr. Kenneth Green, a biologist and environmental scientist who is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, spoke with NEWSWEEK's Daniel Stone about how climate change might have affected the bears and whether an "endangered" declaration would really help. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: What decision is the Interior Department likely to make?
Dr. Kenneth Green: The administration will likely list the bear as threatened. And after that they'll punt it into the next administration, which will have to come in and start a planning process to develop a protection plan for the bears. I would expect there to be a conflict over the extent of the plan. Of course, if [the administration] chose not to list the polar bear, somebody would undoubtedly re-petition to relist the polar bear and all the regulatory timetables and clocks would start ticking again.

In either scenario, what kind of political and legal debate would follow?
Well, if protection is offered, environmental groups will file suit calling for suing carbon-emitting companies that violate the Clean Air Act. Then they'll go back to court to sue the government for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Then a judge will have to say, "Well, will that do anything to improve polar bear habitat or not?" Then there will be a fight over what's actually causing [the ice to] melt, and whether the climate models predicting deep rates of change are meaningful predictors.

Is there apprehension that listing the bear signals acceptance that climate change is caused by humans?
Absolutely. The realization has always been that if you list the polar bear, because its range is the entire Arctic, your ability to exploit the Arctic is essentially done. But that's really only part of it. A much bigger part is that because the assumed nature of the endangerment is greenhouse gas emissions, it would empower groups to sue the government to force the abatement of the gasses.

The polar bear has been labeled the canary of the planet's coal mine. How closely is it really tied to the challenges of climate change?
Its main pull is its charisma. It has a charismatic megafauna.

So you see it as just one species of millions? It's just cute?
Yes. It's being disingenuously used as a lever to try to get greenhouse gas emission controls in the back door of the Endangered Species Act, since the Bush administration has been unwilling to do so any other way. It's not immediately obvious that the best thing to do to manage polar bear populations will be to control greenhouse gasses.

But the number of them is decreasing, largely due to a shrinking habitat.
The thing that nobody's asking is "What's actually earth's right number of polar bears?" The answer is that there is no right answer. The real question is whether they're being driven to extinction—and I don't think the case has been made that whatever threats they face are of human causation. If the species is going extinct because of nothing that humans are doing, you don't put them under the Endangered Species Act. The question is whether reversing the emission of greenhouse gasses is the best way to protect them, or would it be better to find more ways to increase their land-based habitat?

Aside from limiting greenhouse gases, what would be other effective ways to protect the bear?
[The government] could prohibit all hunting. I suppose there could be controlled breeding programs, for which we'd capture a significant portion of the population and try to increase their breeding in captivity, and then introduce them to land ice areas. Maybe things like establishing large reserves on land that would not be open to exploitation.