Lawsuit challenges polar bear ESA listing

Polar bears aren't endangered-it's the economy that's threatened, says PLF attorneys

Washington, DC; October 2, 2008: Attorneys with Pacific Legal Foundation, the nation’s leading legal watchdog for property rights and a balanced approach to environmental protection, today filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s listing of the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, because the government’s own scientific studies say the polar bear is not threatened.

Today’s lawsuit is filed on behalf of a coalition of food producers, landowners, employers and consumers who, along with businesses and employees throughout the country, would be harmed by the restrictive and far-reaching regulations that could be imposed on the American economy as a result of this listing.

“The good news is that the polar bear is not endangered or threatened,” said PLF Principal Attorney Reed Hopper.  “The polar bear’s numbers have been going up, not down.  Even under the most conservative projections in the government’s own scientific model, there will be at least 20,000 polar bears in the Arctic over the next four to five decades—that’s more than double the number there were 50 years ago.”

“So, the alarming warning that has been put out in the news media about a possible two-thirds decline in the polar bear population, simply doesn’t accord with the government’s own studies,” Hopper continued.

“While polar bears aren’t threatened or endangered, listing the polar bear under the ESA creates a threat – to jobs and the economy,” said PLF President Rob Rivett.  “Because this listing is tied to speculative effects of global warming, it could trigger devastating regulations nationwide, on any activity or industry that emits carbon dioxide.  There could also be restrictions on the public’s ability to make decisions about things as simple as what kind of food to eat or car to drive, not just in Alaska but in California and all of the other states.”

“Radical, litigious environmental groups are poised to exploit this listing to push for regulations that could cripple basic American industries,” Rivett explained.  “Hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake if global warming restrictions are imposed on the automobile industry, agriculture, homebuilding, and—perhaps most important—energy development.  If you like high gas prices, you’ll applaud this listing, because it could stifle oil and gas development.”

Plaintiffs represent a business and consumer coalition

Along with ranchers and landowners, the plaintiffs represented in this lawsuit include CORE, the Congress of Racial Equality, a philanthropic civil rights organization established to fight discrimination and encourage the economic and social independence of the poor and minorities.  CORE’s interest in this case stems from the fact that excessive environmental regulation drives up the cost of energy, housing, transportation, and food, all of which disproportionately harms low-income minorities.

Highlights of the Legal Complaint

The detailed arguments put forward by PLF attorneys are spelled out in the legal complaint and in the letter that PLF submitted to the government in July, to give the required 60-day notice for today’s lawsuit.  Both the complaint and the notice letter are available at PLF’s Web site.  The key arguments that are detailed in those documents include:

• Polar bear populations have been increasing steadily in recent decades, and are currently at the highest levels in recorded history.
• The model that the government considers most credible projects that the number of polar bears within four or five decades will be more than double their number 50 years ago.
• The claim that the polar bear is “threatened” is based on models that the government itself admits are highly uncertain.
• The government admits that the polar bear is already protected by strong laws—and the ESA listing will do nothing to strengthen protection for the polar bear.
• Polar bears have survived atmospheric warming in the past, including periods with higher temperatures than are projected for the coming years.
• Never before has a species that is known to be thriving been placed on an ESA list.

“If a species is to be considered ‘threatened’ or ‘endangered’ when it is far more numerous than in previous decades, then the words ‘threatened’ and ‘endangered’ have lost any useful meaning and the government has abandoned any meaningful standards,” said PLF’s Reed Hopper.

“This lawsuit is necessary to ensure the use of good science and prudent judgment in environmental regulations, and to enforce the rule of law,” said Reed Hopper.  “The regulations that will flow from this listing will hurt jobs, hurt the economy, and hurt all of us who have to fill up our gas tanks.  PLF attorneys have brought this lawsuit as part of our fight against unnecessary and oppressive regulations, and to foster a commonsense, balanced approach to environmental protection.”

About Pacific Legal Foundation