Oil, Energy, and Polar bears? (REPOSTED 1/23)

ARTICLE TITLE: “U.S.: Drilling Won’t Hurt Polar Bear”

SOURCE NAME & WEB-LINK: Time Magazine http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1704896,00.html

BLOG SUBMISSION DATE: originally 1/18/2007, redone 1/23/2007

POST #: 1

SUMMARY:

Two directors from agencies within the U.S. Department of the Interior told congress on Thursday that they're confident oil and gas exploration in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska can proceed without threatening polar bears that depend on the sea ice. The directors were before a house special committee on global warming to explain why their respective departments are withholding a final decision as to how much protection the polar bear needs while also selling oil leases for the Alaskan sea.
Currently the polar bear is not on the endangered species list, pending a review of the current population statistics for polar bears. The decision on whether to declare the polar bear threatened is a complex decision, because the Dept. of the Interior would link the bear’s status with global warming’s impart on the polar bear’s habitat. This is the first time an animal would be listed on the endangered list for global warming concerns.
However, Thursday's hearing focused on the potential impact on Polar bears for oil and gas development in the Alaskan sea. Concerns were raised by House members as to how the oil drilling and the polar bears would co-exist and how oil explorations might complicate future protection of the polar bear. Legislation is being introduced by said members to bar the sale of oil leases for the Alaskan Sea (which was slated to begin on Feb. 6,2008) until the status of the polar bear has been resolved.

ANALYSIS:
I think that the Department of the Interior is in a “conflict of interest” with itself in preparing to sell oil leases in an area that contains an animal whose protection status is being decided by the same department. Congress is right in using its legislative ability to provide a “checks and balances” count for this department. While the use of Alaskan oil would decrease the U.S. dependence on foreign oil, it won’t erase the dependence entirely. Therefore, the decision on the polar bear should be decided first, and then the pursuit of oil can be weighed against this decision.