Upstream | November 25, 2010 | 129 comments

The Obama Administration Is Setting Aside 187,000 Square Miles in Alaska as a "Critical Habitat" for Our Polar Bears

source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/11/polar-bear-critical-habitat-obama-.html

Image
EthicalVegan
The Obama administration is setting aside 187,000 square miles in Alaska as a "critical habitat" for polar bears,

Greenspace (Los Angeles Times)


Obama administration moves to protect polar bear
November 24, 2010 | 9:02 pm





The Obama administration is setting aside 187,000 square miles in Alaska as a "critical habitat" for polar bears, an action that could restrict future offshore drilling for oil and gas. The total, which includes large areas of sea ice off the Alaska coast, is about 13,000 square miles, or 8.3 million acres, less than in a preliminary plan released last year.

Tom Strickland, assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks at the Interior Department, said the designation would help polar bears stave off extinction, recognizing that the greatest threat is the melting of Arctic sea ice caused by climate change.

"This critical habitat designation enables us to work with federal partners to ensure their actions within its boundaries do not harm polar bear populations," Strickland said. "We will continue to work toward comprehensive strategies for the long-term survival of this iconic species."

Designation of crucial habitat does not in itself block economic activity or other development, but requires federal officials to consider whether a proposed action would adversely affect the polar bear's habitat and interfere with its recovery.

Nearly 95% of the designated habitat is sea ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas off Alaska's northern coast. Polar bears spend most of their lives on frozen ocean where they hunt seals, breed and travel.

Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell and the state's oil and gas industry had complained that the preliminary plan released last year was too large and dramatically underestimated the potential economic impact. The designation could result in hundreds of millions of dollars in lost economic activity and tax revenue, they said.

Parnell said that the state is pleased that existing man-made structures will be exempted from critical habitat considerations. But, he said in a statement, the state is disappointed it was not consulted on other recommendations. "This additional layer of regulatory burden will not only slow job creation and economic growth here and for our nation, but will also slow oil and gas exploration efforts," Parnell said.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said reductions included in the final rule were mostly due to corrections that more accurately reflect the U.S. border in the Arctic Ocean. Five U.S. Air Force radar sites were exempted from the final rule, as were Native Alaskan communities in Barrow and Kaktovik, Alaska.

The Interior Department has declared polar bears "threatened," or likely to become endangered, citing a dramatic loss of sea ice. Officials face a Dec. 23 deadline to explain why the bears were listed as threatened instead of the more protective "endangered."

Kassie Siegel, a lawyer for the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group that has filed a lawsuit to increase protections for the polar bear, hailed the decision. "Now we need the Obama administration to actually make it mean something so we can write the bear's recovery plan — not its obituary," she said. Siegel called for a moratorium on oil and gas drilling in bear habitat areas. "An oil spill there would be a catastrophe," she said. "That seems like an understatement."

The Arctic Slope Regional Corp., which advocates for Alaska native business interests, said in a statement that the decision disproportionately affects Alaska natives and called the designation the "wrong tool" for conserving the polar bear because it does nothing to address climate change.

"The burden of the impacts will be felt by the people of the Arctic Slope," said Tara Sweeney, vice president of external affairs for ASRC, which is based in Barrow, Alaska. "This is a quality-of-life issue for our people."

Kara Moriarty, deputy director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Assn., said the action would hurt oil and gas exploration in Alaska by creating more delays and added costs to projects in what already is a high-cost environment.

"The companies and the industry will be required to go through more permitting and create mitigation measures without a direct benefit to the polar bear or oil and gas development," Moriarty said. "The Fish and Wildlife Service has found over and over again our activities pose no threat to the polar bear."
  1. groups:
    Community,   Politics,   Green,   Current Tonight,   24 more
  2. tags:
    Animal Rights,  Obama Administration,  Animal Protection,  Alaska,  17 more
  3. recommended by:
    Vierotchka
  4.     
    |

129 comments // The Obama Administration Is Setting Aside 187,000 Square Miles in Alaska as a "Critical Habitat" for Our Polar Bears

  • UtopianSky
  • Conniepae
  • telcod
    • 0
      telcod  
    • Conniepae:

      Pride is the deadliest of the seven deadly sins. Looking at Sarah Palin, I'm gonna go with wrath. Just heard her talk for the first time the other night on some shill for her new horror show. Could not believe the voice. Weird Barbie Speaks. Could do the voice for the new line of Talking Zombie Barbie Dolls.

