Why did our government put polar bears on the “threatened” list? Because they didn’t want to add fuel to the global warming fires, according to some.

Polar bears are threatened because of the shrinking of the polar ice cap Vanishing Ice Cap Map. They need the ice to survive. So far they have been unable to adapt to changing circumstances, and so they are starving or drowning in increasing numbers. Polar bears need ice to survive!

The government’s rationale, apparently, is that the current numbers of polar bears don’t merit putting them on the “endangered” list: there are currently too many of them. But at the rate the ice is pulling back and at the rate the bears are expected to die off, there will be considerably fewer of them in a relatively short time. "While the legal standards under the ESA (Endangered Species Act) compel me to list the polar bear as threatened, I want to make clear that this listing will not stop global climate change or prevent any sea ice from melting," Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne told a news conference.

Polar bears currently number about 20,000-25,000, two-thirds of them in Canada, but Kempthorne said they were "likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future" without preventive action. “Preventive action” would have to include aggressive efforts to conteract global warming. That is something that is not included in the recent decision.

Jim Carlton, writing in the Wall Street Journal, says that what the bears need now is a “critical habitat” designation, which the “threatened” designation did not afford them. With the decrease of ice floes, which are essential in the polar bear’s hunting of seals, necessarily comes a decrease in polar bear populations. Add to that the green light recently given to explore for gas and oil in polar bear habitats, and new fears are raised: polar bears being killed by oil workers and maybe even getting run down by cars and trucks as they find themselves trapped on land.

Granted this is a complex problem, the clock is ticking for the very survival of the polar bear. Calling them “threatened” will do little to lessen the actual threat. The only thing that has a chance of working is addressing the critical habitat issue, and that means doing some serious work to address global warming. And that is something that our government seems to have a great deal of difficulty facing in any realistic or productive manner.

Good essay.

Many people in our government and most people among the Corpratist elite would rather save a buck for themselves today than save they lives a million people in 20 years.

Dealing with global warming is going to be expensive. The greed factor creates a lot of resistance.

Polar Bears are just one symptom of the willingness of the government and the Corporatist elites refusal to act responsibly. This story appeared today in the Guardian.

quote:

An epidemic of extinctions: Decimation of life on earth
Species are dying out at a rate not seen since the demise of the dinosaurs, according to a report published today – and human behaviour is to blame. Emily Dugan counts the cost
The world's species are declining at a rate "unprecedented since the extinction of the dinosaurs", a census of the animal kingdom has revealed. The Living Planet Index out today shows the devastating impact of humanity as biodiversity has plummeted by almost a third in the 35 years to 2005.

It took an asteroid slamming into the earth to casue the same effect we humans are having. We should consider the consequences of our ancts and take responsiblity for them.

Frankly, Frank, I feel your impulse to "round up the usual suspects," i.e. corporatist elites, illustrates the paradoxes of species loss, rather than points towards a solution.

Suppose you were able to render impotent all the conscienceless greedheads you love to hate? Do you think salamanders, bears and rare plants would reproduce at higher rates? What if economic megachange purported to improve the environment made the standard of living fall and people decided they didn't care that much about rare critters after all?

There are several paradoxes of using the polar bear as a poster child for eco-ruin. One is that their numbers have been increasing lately, not declining. Another is that polar bears don't live in the U.S.; they live mainly in the Canadian arctic. Some have argued that we must stop burning carbon to stem sea level rise. But suppose we do, Asians don't and sea levels rise anyway?

Most of the species currently in decline live in the South American, African and South Asian tropics. How can green activists in the U.S. & Europe save foreign ecosystems without becoming "imperialistic?"

My reading indicates that the largest cause of extinctions is habitat loss, which is the result of human populations expanding at the expense of wild animals & plants. Populations in the industrial West (the usual suspects) are stable or declining. They're increasing rapidly in the Third World, which is also developing rapidly as well. Telling ambitious poor countries to "do as we say, not as we do," sounds like Marie Antoinette telling starving peasants to eat cake when they have no bread.

There are numerous indications that concern for the environment is a function of wealth. People prefer to achieve a comfortable standard of living first, then protect as much environment as they can afford to protect. The United States is one of the youngest countries in the world, but was a leader in establishing National Parks that preserve unspoiled ecosystems. We didn't do that much until after we industrialized.

Game parks in Africa generate major revenues for the countries that have them, but that depends on cheap air travel which depends on cheap oil. What will happen to those animals if international tourism declines for any reason?

