America’s ongoing hatred of big oil companies may be at an all-time high. Gas prices are rising steadily, hitting record highs and the price of crude oil now easily tops $100 a barrel. Analysts and the media are predicting gas prices to top $4.00 per gallon on average nationwide by summer. To tone that down just a bit, I’ve heard the same kind of predictions the past 10 years and so far none of those predictions lived up to the hype. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t getting hit hard at the pump.

It’s easy to blame oil companies for everything and I suppose to some degree they play a role in the pricing of most of our goods that we buy but is this hateful relationship Americans have for oil doing any good?

Last night on my way home I was listening to talk radio. I listened as one man with animated speech, berating George Bush for having taken no action to thwart the rising oil prices. As a matter of fact he described President Bush as assuming an Alfred E. Newman look while shrugging his shoulders as if to tell the people, “I dunno what to do!”

I did listen to the suggestions made as to what the President could be doing about oil and I did have to agree mostly to what he said. One of the suggestions was that Bush has to take the lead and insist that this country begin drilling for the oil we so snuggly sit upon as we bitch and complain about oil prices.

We’re an odd lot, us Americans. We love to express our anger at big oil because they make billions of dollars - by the minute using some people’s reasoning - yet we refuse to do anything about it. Basic supply and demand mostly controls the prices so wouldn’t it make sense to produce more oil?

That’s probably not going to happen and part of that reason goes back to our hatred of big oil, the Federal Endangered Species Act and our odd desire to swallow every ounce of man made global warming hype being crammed down our throats.

Follow any discussion today about the future of the polar bear and what you will hear is startling in more ways than one. It’s frightening to listen to what people have chosen to believe about what climate change is doing to the white bear. It’s also scary to listen to those who hate oil companies so much they will spitefully do anything they can to make sure they don’t drill for more oil anywhere - in the world.

Al Gore wants us all to follow him like sheep to the slaughter. He scoffs at any suggestion that there are just as many scientists in this world who can easily disprove his global warming theories as he has them to support it. He may get what he wants but not from anything he has done, directly.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced over a year ago that it would consider placing the polar bear on the “threatened” or “endangered” list of the Endangered Species Act. The basis for listing comes on the assumption that Al Gore is right and climate change or more accurately a continued rise in air and water temperatures over the long haul, will destroy polar bear habitat (melting sea ice) and consequently rid the world of polar bears.

Bruce Woods, a spokesman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was quoted in a recent interview about the polar bear as saying,

“There has to be a direct, scientific line between your gas pipe and this dead bear,” he said. “And frankly, climate science and pollution science aren’t developed to the point to make that kind of connection.”

As I understand it, if the USFWS were to list the polar bear, it would be the first time such an act was taken that didn’t have a scientifically proven direct link to cause and effect. But that might not matter at all.

Huge Hewitt, of Town Hall, thinks that the administering of the Endangered Species Act toward the polar bear might accomplish most everything that Al Gore is trying to do - stop the emissions of anthropogenic (man made) carbon dioxide he says will destroy the bear and humankind.

As I noted a fortnight ago, the listing of the bear is just the first step in an elaborate dance that will result in the imposition of extraordinarily expensive and delay-inducing permitting requirements on any industrial or commercial activity that (1) requires a federal permit of any sort and (2) emits greenhouse gases.

Hewitt is referring to his article he did recently about what effects listing the polar bear will have on the U.S. Economy, etc.

He refers to an article that appeared in the Environmental Law Reporter called, “”Conserving Species in an Era of Global Warming” by the Executive Director of Wildlife Conservation and Global Warming at the National Wildlife Federation, John Kostyack, and Professor Dan Rohlf of the Lewis & Clark Law School. According to Hewitt, this article first talks of the perils of certain species because of global warming but goes further to support Hewitt’s claim that the ESA could play a very important role in how we deal with carbon emissions.

Kostyack and Rohlf first review what they see to be the climate change perils confronting many species, including the polar bear, and then chart how the Federal Endangered Species Act (”FESA”) could be brought to bear upon the issue of global warming via the section of the FESA that compels “consultations” between any part of the federal government proposing to issue a permit that could impact a threatened or endangered species and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Again, this is all important and interesting things to consider but the remaining question still is whether there is a direct scientific link between the theory of global warming and the need to list the polar bear or any other species because of it? I’ve pointed out a few times that it doesn’t much matter what the USFWS decides to do, people have made up their minds already and are demanding that the bear be listed, even if there is no science to support it.

Part of this decision making by the people has to be influenced by their hatred of big oil. Environmentalist are claiming that the reason the feds are dragging their feet on making any announcement on the fate of the bear is so that oil and gas drilling can continue in the regions that would be included as polar bear habitat. The hatred has people only thinking of finding ways to stop oil and gas companies from making money and not thinking about ways to lower the price of fuel at the pump. Makes me wonder what kind of decisions will be made based on hatred rather than science.

The actions of the USFWS pertaining to the listing or not of the polar bear will have substantial consequences. Those who support the global warming theory will show their anger at this current administration and big oil if the feds opt not to list. If the bear is listed, the events that follow could be more devastating than we can surmise at this point.

To set a precedent that a theory will have future affects on wildlife species, could open a door none of us can comprehend.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!