    • 1 year ago
  • telcod
    • -3
      telcod  

    • Every time I see polar bears, I remember my daughter (about 15 at the time) and I watching a Discovery channel special on them. She was loving it until the a bear ripped a baby seal to pieces on the ice. Then it was not so cute. The circle of life lecture didn't really make it. So I told her that if she would just recycle her aluminum cans and plastic bottles, the bears wouldn't kill seals any more, but she would probably get Alzheimer's from the cans or breast cancer from the bottled water, regardless. She seemed to understand and we said our prayers for Al Gore and his closed family tobacco farms and his sister who died from lung cancer. And so it goes.

    • 1 year ago
  • fun_size
  • Dejan_Croatia
  • Gravity_Man
    • -3
      Gravity_Man  

    • The dastardly & cowardly Barack HUSSEIN Obama did something for the white polar bears? Nah, it was "his administration" that did it. Whew. There for a brief moment I thought the man actually did something. These posts on Current are getting scarier by the day.

      To recap then => Obama did it. Obama did it. Obama did it. Obama did it. Obama did it. Obama did it. Obama did it. Obama did it. Obama did it. Obama did it. Obama did it. Hmm. That looks scary too. I wonder what his agenda is? Who paid Obama to do this act? Was trickery used, arm twisting, the spirit of Richard Nixon?

      Something's gotta be wrong to go this right for the polar bear. We won't rest til we get to the bottom of this outrage => this new DC SCANDAL.

    • 1 year ago
  • fun_size
  • Gravity_Man
    • -2
      Gravity_Man  
    • fun_size:

      Obama did something & his "administration" was given credit. No big deal [back door subliminal bashing], move along. However, I suspect this good deed to the polar bears may be followed by other good deeds. Soon.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
    • -1
      Gravity_Man  
    • ImConcerned:

      Another name caller falls head first into a well-laid trap, the first of the day. Fess Parker, roll over in your grave. Note to Self => Self, next post-holiday stay off Current. It isn't worth it. Sometimes when the head spins around it comes to a stop facing backwards.

      How can it possibly come up into your heart to call me a name THE FIRST DAY after Thanksgiving, after TURKEY DAY?! Reverse peristalsis is a terrible thing to waste?

      This "idiot" told you something important. Obama has taken a gear. Do you know what that means? I know what I hope it means. He just mashed the gas. Suits me.

    • 1 year ago
  • ImConcerned
  • Gravity_Man
    • -1
      Gravity_Man  
    • ImConcerned:

      YOU aren't the President. I fun around with him. You're just a name caller. One who apparently had one hateful day yesterday. Did the turkey jump up and take the knife to ya or what?!

      So, you were nice to everybody yesterday and vent your real true self on here today eh? How righteous of you to come here mistreating me this way, an old has been inventor on his birfday.

    • 1 year ago
  • ImConcerned
  • Gravity_Man
  • Gravity_Man
  • ImConcerned
  • Gravity_Man
  • Gravity_Man
  • ImConcerned
  • Gravity_Man
  • Gravity_Man
  • Gravity_Man
  • Gravity_Man
  • Gravity_Man
  • ImConcerned
  • Gravity_Man
    • -1
      Gravity_Man  
    • ImConcerned:

      Where in the world did you learn so many foul languages? Surely you didn't talk that way yesterday during your totally non-religious turkey feast!

      What qualifies you to judge me? Perhaps YOU are the wacko.

