Polar Bear Central

It's crystal clear that ending the ever-increasing melting down of the northern icecap would preserve the home ground of the polar bear. The bad news about the polar melt down got me curious about how some ongoing crusades to save the bear could make that happen.

Very recently, scientists proclaimed that the Arctic ice cap retreated this summer at a pace that's taken even these well-educated people by surprise. "Over all, the floating ice dwindled to an extent unparalleled in a century or more, by several estimates," stated Andrew Revkin in
The New York Times. continued...

"Astonished by the summer’s changes, scientists are studying the forces that exposed one million square miles of open water - six California sized areas - beyond the average since satellites started measurements in 1979."

Although polar conditions are difficult and complicated, and additional weather components may be involved with the contracting of the northerly ice cap, even some men of science who have challenged the level to which human activities are disturbing the climate seem to be taken aback by this year's occurrences. As Revkin described,

We used to argue that a lot of the variability up to the late 1990s was induced by changes in the winds, natural changes not obviously related to global warming, said John Michael Wallace, a scientist at the University of Washington. But changes in the last few years make you have to question that. I’m much more open to the idea that we might have passed a point where it’s becoming essentially irreversible.

The same day's coverage conveyed a dispiriting prediction for the "poster animals" of worldwide warming, polar bears: a new study argues that if there's not a considerable cut back in greenhouse emissions, and the melting of the Arctic carries on at the present-day tempo, the Earth's 22 thousand (or there abouts) polar bear community will diminish by two-thirds by 2050.

The US Geological Service (USGS) survey was completed to help inform the U.S. Department of the Interior's eventual decision -- anticipated in January 2008 -- on whether to declare the polar bear an endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).

What occurs if the species is registered as endangered? Would the actions that would be called for by law at long last contain the meltdown of the Arctic, and rescue the wilderness polar bear?

Firstly, an overview of how the ESA functions.

Any group or private member of the public can ask the federal authorities to regard an animal or plant species for designation as endangered. The Act mandates that the government apply the finest obtainable science to make its determination; that it publish an initial judgement on the petition within ninety days of when it is lodged, and then issue a final judgement within twelve months of that date.

If the governing authority overlooks these deadlines or neglects to utilise the best available information, a provision in the ESA grants the right for citizens to sue the government to uphold the law.

If a class of animals is registered as "threatened" or "endangered", amongst other provisions it disallows federal authorities from implementing, financial backing, or empowering any action which could "jeopardize the continued existence of" an endangered or vulnerable species.

And the Act specifies protecting not only the species, but also "the ecosystems upon which they depend."

So if the polar bear is registered as an endangered species, it presumably implies that the United States government would have to take action to do away with threats to its natural habitat, Arctic sea ice. The chief and possibly the only pragmatic manner to do that would be to mandate a heavy and virtually immediate cut back in U.S. greenhouse gas discharges (which represents twenty-five percent of the Earth's overall CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels).

Would it imply that the U.S. EPA would have to act on this past spring's historical Supreme Court finding that greenhouse gasses were pollution, and therefore subject to regulations to protect the public health and environment?

Does it mean the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would have to radically tighten automobile emissions criteria? Would funding to dirty energy industries become outlawed; would grants to develop and expand clean energy and conservation have to step-up? What about national trade policy and economic aid with developing countries that are increasing the use of coal-powered energy?

Amidst all the alarming news about the Arctic habitat, these are somewhat hopeful speculations. We'll have to wait and pray that the government acts to protect this magnificent animal and it's polar playground.