Protecting Polar Bears

Repeat after me: We don't have to settle for just one or the other. We can have a healthy environment and energy development.

Yet, some conservation groups have expressed dismay over last Thursday's decision by the federal government to create critical habitat for polar bears in Alaska. The proposed habitat area covers 200,541 sq. miles including portions of the northern and northwestern coasts, coastal barrier islands as well as coastal spits, sea ice in waters less than about 1,000 feet deep, and denning areas as far as 20 miles inland. Apparently that wasn't enough for some groups who immediately warned that planned oil and natural gas development in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas could be harmful to bears.

It's believed that about 3,500 polar bears inhabit the Beaufort and Chukchi sea areas. Native Alaskans are allowed to hunt them for subsistence. Last year polar bears were listed as "threatened," and conservationist groups sued to force the government to establish a critical habitat for them.

Polar bears have co-existed with oil operations on Alaska's northern coastline for several years, and this relationship can, and should, continue. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has repeatedly acknowledged that human activities in the Arctic currently are not a threat to the polar bear species or its habitat. Furthermore, the twin goals of producing energy and protecting the environment are not mutually exclusive. The United States needs secure supplies of oil and natural gas, and the oil and natural gas industry has proven its ability to protect the environment and the Arctic wildlife while producing energy.

According to an Interior Department spokesperson, the critical habitat proposal will not prohibit scheduled energy development in Alaska's northern environs, but it will add to the polar bear protections that have been in place for many years. Any operations, including those related to oil and natural gas development will be subjected to additional scrutiny to mitigate the threat of polar bear extinction.

Comments

Related

Blog Posts

Generation Next: Securing Tomorrow’s Energy Industry...

Recently, ExxonMobil Development Co.’s L.M. Tillman addressed a gathering at the Offshore Technology Conference on the subject of e...

Blog Posts

The Difference between Extreme and Efficient

There was a time in this country when the only way to access oil was to commission a boat, take it offshore, locate, engage and coa...

Blog Posts

Study: EPA’s Tier III Proposal Would Increase Fuel-Ma...

At a time when just everyone is understandably concerned about fuel prices, EPA apparently didn’t get the memo. Its latest thinking...

Blog Posts

Oil & Gas Development on Federal Lands and Waters

The White House had a post up last week with some numbers on production of oil and natural gas on America’s public lands and offsho...

Blog Posts

Environmental Experts Boost State Regulation of Frackin...

The New York Times’ Joe Nocera has a column based on an interview with Fred Krupp, a key member of the Energy Department’s special...

Blog Posts

Confusing the History on the Keystone XL

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney this week, on the administration’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline: "In terms of...

Blog Posts

‘Poisoned’ Politics, the Keystone XL and the Nation...

New York Times op-ed columnist Joe Nocera’s piece on the “poisoned” politics of the Keystone XL pipeline decision is a must read. B...

Blog Posts

Informing the Keystone XL Decision

With the Keystone XL pipeline back on President Obama’s to-do list, let’s hope he does the right thing and approves this shovel-rea...

Blog Posts

Water and Fracking in Wyoming

We have received lots of questions about the draft EPA report yesterday regarding hydraulic fracturing and groundwater contaminatio...

Blog Posts

Emissions Proposal: Too Much, Too Soon

On EPA's proposal to regulate emissions from oil and natural gas drilling, API's Howard Feldman, director of regulatory and scienti...

Stay Connected