Is the Polar Bear Threatened?

April 30, 2008 RSS Feed Print
A polar bear.

A polar bear.

The Interior Department has barely two weeks to issue a ruling on whether the polar bear qualifies for protection under the Endangered Species Act, a federal judge decided this week. As the New York Times reports, Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland, Calif., "rejected the government's contention that the case was too complicated to decide before June 30." Environmentalists argue that the melting of the Arctic icecap, which is reducing the polar bear's habitat, represents a serious threat to the species. The Times continues:

At a news conference earlier this month, the White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said environmentalists were inappropriately trying to use existing environmental laws, like the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act, to address climate change. The result, Ms. Perino said, would be a "regulatory train wreck."

In related news, a dozen advocacy groups sued the federal government this week to compel it to protect gray wolves in the Rockies under the Endangered Species Act. The feds had previously protected that population of the animal, but it withdrew its endangered status in March, according to the Associated Press.

As I blogged in late March, the current administration has been more reluctant than its recent predecessors to grant protection to species not already listed as threatened or endangered, and environmental groups have sued it in efforts to broaden the act's reach. A U.S. News photo gallery shows several of the species that one group seeks to protect. In several cases, climate change is one of the threats these species face.

Few scientists now doubt that climate change is occurring, according to a new survey. The best partial solution could be to use less energy, as U.S. News just pointed out in its cover story. Technological advances could help, too, as could widespread individual actions. My colleague Bret Schulte previously laid down 10 ways we can each combat global warming. They're not written in stone tablets, but perhaps they should be.

Tags:
endangered species,
Department of the Interior,
environment,
animals

Reader Comments Read all comments (10)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

The Facts:

Of the 20 distinct subpopulations of polar bears, one or possible two are declining in Baffin Bay; more than half are known to be stable; and 2 subpopulations are actually increasing around the Beaufort Sea. Global polar bear populations have increased dramatically over the past several decades, from about 5000 in the 60’s to 25000 today. The 2 populations in decline come from areas where it has actually been getting colder over the past fifty years, whereas the two increasing populations reside in areas where it is getting warmer. The best studied polar bear population lives on the western coast of Hudson Bay. That its population has declined 17 percent, from 1200 in 1987 to 950 in 2004 has gotten much press. Not mentioned in the press, however, is that since 1981 the population has soared from just 500, thus eradicating any claim of a decline. Moreover, nowhere in the news coverage is it mentioned that 300 to 500 bears are shot each year, with 49 shot on average on the west coast of Hudson Bay. Even if we take the story of decline at face value, it means we have lost about 15 bears to global warming each year, whereas we have lost 49 each year to hunting.

The polar bear story teaches us 3 things. First, we hear vastly exaggerated and emotional claims that are simply not supported by data. Second, polar bears are not the only story. While we hear only about the troubled species, it is also a fact the many species will do better with climate change. In general, the Artic Climate Impact Assessment { http://www.acia.uaf.edu/ } projects that the Arctic will experience increasing species richness and higher ecosystem productivity. It will have less polar desert and more forest. The assessment actually finds that higher temperatures mean more nesting birds and more butterflies. This does not make up for the polar bears but it is important that we hear both sides of the story. The 3rd point is that our hysteria makes us focus on the wrong solutions. We are being told that the plight of the polar bear shows “the need for stricter curbs on greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming.” Even of we accept the flawed idea of using the 1987 population of polar bears around Hudson Bay as a baseline, so that we lose 15 bears each year, what can we do? If we try helping them by cutting greenhouse gases, in theory we can at the very best avoid 15 bears dying. In actuality the number is about 0.06 bear deaths avoided. But 49 bears from the same population are being shot each year, and this we can easily do something about. Therefore, if we really want a stable population of polar bears, dealing first with the 49 shot ones might be a much better strategy. Yet it is not the one we hear about. In the climate debate we mostly Don’t hear the proposals that will do the most good but only the ones that involve cutting green house gases.

Jamie of AK 4:30PM September 10, 2008

Scientists taking core samples have found evidence of tropical vegetation below the ice. Perhaps this ice is not supposed to be permanent. Perhaps the polar bear is supposed to become extinct just like the dinosaurs. Perhaps we should stop trying to manipulate nature because we are not knowledgeable enough to understand why these things happen. That does not mean that we should not strive to be kind to the environment and use materials wisely and economically but we need to be reasonable in our actions. I firmly believe that the people who push the global warming alarm buttons have found a good way to make more money and should be taken with a grain of salt.

jean alexander of FL 7:46PM August 31, 2008

First let me say I am a environmentalist, in so far as that I intensly enjoy the natural environment; I am an elite cyclist, I ski, I kayak, I swim and Surf in the oceans. In addition to being an environmentalist, I am The abuse of statistics, and the Misinformation pepetuated by the far left and the people who have a very specific economic motive to move the reckless environmental movement foward is most disturbing to me. I ask that anyone who believes that Man is causing adverse global climate change (by specific acts) to look at REAL science and statistics.

of 11:14AM May 22, 2008

Thinking Harder

This blog is the public workshop of U.S. News writer and editor Ben Harder. In articles published in the magazine, he has covered a range of sciences, including medicine, human behavior, prehistory, and evolution. Here, he can explore those and other scientific fields more fully and more informally than is possible in print. He'll share whatever seems noteworthy or potentially useful, and he invites readers to do the same.

WTOP Audio
On Feb. 24, 2008, Ben discussed the link between artificial light and cancer on WTOP radio. Listen to the interview at WTOP News. He again talked about light pollution on WTOP on March 22, exploring its environmental effects.

advertisement

National Science Foundation

NSF

Science of Spatial Learning

Center seeks to transform teaching practices.

Studying Carbon in Rivers

Researcher explores physical, chemical and biological interactions.

Challenge: Quantum Computers

CAREER awardee focuses on what they can and cannot do.

Science Discoveries

Science Discoveries

iTunes icon RSS icon