The Green Rocket

Everyone still remember the bombardment of news concerning the polar bear’s threat of extinction in the sensitive Arctic environment due to climate change, over-hunting and oil drilling? The Bush administration has kept the polar bear issue in limbo for three years until lawsuits against them, by Greenpeace, the National Resource Defence Council, and the Center for Biological Diversity helped force them to make a final decision. The topic was rampant on news sites everywhere, green or not, mostly due to the fact that this was the first species ever to be considered for listing due to the effects of global warming on its habitat. The energy of discussion over this topic seems to have gone the way of the iceberg and mostly melted away in the media.

I love wildlife and I love animals in particular, so why does the introduction to this article sound antagonistic? Here’s my analogy for the day: If a child cries because it wants a toy, you can ignore it only so long before you give it a cookie as a consolation prize to stop the crying. After the cookie is eaten the child realizes that it still didn’t get the toy. This makes the child feel even more defeated–but hey, they got a cookie at least, right?

The following article gathers together a summary of events; I can’t help think that this “victory” wasn’t actually won. I leave it to the reader to come to their own conclusions.

Call to Action!

On April 2 the National Wildlife Federation urged immediate action to protect America’s polar bears from the impacts of climate change by listing them under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) proposed to list the bear as a threatened species under the ESA within a year. Missing the deadline by 3 months raised suspicions that the Bush Administration was attempting to avoid scrutiny of oil and gas leases in the Chukchi Sea on February 8, 2008.

On April 25 the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada stated that the polar bear was nothing more than a “special concern” nonetheless requiring Canada’s government to develop a management plan to protect the bears if it agreed with the label. Canada was being realistic to the situation: Polar bears were not at risk of going extinct. Through legislative action they still aimed to protect one of Canada’s iconic symbols. At this point it was expected that the FWS would update the polar bear’s listing by the end of June.

U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland, Calif., on April 29 ordered the Interior Department to make a choice on the polar bear petition by May 15, 2008. No more delays! By May 14 a decision was indeed made to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the ESA based on “evidence” that the animal’s vital sea ice habitat is shrinking and likely to continue shrinking for the next couple decades. Computer models depicting and theorized a 30% decrease in sea ice by 2050, therefore concluding the possible extinction of the polar bear in 45 years. Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels reaction to this is that the department’s listing is based on “obsolete science”, making this more of a political than scientific decision.

Conspiracy Theory or Shady Business?

Continued speculation exists that Interior Department was waiting until a $2.7 billion lease of oil reserves off the Alaskan coast were sealed before dealing with the polar bear listing dilemma. Minerals Management Service was closing leases covering 46,000 square miles for continued exploration of oil and gas drilling in the Chukchi Sea. The polar bear being listed as “endangered” would have subjected those lease sales. Officials denied any of this had a bearing on delays in decision making. (Source)

The Bush administration announced a rule allowing oil drilling in the Arctic to continue despite the polar bear now being listed as a threatened species claiming that oil and gas exploration and extraction showed no evidence of harming the bears. You can read the entire press hearing on the following website with annotated comments by Andrew Revkin of Dot Earth (NY Times).

Bye-Polar Disorder Begins

The Bush administration was forced to acknowledge the effects of global warming on the environment by approving the polar bear’s addition to the “threatened” list. Thus begins the well defined “bye-polar disorder“, coined at the Climate Progress blog (as far as I can find). To summarize the site’s definition:

You list the polar bear as threatened because of its melting polar sea ice habitat, but then do nothing to actually protect that polar habitat from its primary threat, greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion.

The technical details of this exemption: global warming pollution. This exception cancels out any protective measures the “threatened” listing could have provided for the polar bear. Federal agencies are free to continue their activities without concerning themselves with how global warming pollution affects the polar bears or their habitat, and that oil and natural gas development in the region should not be blamed for the polar bear’s welfare. (Source)

The climate change debate sees opinions on either side of the spectrum; the vast majority of scientists agree that data proves dire consequences to Earth’s biological diversity, while industrial companies and lobbyists, as well as a minority of scientists, believe it’s something we can do nothing about and agree to just let it play out. This situation depicts a clear split between the values of both sides. (Source)

The future will be what it’ll be, but what is here and now, and worth focusing on, whether humans are at fault or not, are situations like the one discovered by Canadian military accompanied by scientists who discovered a new network of fractures in the Arctic region. All arguments concerning the polar bear aside, time and effort needs to go into studying how natural changes like these will affect the biodiversity of the Arctic region.

