I call BS. “protecting” ANY species in oil rich areas is a LIE to bureaucratically obstruct further resource development, SPECIFICALLY crude oil extraction from
proved deposits.

Global warming nuts have been using the polar bear for years as kind of a mascot of the “dangers” of global warming and how the poor poor polar bears are going to die out blab blah blah. They have been pushing to put the polar bear on the endangered species list for awhile. The main ideas behind this are two fold…

First it would add layers and layers of red tape, government oversight, government control on any polar habitat. If this is done a international push could be then made… and if reasonable successful they can expand all of the above to the UN. By doing this they can then lobby and enforce anti-global warming measures through both. Plus if the UN drive is successful the UN could be given complete control of the north pole and huge powers to stop global warming across the rest of the world.

Second is granting huge amounts of power to eco groups by letting them sue both the government and companies very quickly and successfully… it would also let them demand injunctions on a massive scale so even if they were to lose cases they could delay and cost the companies great deals of money. Also by causing huge delays from injunctions they can hope to get new laws from both the US or from the UN as well as try to put public pressure to what would likely be the evil oil companies or some other evil group that they don’t like and very effectively beat them with the public stick.

The problems come amass in how stupid it is. First the polar bear has been around for at least 10k years… which means even if global warming is real its pretty much zero threat because during the medieval warming period the polar bears lived and that was much warmer then the IPCC and even many of the most crazied global warming nuts predict the temps will reach for at least 100-200 years.
So even at global warming’s worse the polar bear via history shouldn’t be heavily effected. Add in that polar bears are at the highest recorded pop since pretty much they started tracking their numbers and are expected to either be stable or keep growing.

Its a cheap and dishonest tactic to try to give the government/s more control over the ppl in the name of eco-fascism.

Global warming nuts have been using the polar bear for years as kind of a mascot of the “dangers” of global warming and how the poor poor polar bears are going to die out blab blah blah. They have been pushing to put the polar bear on the endangered species list for awhile. The main ideas behind this are two fold…

First it would add layers and layers of red tape, government oversight, government control on any polar habitat. If this is done a international push could be then made… and if reasonable successful they can expand all of the above to the UN. By doing this they can then lobby and enforce anti-global warming measures through both. Plus if the UN drive is successful the UN could be given complete control of the north pole and huge powers to stop global warming across the rest of the world.

Second is granting huge amounts of power to eco groups by letting them sue both the government and companies very quickly and successfully… it would also let them demand injunctions on a massive scale so even if they were to lose cases they could delay and cost the companies great deals of money. Also by causing huge delays from injunctions they can hope to get new laws from both the US or from the UN as well as try to put public pressure to what would likely be the evil oil companies or some other evil group that they don’t like and very effectively beat them with the public stick.

The problems come amass in how stupid it is. First the polar bear has been around for at least 10k years… which means even if global warming is real its pretty much zero threat because during the medieval warming period the polar bears lived and that was much warmer then the IPCC and even many of the most crazied global warming nuts predict the temps will reach for at least 100-200 years.
So even at global warming’s worse the polar bear via history shouldn’t be heavily effected. Add in that polar bears are at the highest recorded pop since pretty much they started tracking their numbers and are expected to either be stable or keep growing.

Its a cheap and dishonest tactics to try to give the government/s more control over the ppl in the name of eco-fascism.

World demand for liquid fuels keeps increasing. This is what is driving the development of biofuels. Again, it is not due to an effort to reduce CO2 production that is driving biofuels worldwide. That a few environmentalists has attached themselves to the concept of biofuels *late in the game* will not significantly encourage more biofuel production than the market is already demanding.

Today the IEA came out their lates Oil Market Report (http://omrpublic.iea.org/ ) in which they show April demand for “oil” (their term, which more accurately should be called “all liquids”, because they include biofuels) to have pushed to a new record, well above 88 million barrels per day, while the average first quarter supply was just over 87 million barrels per day.

So, as long as demand keeps pushing up to new highs, and the supply is inadequate, there will be a force to produce new biofuels.

Finally, I missed the part about Polar Bears. Was the term “Polar Bears” just thrown into the title as a throw-away, or did part of the essay get cut?

Biofuel carbon neutrality is the modern equivalent of the perpetual motion machine.