US denies polar bears protection from climate change

[NickB79]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/08/polar-bears

"The Obama administration today declined to protect polar bears from the single greatest threat to their survival – the melting of sea ice by global warming. The decision brought immediate protests from wildlife and environmental groups.

The interior secretary, Ken Salazar, said he would not overturn one of the most controversial last-minute rules of the George Bush era. The rule had denied protection to the polar bear because Bush did not want to be pressed into regulating the industries that emit greenhouse gases."


AARRRGGGHHHHHHH :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:


I am seriously starting to question Obama's commitment to serious action on climate change.

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. Wrong.

The Obama administration didn't change it because it has no scientific merit.

We have already passed the tipping point. Going after polluters on a violation of the endangered species act changes nothing, because if ALL polluters stopped polluting 100% today, global warming would continue and polar bears would still be at risk.

Don't worry, there are plenty of other violations to get them on - extending it to the endanger species act is at best redundant.

This is poorly written anyway - Polar bears are protected by the endangered species act - all this does is not prosecute polluters who are thousands of miles away for violation of the act.