By Ann Barlow, GreenPepper
I’m sure you’ve seen the same pictures that have haunted me over the past couple of years – exhausted, hungry polar bears paddling long distances between ever-smaller ice floats. So I was pretty excited to read on Friday about the proposed habitat in Alaska that would protect the endangered polar bear. The Interior Department has said that the new habitat won’t deter commerce, because oil and gas companies can still drill.
That might even work, and what could be better than finding a way to meet the needs of both humans and our fellow inhabitants of the earth? (Don’t misunderstand – ultimately the drilling for oil and gas needs to move toward other, cleaner energy solutions.) But what I don’t understand is how this helps solve the underlying problem that is putting polar bears in so much danger – melting ice. Apparently, the Endangered Species Act is not meant to address climate change, even when it’s the principle reason for a species’ potential extinction. Well why the heck not?
To me, if there is such a link between the two, it’s time to modify the Act so that it addresses the underlying cause. Because clearly, just setting aside land – albeit a full 200,541 square miles of coastal Alaska – is only a finger in the dike. I’d like my great grandchildren to see pictures of healthy polar bears in the wild in the present, not the past. If that means sticking our own necks out further to more directly challenge those who would stand in the way, so be it. The images of those exhausted, hungry bears should give us all the bravery we need.
That might even work, and what could be better than finding a way to meet the needs of both humans and our fellow inhabitants of the earth? (Don’t misunderstand – ultimately the drilling for oil and gas needs to move toward other, cleaner energy solutions.) But what I don’t understand is how this helps solve the underlying problem that is putting polar bears in so much danger – melting ice. Apparently, the Endangered Species Act is not meant to address climate change, even when it’s the principle reason for a species’ potential extinction. Well why the heck not?
To me, if there is such a link between the two, it’s time to modify the Act so that it addresses the underlying cause. Because clearly, just setting aside land – albeit a full 200,541 square miles of coastal Alaska – is only a finger in the dike. I’d like my great grandchildren to see pictures of healthy polar bears in the wild in the present, not the past. If that means sticking our own necks out further to more directly challenge those who would stand in the way, so be it. The images of those exhausted, hungry bears should give us all the bravery we need.
On one hand I'm happy that the stunning images you mention have generated so much attention and action. On the other hand, I worry that some of the lesser known problems like overfishing will just go unchecked because fish aren't cute or easily photographed and tracked. With respect to the underlining problem, we can only hope that something gets accomplished at Copenhagen. Until something happens on a global scale we will be left with half measures.
Posted by: Matt S | October 26, 2009 at 05:05 PM