WASHINGTON, May 14, 2008
U.S. Gives Polar Bear Protected Status
Declines In Sea Ice Cited, Though Interior Secretary Says Using Status To Reduce Greenhouse Gases "Inappropriate"
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Polar Bears Endangered
"CBS News RAW": Amid predictions that two thirds of the polar bear population could disappear by the end of this century, the Arctic dweller has been declared an endangered species. NO AUDIO
-
Video
The Great Polar Bear Debate
The Department of the Interior is considering whether to list the polar bear as an endangered species. It's a heated debate complicated by the issue of climate change. Daniel Sieberg reports.
-
Video
Polar Bears On Thin Ice
The U.S. government declared the polar bear to be a "threatened" species and agreed that global warming has caused the polar bear's icy homeland to melt. Daniel Sieberg reports.
-
Photo
(Steve Romaine)
-
Photo Essay
Fluffy Flocke
Meet Germany's latest lovable polar bear cub
-
Interactive
Global Warming
The greenhouse effect, a look at the Kyoto Protocol and a history of the Earth's climate.
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne cited dramatic declines in sea ice over the last three decades and projections of continued losses. These declines, he told a news conference, mean the polar bear is a species likely to be in danger of extinction in the near future.
Kempthorne also said, though, that it would be "inappropriate" to use the protection of the bear to reduce greenhouse gases, or to broadly address climate change.
Reflecting views recently expressed by President Bush, Kempthorne said the Endangered Species Act was "never meant to regulate global climate change."
He said the decision to list the bear includes administrative actions aimed at limiting the impact of the decision on energy development and other climate related activities.
"This listing will not stop global climate change or prevent any sea ice from melting," said Kempthorne. He said he had consulted with the White House on the decision, but "at no time was there ever a suggestion that this was not my decision."
Kempthorne cited as support for his decision conclusions by the department's scientists that sea ice loss will likely result in two-thirds of the polar bears disappearing by mid-century.
Notwithstanding the secretary's disclaimers, this is the first time the Endangered Species Act has been used to protect a species threatened by the impacts of global warming. There has been concern within the business community that such an action could have far-reaching impact and could be used to regulate carbon dioxide.
Kempthorne proposed 15 months ago to investigate whether the polar bear should be declared threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
That triggered a year of studies into the threats facing the bear and its survival prospects at a time when scientists predict a continuing warming and loss of Arctic sea ice. The Arctic sea ice serves as a primary habitat for the bear and is critical to its survival, scientists say.
"The science is absolutely clear that polar bear needs protection under the Endangered Species Act," said Andrew Wetzler, director of the endangered species program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
A decision had been expected early this year, but the Interior Department said it needed more time to work out many of the details, prompting criticism from members of Congress and environmentalists. Environmentalists filed a lawsuit aimed at forcing a decision and a federal court on April 29 set a May 15 deadline for a decision.
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Video and Galleries from SciTech
-
Video
Bottled H2O Backlash
-
Video
Hohm, sweet Hohm
-
Video
Loaded: On Tour
It is about time.
And yes we need to start drilling for oil in Alaska too
At $4.00 + a gallon for gas we better do some thing fast, and let''s stop paying people not to pump oil like our goverment does
To drill for oil in Alaska is the last thing we need to do!!!! This is pristine territory and I for one sure don''t want this beautiful land spoiled forever just to get a few more barrels of oil.If we would all just drive less and also try and I mean REALLY TRY some conservation efforts we would save millions of barrels of oil that is wasted yearly in this nation.
Leave Alaska alone and leave it for the wildlife who call this place home.
Posted by noaanhc
Well said - opening ANWAR would only add 1% to the country''s oil supply. We can make that back by incresing the average gas mileage by about 0.4 mpg.
This is like some of the fine-print in insurance policies. The bear is a bona-fide endangered species, but it is up to the bear to lobby for his own right to live without man interfering with the global warming of his environment. Ah... the semantics of it all.
