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.
-
(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.
More From SciTech
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
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.
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?
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
"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."
LOL Bush Blocks plenty of other sensible Policies, I wouldn''t be surprised if he blocked the polar bears too.. hahaha
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Time Magazine
Monday, Jun. 24, 1974
Explanations?
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.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 41 Comments