| http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/polar-bears-on-thin-ice-not-really i belong to the sierra club and may be a bad member. i am sure you are aware of the plight of the polar bear. so after researching the subject, here are my thoughts. 1. the world is getting warmer, and the artic ice has been melting. take that to the bank (not an opinion but indisputable fact). in 10 or 20 or whatever number of years, i would not be surprised if the artic ice cap essentially disappears, or at least has really big gaping holes for long periods of time. 2. there is a brouhaha about polar bears. per the article, there are 20 or so distinct polar bear populations, i presume in alaska and canada, but maybe in russia. don't know about them russians. the big name here is mitch taylor, a polar bear expert who apparently lives in nunavut canada. google map nunavut. you don't want to live there. 3. as much as i have read about mitch, i haven't seen anybody who said he is a nut job, an idiot, don't know nothin etc. people who don't buy into polar bear extinction quote him and people who claim extinction ignore him. few people actually try to dispute him, although i did run across a couple of articles where such disputation did occur - i can respect that. 4. in short, of the 20 distinct polar bear populations, 2 have declined, 2 have increased, a bunch are stable, and a couple aren't studied enough to know one way or the other (per the article - i wouldn't know myself). CONCLUSION: per those numbers, from around maybe 2005 or 2006, there is no evidence to say that the overall bear population is "threatened", at least from an inuitive definition. there may be more technical definitions. 5. if indeed polarbears are highly dependent on artic sea ice for survival (i don't know myself), and they are not very adaptable (bears seem pretty adaptable to me, but i ain't no expert), and my opinion is the arctic sea is indeed threatened (yes, quote me on that one), then logically speaking, polar bears will be threatened eventually. HOWEVER, i don't see evidence of that, just conjecture. 6. more interesting stuff. taylor pretty much lives in canada, and seems to talk about canadian populations. he talks about western hudson bay. WHB is north of minnesota and wisconsin. the US department of the interior, i believe, has little sway over canada, but does have sway over alaska. alaska is pretty much west of washington. so whatever observations and conclusions one may draw about canadian, and in particular hudson bay, polar bears vs alaskan polar bears, well, i don't know. it is possible that alaskan polar bears are more threatened that canadian polar bears as a whole or hudson bay polar bears. nobody got that specific. taylor DOES say that you have to studied specific bear populations. he makes it clear that he sees no evidence that says the overall population is threatened, that is, the species itself does not appear to be under pressure. 7. my guess is that taylor likes and perhaps loves polar bears. he represents the canadian inuits who make a lot of money providing guiding services on polar bear hunts. it is in the inuits vested interest to have a healthy polar bear population so than can continue to charge folks 50,000 bucks or whatever to shoot a bear. and remember, those canadian dollars are actually worth more than monopoly money, but not much. about a USD. on one hand if global warming wipes out the bears, then the inuits are even more hosed than they are now. one the other hand, if you feel they are threatened, then you aren't doing them any favors by shooting them. so in short, i think think taylor is a "global warming denier" or "right wing NRA nut job who shoots it if it moves" or drives his ATV over indian petroglyphs because it is cool. 8. taylor goes on to say that the PB may be the canary in the coal mine. the artic sea ice is an entire ecosystem. why pick on the PB? if an ecosystem is threatened, then everything in that environment is threatened, or at least impacted. more likely, there will be winners and losers. i guess somebody is going to have to expand on that one. 9. again, i am not saying that in 5 or 10 or 15 years, the alaskan PB population won't have taken a hit (or even today - no analysis of alaskan PB was actually submitted to my knowledge). i am saying i would like to understand what information on the alaskan PB population exists today that indicate decline. i concede that the artic ice is indeed under tremendous pressure and is likely to continue. is the PB overall threatened, yeah, probably. extinction - so far, not the entire PB population, but of the 20 tribes, a few might take a major hits - or maybe none, or maybe all. 10. ok, now for my big rant. i am of the opinion that the bush administation has done its best to purge itself of any thoughts of global warming or any scientific evidence that might even vaguely support it. if you were a government scientist who mentioned GW (that would be global warming, not george w), the fbi tapped your phones and computer, your bank account and life savings mysteriously disappeared, you were waterboarded, renditioned, and you ended up flipping burgers at macdonalds with your one remaining arm, if you were lucky. yes, all that is well documented. having said that, let's not go in the other direction. i am in favor of monitoring the PB populations and yes, the alaskan PBs (let those canadians and their stinkin' loonies take care of their own), and let good science drive our policy. or somebody can point to good science that says we should list the alaskan PB as threatened or endangered. but i REALLY don't understand all the headlines about polar bear extinction. i am not saying they will do fine, but how does one really conclude that the disappearance of artic ice by definition equates to global polar bear extinction? i am not saying it won't or will. it just isn't clear that it is the same thing. having said that, i do take it on faith that if the artic ice disappears, the overall PB population is less likely to thrive and more likely to "have issues", ie, there will be pressure on "adapt or die out". but that is more conjecture. 11. furthermore, not sure what happens if the pbs are listed. is it a lever to close down all the drilling on the north slope, or do we simply close down all the coal mines and electric plants? what happens anyway? not sure, would like to know. 12. one laaaassst thing. i believe that for the next 10-20-30 years, the die has been cast on global warming. far more than not, no matter what we do in the next 10-20 years, the vast majority of climate change has already been cooked into the current situation. having said that, my official position, and you may quote me on this, is that we need to do everything we can do conserve energy, decrease pollution, and be sensitive to our human footprint. i am not saying that we should bankrupt ourselves so that china and india can pollute the world (and yes, left to their own devices, they will do exactly that). the US grew in the 1800s to mid 1900s by doing exactly that. we wasted, polluted, corrupted, lied, cheated, stole, raped and pillaged our way to prosperity, and now our job is to stop the rest of the world from doing the same so we can continue to live in the profligate lifestyle which we must protect, and keep others from achieve our level of prosperity. yes, that is what we must do. ack. let me restate that. my official position is that i am against waste, overconsumption, pollution etc. by we must be mindful of economics - not slaves, just mindful of the true and overall cost of stuff (like burning a gallon of gas). it's a lot more then 3 bucks a gallon. i hope i don't come across as antienvironmental or anti polar bear or pro bush/kempthorne. i am in favor or a 3 or 4 dollar a gallon gas tax (but you would have to phase it in). i am in favor of heavy subsidization of cars that get 40 mpg or whatever. i am in favor of carbon taxes. i am in favor or repealing tax subsidies for exxon, bp, shell.... am i am not against polar bears, God bless their furry little hearts. but they are incredibly vicious animals (per national geographic). i may tackle nuclear power soon. i have some thoughts on hedge fund manager taxation too. |
