Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
05.18.2008 9:00 pm

Monday editorial: Canary on an ice floe

  • Email this
  • Print this

polar_opt.jpgCaught between a federal judge’s order and a mountain of accumulating scientific evidence, the Bush administration reluctantly listed polar bears as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. But the administration pointedly refuses to address the threat that imperils the bears and the rest of us: global climate change caused by the unchecked release of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane.

A federal judge had ordered the Bush administration to rule on the bears’ status under the law no later than Thursday. But while the administration acknowledged that arctic ice floes vital to the bears’ survival are receding, it insisted that oil and gas exploration should proceed in the Arctic.

It was just the latest twist on the long-running delaying game that’s played out since President George W. Bush took office. Few people may remember, but as a candidate, he promised to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. Not only did Mr. Bush renege, but he also blocked international attempts to limit carbon emissions.

Fortunately, the long stall is running out of steam. All three leading presidential candidates — including Republican Sen. John McCain, whom Mr. Bush has endorsed — have called for caps on carbon dioxide emissions. Campaigning in the Pacific Northwest last week, Mr. McCain reminded voters that he’s no newcomer to global warming.

Mr. McCain has sponsored bills that call for mandatory emission limits that would be achieved through a “cap-and-trade” system, which creates a market for rights to release greenhouse gases. A global warming bill he supported last year was co-sponsored by Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, his Democratic opponents.
That means the next president, whoever he or she is, will make a welcome break from Mr. Bush’s extreme policy of denial and delay.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, who signed the order listing polar bears as threatened, said he was compelled to act by “the scientific record and the restraints of the inflexible law that guides me.”

He warned that the Endangered Species Act “is not the right tool to set U.S. climate change policy.”

Mr. Kempthorne
is correct. The right tool is a president and Congress that understand the threat and take constructive action. But that hasn’t happened, in large part because of resistance from members of Mr. Kempthorne’s own Republican party.

Some extremists argue even now that polar bears aren’t really threatened because bear populations in Norway are increasing. But they are decreasing in Canada’s western Hudson Bay, and federal scientists say bear populations in Alaska’s southern Beaufort Sea mirror that decline. Northern latitudes are warming twice as fast as the rest of the world — faster, even, than the most aggressive scientific models predict.

Anti-environmental extremists have held sway over the past eight years, denying the reality of global climate change. Now, the evidence is undeniable. We ignore it at the polar bears’ peril, and our own.

5 comments

Comments are closed.

Typical PD excrement! The author used the word “extremist” twice when referring to sensibal people who have not bought into the global warming hoax, but never used that word to describe the global warming “extremists” that aren’t going to stop until everyone does what they say and they have destroyed our country. My first suggestion would be to stop the presses and discontinue newspapers and magazines wasting our trees on their idiocy.

— A CENTRIST
12:32 pm May 19th, 2008

A recent PBS documentary stated that “polar bears” originally had brown fur, which evolved to white as they moved north. The source expects they wiii move south again and change their diet. Maybe salmon instead of seals? Certainly some bears will die. Mother Nature is a mean mother.

Meanwhile, the ANWR has more to do with caribou than bears, and the caribou apparently like oil pipelines, which provide a wind break and even a bit of (relative) warmth. The ANWR has to be developed, along with a seldom-mentioned neighboring property which Congress authorized for development long ago (I believe in the 1920’s). It has never been done.

We need to do more in the Gulf of Mexico too, or let China and Venezuela take that oil away from us, as they are doing right now. Those three mile deep wells cost “Big Oil” BIG MONEY, so the liberals need to let them reinvest their profits instead of taxing their alleged “windfall”.

The Bush administration has taken many steps to improve the climate. It is simply not practical to do everything that the tree-huggers and Bush’s political foes have demanded. These very people have so far defeated or delayed new nuclear and “clean coal” plants, including the one proposed for Mattoon, Illinois. Our clean air laws are so already so restrictive that nobody has built a new refinery in the U.S. in more than 30 years.

CTL (coal to liquid) plants may never happen here because of political opposition (not President Bush’s). CTL plants are still somewhat dirtier than oil refineries, but the resulting automotive fuels produce far less pollution than other fuels.

One CTL plant in Pennsylvania has been supported by Arlen Specter and a federal grant under the Bush administration. The proposed feedstock is coal mine tailings, which until now have been a major stream pollutant. That CTL plant, if it is not politically defeated, will process mine tailings into clean fuel. Who provides the technology? Royal DUTCH Shell and SOUTH AFRICAN Sasol, Ltd. The technology isn’t brand new. Much of it powered Hitler’s Panzer tanks, but we Americans are still in the lab.

— Bob H
1:36 pm May 19th, 2008

Oops! How about “sensible” Anyway, I guess the eco-fascists are winning.

— A CENTRIST
3:59 pm May 19th, 2008

“Some extremists argue even now that polar bears aren’t really threatened because bear populations in Norway are increasing.”

So if you point out that the Polar Bear’s population is increasing you are an extremist? That seems to be a bit of a stretch — but never let facts get in the way of environmental scare tactics. We have to call an animal “threatened” when the population of said animal is increasing, we can’t drill for our own oil, we fund people around the world that want to kill us. This behavior certainly seems EXTREME — the latest buzzword the PD Editorial staff uses when you don’t fall in lock step with their narrow views. Maybe that’s why they NEVER run editorials quoting scientists with a dissenting view of so-called global warming.

— GTB
7:41 pm May 19th, 2008
— A CENTRIST
8:42 am May 20th, 2008