Jason Hayes, Communications Director, American Coal Council

The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him. (Proverbs 18:17 - NKJV)

Even the lazy and uninterested will have found it hard to miss the recent flood of interest in polar bears. The public has been treated to expensive marketing campaigns and flooded with pictures of polar bears that were allegedly “stranded” on dwindling ice flows (it turned out they were just frolicking on an ice formation). We've also heard stories about climate change and have been informed that our consumptive habits will cause populations of this majestic species to crash. All of those stories were recently capped off by the media fanfare that accompanied Secretary of the Interior, Dirk Kempthorne's decision to list the polar bear as a “threatened species” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Kempthorne's decision was followed by a great deal of activity on both sides of the issue. Environmental groups lauded the move, asserting that someone had finally “listened to the science.” Industry, politicians, think tanks, and energy analysts argued that the listing was based in political expediency and had little to do with science. They noted that the Secretary had wisely attempted to limit economic and social disruptions by restricting the wording of the listing and striving to allow continued energy development. However, those experts predicted that environmental groups would view this limitation on the listing as a springboard to start a long and expensive legal campaign. It was suggested that they would use polar bears as a wedge to break open energy and climate policy development.

As if on cue, environmental groups turned on Kempthorne, attacking him for not going far enough in the listing decision. They criticized his limitations on the scope of the ruling and began plans for a massive coordinated legal attack against those provisions in the listing that were meant to protect energy production, industrial developments, and job creation.

Lost in all the discussion and grandstanding, however, was the fact that no one had seriously reviewed the scientific basis for the decision. “Nine studies” were regularly referred to as the foundation for the science that drove the listing. However, as has been the habit in the climate change debate, words like “consensus” and phrases like “they listened to the science” were thrown out and debate appeared to cease.

Few – if any – dare to question the received wisdom on issues of climate. The story is told over and over again. Humans are releasing CO₂ into the atmosphere. As a result, the climate is warming; we're nearing a so-called tipping point, and potentially catastrophic outcomes are imminent. The next logical step in this progression is that computer models show Arctic ice disappearing in the near future and polar bears that rely on harp seals and Arctic ice for their continued hunting success will see their populations plummet. It's all straightforward and simple. The Secretary “accepted the science” and there's nothing more to discuss.

Or is there?

The Decision

Secretary Kempthorne noted in his May 14^th announcement that he was “compelled” by ESA-driven legal standards to list the polar bear as threatened. According to the nine studies that had been delivered to the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) in September 2007, computer modeling determined that Arctic sea ice would drastically recede over the next several decades.

Polar bears rely on a mix of multi-year and seasonal ice for both their habitat and hunting requirements. Fish and Wildlife scientists reported that with expectations of receding ice, habitat conditions would be impacted and hunting opportunities for polar bears would wane. Survival rates were, therefore, predicted to decrease rapidly and currently strong and stable (or growing) population trends for polar bears were expected to reverse and “significantly decline.” Declines would cause populations to reach endangered status by 2050. Secretary Kempthorne argued that these factors “compelled” him to move forward with the listing.

As a caveat to his ESA listing for the bears, Kempthorne noted that current state of climate science does not allow us to accurately determine the direct impacts of any one power plant or oil well on individual polar bears. Therefore, he proposed a “4(d)” rule as part of the listing. This meant that if an activity was permissible under the stricter guidelines of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, it would also be permissible under the ESA (with respect to the polar bear).

The Reaction

Many in the media and environmental groups around the world heaved a collective sigh of relief as they heard about the listing. Switzerland-base, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) biologist, Sue Lieberman was quoted as saying, Kempthorne had “listened to the science.” WWF-US CEO, Carter Roberts claimed the listing as a “tremendous victory” for polar bears and “sound science.”