    • 1 year ago
  • ImConcerned
  • Gravity_Man
    • -1
      Gravity_Man  
    • ImConcerned:

      Gee well I'm glad I won't be seeing you in the next life. You can find someone else there to torment. Thank you for showing me your true self in that last post. You really dug down deep in your crotch for those Goodies, telling me yep, she's a woman alright.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
    • -1
      Gravity_Man  
    • ImConcerned:

      Blast, a new day and your evil stench and lies is still on this page. So demon, you really think you put me away calling me a titty baby don't you? hahahaha I haven't been with a woman thank God since 1994 so your accusation is this day the same it was the last day, a lie.

      A lie the first time you hammered me with it, a lie the last time you hammered me with it, all for naught a satchel of lies. And a very poor hammer, broken, useless. Somewhat like your lying mouth.

    • 1 year ago
  • ImConcerned
  • Gravity_Man
    • 0
      Gravity_Man  
    • ImConcerned:

      My last post to you was primarily aimed at the demon prompting such vicious verbal attacks on me. You're just the typist. Why would I want to intimidate a typist for? There's no gain to be had.

      My words did make sense you just didn't like the delivery, and now you're hedging that somehow your assaults on me were OK because I didn't make sense? Your actions against me are inexcusable, provided they WERE your actions. I do not believe they were.

      Far as I'm concerned we can be friends, but if the demon addresses me again I'll slap his face again. That's the way it works. I'm not a doormat to lay down and be filthied all over.

      The reason I believe it's a demon is because you haven't made an apology, and why should you?! It wasn't YOU doing the speaking. You were just doing the typing. The question is do you intend to be a mouthpiece for demons? It might bring you some harm one day.

      Or has it already?

    • 1 year ago
  • Ihatethemall
  • mik661
  • Ihatethemall
  • mik661
  • MrMxyzptlk
  • mik661
    • +1
      mik661  
    • MrMxyzptlk:

      Why I would think you would love the idea because then you can lease the grazing and mineral rights from the government for pennies on the dollar. When most people who live in flyover country bitch about property rights its usually because a) they want to keep everyone else out b) they are already exploiting them themselves usually at below market rates.

    • 1 year ago
  • MrMxyzptlk
  • mik661
    • +1
      mik661  
    • MrMxyzptlk:

      Because there arent millions of acres of wilderness including polar bears on the east coast. Since you dont live in the arctic then I guess you dont have shit to say about that either.

    • 1 year ago
  • MrMxyzptlk
  • mik661
    • +1
      mik661  
    • MrMxyzptlk:

      I can only speak for my area and there has been considerable effort to conserve the Chesapeake bay (save the bay!). Besides "Designation of crucial habitat does not in itself block economic activity or other development, but requires federal officials to consider whether a proposed action would adversely affect the polar Bear's habitat and interfere with its recovery.

      Nearly 95% of the designated habitat is sea ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas off Alaska's northern coast. Polar bears spend most of their lives on frozen ocean where they hunt seals, breed and travel" So almost all of this area is sea ice not private property. It does not ban development but restricts it to review to make sure that it does not adversely affect the bears feeding grounds.

    • 1 year ago
  • mik661
    • +1
      mik661  
    • mik661:

      What locals are that? the Inuit? They can hunt anywhere they want by right and I dont think they are going to be developing anything on the sea ice.

    • 1 year ago
  • UtopianSky
    • +1
      UtopianSky  
    • Ihatethemall:

      as opposed to the states stealing land from the feds?

      In reality, neither is true.

      States are not sovereign. It is ALL Federal Land, every single inch of it- States just administer it.

      The government can't steal what is already theirs.

    • 1 year ago
  • Ihatethemall
  • mik661
    • +1
      mik661  
    • Ihatethemall:

      Quit trying to make every action of the Federal goverment about some range war in Wyoming. This area is 95% sea ice and the only people who would be using it would be the Inuit (eskimos) and as a native people they can pretty much hunt and fish at will. The only people who will be inconvenienced are the oil and gas companies attempting to exploit the area. If they hadnt been leasing oil rights at sweetheart deals it is not likely it would be financially viable anyway.