The real goal is to cut the legs from under the US economy by filling lawsuits against everything that has a carbon footprint. That would include your Prius.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Edward1975 at 05:42 PM : May 14, 2008
"
What on earth are you talking about Edward1975.
(1) Polar bears are NOT declining; they have never been more plentiful.
(2) Those famous bears that were found drowned were drowned BY A SEVERE STORM; they were just offshore from solid land.
(3) Polar bears can and regularly do swim hundreds of miles.
(4) Polar bears survived the last interglacial period before the last ice age, when their wasn''t any ice for them to mess about on.
Time to get yourself some high school education, and stop spouting nonsense.
Posted by cseninnie
Good luck to you and your views on animals. However, animals and environmental concerns only get three per cent of charitable contributions in the US. If you have a gripe about people charities not getting enough, you''re focused on the wrong group. Religious groups get about ten times what animals get in charitable giving and this, to my mind, is a total waste. Go after those nutty religious holier-than-thou Jesus freaks, why don''t you? We share this planet with animals and they should have rights too.
(1) Polar bears are NOT declining; they have never been more plentiful.
(2) Those famous bears that were found drowned were drowned BY A SEVERE STORM; they were just offshore from solid land.
(3) Polar bears can and regularly do swim hundreds of miles.
(4) Polar bears survived the last interglacial period before the last ice age, when their wasn''''t any ice for them to mess about on.
Time to get yourself some high school education, and stop spouting nonsense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Seafang at 06:21 PM : May 14, 2008
+ report abuse
YOU are a LIAR! That''s the ONLY way to put it. The Polar Bear is ON THE ENDANGERED LIST for a REASON! It''s certainly is NOT because they are plentiful! Talk about someone needing an education... Sieg Heil Bush
The real goal is to cut the legs from under the US economy by filling lawsuits against everything that has a carbon footprint. That would include your Prius.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by cbintn at 05:39 PM : May 14, 2008
+ report abuse
Isn''t THIS how we got into this mess to begin with. After the Oil Embargo Fascist said all we needed to do was increase our production here... that would take care of the problem they said. Guess what? It DIDN''T. Someday soon thinking people are going to have to understand that we need a NEW source of energy, one that renews itself. Reason? Oil is running out! Sieg Heil Bush
Nature bats last.
Give up on politicians solving long-range problems like developing new energy sources, conservation of the environment, etc. These idi0ts (including members of both parties) cannot think beyond the next election cycle. If it can''t be solved in 4 years they don''t care.
Time Magazine
Monday, Jun. 24, 1974
Explanations?
You are sadly mistaken. Please see the following links: The first is from a Canadian newspaper in 2007 which talks about the record numbers of polar bears and discusses the distortion of the special interst groups.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b8
39-b71a9e5df868
The second is from an environmental website which confirms that the estimated numbers of polar bears are up to 5x higher today than 40 years ago.
http://www.ypte.org.uk/docs/
factsheets/animal_facts/polar_bear.html
n
The third discusses the LACK OF SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS used in the studys provided for the decision today.
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/PolBears.pdf
This decision is based purely on politics and not on the facts and science.
global dimming is caused by aerosol pollution. It causes cooling and dimming. A global effort to reduce aerosol pollution (for reasons of general human health as well as reduction in acid rain, etc), reduced this threat to nil. It still exists, however, to a smaller degree.
For example, when researchers took averaged temperatures over the U.S. in the two days after 9-11, they found temps were 1-2 C higher than they were before the event. The reason? Planes were forbidden to fly: no aerosol pollutants causing dimming of sunlight. After planes were allowed to fly again, the temperature came back to where it was supposed to be.
The second is from an environmental website which confirms that the estimated numbers of polar bears are up to 5x higher today than 40 years ago.
The third discusses the LACK OF SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS used in the studys provided for the decision today."
The first merely relates that MORE polar bears are found on solid ground these days. It''s speculated that this is because there''s LESS ice for them to be found on.
