In the story of climate change, or of polar bears, or of government inaction, this is just a footnote. But I love seeing the evasion up close and personal. And it gives some insight into the government's thinking on the polar bear/climate change issue.
At yesterday's Energy Media Breakfast (minutes 44:29-47:00), Gale Norton (Secretary of the Department of the Interior, making her in charge of the US Fish & Wildlife Service), was quizzed by Chris Holly with the Energy Daily, about the recent polar bear decision and whether it could compel government action to prevent climate change.
The short answer: No.
The long answer: Ha ha ha! Are you kidding? We employ scientists! No.
Transcript below the fold.
Chris Holly with the Energy Daily introduces himself and describes the polar bear decision. (
Background here.) The government announced it will study whether or not the polar bear should be put on the threatened species list. From the
Center for Biological Diversity:
Listing under the United States Endangered Species Act ("ESA") will provide broad protection to polar bears, including a requirement that United States federal agencies ensure that any action carried out, authorized, or funded by the United States government will not "jeopardize the continued existence" of polar bears, or adversely modify their critical habitat.
In other words, if the polar bears get listed, and if climate change is threatening the polar bears, the government might have to try to stop activities that contribute to climate change.
Holly refers to the polar bear decision, then asks Gale Norton:
Chris Holly: "What's your take on it? It seems to me to be a potentially EXPLOSIVE political issue. Because of the connection with global warming."
I love the thoughtful emphasis he gives the word explosive. You can see him imagining the political shock waves rippling outward.
Norton begins to answer, and you can already see the evasion kicking into high gear. The decision is about to enter the mysterious black box of "science" and the agency's "process."
Gale Norton: "That's something that really depends on what the science reveals.
"We have a process in the Fish & Wildlife Service of examining the status of a species to determine whether it should be listed as threatened or endangered.
"I anticipate that our biologists will be [pause] shredding documents studying that issue closely and that we would be working with [pause] energy companies the states and other parties to obtain whatever best scientific information is available."
She looks around, almost smugly. She's ready for the next question. Of course! The scientists will solve this question, objectively.
Chris Holly: "Do you have any concerns that there could be a finding that could result in the necessity of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions?
He asks the question so innocently. COULD there possibly BE such a finding??
But it's the word "necessity" that makes me get sarcastic. ("...a finding that could result in the necessity...") If he had said "...a finding that could result in a legal mandate to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions?" this question would have been right on. But on face, what he just asked is: could there possibly BE a scientific finding that suggests the U.S. needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?? I'll leave the outraged punchline to you.
Holly continues: "Because there's been a lot of science that indicates that the ice floes that these bears depend on for their food, and for their habitat, is melting away."
I appreciate the very subtle poignancy in the way he says "melting away."
What it sounds like he's asking here is -- do you think it's at all possible that a link could be made from the bears' melting habitat to greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S? And he's right, that is the central question. My guess is that it'll be battled out in the courts over the next 5-10 years, unless the F&WS concedes it now.
Or unless, say, the courthouses get destroyed by hoards marauding for heating fuel in the meantime. (Oh wait, was I thinking out loud again?)
Gale Norton: I would certainly expect that, the cause and effect--
She doesn't continue that thought, but I wonder if she's thinking that the cause and effect chain will be difficult to prove, which is probably true.
Gale Norton: --in terms of what WE would do in terms of RECOVERY--
See, actually, no one asked what the Fish & Wildlife Service would do. The Endangered Species Act requires that other agencies consult with the F&WS, which means that they could influence every federal permit given out by any federal agency. We're not just talking about what the Fish & Wildlife Service itself could do. Okay, I'll start her answer over again.
Gale Norton: I would certainly expect that, the cause and effect, in terms of what WE would do in terms of RECOVERY, would be things that are much more directly available for acting.
"Much more directly available for acting." Fiddles were directly available for acting, while Rome burned, weren't they?
Gale Norton: I would certainly expect that, the cause and effect, in terms of what WE would do in terms of RECOVERY, would be things that are much more directly available for acting. We, as we look at endangered species issues, try to look at what we can do to remove threats--
Becuase of the thoughtful way she says "remove threats" and the slow sentence leading up to it, my imagination kicked into gear. In my mind's eye, I was imagining them taking thorns from some arctic blackberry out of the bears' paws, for example, or maybe clearing some rocks out of their path. Because after the bears' habitat is decimated, there isn't going to be much else they CAN do.
But then I remembered that there will be no thorns, rocks, paths -- just open ocean. Hmmm...
But I won't interrupt her response this time.
Gale Norton: I would certainly expect that, the cause and effect, in terms of what WE would do in terms of RECOVERY, would be things that are much more directly available for acting. We, as we look at endangered species issues, try to look at what we can do to remove threats and to recover populations. And there are often a lot of things we can do on the ground in a particular area to benefit a species.
There's something amazing in how she communicates, in very conscientious- and practical-sounding phrases, that they are going to wait until it's too late and then do too little.
Chris Holly's response is priceless.
Chris Holly: Do you have any specific examples for polar bears, other than [starts to laugh] making ice?
Everyone in the room chuckles loudly. This is the most disturbing moment of the entire sequence.
Gale Norton: I'm not a polar bear scientist, and this is really something the scientists would have to determine.