Polar bear "special rule" remains; trend toward climate change "regulation by litigation" likely to follow suit
"The Endangered Species Act is not the proper tool to deal with a global issue - global warming," said Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar on May 8, in announcing that the administration would retain the Bush era “special rule” under section 4(d) of the ESA, aimed at protecting the polar bear. Despite Salazar’s proclamation, however, environmental advocates are increasingly predicating climate change-based lawsuits on the ESA. Lawsuits seeking protection for specific animals, such as the Pika and the Alaskan Kittlitz’s Murrelet, focus on the indirect effects of global warming on those animals. Other lawsuits use the ESA as a platform to advocate against climate change on a much more general level. The ESA lawsuits are part of a larger trend toward “regulation by litigation,” in which environmental advocates have sought to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through lawsuits based on a host of US laws, such as the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, the Clean Air Act, the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”), and the Mineral Leasing Act (“MLA”).
The latest round of lawsuits may stem from the continuation of the polar bear exception, also known as the “Alaska Gap.” While the special rule aims to protect the polar bear, it applies only to activities in Alaska, and exempts the “incidental” effects of activities outside the state. Salazar had authority to revoke the rule until May 10, under the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 . Salazar’s announcement came despite a large campaign against the rule. More than 1300 scientists, 53 law professors, 8 senators, U.S. representatives, California legislators, and Conservation organizations wrote letters to Salazar beseeching him to abandon the special rule. Now that he refused to use his authority to revoke the rule, environmentalists such as the Center for Biological Diversity have hailed Mr. Salazar’s decision “a gift to big oil.”
There has been considerable debate over the actual effects of global warming on the polar bear. Notably, the polar bears are already protected by protected by Title V of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and international treaties such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The budget for Fiscal Year 2010 increases the funding for polar bear conservation efforts.
In a Missouri town hall meeting in late April, President Obama declared that the way to save the earth and the polar bears was to change things in “a smart, gradual way.” However gradual the Administration’s plan is, it is certain that the courts will be dealing with many attempts at regulation by litigation in the meantime.
Antelope Creek tar sands oil project challenged by environmental groups
The Sierra Club and the Indigenous Environmental Network have filed a complaint in a Utah federal court alleging that the proposed Antelope Creek tar sands oil project will disrupt wildlife, poison and dry up rivers, and harm human health with hazardous air pollutants – including greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the complaint states that the Department of the Interior and other defendants violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by failing to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and failing to allow for public participation in the agency’s decision. The complaint alleges that the project anticipates the construction of 288 closely spaced new oil wells and will employ experimental thermal recovery methods. According to the Sierra Club, greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands production are three times those of conventional oil and gas production.
According to the complaint, approval of the Antelope Creek project was based on an Environmental Assessment (EA) conducted in 2003. The complaint states that NEPA requires the preparation of a more comprehensive EIS, and that an EA can only be relied upon if the proposed action will not significantly impact the environment. The plaintiffs allege that the EA prepared for the Antelope Creek project was not sufficient because, inter alia, it “failed to even attempt to characterize or address greenhouse gas emissions from the specific processes Petroglyph proposes to employ.”
An executive at Petroglyph Energy, the company proposing the Antelope Creek project, has issued a statement questioning the basis for the lawsuit. According to Petroglyph Energy executive vice president Paul Powell, “Petroglyph has not been approved for any permits to expand drilling in the area. No action has been initiated, and none is planned to take place. So, the lawsuit doesn’t make sense.” The Bureau of Land Management has not issued any permits to Petroglyph related to the project. According to Powell, “the proposed project was stopped when the permits were not approved.”
The Bureau of Land Management has jurisdiction over roughly 60% of the land at issue, while the rest of the land is administered under tribal authority. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is a named defendant in the complaint along with the Department of the Interior. Both are alleged to have violated NEPA by approving the project and issuing related permits.
Tar sands development has been largely concentrated in Canada to date, and is becoming one of the largest single emitters of greenhouse gases. Sierra Club estimates that tar sand production could increase greenhouse gases in the United States from 27 to 126 million tons by 2015.
