The global climate change crisis may soon enter a new phase in terms of human society's reaction, efforts to curb harmful activities that exacerbate the problem. The United States Dept. of the Interior is considering a proposal to list the polar bear as the first species facing extinction specifically as a side-effect of global warming.
The move would fall under the regulatory powers of the Endangered Species Act, and environmental activists believe it could be used as leverage to push for the shutting down of projects that would bring new carbon-emissions-intensive activities (like new coal-fired power plants) into use.
It is not clear that the Endangered Species Act would become a comfortable standard by which to measure the environmental footprint of new industries or specifically new power and chemical plants, but a recent ruling by the US Supreme Court, requiring that the government regulate carbon dioxide as a harmful pollutant, seems to show that the law is moving in that direction.
As the polar bear is dependent on the presence of large chunks of floating sea ice for its seal hunting, the increasing lack of ice in northern summer months has led to speculation the bears' habitat is effectively disappearing. Researchers project that more than two-thirds of the current population could be gone by mid-century.
This particular mega-fauna could be the canary in the coal mine, so to speak, warning of how excess carbon emissions could have a destructive impact on complex habitat around the globe. In the US, environmental activists are suing to get the bear listed as global-warming endangered, and to force coal-fired power plants to produce thorough studies demonstrating how their activities would not negatively impact the bears' habitat, thousands of miles away.
The feeling among many, both in the scientific world and in the regulatory business, is coming around to the view that for too long it was assumed there was no impact, or that the distances are too great to trace such fallout, but that logic is no longer enough. There is evidence of real and traceable impact, and those who seek to capitalize from processes which increase the risk should have to show their plans for how not to.
It may only be now, as policy-making and environmental research begin to converge in a more serious and well-thought-out way, that the standard of sustainable development actually penetrates into the planning process at the federal level. Industrial activities with a high environmental cost may be seen increasingly as not only unfortunate, but beyond the law, where public health and conservation are concerned.
One of the key questions will be, to what degree and how soon to top-level policy-makers integrate the long-term survivability of other species into the planning for a sustainable form of human economic development?
MORE AT
LA Times: "U.S. close to decision on polar bears"
NY Times: "Justices Rule Against Bush Administration on Emissions"
15 comments:
Excellent info. Thanks for a refreshing view on the environmental crisis we're all part of... I just subscribed to your feed so hopefully I'll be able to keep up with all the issues that surround this crisis. I'm subscribed to other blogs out there that send you either tons of posts with no valuable content or too late for us to act. You have a very impartial yet complete tone in your writing. So keep us all informed!
Polar bears are awesomely cool. We will have failed in no small way if we let this particular species move to the brink of extinction. What's next? Eskimoes? Norwegians? Danes?
The reality is, the polar bears are not endangered. The reality is, with population management, the polar bear population has more than doubled since the 1970's. There is no need to list polar bears as an endangered spcies, they are not. It's ignorant fools who have other agendas who are trying to get the polar bears listed as an endanged species. Sadly, they will probably succeed and their unnecessary intervention will likely cause the end of the polar bears, not global warming. Check the numbers yourself, check the reports from the Alaskan wildlife bureau, etc... Sometimes, the truth and reality is just to hard for the ignorant to comprehend.
Do some research. The biggest issue with this is that they are not in fact endangered. They have record numbers in population size! Kind of hard to make an endangered species when there is more of them now than ever. Animals are not stupid, and they do adapt to change. And to those who saw the "polar bear drowning", they do swim very well and can hold their breath for long periods of time. I don't think falling off an ice chunk is going to be cause for drowning. Not to mention that video is from years ago during the summer melt.
Global Warming is not a reason to make an animal endangered, especially when it has as much science against it as it does for it.
The only crisis I see is that too many people believe this dribble. Check the numbers as Doug states. This is just another way to get the carbon offset crowd to come up with some global money. When someone can explain to me why all the other planets are getting warmer as a result of the carbon spewing from everything from cars to cow’s butts, I might take this seriously. There is absolutely nothing the human race can do about the globe warming, were screwed because the sun is what is doing it. But go ahead, use that and the adorable polar bears to hike the price of gas another 50 cents or have PG&E add an extra 5 bucks to my bill for “greenhouse gas emissions”. Without “greenhouse emissions” we would die because the plants, who survive on Carbon Dioxide, would die and there would be on oxygen. Maybe we should try to outlaw that horrible Hydrogen Dioxide also, more people die from exposure to that than carbon dioxide.
well. Polar bears could EASILY become endangered due to global warming. no matter what the "numbers" say. And the reality is that it IS VERY likely that they are going to become endangered.
No.Animals are not stupid. But they DO have needs and with out the ice, what are they going to do. Thats how they how they live.
I just think we should be taking this whole global warming issue more seriously. because it effects a lot of animals(which can cause endangerment/extinction) and it effects us in a huge way.
Research as requested: 1. if you are under the impression that this is not a real problem, request the Bush admin.'s Interior Dept. report on polar ice and polar bear habitat; 2. examine the criteria for endangered status in the Endangered Species Act; 3. consider that this is not a proposal from this report or this forum, it is the US government's plan.
