"Obama sticks with Bush-era polar bear rule"---WTF?

Did Salazar even try to come up with a new solution to the problem facing these beautiful animals? I just don't get this decision...:wtf:

______________________________________________________________



Obama sticks with Bush-era polar bear rule
Protection was granted, but limits were set on what to do

msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 12:01 p.m. CT, Fri., May 8, 2009

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration will retain a Bush-era rule for polar bears, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced Friday, in a move that angered activists who noted the rule limits what can be done to protect the species from global warming.

The administration had faced a weekend deadline to decide whether it should allow government agencies to cite the federal Endangered Species Act, which protects the bear, to impose limits on greenhouse gases from power plants, factories and automobiles even if the emissions occur thousands of miles from where the polar bear lives.

"We must do all we can to help the polar bear recover, recognizing that the greatest threat to the polar bear is the melting of Arctic sea ice caused by climate change," Salazar said in a statement. "However, the Endangered Species Act is not the proper mechanism for controlling our nation’s carbon emissions.






http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30635672/

This is a more direct way of saving the polar ecosystem: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/us-wants-mandatory-cuts-i_n_193112.html

Forcing the slowdown/shutdown of factories throughout America by listing the polar bear as endangered would effectively
throw tens of millions of Americans simultaneously out of work, destabilize our economy overnight and push the global
economy into a depression. And it’s not clear it would even work, because unless we convince other nations to make
mandatory cuts in greenhouse gases, the polar ice will keep melting.


You also might be interested in what the executive director at National Wildlife Federation has to say:

John Kostyack, executive director for wildlife conservation and global warming at the National Wildlife Federation,
criticized the decision to retain the rule, but admitted that ‘there was no way that the Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Interior Department agency responsible for carrying out the Endangered Species Act, could handle the burden of
trying to police emissions.

In addition to conventional threats, a vital focus for wildlife managers should be figuring out how to help vulnerable
species adapt to climate stresses, he said.

“The last thing we want to do,” he said, “is saddle them with solving the causes of global warming, too.”’

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/science/earth/09bear.html

I knew there had to be more to this...here always is...:)

But to the republicans, all they hear is :Bush was right!:eyes:

Searching for info on this I found this: "Now, after all of the abuse that the Democrats gave the Bush administration about polar bears, reality has intruded, and the Obama administration has decided that Bush was right after all!" This comment is from John H. Hinderaker, one of the biggest Bush supporters.:eyes:

too..there always is with Prez Obama but that doesn't stop purple knee jerk reaction. And, I don't mean the OP:)

Thanks for this, Clark. Save the Polar Bears.:bounce:

THANKS! I'm tired of having to explain and explain that Obama has a bigger better plan.

instead of playing a bunch of indirect games at it?

...someone's trying to blow sunshine up your skirt. Hey, Salazar, every act that can contribute to the control of carbon emissions is a proper mechanism. What's improper here is you.

This is actually a legal issue more than anything, it seems to me. The question is whether or not the Endangered Species Act is the appropriate instrument for trying to control the melting of the ice caps by capping CO2 emissions. I'm not convinced it is either, to be honest. I think we need to be working on specific regulations on that front. I have never been a fan of doing a questionable end run on these sorts of things.

"Obama does not think an issue should be addressed by one particular bill, so that means Obama doesn't want to address the issue at all!"

more to the story than what we are seeing in the MSM. Asking here answers a lot of that. I think I've learned more about truth and what's going on with our government from the seven years at DU more than I could have ever learned through the biased MSM.

Fixing the root problem is what needs to be done, and it will benefit more than just one species.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/05/08/08greenwire-interior-will-keep-bushs-polar-bear-rule-19116.html

That stance was hailed by groups concerned that polar bear protections could affect their businesses.


"We welcome the administration's decision because we, like Secretary Ken Salazar, recognize that the Endangered Species Act is not the proper mechanism for controlling our nation's carbon emissions," American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard said. "Instead, we need a comprehensive, integrated energy and climate strategy to address this complex, global challenge."


That must count for something right? The API being such staunch defenders of science and environmental protections, those little lovies:

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute

make great posters informing how as the people rise and fall as one nation so is it with our furrier friends. Save the polar bear. Sometimes I think the Presidents decisions are challenging folks to remain active so, do we rise to that challenge.

Arnold Schwarzenegger " If the Republican party does not change it will become a penguin on an ice berg floating out to sea, goodbye my little friend."