From the AP news article, Polar Bears are listed under The Endangered Species Act. For all of you who are about to sigh with relief, lets discuss why this is a bad decision.
Just because they show you a picture of a Polar Bear cub stranded on a floating sheet of ice doesn’t mean they are endangered. After all Polar Bears have been tracked swimming up to 62 miles continuously, and some up to 200 miles.
They show you those pictures to get you to stop thinking with the left side of your brain that handles logically thinking, and to engage the right side of your brain that does all the emotional thinking.
This is important because it’s the first time that the Endangered Species Act has been used to protect a species threatened by the impacts of global warming. This is a very dangerous standard to set because there is concern that this decision could be used to regulate carbon dioxide in the future.
There are studies from the National Center for Policy Analysis, published in “Environment News” in 2007 that shows Polar Bear populations have risen since the 1970s from 5,000 to about 25,000 at present.
Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Polar Bear Biologist, says there is no need to worry, that 11 out of the 13 populations of polar bears are thriving in the arctic and that slightly warming conditions benefits the bears by providing a better habit to find food.
And the Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts study found that wind patterns have more of an effect of the habit then global warming.
So then why all the hype about polar bears going extinct. The US placing them on the Endangered Species List seems to contradict these stories here and here and here and here and here
And why is the US government setting policy instead of Biologist and Scientist?
By placing the Polar Bear on the Endangered Species List, Government now how has action to do 2 things. 1 regulate Carbon dioxide which could lead to things like carbon taxes. 2 prevents the US from drilling for oil in the arctic, which keeps gas prices high.
So the question has to be asked, who benefits more from Polar Bears being endangered: The Polar Bears or the Government?
November 10, 2008 at 4:50 pm |
Omy Gosh1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Help the polarbearsnow
December 9, 2008 at 8:56 pm |
Oh my heck that is ridiculous!! Okay okay, so polar bears are cute and fuzzy. But they are no where CLOSE to being endangered and to do so would just put more money into random projects instead of into helping other animals that actually need help!
December 10, 2008 at 11:25 pm |
ok we really really NEED 2 help the polar bears its the worlds fault that polar bears r endangered bcuz its our fault we r the 1s that r KILLING the polar bears, if u have a heart then u will help me im going to try and stop global warming!
March 6, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
First of all, you need to learn to proofread. All the grammatical mistakes in this article put you’re credibility in question. I agree that we should let biologists and scientists decided which species are endangered or not. However, the second action listed contradicts with your statement that the government would benefit from setting this policy. I highly doubt the government wants to prevent themselves from drilling, resulting in higher gas prices. Although there are many politicians who do no want to drill, there are many others whose goal is to lower gas prices quickly. You also have to take into consideration that oil is a nonrenewable resource and we have to start thinking of investing in other fuel sources; hopefully ones that don’t harm the surrounding ecosystem because of drilling.
March 6, 2009 at 7:02 pm |
Well as far as grammar goes, all I can say is I try. I know it’s bad, so thank you for putting up with it to read my post.
I do think the government would benefit from having the power to declare what animals are endangered and which are not.
That power would be the catalyst for pushing for tougher “green” laws. Saving the animals is just a good way to cover their agenda. Look at the Eastern Europe, their feeling the “green” agenda now.
It started out with huge mass appeal, because who doesn’t want to do what they can to help. But once people realized that government was going to use it to their advantage to collect new taxes and fee’s from new green permits, their not so happy.
You can also look at the amount of carbon neutral companies that have popped up in the last couple of years. You can’t deny that going green is a huge business.
After all Al Gore himself own a carbon offset company, and goes around the world promoting that people buy offsets.
As far as drilling for oil I find it amazing that the United States is very aggressive when it comes to foreign oil. We’ll occupy a country, subsidie their oil companies, make deals to get cheap oil in excahnge for the petrodollars being invested in American banks.
But when it comes to drilling for it here, they always site some environmental group that’s stopping them from drilling. As is the case in Alaska. We have enough oil for the Unites States for at least 200 years. It just take a little bit of time to research it. We Have Prudoe Bay, and the North Slope in Alaska, and The Bakken in North Dakota.
So why aren’t we drilling?
The only answer I can find is that we would rather use the rest of the worlds supply first.
I guess my point is simply that you can have a story like this one about the Polar Bears. At first it seems like the right thing to do. If they are in endangered we should protect them. But what they leave out of the story is all the facts that support that they are not endangered, in fact their populations are growing.
But even if they were being threatened, that decision should not be made by politicians, because it leaves the door open for governments to use it for their advantage.
July 23, 2009 at 11:20 pm |
Sandra, proofread your own script before you start throwing stones.
Did anyone check how far the bear was from land when this photo was taken?