There's a bit too much opinion in this for me and not a ton of fact. There needs to be an explanation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act. There needs to be more information on the ecology of the polar bear and why it needs so much ice. The comment on drilling rights is correct, but it appears to be a non sequitur, thrown in from somewhere. There needs to be context. I note that some of the reviewers have their own axes to grind, which doesn't make me happy. As probably the only person reviewing this who has touched--yes touched--a polar bear, and who is trained to understand the science, I can tell you that it is a very complex issue, and although some populations of polar bears are doing well, others are not. No matter how they're doing, polar bears trek many hundreds of miles across ice and swim in the ocean to find hard ice from which seals, their main source of food, will emerge. No ice, no seals, no food, no polar bears. Thus, this is to stave off the inevitable. This deserved a longer, more textured story, but the focus was the court decision.