On Thin Ice

Polar bears (and their advocates) got some good news yesterday: the federal government will list the creatures as a threatened species, protected against encroachment on their habitat. But protecting the bears' habitat puts the issue into a larger, more contentious debate, since the species relies primarily on Arctic sea ice that's currently melting. On deadline to make a decision about the bears' status, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced that his department's research indicates that the bear is at risk but not yet in danger of becoming extinct, the main qualification for endangered status. "Today's decision is based on three findings," Kempthorne told reporters. "First, sea ice is vital to polar bear survival. Second, the polar bear's sea ice habitat has dramatically melted in recent decades. Third, computer models suggest sea ice is likely to further recede in the future."

Environmentalists welcomed the decision, which they saw as an admission by the Bush administration of the existence of global warming. But the listing as "threatened" falls short of what wildlife protection groups had hoped for; the designation "endangered" would have brought more substantial protection measures. Plus, since a "threatened" listing doesn't require the federal government to actively patrol people or industries harming Arctic territories, all challenges contesting how, or even if, the polar bear is being protected will have to navigate the legal system.

Brendan Cummings, oceans program director for the Center for Biological Diversity, spoke with NEWSWEEK's Daniel Stone about the polar bear's new status and what comes next. Excerpts:

Is this good news?
It's mixed. The most important thing is that the polar bear is now listed [as threatened]. That will have legal effect, and regardless of what disclaimers and caveats Kempthorne might have added, the Endangered Species Act now applies to the polar bear and a lot of people will now vigorously enforce it.

In terms of protection, what are the differences between a threatened and an endangered listing?
There are two main provisions of the ESA that are relevant. One requires that all federal agencies in all actions they carry out do not jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. That applies equally to threatened and endangered species, and that's the provision where an activity like oil drilling in habitat has to go through a process to determine whether it will destroy the species. If so, it cannot occur. A threatened species doesn't have that. If it were endangered, any given project, including off-shore drilling in bear habitats, would have to go through an Endangered Species Act process, which would either stop that activity or at least provide mitigations and measures to reduce the harm to the bear.

What comes next? The department seems to plan only for more research and monitoring.
Exactly. It's almost like necrophilia. They'll devote all their energy to studying [the bear's] extinction but won't do much about it. But still, the actions that threaten it are constantly occurring, and we will challenge them as they come. Some of them have already been approved, and we will go back to address them with the new listing of the bear. That will all be teased out in the agencies, in the courts and perhaps even Congress.