U S declares Polar Bear endangered

[philip]

So what does a polar bear have to do with a car website.

Well the Bush administration has now ruled that the polar bear is endangered and is now subject to all the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Earlier the Supreme Court ruled that the naturally occuring gas which most humans exhale is a pollutant and can be controlled by the Environmental Protection Agency.

You see the polar bear hunts seals for a living. The seals are really fast everywhere but on polar ice.(flippers are slippery on ice) Polar bears are slow except they can really move on ice with their claws. So if the ice is reduced they dont catch the seals as well.

Carbon Dioxide causes global warming per the Supremes which melts polar ice which causes polar bears to miss out on some meals.

Therefore all the pieces are now in place for your current car to be illegal to operate in the U S A.

[HeilSvenska]

That's why we need them in our zoos?

[79TA]

Knut? Ugh, global warming hype . . . has the Polar bear population really decreased that much?

[RC45]

Originally Posted by 79TA Knut? Ugh, global warming hype . . . has the Polar bear population really decreased that much?

No - the popuation has INCREASED from 5,000 to 25,000 in the last number of decades I believe.

Philip has hit the nail on the head.

ANYTHING can now be declared illegal - pay attention ANY ACTIVITY if it can be viewed as threatening a protected species.

ANYTHING.

If it can be shown that gun shots are contributing to global warming, firing a weapon in Texas could be deemed illegal as it endangers polar bears.

Yet this decision will not slow China from opening a new coal/oil powered power station every other week.

We are going to destroy our way of life protecting a big fuzzy bear, while the developing nations will rush to the head of the global economy eating polar bear steaks and swigging back $10,000 bottles of champaigne from the back seats of their gas guzzling polluting Maybachs.

This is a sad day for the west

[HeilSvenska]

Originally Posted by RC45 ANYTHING can now be declared illegal - pay attention ANY ACTIVITY if it can be viewed as threatening a protected species. ANYTHING. If it can be shown that gun shots are contributing to global warming, firing a weapon in Texas could be deemed illegal as it endangers polar bears.

It all comes down to that the human existance itself is global warming and a threat to all the species. Except the poor starving children in Africa, that is.

[79TA]

Originally Posted by RC45 No - the popuation has INCREASED from 5,000 to 25,000 in the last number of decades I believe. Philip has hit the nail on the head. ANYTHING can now be declared illegal - pay attention ANY ACTIVITY if it can be viewed as threatening a protected species. ANYTHING. If it can be shown that gun shots are contributing to global warming, firing a weapon in Texas could be deemed illegal as it endangers polar bears. Yet this decision will not slow China from opening a new coal/oil powered power station every other week. We are going to destroy our way of life protecting a big fuzzy bear, while the developing nations will rush to the head of the global economy eating polar bear steaks and swigging back $10,000 bottles of champaigne from the back seats of their gas guzzling polluting Maybachs. This is a sad day for the west

But they'll be hybrid Maybach's by then so they won't have to feel guilty about it, right? Strapping electric motors, regenerative brakes, and nickel hydride batteries is the answer to everything!


Ugh, I'm getting so sick of explaining to people how hybrids are nothing but a temporary band aid solution to gas mileage.

[RC45]

Originally Posted by 79TA But they'll be hybrid Maybach's by then so they won't have to feel guilty about it, right? Strapping electric motors, regenerative brakes, and nickel hydride batteries is the answer to everything! Ugh, I'm getting so sick of explaining to people how hybrids are nothing but a temporary band aid solution to gas mileage.

Actually I do not believe the Chinese elite will drive anything except gas guzzling western status symbols...

And when you say "by then" I hope you don't think the shift of balance o fpower will take decades to happen?

I believe it will happen quickly and decisevely - within 7 to 10 years.

Rome is burning and everyone is sitting in the circus maximus oblivious to the coming fall

[HeilSvenska]

Originally Posted by RC45 Rome is burning and everyone is sitting in the circus maximus oblivious to the coming fall

These words will come back to haunt you when you're bowing down to your Chinese overlords.

Then we'll have Panda Bear preserves in Alaska when all the glaciers have melted away.

[nthfinity]

Originally Posted by HeilSvenska These words will come back to haunt you when you're bowing down to your Chinese overlords. Then we'll have Panda Bear preserves in Alaska when all the glaciers have melted away.

I sure hope we have tremendous global warming like they predict... the last time a 5 degree C warm period the earth had saw economic, social, and scientific booms like the world had not seen (since maybe the previous warm period)... where even the "3rd" world has plenty of supplies etc.

[Mattk]

If the Supreme Court decision you're referring to is Massachusetts v EPA last year, I'd view that narrowly as being confined to the regulation of motor vehicles. The effect of that decision was to invalidate an executive decision by the EPA to not regulate motor vehicles as they did not believe they had the statutory power to do so. They did, and their discretion was therefore wrongly exercised. They would now have to find another way to refuse to regulate motor vehicles. I think they're succeeding.

It was also a 5-4 majority decision, meaning that I wouldn't be surprised if it were distinguished or overturned in a future decision.