Like it or not, corporations have generated most of the world's wealth & gainful employment since the 16th century when the joint stock company was invented in Rennaisance Holland. Wealth makes it possible to care about the environment. Industry led by corporations have invented many of the things that make it possible to leave some ecosystems alone. Celluloid replaced ivory for billiard balls and piano keys. Synthetic sponges obviated the need to gather live sponges. Plastics obviated the need to harvest sea turtles to make combs. Oil & gas reduce demand for firewood. Better technology gets higher yields out of wood and makes wood products last longer. Cotton, wool and polyester make better, longer lasting garments than animal skins. Modern agriculture produces more food & fiber on less land, enabling more land to be left alone.

Philanthropists who made their fortunes in industry have done much to protect ecosystems. It's not just guilt; it's because enjoying a pristine environment is a luxury good of sorts and sharing such luxuries elevates the public good. The Rockefellers, founders of Standard Oil, donated most of the land for several National Parks. Countries that don't have those sorts of benefactors or that mentality are the ones leveling their rain forests.

It won't suffice to blame corporations for everything you don't like. Corporations & governments sometimes conspire to despoil but often work together to conserve. You can't reliably predict a certain result from a given format.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tom Gelsthorpe,

Perhaps Frank's "round up the usual suspects" goes a bit too far in one direction, but Tom's casting them as saints isn't exactly on target either. My point is that polar bears face a dismal future, perhaps even extinction, unless governments and corporations join forces with scientists and environmentalists and do some serious invetigation that leads to some serious action on preserving the polar bears' habitat.

Is anyone here familiar with what Iceland and Sweden have done to diminish their carbon footprints?

I'm mighty glad there were no tree hugging people in the time of dinosaurs. Imagine all of us running around trying to save the "Rex."

The south tried to interfere with nature and we have Kudzu. We protected the alligators until now they break through screens and eat small animals.

Maybe we place too big an importance on us as humans.

Tom, corporations whose processes and policies contribute a great deal to the problem have no desire to balance profit and harm of what they are doing.

Most governments, ours included, refuse to recognize the problem. Well the recognize the problem, but millions of refugees in 10-25 years don't matter to them. That will be another administration.

The current problem is a crises led by greed and consumerism. It is exacerbated by ignorant Conservative religious folk who believe God will come back soon and it doesn't matter.

It is a crises that could be solved with some leadership who look past the next election.

The science is there and it is overwhelming. The source of the problem is well known. The corporatist elites and the governments who set the policies simply do give a flying sphincter emission about fixing the problem. We all will pay.

To the best of my knowledge, Iceland has a small carbon footprint because of two factors. It's an island with most of the people in one city where cars have limited utility. It generates all of its electric power and much of its central heating from underground geothermal energy. The entire country of Iceland has about the same total population as Buffalo, NY where you live, Joe, fewer than 300,000. You could duplicate Iceland's efficiency by uprooting Buffalonians, relocating them on top of Yellowstone National Park and tapping into the steam underneath. That might not benefit the scenery and wildlife that lives there, and residents might not be too happy about elk munching the vegetable gardens and buffalo (the real animals) stampeding through schoolyards, but it would reduce your carbon footprint.

Or would it? Buffalo relies heavily on hydroelectric from Niagara Falls. Maybe you're not too carbon-guilty as it is.

Here's a link I found regarding Sweden.

Sweden's Carbon Tax

At the bottom it notes that Sweden gets all its electricity from hydro & nuclear power. Although carbon-conscious people talk more about cars & oil, I feel that electricity is a more important part of the good life and more difficult to do without. Moreover, Sweden's use of "biomass" might not be as green as it sounds. Industrialism was invented to replace wood. Burning wood, weeds, ethanol, etc. seems retrograde to me.

IMHO the more significant aspects of the Icelandic and Swedish examples are the demographic ones. Iceland is tiny, with a vast geologic resource like no other country and few other regions -- nearly impossible to mimic. Not everyone feels comfortable living near a volcano, either, as residents of Pompeii and Krakatoa learned some time ago.

Sweden is a country the size of California that's been inhabited for thousands of years but has 8 million people compared to CA's 35 million, which have materialized in only 150 years. Why? People move to California for the climate and the opportunity. The blonde beach bunnies of Angelenos' popular songs are descendants of people who moved from Sweden to Minnesota in the 1880's and Minnesota to Southern California in the 1950's. For all Sweden's greenness, it's not much of a magnet for people.