Many saw the other side of the listing and argued that it would be the first move in an increasingly complex and expensive legal battle for every proposal to develop or use an energy resource. Adding those new delays and legal costs would inevitably add to our already burgeoning energy bills. American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow, Kevin Hasset confidently asserted that “within a year or two, we can expect the polar bear to begin influencing everyday U.S. economic life. Lawyer and talk-radio host, Hugh Hewitt noted that soon “environmental activists will argue that all emissions of greenhouse gases that flow as a consequence of the grant of a federal permit of any sort are now subject to review under the ESA and, crucially, that those permits cannot be issued unless and until the United States Fish & Wildlife Service reviews and approves of the requested permit.”

Their comments mirrored the concerns expressed by President Bush in his April 16^th Rose Garden review of his administration’s climate change policy plans. In his comments, the President pointedly criticized legal efforts to extend environmental legislation – like the ESA, the Clean Air Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) – beyond its intended scope and into the realm of climate change policy. Allowing this, he argued, would override other Congressional authority and radically expand the role of the federal government, forcing it to intervene in areas constitutionally delegated to the states and local governments.

The environmental movement appeared unconcerned, or possibly even excited, about that possibility. Center for Biological Diversity attorney, Kassie Siegel argued that Kempthorne's section 4(d) rule that would allow continued development of energy resources and, by extension, greenhouse gas emissions, was “illegal and won't hold up in court.” Jamie Rappaport Clark, former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Clinton administration (now with Defenders of Wildlife) stated, “They're trying to make this a threatened listing in name only with no change in today's impacts, and that's not going to fly.”

Regardless of where one stood in the spectrum of supporting or opposing the listing, they all appear to agree that the legal battles associated with energy development are just getting started. By simply mounting the legal campaign, the preservationists will ensure that energy supplies are difficult to access and energy costs will continue to rise. To the extent that they are successful in their legal actions, they will ensure that we continue to rely on foreign energy sources, rather than developing secure, domestic resources.

The Science

While there was a great deal of discussion over the economic and social outcomes of listing polar bears under the ESA, the only apparent discussion of the science was that it was settled and that it proved bear populations would soon take a nosedive.

There was, however, one intrepid group of researchers that stepped out of the crowd and did their homework.

In a draft version of their paper “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy forecasting Audit,” a group of scientists reviewed the “nine studies” that were held up as proof of the need to list polar bears as threatened. Their findings were surprising. Additionally, their findings were sufficiently robust to pass peer-review and have been accepted for publication in the management science journal Interfaces.

However, their findings do not support the listing and, in fact, reveal serious flaws in the forecasts and models used in the research. Focusing on the two primary studies used to justify the polar bear listing, the audit team, made up of Scott Armstrong (University of Pennsylvania), Kesten Green (Business and Economic Forecasting, Monash University), and Willie Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), found that both papers falsely assumed general circulation models (GCMs) provide accurate forecasts of regional summer sea ice levels. If the GCMs on which these two reports based their findings exhibit flaws, both reports would be equally flawed.

Armstrong, Green, and Soon showed that research has previously questioned GCM modeling forecasts and that “the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects on climate of additional atmospheric carbon dioxide.” They even quote a lead author of the IPCCs most recent work, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), as stating that the IPCC does not engage in forecasting.

... there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.

Kevin Trenberth, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Moving forward, they continued the audit process pretending – for the purpose of argument – that the underlying assumptions marring the research were actually valid. Comparing the research with an established set of scientific forecasting principles, the audit authors found numerous contraventions. One example of these contraventions was the requirement that researchers must “make sure forecasts are independent of politics” or any form of organizational bias or pressure. However, both of the USGS research reports stated on the header of each page, “USGS Science Strategy to Support U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Polar Bear Listing Decision.” The page headers appear to show that the decision was made before the papers were submitted for review.

