The Kyoto Protocol Would Only Save 1 Polar Bear A Year!

June 26, 2008

*source of story

One Expert says we can NOT save the Polar Bear by making significant lifestyle changes in order to reduce co2 output.

The Interior Department listed the polar on its threatened species list because of the risks of shrinking sea ice. But Bjørn Lomborg, a Danish author and professor at the Copenhagen Business School, told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on June 25 that the threat is exaggerated and wouldn’t go away even if every country in the world signed and followed the Kyoto Protocol.

Lomborg, author of “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming,” explained during the speech in Washington, D.C., how inefficient and ineffective it would be to try to improve the polar bear population via massively curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

“The polar bear has become the icon of global warming and certainly [former Vice President] Al Gore was a part of doing that,” Lomborg said. “A lot of people think polar bears are threatened right now – actually that’s not the case.”

According to Lomborg, global polar bear population was about 5,000 in 1960. Since then, the population has quadrupled. Now there are an estimated 22,000 polar bears. But, Lomborg warned the polar bear still eventually could be threatened by the effects of global warming.

“My point is simply: if we actually care about the polar bear, why is that we are so intent on only discussing one option – that is cutting carbon emissions?” Lomborg said. “Nobody ever talks about what would be the effect of cutting carbon emissions. Well, let me show you – if everybody did the Kyoto Protocol all the way through the century, which is very, very far away, but if everybody actually did that, we’d save one polar bear every year.”

Lomborg said he was all for saving that one polar bear a year, but questioned the costs. He estimated the worldwide annual cost of the Kyoto Protocol to be $180 billion. Kyoto is a treaty supported by Gorethe United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He proposed a simpler solution: and

“It strikes me as odd, that in this conversation, nobody seems to mention the fact that every year, we shoot somewhere between 300 and 500 polar bear,” Lomborg said. “Wouldn’t it be smarter to first stop shooting the polar bear?”

More Proof that Polar Bears Don’t Get Stranded On Floating Ice!

June 6, 2008

The Guardian reports that this Polar bear swam 200 miles to reach Iceland and was shot on arrival in case it posed a threat to humans.

I’m not saying I agree with the fact that they shot it, but it has been studied that Polar bears can swim up to 100 miles to reach land, and this one swam 200 miles!

It kind of puts a big hole in the theory that melting ice shelves due to “global warming” are killing the polar bears. I happen to think it’s guns that kill Polar Bears.(ok sorry for the obvious satire there).

If you remember just a couple of weeks ago when the United States put the Polar Bears on the Endangered Species due to global warming, despite the fact that their numbers have been on the rise since the 70’s.

Of course the media is spinning this saying that if the ice wasn’t melting the polar bear wouldn’t of had to swim to ice land in the first place. The last time this happened was in 1993, so lets not get to excited about this theory of “Mass Exodus” of polar bears trying to escape melting ice. And for the record the polar bear that swam to Iceland in 1993 was shot also.

So by my count thats Iceland 2, Polar Bears nothing.

Other News articles:

New York Daily News

Ice News

Who Benefits More From Polar Bears Being Endangered?

May 15, 2008

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?