There are a lot of things wrong with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) – including that constitutionally, the power to regulate fish and wildlife lies with the states, not the federal government – but a worrying trend has developed where outputs of predictive climate change models (based on an assumption that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are to blame) are accepted as scientific evidence in official species assessments of conservation status (Cronin 2007a, b, c).
President-elect Donald Trump is on record as dismissing the tenets of the human-caused climate change narrative, including during a Keynote Address he gave at the Heritage Foundation’s Annual Leadership Conference in Florida in 2022 on April 21 [snippet below from X, full transcript here and lecture on Rumble here.]
I suggest that if Trump is serious about supporting science and divesting the US economy of useless expense, he needs to direct his new Secretary of the Interior to delist any species for which climate change models have been used to obtain an ESA listing (including the polar bear, ringed seal, bearded seal, wolverine, and emperor penguin) and disallow any future use of climate change models in ESA assessments for potentially threatened or endangered species (including the Pacific walrus and American pika).
Alternatively, he could go all-out and rescind the ESA altogether as unconstitutional, returning the management of fish and wildlife to US States, with the knowledge that the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 will adequately project polar bears and other Arctic species living within the US state of Alaska, as well as whales and seals that live in temperate US waters.
Note: A version of this essay also appears on my Substack here.
The ESA climate model conundrum started with polar bears
Driven by legal petitions filed by activist conservation groups in 2007 (see lead photo above), polar bears were the first species considered for ESA protection where future habitat changes predicted by climate models were used to conclude that significant population declines would likely occur within the foreseeable future (i.e., three generations). Despite objections from respected scientists, which I address in more detail below, this entirely new approach to designating species at risk of extinction received final approval in 2008 and was subsequently upheld in 2023 (Amstrup et al. 2007; USFWS 2008, 2023).
Once this strategy had been accepted for polar bears and its Arctic sea ice habitat, it was soon applied to other species. Most Arctic ringed seal and bearded seal populations were listed as threatened under the ESA in 2012, despite zero evidence of recent declining numbers. And in 2022, Antarctic emperor penguins were added to this exclusive group, despite evidence of a recent increase in numbers (at the oddity that no population of this species lives within US territory) (Crockford 2023).
This acceptance of predictions of future habitat loss based on climate change models has now expanded beyond polar species. In 2023, the wolverine (shown below) – a terrestrial alpine species which is partially dependent on adequate spring snow cover – was listed as threatened. However, despite decades of intense pressure from litigious special-interest groups like the Center for Biological Diversity, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has rejected – for now – similar petitions to list the American pika and Pacific walrus as threatened (Crockford 2024).
You might be surprised to learn that the US is an outlier regarding its obsession with climate change models.
Other countries and conservation organizations do not share such pessimistic and unscientific views of species survival as supported by the American ESA, which hinge so completely on very uncertain future changes in climate generated by predictive computer models.
For example, the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species has given only the polar bear a similar status rating as the ESA, listing it as ‘Vulnerable’ (first listed as such in 2006, upheld in 2015), based on future climate risks. Perversely, however, the IUCN considers the ringed seal, bearded seal, and American pika to be of ‘Least Concern.’ In contrast to the US, the emperor penguin is listed as ‘Near Threatened (a lower level of concern than ‘Vulnerable’) and the Pacific walrus as ‘Data Deficient’ by the IUCN (Abramov 2016; BirdLife International 2020; Lowry 2016, 2015; Kovacs 2016; Smith and Beever 2016).
Similarly, in Canada, where most of the world’s polar bears live, the polar bear is considered only a species of Special Concern (a level below Threatened), which has been the case since 1991. Canada also does not include any of the other species mentioned above as worthy of extinction concern, except the bearded seal which has been earmarked for possible future attention (COSEWIC 2018).
Most other organizations don’t consider the outputs of climate models to count as scientific evidence
I want to draw attention here to some salient statements made by my colleague, geneticist Dr. Matthew Cronin, in his formal comments to the 2007 proposal to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (Cronin 2007a).