    • 1 year ago
  • navider
  • GLOBALPOLITICAL
    • -6
      GLOBALPOLITICAL  

    • There are over 600 US cities that are members of ICLEI, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, now known as Local Governments for Sustainability. ICLEI institutes the UN Convention on Biological Diversity treaty that was withdrawn from a vote on the Senate floor in 1994, so the treaty, designed for UN control, is being implemented in cities.
      Here’s the description of the program from ICLEI’s own website:
      International Goals
      Our programs, and projects promote participatory, long-term, strategic planning process that address local sustainability while protecting global common goods. This approach links local action to internationally agreed-upon goals and targets such as:
      Agenda 21,
      the Rio Conventions:
      The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change,
      The UN Convention on Biological Diversity,
      ICLEI has many carbon reduction schemes that seem harmless, but ICLEI uses small steps to accomplish its goals. Last week Colorado Gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes warned that ICLEI is a UN plot for control at a rally in Denver, which is an ICLEI city. It made international headlines and some people scoffed because Maes used the bicycling program as an example. ICLEI does have programs to limit transportation. Maes’ opponent in the Governor’s race is John Hickenlooper, the Mayor of Denver and he is a ‘Cool Mayor’, which is a facet of an ICLEI program used to execute CO2 reduction. Hickenlooper is a supporter of CO2 reduction. CO2 reduction encourages depopulation.
      Watch this short video from a 350.org Climate Change rally in Denver less than a year ago where NOAA scientist advocates “doing whatever we can to reduce population”. The crowd responded by cheering!
      http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2010/0...

    • 1 year ago
  • navider
  • JanforGore
    • +3
      JanforGore  
    • navider:

      Amazing isn't it? And then they claim anyone who actually wants renewable energy and healthy citizens is part of the "NWO" while they are actually shilling for it. You have to wonder at some point who some of these these people really are because their stances are not only inconsistent but hypocritical. You simply can't post against the actions of Monsanto for example and then claim to deny climate change and the effects of fossil fuel agriculture on this planet.

    • 1 year ago
  • mik661
  • ayipis
    • -7
      ayipis  

    • I am always weary of those garden variety Al Gore'ish saviors...they tend to lend you a shoulder to cry on and target your wallet while your distracted..LOL

    • 1 year ago
  • Nephwrack
  • GLOBALPOLITICAL
    • -6
      GLOBALPOLITICAL  
    • Image

