Buzz from the community

On Monday, August 4, 2008, the state of Alaska, and its entire human population, announced its collective hatred of the world’s most beloved animal – the majestic polar bear. That’s a true story.

Well, not exactly. But Alaska has chosen to sue Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, in hopes of reversing his decision to list the Polar Bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

Opponents of the ‘threatened’ listing cite the potential crippling of offshore oil and gas development in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas in Alaska's northern waters. “We believe that the Service's decision to list the polar bear was not based on the best scientific and commercial data available.” Said Governor Palin of Alaska. The state specifically takes issue with the scientific data that shows how rapidly decreasing sea ice coverage will continue to stress the bears pursuit of food, and could lead to population collapse within 45 years.

Remarkably, these same folks also suggest that polar bears will likely ‘adapt’ to their newly iceless state. Which is akin to saying ‘sure, the ice’ll be gone, but these polar bears are crafty, they’ll find something to eat when the swimming gets too tough, right? Other bears like salmon, so who needs baby seals? Who’s with me here people?’ This is seriously part of some folks’ argument. On this, I kid you not.

Some also suggest that the bears will learn to share their habitat with the Grizzlies already in fulltime residence on-land – and I guess they’re right, since scientists have recently begun finding naturally occurring ‘hybrid’ pizzlies (or grolar bears if you prefer), a hybrid animal thought only to exist on Doc Moreau’s Isle until recently. What could be more adaptive than that? Or more American for that matter.

But fear not (or maybe fear just a little)

The people opposing this lawsuit are not giving up easily. The lead author of the petition to put Polar Bears on the threatened species list, Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity, has said, “[the lawsuit] is completely ridiculous and a waste of the court's time.” Ms. Siegel went on to take a swipe at Alaska’s Governor, saying, “This lawsuit and her (Governor Palin’s) head-in-the-sand approach to global warming only helps oil companies, certainly not Alaska or the polar bear. Gov. Palin should be working for sustainable, clean energy development in Alaska instead of extinction for the polar bear."

The issue, around which this rift continues to revolve, is that studies show that the Polar Bears need the ice sea to survive, and in the past thirty years the ice has already dramatically melted to record lows. As we all know, scientist also predict the melting trend will at least continue – and will likely accelerate. Meanwhile opponents of the threatened status point to population stability and growth to support their belief that the bear’s simply aren’t in any imminent danger, saying “the lawsuit, filed in Washington, D.C., claims the federal analysis did not adequately consider polar bear survival through earlier warming periods centuries ago.”

Now that’s a good point – and it makes me wonder if anyone’s considered how the oil companies dealt with environmental legislation centuries ago? Who knows, maybe they adapted too.

More on Alaska v Polar Bears

• Boston Globe
• New York Tims
• Switchboard by the NRDC
• Monterey County Herald

Also on Izzit

• Word of the Day: Nurdle
• How do you Like Them Apples? Green?

Buzz is our community powered blog. Have an article that you would like us to publish?
Find out how.