Dr. Cronin stated:
The sweeping federal authority of the ESA is not defined in the Constitution, and fish and wildlife management is properly relegated to the states. I know that courts have allowed the federal government to use the ESA under the interstate commerce clause, which in my opinion is quite contrived. However, polar bears occur in only one state, Alaska, so even this justification is apparently invalid in the case at hand.
…the Proposed Rule under consideration is for a predicted future (not current) status of the polar bear. This species is not currently threatened and has healthy populations. The Endangered Species Act has been extensively applied to groups that are not species, and now to a group that is not endangered.
Dr. Cronin followed up this comment with a reviews of the nine reports produced by the USGS on polar bears in September 2007 (Cronin 2007b; see also Cronin 2007c), which were generated in response to inadequacies in the original petition: “USGS science strategy to support U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service polar bear listing decision.”
He stated:
Consider the precedent established if the USGS reports are used to support the declaration of a species as threatened with extinction based on predictive modeling. There is no limit to the number of species, subspecies, and distinct population segments (DPS) that can be subjected to climate or other models and predicted to be threatened in the future. There will no longer be a scientific standard for empirical data and information, only predictions derived from models. The potential for new ESA listing petitions to expand greatly is apparent. Previously, the use of subjectively-defined subspecies and DPS made the number of potential ESA candidates essentially limitless.
If predictive scenarios of threats of extinction are allowed, as with the polar bears, findings of threatened or endangered status will also be limitless. This warrants reflection on the proper role of the federal government in what is traditionally state jurisdiction of resource management. It seems more appropriate for the federal government to deal with climate change as an issue by itself (basically an air pollution issue), and not allow proliferation of ESA cases to astronomical levels.
Cronin’s concern back in 2007—that findings of threatened status based on predictive modelling would increase if allowed for the polar bear—were clearly warranted.
As mentioned above, since the ESA listing of the polar bear, four other species or subspecies have been listed as threatened based on climate models, with activists pressing hard for the addition of at least two others.
Some people think the ESA should have even more power than it has now and should be used to impose even more restrictions.
In 2023, an opinion paper was published that got rather wide media attention (Amstrup and Bitz 2023). Timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the ESA, it was an appeal by two people invested in the Threatened species status of polar bears, especially former USGS biologist Steven Amstrup, to use the ESA to regulate “greenhouse gas emissions,” using a speculative polar bear survival model as bait.
In the University of Washington press release promoting this opinion piece, co-author and climate modeller Cecilia Bitz stated:
“I hope the U.S. government fulfills its legal obligation to protect polar bears by limiting greenhouse gas emissions from human activity. I hope investments are made into fossil fuel alternatives that exist today, and to discover new technologies that avoid greenhouse gas emissions.”
Another strong promoter of the ESA’s use of climate models is the Center for Biological Diversity is a powerful activist organization filled to the rafters with lawyers that almost constantly files legal petitions and motions over ESA listings. Here’s what they have to say on their website about the politics of the ESA:
Meanwhile the Endangered Species Act periodically comes under heavy fire from industry-backed interests in Washington, where — according to the ebb and flow of lobbying influence in Congress and the White House — politicians are pressured to deauthorize or substantially weaken the Act. This happens most often in obscure, backdoor ways driven by vested interests, since the Act enjoys widespread popular support and is therefore difficult to attack directly.
Note that the appeals from myself and Dr. Cronin, among other, to defang the ESA and focus on established science are not “industry-backed” positions: they come from respected scientists who, after much thought and research, have concluded that the ESA has significant scientific short-comings. It doesn’t take an economist to see that these failures are costing US taxpayers a lot of money they can ill-afford to waste.