The decision by the Department of the Interior to declare polar bears as threatened seems not to hinge on Massachusetts v EPA. In fact, I would not consider that case an authority that carbon dioxide is linked to global warming. Again, I would interpret it narrowly and say that it merely held that the EPA was wrong to say that motor vehicle emissions, carbon dioxide among them, were not linked to global warming. The Dept made the decision on the basis of computer modelling by the UN's Climate Change group, which is disputed.

This gives clear cause of action for a writ of certiorari on the basis that the Dept took into account irrelevant considerations. If it can be proved that the computer modelling is rubbish, and that the Dept gave substantial weight to it in making that decision (which it appears they did), the decision will be a nullity. Alternatively, the Secretary for Defence can issue exemptions on the basis of national security. All jurisprudence suggests that courts look favourably upon decision-makers whenever they make a decision for reasons of national security. As long as it is properly considered, there is no recourse.

In any case, I don't think cars will be threatened any time soon.

[RC45]

Originally Posted by Mattk If the Supreme Court decision you're referring to is Massachusetts v EPA last year, I'd view that narrowly as being confined to the regulation of motor vehicles. The effect of that decision was to invalidate an executive decision by the EPA to not regulate motor vehicles as they did not believe they had the statutory power to do so. They did, and their discretion was therefore wrongly exercised. They would now have to find another way to refuse to regulate motor vehicles. I think they're succeeding. It was also a 5-4 majority decision, meaning that I wouldn't be surprised if it were distinguished or overturned in a future decision. The decision by the Department of the Interior to declare polar bears as threatened seems not to hinge on Massachusetts v EPA. In fact, I would not consider that case an authority that carbon dioxide is linked to global warming. Again, I would interpret it narrowly and say that it merely held that the EPA was wrong to say that motor vehicle emissions, carbon dioxide among them, were not linked to global warming. The Dept made the decision on the basis of computer modelling by the UN's Climate Change group, which is disputed. This gives clear cause of action for a writ of certiorari on the basis that the Dept took into account irrelevant considerations. If it can be proved that the computer modelling is rubbish, and that the Dept gave substantial weight to it in making that decision (which it appears they did), the decision will be a nullity. Alternatively, the Secretary for Defence can issue exemptions on the basis of national security. All jurisprudence suggests that courts look favourably upon decision-makers whenever they make a decision for reasons of national security. As long as it is properly considered, there is no recourse. In any case, I don't think cars will be threatened any time soon.

I do believe you are idealisticly and naively overlooking the not so hidden agenda of the pro-global warming monster in the US.



The entire logging industry was almost destroyed by an obessive effort to protect an owl species. Getting he polar bear protected status is huge.

Enjoy this prosperous western lifestyle while you still can

[79TA]

Originally Posted by RC45 I do believe you are idealisticly and naively overlooking the not so hidden agenda of the pro-global warming monster in the US. The entire logging industry was almost destroyed by an obessive effort to protect an owl species. Getting he polar bear protected status is huge. Enjoy this prosperous western lifestyle while you still can

Maybe we should put this in the conspiracy theory section, hehe.

Mattk wrote a nice sensible little piece, but I wouldn't put it past various "environmental" forces to try such things. Former CA state treasurer Bill, typical Democrat looking for attention from "green" voters, Lockyer already tried sueing all the major automakers for their roles in polluting California and contributing to global warming . . . thankfully that didn't pan out for them so there's some sanity left in the world.

[RC45]

Originally Posted by 79TA Maybe we should put this in the conspiracy theory section, hehe. Mattk wrote a nice sensible little piece, but I wouldn't put it past various "environmental" forces to try such things. Former CA state treasurer Bill, typical Democrat looking for attention from "green" voters, Lockyer already tried sueing all the major automakers for their roles in polluting California and contributing to global warming . . . thankfully that didn't pan out for them so there's some sanity left in the world.

Didnt San Francisco just outlaw shopping bags?

I don't think folks realise just how over the top these cuckoo camps can be hehe

[Mattk]

I've been involved in both student and real-world politics so I know it can get a bit dirty. But I like to operate in facts, and as it stands, there's not too much to be worried about if we look at this decision alone. However, I feel that the expansion of 'green politics' is worrying, and it seems politicians often just want to out-green and out-environmentalist each other. I once volunteered for the former Minister for the Environment and I can assure you his office was not carbon-neutral or really all that environmentally-friendly in general, despite his letters being printed on recycled paper. It's all a facade. The facade sometimes means you get outrageous things like suing car manufacturers (which the Minister didn't do - his policies were actually fairly sensible and not all that radical at all).

[philip]

Originally Posted by Mattk I've been involved in both student and real-world politics so I know it can get a bit dirty. But I like to operate in facts, and as it stands, there's not too much to be worried about if we look at this decision alone. However, I feel that the expansion of 'green politics' is worrying, and it seems politicians often just want to out-green and out-environmentalist each other. I once volunteered for the former Minister for the Environment and I can assure you his office was not carbon-neutral or really all that environmentally-friendly in general, despite his letters being printed on recycled paper. It's all a facade. The facade sometimes means you get outrageous things like suing car manufacturers (which the Minister didn't do - his policies were actually fairly sensible and not all that radical at all).

Your essay was very well crafted, but I tend favor the consperacy view that the government is out to take our toys away. Polar Bears are not endangerd, CO2 is not a pollutant. So when the government says they are, I look for alternative reasons for their actions.