Alaska has notified the federal government that it plans to sue unless they correct or repeal the decision to designate a portion of the Arctic as critical habitat for polar bears faced with the effects of climate change.
Republican Gov. Sean Parnell insists the Obama administration’s habitat designation covering 187,000 square miles will delay jobs and increase costs of resources development projects important to the state.
While Parnell argues that the new habitat designation in the oil-rich Arctic (now we see what he REALLY cares about) could result in hundreds of millions of dollars in lost economic activity and tax revenue for the state, the added protection for the endangered species only requires federal officials to consider whether a proposed action or project would adversely affect the polar bear’s habitat.
This really isn’t a big surprise because according to the attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, which filed a lawsuit to get the animals listed and the critical habitat designated, says Alaska has opposed every Endangered Species Act listing to date.
While the governor argues in protest that “the polar bear is one of the most protected species in the world”, we’d like to argue a little more protection couldn’t hurt.
Do U agree with the Obama administration’s new policy for protecting polar bears or do U think think it will “hurt” Alaska’s economy?
[Image via AP Images.]