Protecting the Use of Oil Commodities or Polar Bears?

A recent article from the Associate Press titled "Decision on Listing Polar Bear Postponed" got to me this morning.

The article opens by saying that the federal government needs a few more weeks to decide whether not to list polar bears for protection under the Endangered Species Act because of the destruction of their habitat due to global warming/climate change.

The article doesn't state that the USFWS is against listing polar bears, but it admits that even listing polar bears as threatened would "trigger limits on development, particularly oil and gas exploration and production, that could harm the animals." What are your thoughts OT blog?

I believe that protecting animal and plant species under the Endangered Species Act should not be based upon whether or not the result of protection limits our oil commodities or any other type of commodity, development, etc.

We will have to wait and see what their decision is, but because the ESA exists to protect plant and animal species that are under the threat of extinction (endangered or threatened) due to habitat destruction. The protection of endangered and threatened species is important because it preserves biodiversity.

Biodiversity is basically the variability found throughout life on Earth. It allows for adapation to change through genetic diversity. Many ecosystem services are a direct result of biodiversity including medicines. Two examples of medicines from forests are Taxol, a cancer drug from the Pacific Yew, and Quinine, a malaria drug from the cinchona tree. Biodiversity is essential to maintaining life on this planet and getting us safely through the 21st century and beyond. Creating a mutually enhancing relationship between humans and the Earth--and thus protecting biodiversity (and species like polar bears who are important to their ecosystems)--is what Our Task is all about.