    • The United Nations has ensnared the world in voluntary treaties intended to become mandatory later, tricking politicians and the public. The treaties may be vague and open to interpretation over time, using a tactic known as ‘incrementalism’. These treaties affect many branches of government. The treaties are designed to deindustrialize and economically break nations, restrict energy resources (especially for electricity and transportation) and implement taxation schemes based on manipulated science from the UN (the EPA has authority to implement Cap-and-Trade).
      EVIL DECEPTIONS
      Agenda 21 Sustainable Development was introduced at the 1992 Earth Summit; it is not a treaty but uses treaties as a tool to implement its action plan for depopulation and total control. Michael Shaw has described Agenda 21 as the head of a monster whose tentacles have infiltrated all levels of government, affecting almost all areas of life, and he says that if you take out the head of the monster (Agenda 21), its tentacles will wither.
      The UN avoids using the word ‘treaty’. Most people understand that treaties erode national sovereignty and power. Voluntary treaties can be used to slide a foot in the door in order to trample sovereignty later through mandatory regulations.
      Conventions, Protocols, Agreements, Covenants and Accords take the form of a treaty, which may be binding international legal instruments or may become binding later when negotiations are completed.
      An Initiative is a type of referendum in which a proposal is placed on the ballot by way of petition.
      A Declaration does not have any legal power to enforce compliance but relies on the moral weight it carries.
      UNFCCC: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is a voluntary treaty ratified by the US in 1992 following the Earth Summit; no limits were set for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but the treaty provided for updates (protocols) to set mandatory limits.
      The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the UNFCCC which is legally binding but the US never ratified this treaty. The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, hence the push to ratify it, or a similar treaty like the Copenhagen Accord.
      SCARY POLITICAL POLICIES
      According to Richard Courtney’s article (May 1999) the real danger of global warming is the extreme response that politicians have had to imaginary global warming. Courtney says that the theory of global warming was developed during the Industrial Revolution in the 1880’s, but remained relatively obscure until 1979 when Margaret Thatcher became the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
      Courtney’s article explains that Thatcher desired respect and followed the advice of Sir Crispin Tickell, depopulation advocate and UK ambassador to the UN. He pointed out that she could gain international credibility if she promoted the global warming (GW) deception because most politicians are scientifically illiterate (Thatcher holds an undergraduate degree in chemistry). The benefits to the Thatcher Administration GW policies were:
      * GW fear was used to weaken US power- if all other countries enacted carbon taxes and industrial reductions they could pressure and gain benefit over the US.
      * Thatcher belonged to the Conservative Party that held a grudge against the National Union of Mineworkers who were blamed for the Party’s prior defeats, so GW provided an excuse shut down many coal mines and eliminate the miners’ political power.
      * Nuclear energy emits no carbon dioxide (CO2), and many coal plants were replaced with nuclear power plants. Nuclear power, which presents its own risks, was 4 times as expensive as coal-fired electricity.
      * The new nuclear power plants were necessary to produce nuclear weapons.
      Thatcher established the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, the operating agency for the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Hadley is located at East Anglia University, the focal point of the ‘Climategate’ scandal.
      RETURN OF THE GLOBAL WARMING ZOMBIE
      EPA

      UN global warming policies refuse to die because the EPA enforces them and endorses UN IPCC “science”. The EPA created the first Cap-and-Trade scheme for acid rain by expanding the Clean Air Act in 1990 that generates billions a year in taxes for a problem that is not serious and this is the model for carbon taxation.
      The EPA, through the Clean Air Act and a broad Supreme Court case ruling in 2007, has authority over air pollution that endangers public health. In 2009 the EPA came out with the CO2 ‘endangerment finding’ that determined CO2 threatens public health! Therefore, the EPA appears to have the authority to regulate harmless CO2 and other minor greenhouse gas emissions (Texas is suing the EPA). The EPA has an 18,000 page document with new regulations that includes a Cap-and-Trade scheme, which is the back-up plan because the national bills for Cap-and-Trade failed.
      The EPA and other federal agencies have received money from the taxpayer funded $787 billion Recovery Act stimulus program to pursue useless green policies. Over $7 billion dollars has been allocated to the EPA directly; the total amount for all agencies pursuing restrictions on electricty and transportation, in the name of the environment, is not known.
      DOE
      The Department of Energy (DOE) has received over $30 billion from the Recovery Act stimulus program. The DOE is spending this money on perpetuating bad UN policies that include:
      Energy Efficiency- this paves the way for licensing your home for energy efficiency (HR 2454).
      Modernizing the Electric Grid- this program institutes the “Smart Grid” program that monitors your energy usage: how much is used, when it is used, and it can even track some appliances. Some people fear that the government will use the grid to remotely control personal energy usage. Here’s a map of the DOE’s consolidation of federal grids across America:

      Carbon Capture and Storage- this program is a giant waste of money because carbon is harmless and even if there was 500% more carbon dioxide in the environment, it would be a benefit for agriculture and would not harm the atmosphere or animals and humans.
      Transportation: Obama is proud of this program and boasted about creating jobs at a battery plant in Michigan, but $548 million was spent to create 309 jobs (that’s $1.4 million per job).
      Renewable Energy: this program focuses on biofuels, wind and solar power. Biofuel crops have cut down on food production. Wind and solar are inefficient. Of course, industrial hemp, a plant that is a source of fuel, food, paper and plastic replacement, is not mentioned, nor will it receive any funding because it threatens too many monopolies and is illegal to grow.
      ECONOMIC VAMPIRES
      The centralization of power designed to depopulate and control people is funded by the people. The policies are dreamed up in think tanks affiliated with the UN, like the Club of Rome, famous for this quote:
      “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
      The policies are then supported by UN “science” that has proven to be manipulated, if not outright fraudulent. Based on inaccurate UN science, nations fund these programs and implement the policies. The taxpayers fund the governments, so We The People are actually paying for our own demise!
      NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) are deeply rooted in promoting propaganda to implement these programs and over 2400 NGO representatives went to the 1992 Earth Summit, and over 17,000 attended the parallel forum.
      Here is a list of foundations that fund global warming propaganda and programs:
      http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2010/10/un-tricks-and-treaties.html