The Bare Numbers

In the early 1970s, the polar bear numbers were estimated at about 5000, dwindled down significantly due to over-hunting. Today the bear population is five times higher at about 25,000 thanks to efforts made by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Nineteen sub-species are scattered across five countries: USA, Russia, Norway and Canada. Canada has an estimated 15,500 polar bears–roughly one third of the global population. The David Suzuki Foundation states that 5 of Canada’s 13 polar bear populations have decreased 22% since 2004.

The polar bear population in Western Hudson Bay of Canada has declined from approximately 1200 bears in 1987, to 1,100 bears in 1995, and then to fewer than 950 bears in 2004 due to ice loss. Arctic sea ice loss set a record low in 2007. This year, the sea ice melt season is already shaping up to break the record set in 2007. (Source)

With the rising temperatures in Arctic regions and ice melting at an accelerated rate, computer models projects a 30% decline in sea ice by 2050, based on those statistics from the US Geological Survey in 2007, polar bear numbers are estimated to be cut to two-thirds by that year.

Although illegal hunting does exist–for example, in the Chukotka region of Russia off the Bering Sea, it is said over 200 polar bears are killed a year–the polar bear has seen some protective measures through the years as well that helped their numbers rise. There are 15 native villages in Alaska who practice substance hunting. This will continue to be allowed, but has been reduced due to younger generations not liking to eat the bears. There are also conservation efforts in place in the area; a voluntary quota overseen by the Alaska Nanuuq Commission. The annual take has dropped from 100 polar bears to the upper 50s. In Nunavat, Canada’s largest territory, the annual hunting quota was dropped from 56 to 38. (Source)

The Rise of the Grolar Bear!

The first grolar bear was found in the wild in April 2006 after a DNA test conducted by Wildlife Genetics International in British Columbia, Canada confirmed the bear was mothered by a polar bear with a grizzly bear father. Hybrids like this aren’t uncommon in zoos but are extremely unlikely in the wild due to each bear requiring extended mating rituals to reproduce. A female polar bear ovulates only after spending several days with the male; once ovulation occurs they mate for several days after. (Source)

On May 7 scientists suggested that melting ice in Arctic regions would cause polar bears to be stranded on beaches as grizzlies explored more northern regions. During these rare contacts, unions are made, and hybrids are born. I’m of the group of people who don’t see a negative in this scenario. These grolar bear hybrids would preserve the polar bear genes. Even if extinction of the polar bear is a possibility, science would always have access to their genetic makeup.

Not Just a Polar Bear’s Playground

With all this information about the polar bear it seems unfortunate that the perspective is so narrowly focused. Why just the polar bears? Are they the only creatures under the threat of extinction based on the scientific models and environmental predictions described above?

The narwhal, a whale with a “unicorn” like tusk has an even greater connection to its Arctic habitat. Its feeding ranges are more narrow and diet limited that researchers fear they’ll be unable to adapt to increased Arctic temperatures. Narwals exist in a very specific region between Baffin Island and Greenland numbering just over 80,000. (Source) Could it encounter different complications due to global warming that will get it the attention that came to the polar bear?

With much more massive numbers we have the arctic caribou sitting at an estimated 377,000. This estimate was recorded in July 2007 and although high, it still represents a drop in about 113,000 caribou since 2004. The downward trend may be due to several recent mid-winter freeze events. (Source) Could this be a trend directly related to less hospitable conditions?

How about the ringed seal, ribbon seal and bearded seal who give birth and nurse their pups on the ice and use it as a resting platform and feeding zone? The ringed seal in specific requires that the ice remains stable through spring in order to successfully raise its young. If the ice melts too fast, mothers leave young sooner, increasing the newborn mortality rate. If any of these seals give birth to young on land they highly increase the chances of predator attacks. Will these Arctic mammals be ignored? (Source)

… And the Battle Cries Continue …

Is it a surprise that new battles are on the horizon and that battle shouts can already be heard and chanted across hordes of activists? Early this month on June 9, two environmental groups filed a notice that they plan to sue the federal government for not imposing new regulations concerning oil and gas development in Alaskan waters in correlation with the protective status of the polar bear being listed as “threatened”. The Center of Biological Diversity and Pacific Environment are claiming that the Interior Department is in violation of the Endangered Species Act by allowing oil companies to continue their operations unchecked.