The audit team continued and found many more contraventions of scientific forecasting principles. While some principles did not apply and others were impossible to confirm, due to a lack of information and a refusal on the part of the scientists to cooperate with the audit, a total of 116 forecasting principles applied to the first paper and 105 applied to the second. Of 116, the first paper contravened 99 (they properly applied 17 or 14.7 percent). The second paper contravened 95 of 105 relevant principles (they properly applied 10 or 9.5 percent).

Opinions expressed in the first paper were uncharacteristically – for a scientific paper – slanted toward extremes. The paper's authors chose to rely only on the input of a single expert to predict significant population declines. The authors also moved well beyond the conservative, 17 percent declines, predicted by their model and essentially guessed that “two-thirds of the world's current polar bear population (would be lost) by mid-century.” Additionally this paper ignored the impacts of other ecological variables associated with polar bear survival rates and modeled the bears population dynamics based solely on ice conditions. As the auditors suggested,

On the face of it, the nature and extent of polar bear adaptability seem crucial to any forecasts that assume dramatic changes in the bear's environment.

In the second paper, the auditors found other equally problematic contraventions of basic scientific forecasting principles including, limited options, small sample sizes, a refusal to account for unusual data, and a willingness to ignore conservative model results while focusing on extreme findings.

In that paper, the authors attempted to extrapolate polar bear populations out for 100 years. However, they based those predictions on an unconfirmed data set with only five years of data. As the auditors correctly noted, “It is impossible to estimate a causal relationship in a complex and uncertain situation by using only five data points.” This paper also did not account for the lack of impact on polar bear survival for the years of 1987, 1993, and 1998, all of which had ice-free periods longer than the 135 days reported in 2004-2005. (Those were the years that had initially caused such pronounced concerns amongst the modelers.) Additionally, although published in 2007, this paper did not include ice data for 2006. Interestingly, however, there were 105 ice-free days in 2006, which is “close to the mean of 'good' ice years.” Given the uncertainty surrounding this issue, it would be reasonable to exhibit caution when predicting large changes in population dynamics. However, the researchers chose to focus on worst case scenarios, ignoring the current stability or growing populations around the world and the massive increases in polar bear populations over the past several decades. This paper further exacerbated the established weaknesses in GCMs by attempting to extrapolate general climate forecasts for an area covered by 5 IUCN polar bear management units, to their much smaller, regional study area. It also ignored the possibility of wildlife managers implementing other protective measures such as changed hunting rules as a means of better protecting the bears.

Lastly, the paper's authors did not allow their data to be shared with the public, or with other researchers. A key aspect of robust scientific inquiry is the ability of other, objective scientists to consistently repeat an experiment and come away with similar results; when important data is withheld, that aspect of the scientific method is curtailed.

Conclusion

Much was made of Secretary Kempthorne's decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species. Some were ecstatic over the listing. Others warned that there would be profound unintended economic, social, and environmental consequences. Some threatened to turn the issue into fodder for lawsuits well into the next several decades. But very few stopped to consider whether the basic science underlying the listing decision was sufficiently robust.

As it turns out, when that question was put under the microscope, the answer came back clear. The current crop of papers used to support the listing decision did not hold up under scientific scrutiny.

There is no question that many people have a sincere concern over the well being of the polar bear. However, complex, long-term public policy decisions that are made on emotion and educated guesses are doomed to fail. They will not accomplish their intended purpose because they are attempting to fix a problem that may not exist.

It is certain that the listing of the polar bear will bring about an extended legal battle and could potentially cost the country, taxpayers, energy producers, energy consumers, and the average citizen multiple millions (billions?) in added costs and delays. It is equally certain that there is not a rock solid scientific foundation for the listing decision. Therefore, it is clearly time for scientists and officials to go back to the drawing board and reconsider both the science and the listing decision in light of this new evidence.

Jason Hayes is Communications Director for the American Coal Council. He has a Masters of Environmental Design (environmental science) degree from the University of Calgary and has co-authored research on grizzly bear biology and population modeling in the Canadian national parks system. Jason can be reached at jason@clean-coal.info.