For the second time in two weeks a polar bear was sighted in Iceland – and then shot dead.

Polar bear sightings are relatively rare on the island nation (at least until two weeks ago) since getting to Iceland means bears are forced to swim hundreds of miles through icy waters far from their typical Arctic habitat.

Due to harsh criticism after the first polar bear was shot two weeks ago, authorities in Iceland said they would attempt to subdue and capture the second bear after it was discovered by a young girl walking her dog.

The chief veterinarian for the Copenhagen Zoo was flown in to help wrangle the animal late last Tuesday, but it all came to naught later that night. Police and the vet tried to get close enough to the bear to shoot it with an anaesthetiser but as they approached the bear ran in a panic – apparently toward a group of reporters. Afraid of losing control of the situation and having the bear eat a journalist, police “decided to shoot it”.

Copenhagen Zoo spokesman Bengt Holst said that Icelandic authorities made the right decision.

“It was a security problem” Holst told reporters (“Indeed!” is what I can imagine reporters dumb enough to be unprotected and in range of the poor animal).

Two polar bears making the icy swim hundreds of miles to Iceland in as many weeks “lends credence” to biologist’s determination that climate change is is destroying the arctic habitat of the polar bear, forcing them to swim farther and farther afield in search of their typical diet of ringed or bearded seals.

While I think a single occurrence, even two incidents back-to-back, of a polar bear making the unusual journey to Iceland is not in and of itself  definitive proof of anything, it certainly serves as pieces to the puzzle; clues to either take seriously or dismiss without thought. My research indicates there have been some 600 recorded sightings of Polar Bears in Iceland. The last one in 1993, and before that in 1988.

Beyond the needless death of two great animals, it is also frustrating to see the deniers and skeptic “wanna-bes” coming out of the woodwork on the heels of this story (as I’ve said before, true skepticism requires a logical thought process and some notion of a well-formed argument).

Unfounded statements like “There are 3 times as many polar bears as there were 50 years ago” – Or assertions that “Polar bears are growing in numbers” or that “…the world hasn’t warmed since 1998” (these last two from Andrew Bolt who simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about and isn’t afraid to show it) are just a few examples of how denialism is sadly alive and well, and unfortunately riding in on the backs of two polar bears that came to a tragic end.

Sources and Further Reading
Science Daily
AFP
The Age
Global Warming is Real.com

 

 

 

  

arctic Editorial Rants Environmental News Polar Beararctic Editorial Rants Environmental News Polar Bear

Global warming related litigation is bound to be big. But the wait is for that one landmark case that will confirm this. Last September´s State of California´s unsuccessful attempt to get six car companies to produce less polluting cars taught us that patience is the name of the game. Regulations are simply not there yet, so the real fireworks -cases involving breaking the rules- are bound to happen in the future. But a community of Alaskan Eskimos suing 23 oil and energy companies might speed things up.

The lawsuit is modeled on the historic tobacco case that ended in the biggest ever settlement in US civil law history. It involves 410 Inupiat Eskimo inhabitants of the island of Kivalina. These people live some 70 miles north of the Arctic Circle on the tip of a six-mile barrier reef between the Chukchi Sea and the Kivalina and Wulik Rivers on the Northwest coast of Alaska. They call their town K-vill and want to live there for ever, since they´ve been out there since time immemorial. And because all that is getting a bit of a push, they´re suing 23 corporations in the oil, energy and coal sectors, for sustaining global warming related injury to K-vill. The companies include (pdf) Exxon Mobil, BP, and Conoco Phillips, all three of which have operations in the near vicinity of the North Alaskan community.

 It’s the winter storms to which the K-vill population is most vulnerable. They have witnessed worse effects ever since their winters have become shorter due to warmer weather. The K-vill inhabutants got that officially confirmed by the US Army Corps of Engineers which concluded in 2006 that Kivalina is exposed to risks which are directly climate change related because the melted seas leave them much more vulnerable to winter storms. According to estimates from the US Army Corps of Engineers, relocation costs will run up a bill of $95 million. Other estimates have gone as high as $400 million.

READ THE WHOLE STORY… - Global Warming Related Litigation - Waiting For The Landmark Case

arctic Climate Change and Politics Environmental Global Warming Resourcesarctic Climate Change and Politics Environmental Global Warming Resources

Can I see a show of hands from anyone who is surprised by this?