Here’s what we know: Field work by polar bear researchers has shown that despite continued low Arctic sea ice cover in summer since 2007, polar bear numbers have not taken the catastrophic nose-dive that was predicted to happen based on climate change models (Crockford 2017, 2019; Crockford and Geist 2018). Most people have already realized they were sold a false narrative on polar bears—otherwise, we’d be knee-deep in carcasses by now and hoards of starving polar bears would be roaming the Arctic every summer—which means it should not be difficult to convince voters that climate models don’t belong in ESA assessments.
I realize there are many items on the agenda of the new Trump government but if it’s serious about supporting science, reducing unnecessary spending, and simplifying government regulations, it needs to get predictive climate change models out of ESA assessments or eliminate the ESA altogether.
References
Abramov, A.V. 2016. Gulo gulo. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T9561A45198537. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T9561A45198537.en. Accessed on 01 January 2025. [Status: Least Concern]
Amstrup, S.C., Marcot, B.G. and Douglas, D.C. (2007). Forecasting the rangewide status of polar bears at selected times in the 21st century. Administrative Report, US Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia. Pdf here
Amstrup, S.C. and Bitz, C.M. (2023). Unlock the Endangered Species Act to address GHG emissions. [a ‘Policy Forum’ paper, not peer reviewed] Science 381(6661), 949–951. pdf here.
BirdLife International. 2020. Aptenodytes forsteri. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T22697752A157658053. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-3.RLTS.T22697752A157658053.en. Accessed on 01 January 2025. [Status: Near Threatened, i.e., a step below Vulnerable but above Least Concern]
COSEWIC. 2018. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Polar Bear Ursus maritimus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. [Status: Special Concern] see also https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/species-risk-public-registry/publications/canadian-wildlife-species-risk-2023.html
Crockford, S.J. (2017). Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus). PeerJ Preprints 19 January 2017. Open access. https://peerj.com/preprints/2737/
Crockford, S.J. (2019). The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened. Global Warming Policy Foundation, London. Available in paperback and ebook formats.
Crockford, S.J. and Geist, V. (2018). Conservation Fiasco. Range Magazine, Winter 2017/2018, 26–27. Pdf here.
Crockford, S.J. (2023). The Polar Wildlife Report. Global Warming Policy Foundation Briefing Paper No. 63, February 26. https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2023/02/Crockford-Polar-Wildlife-2022.pdf
Crockford, S.J. (2024). Resilient Wilds: Unmasking the Surprising Adaptability of U.S. Ecosystems to Climate Change. Heritage Foundation Special Report 294, October 1. https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/resilient-wilds-unmasking-the-surprising-adaptability-us-ecosystems-climate
Cronin, M.A. (2007). Official comment on Federal Register 12-Month petition finding and proposed rule to list the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) as threatened throughout its range. Federal Register January 9, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 5, pages 1064-1099. April 8, 2007. pdf here.
Cronin, M.A. (2007b). Comments on U.S. Geological Survey reports (USGS science strategy to support U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service polar bear listing decision) on polar bears in support of the ESA listing issue, October 21, 2007. pdf here.
Cronin, M.A. (2007c). EIEIO: Old Macdonald would have known how to fix the Endangered Species Act. Range Magazine, Spring issue, 24-25. pdf here.
Lowry, L. 2015. Odobenus rosmarus ssp. divergens. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T61963499A45228901. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T61963499A45228901.en. Assessed 30 September 2014, Accessed on 01 January 2025. [Status: Data Deficient]
Lowry, L. 2016. Pusa hispida. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T41672A45231341. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T41672A45231341.en. Accessed on 01 January 2025. [Status: Least Concern]
Kovacs, K.M. 2016. Erignathus barbatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T8010A45225428. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T8010A45225428.en. Accessed on 01 January 2025. [Status: Least Concern]
US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2008). Determination of threatened status for the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) throughout its range. Federal Register 73, 28212-28303.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2023). Species Status Assessment for the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus). Version 1.0, 18 August 2023. Anchorage, Alaska.
polarbearscience 
You must be logged in to post a comment.