news

The following is U.S. Rep. Don Young’s (R-Alaska) statement regarding the hearing today by the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming on polar bears and mineral leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf in Alaska.

Young is the Ranking Member on the Natural Resources Committee and the sole representative for the entire State of Alaska.

“I didn’t expect much from Rep. Markey’s hearing and he didn’t disappoint me. This effort to stop all oil and gas activity in the resource-rich sections of Alaska has been a longstanding goal of the Democratic leadership and the extreme environmental organizations.

“What is new is that the Democratic leadership and these organizations are now seeking to use the polar bear as a reason to stop not only oil and gas activity in Alaska, but in virtually every State in the nation. This could be a severe threat to our domestic energy production efforts and national energy security.

"While the stated goal of this hearing was to stop oil and gas production in Alaska, the questioning of Administration witnesses by Democratic Members clearly indicated that the overriding goal was to use the Endangered Species Act as a tool to stop domestic energy production in any and all states.  This is alarming.

"Under questioning, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Director Dale Hall confirmed that if a coal-fired power plant in Arizona were seeking a Federal permit, and if the polar bear is listed under the ESA, then the Fish and Wildlife Service would be required to consult on the permit.  What this means is that under the ESA, the Fish and Wildlife Service would potentially have the power to veto this permit, as well as those for all CO2-emitting power plants in the United States.

"When I voted for the creation of the Endangered Species Act in 1973, I never envisioned that gas and coal plants in the deserts of Arizona could be adversely affected by the listing of polar bears in the Alaskan Arctic.  This is yet another example of how a law with the best of intentions has been subverted by the lawyers for the extreme environmental organizations and the liberal Democratic leadership.

“Another extremely important point is that listing the polar bear under the ESA will do the species little, if any good, even assuming that the petitioners to list the species are correct.  The unfortunate fact is the record of the ESA has been one of failure, and its restrictions are too often so rigid that reasonable science-based conservation plans are generally not allowed to be implemented for the benefit of the species.

Polar Bears Already Protected By Marine Mammal Protection Act

“Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Alaska Congressional Delegation, and countless local and state officials strongly oppose the listing of the polar bear under the ESA.  Using the ESA to ‘protect’ the species is unnecessary.

“The polar bear is already protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which in many cases is much more restrictive than the ESA.  Under the MMPA, industry is required to use and implement protection and mitigation measures for the polar bear.  Existing regulations and authorizations under MMPA that have been issued to oil and gas operators already contain mitigation measures to ensure that any adverse effect on polar bears will be limited strictly to low levels, it will be closely monitored, and reported.  These protections are reviewed at five-year periods, at a maximum, to ensure mitigation measures are updated, as needed.

“In particular, the incidental take provisions of the MMPA ensure that any population-level effects on the species will be negligible and will not have an unmitigable negative effect on the availability of the species for subsistence use by Alaska Natives.”

For more information, access the Committee on Natural Resources’ Minority website at:

http://republicans.resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.shtml

#     #    #