Add Rolling Stone to the list of publications that are critical of the
proposed adopted Section 7 regulations but at the same time offer no real analysis. It is a sad pattern: grab everyone's attention with empty rhetoric towards the president (in this case, Rolling Stone contends that Bush is "screw[ing] America"), continue the rhetoric by mentioning the Endangered Species Act (Rolling Stone: Bush's proposals "would gut the Endangered Species Act"), and then support the rhetoric merely be asserting that the new rules "effectively doom polar bears to death-by-global warming."
If you've only recently heard of the new regulatory
proposals amendments, reliance upon such hyperbole is strongly discouraged. Instead, we recommend taking a look at the regs themselves (as they were proposed; we're still awaiting publication of the finalized rule), or at least consider how the regs will free up the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to effectively manage their Endangered Species Act responsibilities (something that Rolling Stone conveniently fails to mention).
Consider this as well: if these narrow changes really do doom the polar bear to death-by-global warming, doesn't Congress (at the country's legislative branch) have the power with to a) revise the ESA to specifically address global warming or b) enact a new law that specifically addresses global warming?