    • 1 year ago
  • navider
  • mik661
  • RMattnerTours
  • Gravity_Man
  • eden49
  • sound5ystem
  • MrMxyzptlk
  • telcod
  • Conniepae
    • +9
      Conniepae  
    • MrMxyzptlk:

      Wait, wait, wait. Just like the war with Iraq, people and animals should not be pawns in our economic stability. Tax the people who can most afford to give. Let's get real, 4% tax increase would not make the wealthy, less wealthy.

      Before we stop having concern for the well being of polar bears, let's take a closer look at those who are profiting off the backs of innocent animals and for that matter, people. The Iraq war generated large profits for the military industrial complex, while making millions of Iraqi's into refugees. Their lives have changed forever, and the one's who profited from war, just move along as though 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness' doesn't matter to 'us all'. Some times the price of suffering at the expense of the less fortunate, is just too high!

      What type of country are we, if we show more concern for money, than animals and man? We are not all expendable for 'want of a dollar'! We 'are' better than that!

      Ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich would help our economy.

    • 1 year ago
  • navider
  • ayipiss
  • slippyt
    • +3
      slippyt  
    • Conniepae:

      Well said. Regarding the war, not too many ppl talk about how much the military industry profited from it. Mostly ppl talk about how much the war costs the PEOPLE. We pay - the industry gets to go kill ppl and make money. I applaud Obama..he has balls for making a potentially anti-economy decision in these rough times. He's not afraid to stand up for what he believes in, even if his sponsors hate him for it.

    • 1 year ago
  • indecisiveh
  • mik661
    • +3
      mik661  
    • MrMxyzptlk:

      Really? You think that economic prosperity needs massive oil company profits and destruction of wilderness areas in the Arctic? Do you know that people from all over the world come here to enjoy our parks and wilderness because in their countries it has either been destroyed or is dominated by private ownership?

    • 1 year ago
  • mik661
  • navider
  • MrMxyzptlk
  • mik661
    • +2
      mik661  
    • MrMxyzptlk:

      there are better resources and methods available than maximizing corporate profits by letting them pluck the low hanging fruit while destroying irreplaceable wilderness.

    • 1 year ago
  • Vierotchka
  • MrMxyzptlk
  • mik661
  • rodstradamus
    • -8
      rodstradamus  

    • I just want to let people know that the polar bear population has almost tripled since the 50s. That's why you always see them with cubs. They are not endangered and will bite your head off if you go near them. They don't drown when they are on a little iceberg; they are looking for seals or fish to kill. And they're the greatest land swimming animal out there. Don't be fooled by eco-fascist propaganda, using the polar bear as a symbol for environmentalism.

    • 1 year ago
  • mik661
    • +4
      mik661  
    • Image
    • rodstradamus:

      http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears/faq Experts in polar bear science believe they are. They predict that as the Arctic continues to warm due to climate change, two-thirds of the world's polar bears could disappear by 2030.
      Rapid loss of sea ice is their major threat. Others include pollution, poaching, and industrial impact. Hunting will become a threat if not well regulated.
      In 2005, PBSG classified polar bears as vulnerable on the IUCN World Conservation Union's Red List of Threatened Species" noting that extinction could occur due to sea ice changes.
      In May 2008, U.S. Department of the Interior listed the polar bear as a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act. Russia lists the polar bear as "a species of concern."
      At the 2009 meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG), the world's leading polar bear scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight were declining, three were stable, and one was increasing. They lacked sufficient data to say what is happening to the remaining seven.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +5
      JanforGore  
    • Image
    • rodstradamus:

