GOVERNMENT REPORTS: POLAR BEAR FATE SEALED, EVEN WITH RESTRICTIONS ON EMISSIONS

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service (FWS) have released new reports predicting polar bears will be gone from Alaska within 50 years.

The nine administrative reports will be considered within the context of the Service’s one-year review of listing the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The reports claim the loss of summer sea ice habitat will be so profound for bear populations that regional efforts to protect them, such as restricting Arctic  oil and gas development, will not be able to prevent their disappearance. Moreover, the bears’ doom is irreversible, the studies conclude, even with a dramatic effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Earlier this year, the FWS proposed listing the bear under the ESA because climate change is melting its habitat – polar sea ice. The recommendation is based heavily on selective use of carbon emission scenarios and highly speculative computer models that predict sea ice in the Arctic vanishing by 2045.

RDC opposes listing the polar bear at this time because there is too much scientific uncertainty surrounding the carbon-emission scenarios and computer modeling, as well as how the polar bear will adapt to changing conditions.

RDC has also noted that a listing cannot be justified since polar bears are abundant and their population in Alaska is healthy in size and distribution. Polarbears continue to occupy their entire range, and they and their habitats are well managed and protected by regulatory mechanisms, laws and international treaties. Worldwide, their population has more than doubled over the past 40 years.

This is a major concern to Alaska, when 89 percent of the state’s revenue base comes from oil development – the vast majority produced in the Arctic.

Moreover, there is concern that an ESA listing and subsequent thirdparty litigation could jeopardize the longterm economics of the proposed Alaska natural gas pipeline.

Experts warn that new natural gas discoveries beyond the 35 trillion cubic feet of known reserves are vital to ensuring the longterm profitability of any gas pipeline. But ESArelated litigation could block access to areas that may hold up to 200 trillion cubic feet of gas, and steer investment away from Alaska.

Richard Glenn, an Inupiat resident of Barrow and a cocaptain of a subsistence whaling crew, testified at a hearing earlier this year that “a polar bear is at home in the water, on ice and on land.” He noted, “polar bears have adapted and adapt each year to changing habitats, prey and food sources.” He said an ESA listing will do little for the bear.

“It will not create more ice cover, it will not change their ability to locate dens or prey, but it will negatively and disproportionately affect the lives of the Inupiat Eskimos who coexist with the polar bear in the Alaskan Arctic,” Glenn said.

The State of Alaska suggested earlier this year that federal government studies consider additional information on population factors such as terrestrial habitat use, and food sources should be factored into modeling for the month or so of potential icefree conditions along the Arctic coast in late summer.

The Alaska Oil and Gas Association noted speculation about the loss of sea ice over the next 45 years, compounded with further speculation about the response of polar bears to this loss of sea ice, should not outweigh data that show no negative trend in Alaska polar bear numbers.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) have released new reports predicting polar bears will be gone from Alaska within 50 years.

The nine administrative reports will be considered within the context of the Service’s oneyear review of listing the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The reports claim the loss of summer sea ice habitat will be so profound for bear populations that regional efforts to protect them, such as restricting Arctic oil and gas development, will not be able to prevent their disappearance. Moreover, the bears’ doom is irreversible, the studies conclude, even with a dramatic effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Earlier this year, the FWS proposed listing the bear under the ESA because climate change is melting its habitat – polar sea ice. The recommendation is based heavily on selective use of carbon emission scenarios and highly speculative computer models that predict sea ice in the Arctic vanishing by 2045.

RDC opposes listing the polar bear at this time because there is too much scientific uncertainty surrounding the carbonemission scenarios and computer modeling, as well as how the polar bear will adapt to changing conditions.

RDC has also noted that a listing cannot be justified since polar bears are abundant and their population in Alaska is healthy in size and distribution. Polar

Rep. Jay Inslee (DWash) has sent a letter to colleagues supporting an ESA listing based on the recent reports. "Given the perilous status of polar bears in Alaska, we also must maximize the protection of their habitat,” Inslee said. “We believe that any further commitments to fossil fuel development in polar bear habitat should be put on hold until the Fish and Wildlife Service has issued a final listing determination..."

Earlier this year, Inslee said the bear could serve as a mascot for Congress to press for dramatic limitations on carbon emissions.

“It would certainly be another arrow in our quiver,” he said of the proposed listing.

RDC and industries across the U.S. are concerned an ESA listing will be used as a mechanism to address the broader issue of global climate change and target development of fossil fuels.

It is highly probable that among the effects of a polar bear listing would be lawsuits targeting projects that directly and indirectly emit carbon into the atmosphere and therefore contribute to global climate change. Lawsuits would likely target the federal government to designate large portions of Alaska’s Arctic as critical habitat.

Once critical habitat designations are in place, more litigation challenging development in or near those designations would likely occur and affect projects ranging from village infrastructure expansion to new oil and gas development.