As I said, the big eco-challenge is generating electricity. China's population is larger than the entire Western Hemisphere. China is opening a major coal plant at the rate of one per week, dwarfing growth in the rest of the underpopulated world. No matter how much the West self-abnegates, China's going to do whatever they want. Perhaps the more we backpedal, the more they will fast forward.

This is not intended as the cheap shot argument -- "Everyone's doing it; why don't we?" I'm only intending to make people aware of trade-offs and likely scenarios. Sweden and Iceland may set wonderful examples, but be so small they are the exceptions that prove the rule.

As for philanthropists being "saints," I didn't say that. I just get tired of people scapegoating the rich. I'm not a plute, I assure you. One thing I've noticed is people from all walks of life prefer not to live in areas where there are no rich people. Wealthy countries have more rich people, which means not only more vulgar display and posh garden parties -- it means more good jobs, more fine arts, more well-kept tourist attractions, more universities, more symphonies, more museums, more altruistic foundations and more chances to get rich yourself and use your fortune to protect ecosystems, if you so choose.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tom Gelsthorpe,

quote:

This is not intended as the cheap shot argument -- "Everyone's doing it; why don't we?" I'm only intending to make people aware of trade-offs and likely scenarios. Sweden and Iceland may set wonderful examples, but be so small they are the exceptions that prove the rule.

As for philanthropists being "saints," I didn't say that. I just get tired of people scapegoating the rich. I'm not a plute, I assure you. One thing I've noticed is people from all walks of life prefer not to live in areas where there are no rich people. Wealthy countries have more rich people, which means not only more vulgar display and posh garden parties -- it means more good jobs, more fine arts, more well-kept tourist attractions, more universities, more symphonies, more museums, more altruistic foundations and more chances to get rich yourself and use your fortune to protect ecosystems, if you so choose.

I saw in Newsweek that the oil industry made less profit per item sold than any other product.

WE ARE BIG CORPORATIONS. Those of us "who did the right thing" and invested heavily in 401Ks have millions of dollars in stocks. Ask any of my husband's co-workers how they feel when their precious stocks drop in price.

As the cartoon says, "We have met the enemy and they are us."

Actually, once upon a time, Iceland was importing all their oil and coal and producing CO2 at a rate comparable to other developed nations. Then they went to geo-thermal power, and other forms of non-fossil-based energy, and greatly reduced their carbon footprint. Sweden later went through a similar process. In the process, both countries improved their economic standing in the world. We have the technological tools to go the same route, and it would probably also be good for the economy. But because we subsidize the oil and coal industries and do little or nothing to promote wind, tidal. solar, or geo-thermal alternatives, we're lagging behind in that whole area and it doesn't seem we'll be doing much catching up anytime soon.

Incidentally, the Buffalo area is getting into wind power big time, and solar energy is becoming more widespread as well. Maybe if the U.S. is to develop along those lines, it will have to be piecemeal, patchwork, and locally based--until all the little puzzle pieces finally get put together. Too bad it has to be done in spite of the Federal Government instead of under their leadership and with their blessing. I guess grassroots is really where it's at. Maybe we just need Big Government to get the hell out of the way.

Perhaps,

We live near the huge Channel 48 TV tower. How near? It is close enough that at night when there is a wind, we can hear a sound like a freight train. It is the wind coursing through that tower.

I wonder, why can these tall TV towers that are becoming obsolete with the use of satellite and cable services be put to work harnessing wind power.

Wind power. That is a solution that "flies" to my mind.

Kathy

Iceland uses geo-thermal fuel because the island is on or near several active volcanoes. The heat from the magma in those volcanoes is not available in many other places. So if we were to follow Iceland's example, using the least expensive local heat source available, we would be drilling for oil wherever we could. That means drilling in ANWR, off the coast of California and in the Gulf of Mexico.

China is drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, why aren't we? If you want to see the price of a gallon of gas keep going up, by all means put the polar bear on the endangered species list. What is too high a price for a gallon of gas? $5.00? $10.00 or maybe if we keep doing like we are doing the price of a gallon of gas can be artificially pushed up, by limiting the supply, to $100 a gallon. Putting the polar bear on the endangered species list is way to guarantee higher oil prices.

quote:

Putting the polar bear on the endangered species list is way to guarantee higher oil prices.

That may very well be. I'd be willing to consider the bicycle or the horse, and stay much closer to home.