It was only a matter of time before somebody sued the US Interior Department regarding its decision to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. And it’s not exactly a surprise that the honour goes to the state of Alaska (Reuters), which will undoubtedly be joined by opponents of the law.

The state questioned the notion that receding sea ice threatens the bear and suggests that the Interior Department failed to take into account the bears’ survival during previous periods of warming (the climate is already in a warm phase, of course, so the question is what follows). But to be fair, Alaska is correct in pointing out that the polar bear population, for all the worries about the future, is currently doing rather well in terms of numbers.

That has led some to argue that the ruling was purely political, although it’s hard to imagine the administration of George W. Bush as a front for environmental interests. On the other hand, it is entirely plausible that the administration based its decision on what it felt it could defend in the courts, given that a decision against the listing would have provoked the equal and opposite legal reaction.

Alaska fears the listing could affect things like commercial fisheries and tourism as well as oil and gas activities, but if this headline in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner is any indication, the impacts have have been modest so far: “Oil firms get federal permission to annoy polar bears”.