The second merely relates the impact of making polar bear hunting illegal. Their numbers were reduced to less than 5000 before it was made illegal. But the interior secretary is talking about loss of polar bear habitat: ie, ice, and its effect on them in the future.
The third says scientific measurements and models about ice loss are incorrect, and then offers NO better model. But ice loss has been well established by the record over the last 30 years.
People that say polar bear populations can withstand/increase under well-document Arctic ice loss conditions are totally GUESSING. Its wishfull thinking, and its absurd. Common sense says: there''s a reason their called POLAR BEARS.
If their habitat is disappearing, they are disappearing. Common sense.
No, go ahead. Produce all the carbon dioxide you want. Let''s just wait until the problem leads to massive starvation across the world before we do something about it.
The food riots we''ve seen recently are just due to prices. Wait until we see the riots when there''s not enough food to go around.
I see it differently. Scientists are not motivated by money. They are motivated by research. Money is just a tool to perform research.
Scientists who *are* motivated by money write books.
LOL Bush Blocks plenty of other sensible Policies, I wouldn''t be surprised if he blocked the polar bears too.. hahaha
"Well, NASA says recent satellite images show that the allegedly endangered polar ice cap -- which will melt completely one of these summers and kill off all the polar bears if we don''t slash our greedy carbon footprints and revert to the lifestyles of medieval peasants -- has recovered to near normal coverage levels.
That''s what Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of NASA''s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, told Canada''s CBC News -- the Canadian government''s version of NPR/PBS - on Feb. 12.
As far as Google''s search engine knows, Comiso''s comforting report has appeared nowhere but in Canada.
There''s even better news for polar ice-pack lovers from ice expert Gilles Langis, who says Arctic ice is now even thicker than usual in spots. A senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, he''s another scientist you shouldn''t expect to see talking to Anderson Cooper on the next episode of CNN''s "Galaxy in Peril."
Time to get yourself some high school education, and stop spouting nonsense.
Posted by Seafang
The problem with this constantly repeated argument from the Rush crowd is it ignores the fact that modern man was not around "the last time this happened" If polar bears can''t hunt seal on the ice how will they adapt? Are the locals going to tolerate becoming the new meal of choice? Or do we start a new federal polar bear food drop program? Or do we say %u201COh well, there was no money to be had in polar bears anyway%u201D.
Who was around to care if Florida and Manhattan island was under water 100,000 years ago or that half of the U.S was under ice 10,000 years ago? There was still plenty of space around for primitive man and they traveled light. Try moving NYC when the streets start flooding.
Let me practice my reaction to global warming that will get me past the call-in screeners for the Rush show%u2026
%u201CWell I live in the Midwest, 900 feet above sea level so I guess I don%u2019t care.%u201D
Here''s what''s funny - substantially more Americans feel that way about tanks.... even more about Congress. Thank goodness those idiots aren''t the ones in charge, you know what I''m saying?
-
by al2008-2009
May 16, 2008 10:52 AM PDT
- I%u2019m appalled at the administration%u2019s lack of response to the global warming earthquakes, hurricanes, and cyclones, and now the icecaps which are completely melting as well. We have no comprehensive strategy in place whatsoever, let alone a detailed plan of action to mitigate the effects of these quakes, cyclones, and disappearing icecaps, and mother earth continues to suffer while the administration refuses to go forward and do what%u2019s right for mother earth.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 41 Comments.
How long must we sit idly by while our mother continues to suffer from the warming taking place at a feverish pace? How long must our mother suffer before we have proper c02 taxes put into place? How long must the destruction of mother earth take place before we finally put responsible regulations into effect? How long must we wait until we beef up our corn ethanol production? At least Obama wants to cut c02 pollution by 80%; he is definitely our best hope.
.
We the people call upon our leaders to implement a comprehensive antiglobal warming strategy at once and work in coordination with state and federal officials; these quakes, cyclones and disasters continue to worsen and the quicker we stop the warming the sooner we will see these quakes and storms cease. We need action now.