Bear necessities

It's not always gratifying to say, "We told you so."

But when Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne on May 14 declared the polar bear a "threatened species," saying it must be protected because of the decline in Arctic sea ice caused by global warming, we did warn the secretary was either being "disingenuous or whistling past the graveyard."

Mr. Kempthorne soberly asserted it would be "inappropriate" to use his listing decision as an excuse to seek a reduction in man-made greenhouse gas emissions, or to broadly address climate change.

But, "Environmental extremists have sought the listing precisely because the Endangered Species Act now allows them to sue any federal agency, demanding that said agency no longer license or allow any behaviors that might further 'endanger' the 'threatened' species," we pointed out a week ago. "Unfortunately, the deed is done, the precedent now set. The theory embraced is that the animal is somehow 'threatened' by consumers burning fossil fuels in their SUVs in Georgia or Alabama, where the lumbering predator has never been seen outside a zoo, all based on cobbled-together computer models."

In fact, it took less than a week.

On May 20, the group "Defenders of Wildlife" announced it will file a lawsuit "to ensure that the polar bear ... receives the full protections that it needs to survive."

"To finally admit that the science compels listing the polar bear as threatened by global warming, but at the exact same moment strip it of the protections the Endangered Species Act should provide against its loss of habitat from global warming. It's shameful," said Defenders of Wildlife President Rodger Schlickeisen.

No, what's shameful is that the courts will now be asked to impose restrictions on the continued growth of America's energy use and thus of her economy under the bogus theory that current modest rates of global warming can somehow be favorably impacted by throwing America into depression and economic stagnation -- while India, China and the rest of the Third World are welcome to keep pouring out soot from their new coal-fired power plants like there's no tomorrow.

What the courts should do is warn the plaintiffs that -- should they turn out to be wrong -- the real dollar value of any delays or economic slowdown they cause, corrected for inflation, shall be levied against them individually, and against their estates, and against the assets and estates of any contributors who funded their efforts.

Part of their strategy is to purposely raise our electric bills through the roof. If that's their goal, and if they succeed, why shouldn't they foot the bill?