15
May 2008 United States — For the last three
years, the US Department of Interior has
been dragging its feet when it comes to
protecting the polar bear. It has now finally
listed the polar bear as threatened under
the Endangered Species Act. This might seem
like a victory but there are enough exemptions
in this listing to leave the polar bear
unprotected against its biggest threat,
global warming.
What happened?
After months of calculated
delays and several lawsuits against them,
brought by Greenpeace, the Natural Resources
Defence Council and the Center for Biological
Diversity, the Bush administration has listed
the polar bear as threatened under the United
States Endangered Species Act (ESA).
A threatened listing
under the ESA is supposed to provide broad
protection to polar bears. This includes
a requirement that United States federal
agencies ensure that any action carried
out, authorised, or funded by the United
States government will not "jeopardise
the continued existence" of polar bears,
or adversely modify their critical habitat.
However, the decision
comes with a big catch: an exemption (technically
known as a “4(d) exemption”) for global
warming pollution. Global warming is the
biggest threat facing polar bears and this
exemption eliminates any real protection
the listing could have provided for the
polar bear. It specifically says federal
agencies don’t need to consider the impact
of global warming pollution on the polar
bear. It gets worse: the listing also proposes
a separate regulation that reduces the protections
the polar bear would otherwise receive under
the ESA.
This might look like
a listing to protect the polar bear but
it’s really just a way for the administration
to protect the interests of the oil and
gas industry, as well as get away without
taking action on global warming.
What does the science
say?
A decision about whether
or not to list a species under the ESA is
supposed to be based on the best available
science. The best available, most current
science on the impact of global warming
on polar bears is clear: the species faces
extinction because its Arctic ice habitat
is melting. Sea ice melts and refreezes
seasonally, but recent years have shown
a smaller area of maximum sea ice in the
winter. Predictions about Arctic sea ice
loss have become worse with each passing
year. A few years ago, scientists were predicting
the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in summer
as early as 2100, then that prediction was
moved up to 2050, then 2040 and 2030. Late
last year, one leading scientist predicted
the Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer
as soon as 2012. It seems clear that the
pace of global warming in the Arctic is
outrunning predictions and is happening
faster than expected.
“I have been following
this issue for quite some time, and I have
seen firsthand the impacts of global warming
in the Arctic. I’ve been in Alaska’s Beaufort
Sea when the sea ice retreated so far offshore
that a lone polar bear was stranded in open
water, swimming for what little ice it could
find in search of its ringed seal prey that
were hundreds of miles away at the ice edge.
That bear was not long for this world, and
the image haunts me every time I read another
grim report about the plight of polar bears
in our warming world,” said Melanie Duchin,
a global warming campaigner for Greenpeace
US, based in Alaska.
In 2007, the US Geological
Survey predicted that by 2050, two thirds
of the world’s polar bears would disappear,
including all of the polar bears in the
United States. Scientists are witnessing
evidence that polar bears are already in
real trouble. Reduced food supplies due
to global warming has resulted in polar
bears actually resorting to cannibalism
in the north coast of Alaska and Canada.
Scientists with the US Minerals Management
Service documented the drowning of at least
four polar bears in September 2004, when
the sea ice retreated a record 160 miles
off the state's northern coast. Just last
week, scientists in Alaska reported that
fewer polar bear yearlings are making it
to maturity. The polar bear population in
Western Hudson Bay of Canada has declined
from approximately 1200 bears in 1987, to
1,100 bears in 1995, and then to fewer than
950 bears in 2004 due to ice loss. Arctic
sea ice loss set a record low in 2007. This
year, the sea ice melt season is already
shaping up to break the record set in 2007.
Polar bears and sea
ice
Polar bears live only
in the Arctic and are totally dependent
on the sea ice for all of their essential
needs, including hunting their prey. The
rapid warming of the Arctic and melting
of the sea ice poses a serious threat to
polar bears. The polar bear could be the
first mammal to lose 100 percent of its
habitat to global warming. As the ice continues
to disappear, so will the polar bear. The
only way to save the polar bear is to stop
global warming and protect their sea ice
habitat from melting away, and the only
way to do that is to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
Once again, the Bush
administration is ignoring the science that
is staring it in the face: global warming
is threatening polar bears with extinction.
The federal government’s press release carried
the headline, “Secretary Kempthorne Announces
Decision to Protect Polar Bears under Endangered
Species Act,” but it’s clearly mistitled.
It would have been more aptly written if
it had said, “Secretary Kempthorne Announces
Decision to Protect Oil and Gas Industry.”
Exempting global warming pollution caused
by unabated oil and gas drilling spells
doom for the polar bear, pure and simple.
For those reading this
and thinking that, while saving the polar
bear is a laudable goal, what’s more important
is drilling for oil, jobs and the economy,
consider these facts:
The US will never be
able to drill its way to energy independence
since it has only three to four percent
of global oil reserves, yet burns one-quarter
of the world’s oil.
The Arctic is a harbinger
for things to come at lower latitudes. What
we see now in the Arctic – unprecedented
sea ice loss and species threatened with
extinction – will not be limited to the
Arctic. Serious global warming impacts and
species’ extinction will accelerate in the
mid-latitudes as it is in the Arctic.
Stalling action now
means more disruption and economic cost
down the line. It’s not just about polar
bears and the Arctic, the entire country
will benefit if the government replaces
dirty sources of energy such as oil, gas
and coal with cleaner, climate friendly
forms of energy like solar and wind. Conservation
can go a long way toward cutting US energy
needs as well.
