Alaska: A New 'Polar-Bear Defense'?

0.cached.png

By Daniel Stone

See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.

When Congress all but dropped the idea of broad, national emissions limits, the fight against global warming appeared to be lost—at least for 2010. But there may be reason for environmentalists to hope. Later this year a federal judge will decide if the protection of polar bears can justify a cap on greenhouse gases—clearing the way for lawsuits nationwide against the country's worst polluters.

This backdoor legal strategy stems from a 2008 Bush administration declaration that labeled the polar bear's habitat "threatened" by global warming—and, at the same time, added a "special rule" excluding that threat from forming the basis of a legal fight against climate-change regulations. Environmental groups sued to have the rule removed, while the oil-dependent state of Alaska sued to strip the polar bear of protected status altogether.

Now a repeal of the special rule could come as early as this spring. And since the Endangered Species Act requires protecting any animal on the list, regardless of what threatens it, legal experts give environmentalists an edge (and expect a wave of challenges in federal court). Alaska's attorney general, Daniel Sullivan, tells Newsweek that regulating business is a "misapplication" of the ESA. The state is already planning an appeal of sorts: last month it approved $1.5 million for a campaign aimed at winning national support for curbing the act's powers. As state Senate aide John Bitney puts it, "We don't have to bear the brunt of this by ourselves."

Read More on U.S.