It is reported today that the state of Alaska plans to sue the federal government in an attempt to block the Department of Interior from listing the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act.

Republican governor Sarah Palin said that the polar bear does not need additional protections and listing the bear as endangered will slow development in the state.

When Department of Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced the decision last week, he made it clear that he didn’t intend on letting it get in the way of oil and gas development, giving a press statement last week fraught with loopholes designed to avoid full enforcement of the law.

That isn’t good enough for the state of Alaska. Attorney General Steven Daugherty insists there is no need to protect a

healthy population (of polar bears) based on uncertain climate models”.

Governor Palin adding that

Climate models that predict continued loss of sea ice, the main habitat of polar bears, during summers are unreliable.

Oh really?

She’s either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading, and both are unbecoming,”

shot back Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity,

Alaska deserves better.”

Siegel said it was unconscionable for Palin to ignore overwhelming evidence of global warming’s threat to sea ice, the polar bear’s habitat.

Even the Bush administration can’t deny the reality of global warming. The governor is aligning herself and the state of Alaska with the most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints by denying this.”

In the meantime, several environmental groups including Siegel’s Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) have started legal action against the Bush administration challenging the “special rules” or “4(d) rule” attached to the Department of Interior’s ruling that reduce the protections normally required of such a listing (think of Bush and his “signing statements” allowing him to ignore laws he doesn’t like).

Perhaps what we need now is Senator Inhofe to trot out his expert – the Marketing Professor…

Then again, maybe not.

Sources and Further Reading
Reuters
Associated Press

arctic climate science Editorial Rants Environmental News Government Polar Beararctic climate science Editorial Rants Environmental News Government Polar Bear

I applaud the decision from the Department if Interior to include the polar bear on the endangered species list – even if there’s just a little bit of a “kicking and screaming the whole way” flavor to it.

With that said, the very headline of the press release from the DOI sounded ominously like a loophole:

Secretary Kempthorne Announces Decision to Protect Polar Bears under Endangered Species Act:
Rule will allow continuation of vital energy production in Alaska

And that’s just in the headline. It goes on from there to state that the decision will

…be accompanied by administrative guidance and a rule” (uh oh) “that defines the scope of impact my decision will have” (as in none?) “in order to protect the polar bear while limiting unintended harm to the society and economy of the United States” (take that all you big angry bears…)

While acknowledging that the polar bear is listed as a direct result of climate change, Kempthorne wanted

…to make it clear that this listing will not stop global climate change… That is why I am taking administrative and regulatory action to make certain the ESA (endangered species act) isn’t abused” (abused? Did you just have lunch with James Inhofe?) “…to make global warming polices.” (Read the full press release from the Department of Interior)

So the polar bear is listed under the Endangered Species Act – kinda. It’s listed because of it’s diminishing habitat from global warming, but through DOI “guidance” the protecting the bear under ESA does not extend to halting the very activity that further destroys the bear’s habitat and accelerates climate change.

Makes your head spin doesn’t it?

The Natural Resource Defense Council and Sierra Club have both weighed in with their own words of caution.

 

arctic Climate Change and Politics Editorial Rants Environmental Environmental News Government Polar Bear Policy Politicsarctic Climate Change and Politics Editorial Rants Environmental Environmental News Government Polar Bear Policy Politics

Aww, c’mon, that isn’t very nice.

But really, to hear Inhofe talk about it, along with his media shills, you’d think that with so darn many “big angry bears” running around there’s an “over population” problem, to quote Inhofe’s own words while he yuks it up Glenn Beck. Ignorance is sooo fascinating.

The repeated delays in making a determination on whether to list the polar bear as endangered continues – hopefully not for very much longer. The Department of Interior missed it’s first deadline for determining the status of the polar bear after Department of Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne proposed listing the bear as “threatened” which set in motion the process that mandates a final decision based on the recommendation of the US Fish & Game service within one year. (the deadline passed over four months ago).

Since that time James Inhofe – like a bad cold that does little good, refuses to go away, and makes you feel awful –presented an “expert” at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on January 30^th to show how wrong international scientists (see my previous post about my chat with biologist Nick Lunn) and Department of Interior scientists are about polar bears and their habitat – not to mention the IPCC, Al Gore, etc. ad nauseum.

