Polar bears are now a “threatened species” according to the Interior Department. The Associated Press reports, “This is the first time that the Endangered Species Act has been used to protect a species threatened by the impacts of global warming.”

This is not true. The staghorn and elkhorn coral were the first species to be protected back in 2006. In 2007, the Interior also decided to protect the coral’s habitat. Polar bears come in third.

According to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, two thirds of the polar bear population could disappear in fifty years because of melting sea ice. It is estimated that there are currently 25,000 to 30,000 polar bears in the world, with 15,000 in Canada. That would mean in fifty years, the population would have to drop by 20,000.

That is hard to imagine when you consider that in the last fifty years, the population is estimated to have grown by 20,000 - 25,000. It is hard to imagine when the number one predator of polar bears is man, and there were only 1,000 or so bears harvested last year. It’s hard to imagine when the sea ice that disappeared has returned with a vengeance. It’s hard to imagine when we are being told that global warming is on hold for the next ten to twenty years.

It’s hard to imagine when the bears might actually be overpopulated:

The Inuit have always insisted the bears’ demise was greatly exaggerated by scientists doing projections based on fly-over counts, but their input was usually dismissed as the ramblings of self-interested hunters.

As Nunavut government biologist Mitch Taylor observed in a front-page story in the Nunatsiaq News last month, “the Inuit were right. There aren’t just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears.”

Their widely portrayed lurch toward extinction on a steadily melting ice cap is not supported by bear counts in other Arctic regions either.

What isn’t hard to imagine is what is going to happen next. You can expect lawsuits against energy companies. We covered the Sierra Club’s efforts to prevent the construction of coal-fired plants before. You can expect this decision to bolster their case.

Environmentalists have a history of using the Endangered Species Act to halt industry, even when there is no evidence of danger. The damage is dealt to the industry and the consumer.

In 1973, “University of Tennessee biologist and professor David Etnier discovered the snail darter in the Little Tennessee River” and used it to try to stop the construction of the Tellico Dam. He claimed the construction of the dam would “alter the habitat of the river to the point of extirpating the snail darter.” He claimed the river was the sole environment for the tiny snail darter. It wasn’t. The small fish was found elsewhere and was eventually taken off the endangered species list. Tellico Dam was finished, but not before costing the Tennessee Valley Authority a bunch of money.

The spotted owl caused the cost of lumber to jump higher in 1992 when environmentalists claimed the harvesting of trees would destroy their habitat. As a result, “Harvests of timber in the Pacific Northwest were reduced by 80%, decreasing the supply of lumber and increasing prices.” Thousands of logging jobs have been lost because of the spotted owl, but that is justified by environmentalists, who note that logging jobs were already in decline due to automation.

By the way, the spotted owl population continues to fall to this day.

The most outrageous example of the Endangered Species List halting progress is the case made for an extinct woodpecker. Yes, an extinct woodpecker:

A US federal judge temporarily stopped construction on a $320m (£170m) irrigation project yesterday, saying the work could disturb the habitat of a woodpecker that might or might not be extinct.

The first purported sighting of the ivory-billed woodpecker in the area was in 2004, but more than 100 volunteers and researchers who spent weeks last winter trying to find evidence of its existence came back empty-handed.

District judge William Wilson said that, for purposes of the lawsuit brought by environmental groups, he had to presume the woodpecker existed in the area. Federal agencies might have violated the endangered species act by not studying the habitat fully, he said.

What’s worse is that a tax-payer funded study was done on the project and concluded that “the project would not cause significant damage to the extinct bird’s habitat.”

If you can stop progress with an extinct woodpecker, think what can be done with a fluffy polar bear. It is imaginable that the same groups who attack new construction would go after established power plants, claiming the CO2 emissions are a threat to the latest global warming mascot, which is what this is really about.

As I noted above, the polar bear isn’t the first species to be officially threatened by global warming. But people don’t really care about coral. They aren’t cuddly or cute. They don’t sell soda very well. But polar bears do, and people worldwide go nuts for them. That’s why, despite the facts, global warming alarmists seek to protect the polar bear.

It gives them a lovable prop with which they can further their agenda.  Source