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/polar-bears-global-warming.htm

      Wow, you actually got the denialist talking point down almost word for word...
      "The skeptic argument...Polar bear numbers are increasing

      'Dr. Mitch Taylor, biologist for the Department of Environment in Canada, says that Polar Bear populations are increasing. Dr. Taylor admits that in one region, western Hudson Bay, the population has decreased, while the rest of the regions have increased. In an interview with the Scotsman, Dr. Taylor explains "We’re seeing an increase in bears that’s really unprecedented and in places where we’re seeing a decrease in the population it’s from hunting, not from climate change."' (Mitchell Taylor)

      What the science says...
      Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species.

      Polar bears are found in the Arctic circle and surrounding land masses. There are 19 recognised subpopulations, and estimates place their numbers at about 20,000 to 25,000. Polar bears are classed as vulnerable by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and listed as a threatened species under the US Endangered Species Act. Yet some claim that polar bear numbers have increased since the 1950s and are now stable. So what is the situation for this species?

      First of all, a few points need to be made about polar bear numbers:

      •Nobody really knows how many bears there were in the 1950s and 1960s. Estimates then were based on anecdotal evidence provided by hunters or explorers and not by scientific surveys.
      •Polar bears are affected by several factors, including hunting, pollution and oil extraction. Most notably, hunting, particularly following the introduction of snowmobiles, airplanes and ice breakers, led to a huge decline in certain subpopulations. The introduction of the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears in 1973, which restricted or even banned hunting in some circumstances, consequently resulted in an increase in polar bear numbers.
      •Not all subpopulations are affected to the same degree by climate change, and while some subpopulations are well studied, for others there is insufficient data to make broad statements about current and past numbers.
      With this caveat in mind, what do the figures actually say? According to a 2009 report by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, of the 19 recognised subpopulations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 1 is increasing, 3 are stable and 7 don’t have enough data to draw any conclusions. Figure 1 below compares the data for 2005 and 2009.

      Figure 1: Subpopulation status of polar bears for 2005 and 2009 (Source: Polar Bear Specialist Group)

      Both habitat degradation and over-harvesting are responsible for the decline in some subpopulations. To understand why the IUCN and US Endangered Species Act consider polar bears to be at risk, it is important to look at how rising temperatures are likely to affect their habitat in the future. Polar bears are highly specialised mammals which rely heavily on sea ice for food and other aspects of their life cycle. Satellite data show that Arctic sea ice has been decreasing for the past 30 years, and projections show that this trend will continue as temperatures carry on rising. The changes in sea ice affect polar bears in several ways:

      •The early retreat of summer sea ice means that bears have less time to hunt and therefore less time to build up fat reserves.
      •The fragmentation and reduction in sea ice has several impacts. It forces the bears to swim longer distances, using up some of their fat reserves. It also reduces the number of seals, which are the bears’ main source of food, and impedes travelling and den making. And it also forces the bears to spend more time on land, with increased interactions with humans potentially leading to higher mortality.
      To get an idea of the potential impacts of future climate change on polar bears, we can look at subpopulations found at the bears’ southern range, where habitat changes have been most noticeable so far. A good example is the western Hudson Bay subpopulation, which is one of the best studied. Here, ice floe break-up is taking place earlier than 30 years ago, effectively reducing the feeding period by about three weeks. As a result, the average weight of female polar bears has dropped by about 21% between 1980 and 2004, and the population declined by 22% between 1987 and 2004. In Alaska, there is evidence of increased cub mortality caused by a decline in sea ice.

      In conclusion, the reason polar bears have been classed as threatened comes from the impacts of future climate change on the bears’ habitat. Current analysis of subpopulations where data is sufficient clearly shows that those subpopulations are mainly in decline. Further habitat degradation will increase the threats to polar bears."
      ___
      Oh, and based on this, seals don't look to have it too well off here either.