Inhofe’s expert is one Dr. J. Scott Armstrong Ph.D., a professor of marketing at The Wharton School University in Pennsylvania. You read that right, my friend, Inhofe found, as his polar bear expert, a professor of marketing. He’s apparently really good at forecasting (better than scientists working in their own field of expertise) and here’s what he has to say about polar bears.

A follow-up hearing for the committee was then held on April 2^nd to look into the Bush administration’s foot-dragging on the issue. As if to underscore the committee’s concerns about their motives, nobody from the administration bothered to show up for the hearing.

Finally, having had enough, a federal judge on April 29^th gave the Department of Interior until this Thursday to make a decision about the polar bear.

U.S District Judge Claudia Wilken said in her ruling in a suit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity and other conservation groups:

Defendants have been in violation of the law requiring them to publish the listing determination for nearly 120 days. Other than the general complexity of finalizing the rule, Defendants offer no specific facts that would justify the delay, much less further delay

We’re sorry that the issue is so complex – though it didn’t seem to take Dr. Armstrong that long to come to the conclusion that the general weight of the evidence from scientists studying polar bears in the field are all wrong – but it continues to strike me as odd how the same tactics are repeatedly employed by the likes of Mr. Inhofe. Namely confusing issues through a general ignorance of science, deceptive “marketing” (his expert is a Dr. of marketing after all), foot-dragging, and blatant political posturing.

A tortured truth is rarely to be believed.

In the meantime, we wait with expectant anticipation for the Department of Interior’s decision this Thursday. Kempthorne wouldn’t dare ignore a direct court order – would he?

Sources and Further Reading
Grist
DeSmogBlog – Alaska Goes Denier Shopping
Polar Bears International

arctic Climate Change and Politics climate science Editorial Rants Environmental News Government Polar Bear Policy Politicsarctic Climate Change and Politics climate science Editorial Rants Environmental News Government Polar Bear Policy Politics

Lull: transitive verb  Etymology: Middle English; probably of imitative origin  Date: 14th century
1: to cause to sleep or rest : soothe  2: to cause to relax vigilance <were lulled into a false sense of security>

Reports this week of a new study published in the journal Nature suggest that, due to the natural variability of the Gulf Stream “conveyor belt” which brings warm water up to the north Atlantic, and the cyclical El Nino, global average temperatures may stall until around 2015, then accelerate again in a “boomerang effect”.

Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, Germany, stressed that results from this new computer modeling were just the initial findings and it would be, according to Keenlyside,

wholly misleading to infer that global warming, in the sense of the enhanced greenhouse effect from increased carbon emissions, had gone away.”

Of course many have jumped on this report in an effort to do just that. (Charles Clover, environmental editor for the Telegraph admits he used easily manipulated language in his initial reports on his blog)

Just to sweeten the pot a little, in an attempt to demonstrate the complexity of climate change, nobody has mentioned global dimming lately, which may add a little punch to that boomerang effect.

It may also be interesting to note one of the more drastic consequences of climate change: the total collapse of the Thermohaline circulation (gulf stream conveyor belt of warm water) due to the melting Greenland ice sheet releasing billions of gallons of fresh water into the sea. If that happens (and hopefully it won’t, at least for a long time) northern Europe and North America will become bitterly cold. I can just hear some of these denialists then, cynically pecking away at their keyboards, denying the reality of global warming, forever failing to understand that the globe does not revolve around them.

It is frustrating that with every step forward in the effort to increase our understanding of climate change we must wade through incessant vitriol and pronouncements of the “last dying gasp of AGW” – even as we increasingly exhale more CO2 into the atmosphere. These arguments are hackneyed and old, and they refuse to grasp the complexity of the issue – or even try.

One of the various enlightening comments on Clover’s blog (linked above on “reports” by the way) to help further the substantive discussion on how best to address global warming was thus: “Oh thank god! I can stop holding in my farts.”

Just let me say to that gentleman, on behalf of the global community, we rather you wouldn’t.

And the Arctic Sea Ice Isn’t Listening to You Anyway

Climate researcher Sheldon Drobot from the University of Colorado predicts that Arctic sea ice will once again retreat to record levels this year. The predictions are based on satellite data and temperature records, giving a 59% probability that minimum sea ice records will once again be broken.