On the other side of the pendulum swing comes a lawsuit that will sue the U.S. government for listing the polar bear as a threatened species, arguing that it’ll slow development activities in Alaska. Any development requiring federal permits or funds would have to go through a time-consuming but required consultation, mandated by the Endangered Species Act making certain the polar bear was not being jeapordized.

Then there are those going down the obvious path of protecting other Arctic creatures. The Center for Biological Diversity formally notified Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne of its intent to file suit against him for refusing to process an Endangered Species Act listing petition for the Pacific walrus, imperiled by global warming and increasing oil development in its habitat in the Bering and Chukchi Seas off Alaska.

Conclusion?

I’m not sure it’s even worth giving a conclusion to this article–it might not be a conclusion after all in about a month. In short, this whole scenario has opened up some very interesting dialogue between politics and science, human interference and natural circumstances, and business and ecology. Most importantly, these events have created a symbol out of the polar bear, the catalyst for Arctic awareness, no matter how things resolve themselves. We can only hope that in 50 years the polar bear won’t be nothing more than a martyr for a cause.

I’m going to go eat some cookies now.

Referenced Works

• www.greenpeace.org, Dec 15, 2005, “Conservationists File Lawsuit to Protect Polar Bear Under Endangered Species Act”
• www.nwf.org, April 2, 2008, “National Wildlife Federation Urges Protection for Polar Bears”
• www.reuters.com, Apr 25, 2008, Louise Egan,”Polar bear seen in trouble, not endangered”
• www.sciam.com, May 14, 2008, Larry Greenemeier, “U.S. Protects Polar Bears Under Endangered Species Act”
• www.planetsave.com, May 15, 2008, Joshua S. Hill, “Polar Bear Finally Listed as ‘Endangered’”
• dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com, May 14, 2008, Andrew C. Revkin,”The (Annotated) Polar Bear Decision”
• www.climateprogress.org, May 14, 2008, Joseph Rom, “Bye-polar Kempthorne: Polar bear IS endangered, but ‘Rule will allow continuation of vital energy production in Alaska’”
• www.greenpeace.com, May 15, 2008,”Endangered Species Act threatens Polar Bears”
• www.dailygalaxy.com, May 16, 2008, Rebecca Sato, “Is the Polar Bears’ Predicament a Sign of Things to Come?”
• www.planetsave.com, May 25, 2008, Joshua S. Hill, “Giant Cracks Appearing in Arctic Ice”
• www.guardian.co.uk, May 17, 2008, Richard Luscomb, “Great white hope”
• www.climateprogress.org, May 10, 2008, Joseph Rom, “Warming’s new hybrid — the Grolar bear or Pizzly”
• www.enn.com, May 7, 2008, “Arctic ice melt could see rise of ‘Grolar bear’”
• www.guardian.co.uk, May 13, 2008, Edward Helmore, “Mysterious Arctic whale under threat from changing habitat”
• www.sitenews.us, May 19, 2008, “Latest Census Shows Decline in Alaska’s Largest Caribou Herd”
• http://www.acia.uaf.edu/pages/overview.html, Cambridge University Press, “Impacts of a Warming Arctic”
• www.reuters.com, Jun 9, 2008, Yereth Rosen, “Groups to sue over oil impacts to polar bears”
• www.reuters.com, May 22, 2008, Yereth Rosen, “Alaska to sue to block polar bear listing”
• www.biologicaldiversity.org, May 27, 2008, “Lawsuit to Be Filed Seeking Endangered Species Act: Protection for the Pacific Walrus”

Related Posts

• Narwhal in More Danger than The Polar Bear
• “Vital Energy Production” in Alaska to Continue Onward
• Rhino Horn Poaching at an All-Time High? How is this Problem Increasing?