It appears that to validate my blog title of Ambivalent Environmentalist I should, at least occasionally, write on environmental issues.

To begin with, I have been a staunch supporter of the Endangered Species Act since its inception in 1972. Most of my professional career has been directed at trying to recover wildlife, fish and plant species in jeopardy of extinction. That being said, I have also been a long-time critic of the application of this act, particularly the use of it for other agendas. Let me be specific: The act was written to preserve and recover species that had been depleted -- primarily through human activities -- to the point of near extinction. It was not designed to set aside wilderness; not meant to stop economic, social, or human population growth; not meant to quell pollution; and not designed to punish development. In many cases these all may be effects of enforcement of the Act, however these are its ancillary effects, not its objectives. More than once have I been contacted by a potential client who asks if I can survey some area “to find an endangered species” so that a project they find undesirable can be stopped. I tell them I can survey but my objective is to assess what is there, not find something that isn’t. That quite often costs me the job.

Right now there’s a big push to list the polar bear, an obvious casualty of global warming. And what will listing of this species do to stop its decline? Well, it will allow environmental organizations to sue the government for allowing release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and to sue private companies who are doing it. How will this help the polar bear? Technically, if greenhouse gas emissions are stopped there will be an eventual climate reversal and the arctic ice will reform, bringing back the polar bear habitat. How long will this take? Maybe a couple thousand years, or much more. How long before the polar bear becomes extinct? Maybe only a few decades, the way things are going. How long will this be in court? Probably a couple of decades or more. Who will benefit? Primarily, the lawyers.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for immediately stemming the release of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere and to do otherwise jeopardizes not only the polar bear, but hundreds of species including Homo sapiens. Yet I don’t see the effort being put into the listing of the polar bear as being a positive or effective effort in achieving this objective. If we get another Neo-con Bush-thinking Whitehouse they’ll simply ignore the science, the law and the courts, and go merrily on their way. Let’s put the effort into voting those out of office who oppose the Kyoto Accord and support big oil...like Wally.