One petition by environmentalists, two lawsuits, and three years later, the Bush administration finally announced last week that it would list the polar bear under the federal Endangered Species Act. Eco-advocates were understandably joyful at this watershed decision, which Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne based on findings by government scientists, the most alarming of which is that Arctic summer sea ice has declined by close to 40 percent since 1979. The future of this crucial polar bear habitat is not any icier; computer models predict similar sharp declines over the next 45 years.

But even as Mr. Kempthorne acknowledged that the Arctic predator is soon to be in danger of extinction in the wild, he threw a curve ball.  The Secretary issued a special ruling -- called a "guidance" -- stating that polar bear's new status would not lead to controls and reductions of greenhouse-gas emissions, the leading cause of the climactic changes that are melting the Arctic's summer ice cap.

"The most significant part of today's decision is what President Bush observed about climate change policy last month," said Mr. Kempthorne at last week's press conference. "President Bush noted that 'The Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate global climate change.'"

Much as it did with the Clean Air Act and greenhouse gas emissions, the Bush administration is attempting to apply a narrow view of what is legally required under federal law regarding action on global warming. "Listing the polar bear as threatened ... should not open the door to use the E.S.A. to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, power plants and other sources," said Mr. Kempthorne. "That would be a wholly inappropriate use of the Endangered Species Act. E.S.A. is not the right tool to set U.S. climate policy."

Further, despite the polar bear's new "threatened" status, gas and oil drilling operations near bear territory will not be restricted, said the secretary -- not only are they not the source of threats to the bear, he stated, but their potential impact on them is already regulated under the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

Andrew Wetzler, director of the Endangered Species Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council, terms Mr. Kempthorne's interpretation of the law "disingenous." "The E.S.A, like every other environmental statute in the United States, was not written with particular pollutants in mind." Federal environmental statutes "are designed to be generic regulatory structures that are flexible enough to address different problems," he says, "and the Endangered Species Act is no different."

Wexler says his group -- one of three that filed the original petition three years ago to protect the polar bear -- will probably be taking legal action. "We're going to have to challenge the attempt to essentially to refuse to deal with global warming solutions through the Endangered Species Act."

I've avoided it for 24 years, thanks to living in big cities, but now that I'm moving back to Connecticut, I can no longer deny it - I need to buy a car. Unfortunately, cars are not like houses, which you earn equity on. The moment you drive a brand new car off the lot, it starts to depreciate in value drastically. Of course, we can't forget the eco-implications of having a car: oil changes, burning fossil fuels, buying something that is mass produced … etc. Thanks to my car-need realization, I began delving into the world of green automobiles last month. You know what I found? Numerous choices, most of them out of my price range. Add on the choice of what type of eco-car to buy (gas hybrid, electric hybrid, ethanol-ready, biodiesel-ready … etc) and you've got one frustrated consumer. If I had the opportunity, I'd save for the new Chevrolet Volt, which is scheduled to be released in 2 years. Reality check: That is 2 years from now. I need a car in 3 months. So, back to the drawing board - and to the Yahoo! Autos Green Center. Those little Smart cars are adorable - I could pick one of those up in NYC after I get back to the East Coast. Reality check: Those suckers are small! For just a bit more, I could get a brand new Prius. I doubt a Smart car would handle the Connecticut winters very well either. Having a Toyota Prius Hybrid or a Honda Civic Hybrid would be a joy! Reality check: they both start around $23,000 for a 2008 model. Then it hit me … used cars. Duh! While buying a used car can be a stressful process (if you work with an obnoxious used car dealer), it will cost you much less and save from having to use fresh resources to build a new car. Yes, there is the undeniable issue of fuel efficiency, but there are a number of ways to improve that. If you are willing to make an investment, you can buy a kit to turn you current vehicle into a hybrid (or pay someone to do it for you). You can also shop around, and compare MPG's of used cars- be sure to check the engine type and any options packages (sports options can make a fuel-efficient car into a bit of a guzzler) against published reports. Some smaller cars can have very good fuel economy, even it they aren't hybrids (the Honda Fit is an example).

Read More »

I'm a knowledge dork. I fully admit it. Books, magazines, newspapers - you name it, I like to read it. Every month, I pick up an issue of a magazine I've never read just to experience something new. Unfortunately, there's a drawback to all this info-seeking. Paper - and lots of it! A 2008 report compiled by The Book Industry Study Group and The Green Press Initiative reveled that book industry alone used 1.6 million metric tons of paper in 2006, only 5 percent of which was from post-consumer recycled waste. So where does the paper come from? Local and international forests, many of which are endangered. What's a reader to do!? A little digging online and I've found some great alternatives to always buying new books and magazines. Check out these sources for some sustainable reading material:

Read More »