To add the polar bear to the endangered species list or not to add the polar bear to the endangered species list?   That is the question.  


Rob Bluey has a great article over at Townhall.com looking at the consequences of listing the polar bear on U.S. energy policy.  The results aren’t pretty:



Listing the polar bear as a threatened species would be a devastating blow for U.S. energy exploration and a boon to global-warming alarmists.


The classification would open the door for environmentalists to challenge any new forms of energy production — including oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) or new power plants and factories that emit fossil fuels. It also would jeopardize a highly promising arrangement in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea, which contains an estimated 15 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.


Now is not the time to cut back on domestic oil production. With gas prices soaring to nearly $4 per gallon in some parts of the country, there’s hardly been a better time to embark on energy exploration in the United States to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.


“Alaska is America’s last best frontier for domestic oil and natural gas,” Ben Lieberman of The Heritage Foundation said in arguing against the polar bear’s listing. “Closing off these potential resources would add to energy prices for decades to come and increase reliance on imports.”


But what about those cute polar bears, you ask.  Turns out, they are doing quite well:


…environmentalists conveniently ignore the facts about the bears’ growing populations in Alaska, Canada, Russia and other countries. According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, between 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears live around the world today, up significantly from the 8,000 to 10,000 in the 1960s. The alarmist views about global warming clearly don’t jive with the facts.


More here.