    • 1 year ago
  • mik661
  • GLOBALPOLITICAL
  • navider
    • +3
      navider  
    • GLOBALPOLITICAL:

      This is so funking stupid. There is nothing wrong with sustainability and wanting to take care of our environment.

      Although there a problem with big oil wanting to pollute our planet for profit.

      The conspiracy is that this jack ass was most likely paid by big oil to go to this meeting with and argue against sustainability.

      Keep sucking on the tits of big oil GLOBALPOLITICAL because you most likely feed your kids with their money.

    • 1 year ago
  • GLOBALPOLITICAL
    • -3
      GLOBALPOLITICAL  
    • navider:

      You need to do some research on the real motives behind the environmental movement. I do not disagree that we face some real environmental concerns, but I would encourage you to study AGENDA 21!

    • 1 year ago
  • navider
  • mik661
  • Ihatethemall
    • -3
      Ihatethemall  
    • mik661:

      If you dont believe that there is a new world order taking place with a global government you are a lost cause. Shit man the people doing it admit it. What planet do you live on?

    • 1 year ago
  • Ihatethemall
  • Ihatethemall
  • Ihatethemall
  • mik661
  • Ihatethemall
    • -3
      Ihatethemall  
    • mik661:

      YUP really funny. I notice how you have absolutely nothing to say about the video proof that I posted. Mock me call me names I dont care but defend you position with proof that there is no NWO with something other schoolyard tactics.

      I believe you when you say you tried another one because only someone living on a planet other than earth can still not believe in a NWO on this planet.

      You forgot to mention flat earthers and those who believe the moon landing was shot in a studio. Nice try.

      defend your position or have a nice cold drink of shut the hell up!

      What really cracks me up is you vote the video clips down. Do they disturb you? Do they make you think outside the box and see life for what it really is? what is big guy. Tell us all

    • 1 year ago
  • mik661
    • +1
      mik661  
    • Ihatethemall:

      oh boy. So the plotters to take over the world are on cable news channels. Please step away from the edge I don't vote any ones comments up or down just stories and then just on whether i consider them interesting. Shoot me your Addy and I will send you some fresh tinfoil.

    • 1 year ago
  • telcod
  • Vierotchka
    • +2
      Vierotchka  
    • Ihatethemall:

      "The New World Order" simply means the major change in the balance of powers following the collapse of the Soviet Union, as anyone with more than two functional brain-cells to rub together knows.

    • 1 year ago
  • mik661
  • Vierotchka
  • mik661
  • Ihatethemall
  • Ihatethemall
    • -3
      Ihatethemall  
    • Vierotchka:

      Yes but Im not willing to let the USA give up their powers in the world and anyone with more than 2 functional brain cells and lives in the USA would agree with me on that. I understand you live in another country, Sweden or Switzerland I believe if I remember correctly so I understand that you have hatred for the American way of life and the powers that this once great country had but I do not.

      DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER AND ANYONE WHO IS FOR IT. MAY THE DIE AND ROT IN HELL

    • 1 year ago
  • Vierotchka
    • +2
      Vierotchka  
    • Ihatethemall:

      I have no hatred for the American way of life, I simply pity it. As for the USA's powers in the world, it consists of pillage and slaughter of other countries who happen to have the natural resources the USA craves - 5% of the world's population devouring over 25% of the world's resources to the detriment of over a billion human lives. Such policies are evil, as are those who support them. You do realize, don't you, that what you call the "New World Order" is exactly what you are supporting, its lair is the USA, and it is the policy and raison d'être of the Republicans?

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
    • -1
      Gravity_Man  
    • Vierotchka:

      The "New World Order" wants everybody else to be like us and come on up to the trough and take their 25% of world resources also, and be fat and happy like us Americans (i.e. fructosed to death with belt overhang the result).

    • 1 year ago
12
1 - 100 of 129
more from Upstream:
from the community

top videos