On the question of 'human induced climate change', the current US government of George W. Bush has recognized that its own agencies, its own scientists, the Pentagon and its intelligence apparatus, all concur that the science is accurate, the problem is tied to human activity and is worsening. The question of carbon emissions being a source of concern is not that carbon-dioxide is inherently bad, but like all environmental factors, it is most beneficial when in optimum balance with the environment.
Again, global warming is not a problem. Sure, the ice in the north is melting, but the southern caps have never been thicker. Wouldn't globull warming affect the south pole as well?
10 years ago these very same scientists that are screaming globull warming were crying ice age. It is called planetary cycles and solar flares. Listening to flawed data taken from collection points like under air conditioner exhausts and the middle of asphalt parking lots is insane and what the liberal front wants you to do.
I'm all for cleaning up the planet, but I find it silly to put the majority of the focus on cars when one private jet flight produces a larger carbon footprint than a medium sized city does in one day. Does that stop Gore from flying around on one everywhere? He doesn't practice what he preaches, because he knows it is just GoreBull Warming.
It is patently untrue that there is no warming in Antarctica or that melt and habitat degradation are not occurring. Antarctica has seen the steepest average temperature increases over the past 5 decades of anywhere on earth, and huge ice shelves are breaking apart, a development which is far more serious for faraway coastal cities than Arctic Ocean melt, because the ice is not currently seaborne, therefore will cause a rise in sea levels when it enters the sea in mass quantities. This kind of melt is comparable to the glacial melt being experienced in North America and Greenland.
UPI reported in January:
"Vast ice sheets in Antarctica appear to be destabilizing due to climate change and the rate of ice loss has accelerated in the past 10 years, researchers said.
The ice sheets in western Antarctica had seemed to be relatively protected from global warming, researchers said, and the new findings suggest the possibility that sea levels will rise faster than currently estimated, The Washington Post reported."
In October 2007, The Washington Post reported:
At the South Pole, ancient ice shelves have abruptly crumbled. The air over the western Antarctic peninsula has warmed by nearly 6 degrees since 1950. The sea there is heating as well, further melting edges of the ice cap. Green grass and beech trees are taking root on the ice fringes.
Antarctica's signature Adelie penguins are moving inland, seeking the cold of their ancestors, replaced by chinstrap and Gentoo penguins, which prefer open water. Krill, the massive smorgasbord for a food chain reaching to the whales, are disappearing from traditional spawning grounds."
UPI: "Report: Antarctic melting accelerated"
Wash. Post: "At the Poles, Melting Occurring at Alarming Rate"
It is a very interesting topic, and to see such a variety of comments pleases me. It is true - polar bears are reaching their peak. However, the ice is melting. Compared to ten years ago especially. This is a problem, as mentioned in the article. Either of these two things will happen:
1.) the polar bears won't be able to reach dry land, and thus will die swimming to find food (without killing seals)
OR
2.) the polar bears will adapt and head south. This is obviously the better of the two.
Nonetheless - we would all like to see this global warming stop its effect on our world. It is true, we need to stop emitting these CO2 gasses into our environment.
A very large problem is our population. We just can't keep blaming Africa and all of these third world countries that have no, or very minimal, sexual education. It is unacceptable as our world as a whole are guilty. To resolve this massive situation, I am unsure. There are some great ways to improve and head into the right direction. I believe we are now, but there is still much to do.
Thank you.
On the issue of population boom or controls to prevent the ill effects of: it is not necessarily right to say that poor countries where population (and by extension resource demand) expands rapidly are in any way off track in this regard.
It is a phase of economic development that all industrialized nations passed through, while it tends to be the status of economic trends, coupled with rights awareness, in wealthy nations, that leads to lower birth rates, sometimes "below replacement level".
We do need to look seriously at what kind of sexual education and family planning possibilities are available to people in parts of the world where population is rapidly expanding, but this is not the major contributing factor for global warming, as there are any number of responsible ways to provide clean energy or sustainable economic growth for such emerging markets.
The Author is not correct in stating that there was Supreme Court decision requiring that government regulate C02 (greenhouse gases.) Basically, the court said that the government has the authority to regulate under the Clean Air Act.
As for polar bears, wouldn't it be funny if the US put polar bears on it's endangered species act while polar bears are legally hunted and killed in Canada. Are we going to invade Canada, put in a puppet government and take all their oil and timber? Hum, not a bad idea.
"Justices Rule Against Bush Administration on Emissions", from the New York Times, 2 April 2007:
"In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled today that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions.
The court further ruled that the agency cannot sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it can provide a scientific basis for its refusal."
The ruling requires the EPA to begin catching up in its regulatory role, regarding carbon dioxide emissions, because the science relating to the effects of those emissions illustrates that they do in fact negatively impact the human environment in the way the Clean Air Act lays out as grounds for regulation.
Absent proof amounting to achieving an entirely new scientific consensus on this issue, the Supreme Court's ruling of last spring requires the EPA to act.
Reuters reports: Canadian province adds protection for polar bears
"The western Canadian province of Manitoba named the polar bear a threatened species on Thursday, enabling it to restrict new development on its Arctic shoreline, where hundreds of the big white bears spend several weeks each year.
"We must continue to take action to protect one of our province's most unique species, which is clearly being affected by climate change," Stan Struthers, the province's conservation minister, said in a release."
I am sure that I did something good for them, I sent some Viagra Online to North Pole in order to Mess around the Polar furry bastards
Post a Comment