[Report Abuse]
[Login to Blog] Debbie_Gilbert's Blog
enviroblog: A federal snow job?
Staff - Metro reporter
Last comment by jjohnson 3 months, 1 week ago.

Take Me To Post Comment Form

Last week, the Bush administration listed the polar bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act.

It was a historic decision. The polar bear is one of the world's most beloved and iconic mammals, and this was the first time that an animal had been added to the endangered list as a direct result of global warming.

But the administration had to be dragged into the decision kicking and screaming. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service had begun taking comments on the proposal back in January 2007. There was strong public and scientific support for adding polar bears to the list. But more than a year passed, and the feds took no action. Finally some environmental groups sued the government to stop procrastinating, and a judge ordered the Department of the Interior to make a decision.

On May 14, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced that the bear would indeed be added to the list. But he immediately followed that statement by saying that the government will make no policy changes as a result of this action.

This means putting the polar bear on the list is a hollow gesture. The whole point of the Endangered Species Act is that once a plant or animal is listed, steps must be taken to prevent that species from becoming extinct. Polar bears are dying because the northern sea ice is melting, making it difficult for them to hunt for food. To correct this, we would need to stop whatever is causing the polar regions to warm so rapidly. The majority of scientists believe the warming is related to manmade greenhouse gases. But Kempthorne made it clear that the U.S. government does not plan to do anything to curb greenhouse emissions.

So why even bother to put the polar bear on the ESA list, if doing so offers no protection? That's like a school publishing a list of all the students who are struggling academically, and then not offering any tutoring to help those students do better.

Oh, and by the way, this isn't just about polar bears, or about climate change. The Bush administration has been reluctant to protect ANY endangered species, for any reason. Last week was the first time in three years that an animal had been added to the list, even though there are dozens, if not hundreds, of species that biologists believe should be given extra protection.

In case it wasn't obvious before, Kempthorne's announcement made it clearer than ever that this administration doesn't care about biodiversity, it doesn't care about the environment, and most of all, it doesn't care what the majority of Americans think.


Latest Activity: May 22, 2008 at 11:18 AM



Blog has been viewed (340) times.

jjohnson commented on Thursday, May 22, 2008 at 11:18 AM

Ms. Gilbert's well thought out response to the administration's classification of polar bears as "threatened" neglects to address a few pertinent issues.

1. The addition of polar bears was a political decision rather than a scientific one. The number of polar bears in the artic regions of North America has remained fairly contstant, perhaps even increased over the last 30 years. The administration could not bear (pardon the pun) the stigma of not appearing to care about these beautiful, but dangerous creatures.

2. It is true that the polar ice in artic regions has decreased, but not all polar bears hunt from the ice fields, and there is no credible evidence that the decreasing ice can be attributed to so called "man-made global warming." The earth has been warming and cooling for eons. How can we be so vain as to think that we (mankind) are suddenly the only reason that climates can change. We can't even make it rain. Recent data, rather than computer models, shows that the earth has actually begun a reversal from the trend of increasing temperatures.

The frequently repeated mantra that "The majority of scientists believe the warming is related to manmade greenhouse gases." is a popular fallacy. There is a great deal of rational disagreement over the causes of "global warming." In fact, many of the most respected scientists and meteorologists who originally believed that global warming was man made have now come to believe that this is a completely natural, perhaps solar, phenomenon.

3. This administration has mostly refrained from allowing global warming politics to dictate its policies. I fear that we will not be so fortunate in the next administration - no matter whom we elect.


Log In to post comments.

Previous blog entries by Debbie_Gilbert
 
enviroblog: Georgia vs. Colorado
August 05, 2008

Not everything is bigger and better in Colorado.

While Colorado's national parks and national forests offer outstanding opportunities for wilderness adventure, if you're thinking o...

Read More »
 
enviroblog: My own private canyon
July 31, 2008
The national forests get a bad rap sometimes. They're only in the news when something goes wrong, like a wildfire or other environmental calamity. But often the national forests have hiking trai...
Read More »
 
enviroblog: Death of a forest
July 25, 2008
If you've been to Clingman's Dome in the Great Smoky Mountains and you've seen the skeletons of fir trees, killed decades ago by an invasive insect, the balsam woolly adelgid, then you know how it ...
Read More »
 
enviroblog: The wild West
July 15, 2008
The National Geographic Channel is doing an excellent series right now on the "biography" of Earth, and they aired a special recently about the Rocky Mountains. The Rockies are the highest and y...
Read More »
 
enviroblog: The final word on Exxon Valdez
June 25, 2008
On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court cut the amount of punitive damages that ExxonMobil will have to pay for smashing an oil tanker into Alaska's Prince William Sound in 1989. A lot of environme...
Read More »
 
[View More Blogs...]






Powered by
Morris Technology
Weather Forecast