In the past decade Arctic sea ice has declined some 10%. Last year sea ice melt broke the previous record of 2005, retreating an area equal in size to Texas and California combined.

 

 

arctic climate science Editorial Rants Environmental Newsarctic climate science Editorial Rants Environmental News

 

 

In a press conference today George Bush addressed, among other things, concerns about rising energy prices.

President Bush repeatedly laid blame for the rise in gas prices at the feet of Congress and its refusal to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Bush said that while renewable and alternative energy development should continue – citing a future with cars powered by ethanol, hydrogen or “cars that have batteries that can go 40 miles”  – in the meantime Congress should allow “environmentally friendly” drilling in ANWR to alleviate the current steep rise in gas prices at the pump and crude oil by the barrel.

While he does not explicitly say it, it is clear that his solution to the current situation – and we can stretch “current” to mean several years hence – is oil from ANWR.

A few points come to mind:

• Just another hit will do the trick – In his 2006 State of the Union speech president Bush said America was “addicted to oil”. Yet he steadfastly holds to the notion that drilling in ANWR, something repeatedly rejected by Congress, will cure that addiction – even if only for the “short term”. Okay so Bush was just using an analogy back then and we shouldn’t hold him to it now. Nonetheless, the only way to break a destructive habit is to change behavior. The Bush Administration has not supported or backed an aggressive campaign to develop and bring to market emerging energy technologies. And I’m not talking about corn-based ethanol.

• I’ve said it before and I am compelled to say it again – Bush has compromised his own credibility on this issue – his words do not match his actions or true intent.

• When he repeatedly states that drilling in ANWR is “environmentally safe” I have to ask “says who?”.

  When I was part of the Earthwatch team last February monitoring environmental changes along the Arctic Circle, I had the opportunity to chat at length with Canadian scientists specializing in arctic ecosystems. As you might guess, it’s a different story from these guys, who said that most of this touted new technology is largely untested, especially in the Arctic. Furthermore, even the most gee-whiz technology can’t guarantee there won’t be some accident or environmental degradation. In fact, such is virtually guaranteed to happen eventually – at least it seems minimally prudent to assume so – and any oil spilling in the high arctic, under ice, in permafrost, is exponentially more damaging than elsewhere. As one scientists said, “it’s over, there’s no way they’ll be able to clean it up”. This in a region already under accelerated stress from climate change and drilling (and burning) that oil would only exacerbate that stress.

  As the addict says: I’ll quit when I’m ready…

• But forget all that for a moment. Let’s look at Bush’s argument on its face. He stated in his comments today that exploiting ANWR would provide 1 million barrels a day. But for how long? Mr. Bush does not extrapolate that number into how much economically recoverable oil is thought to be in ANWR – it’s probably too complicated for us to understand. 

  As of July 2007, according to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. consumes 20.6 million barrels of oil per day. The EIA also estimates that, even if ANWR drilling had been approved back in 2002, only 40,000 barrels would be available for refining by 2012 – that’s less than 1% of daily consumption (after all, you can’t just ride up to the Arctic and start digging. The most optimistic lead time for actual oil production is ten years). Peak producing capacity, around the year 2020, is estimated to be about 780,000 barrels of oil per day (apparently Mr. Bush rounded up).

  Think of the advances in alternative and renewable energy – the recovery from addiction – this country could achieve in that time given earnest and aggressive leadership from the president.

  Daniel Weiss, an energy expert for the think tank Center for American Progress, was quoted in Reuters:

Even if oil was flowing, it would be too small amount to reduce the price of crude or gasoline… President Bush’s claim ignores the primary causes behind record high oil prices: a cheap dollar, high demand from China and India, and speculators driving thSe price up. Drilling and sullying the Arctic would not address any of these causes of high oil prices.

Mr. Bush would like to find blame in his political opponents and a simple solution to a complex problem (didn’t I talk about that yesterday?), and he does the advancement of a workable energy economy a disservice.

It is high time for the president, any president – the next president – to get serious about a sustainable energy policy.

 

 

arctic Editorial Rants Energy Non Renewable energy policy Environmental News Policy Politicsarctic Editorial Rants Energy Non Renewable energy policy Environmental News Policy Politics