An editorial light on the bear facts
Yesterday the Chronicle's editorial board penned a missive on the plight of polar bears and the effort to get them listed as an endangered species:
U.S. Geological Survey scientists estimate that the thawing Arctic could result in the near-extinction of polar bears in Alaska by midcentury. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed 18 months ago that the animals be listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
The listing would require federal officials to come up with a plan to protect the snow white carnivores. It could also make the species the first mammal to be designated as threatened by the effects of global warming.
[snip]
The polar bears' peril results from global warming, which is melting the ice floes upon which they hunt. The situation is further complicated by the fact that much of their habitat sits atop prime oil and gas drilling tracts. The administration has opposed mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions blamed for climate change, while pushing for expanded drilling in the Arctic.
Actually as PowerLine noted, there is evidence that manmade global warming has nothing to do with melting Arctic ice:
In October 2007, NASA announced the results of an in-depth study of Arctic sea-ice melting and found that what has caused the unusually large melting seen in the last eight years was not greenhouse gas-induced global warming. In the press release describing the study, team leader Son Nghiem explained that the warming of recent years was, in fact, caused by a change in wind patterns. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.
And then there's the whole question of whether or not polar bears are even endangered.
Blogger and radio host Hugh Hewitt is also an expert in environmental law. He has been warning of the profound impact designating polar bears as an endangered species would have:
Once listed, the Federal Endangered Species Act is very clear: Any federal action that might impact the polar bear must be reviewed by the U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Act.
What sort of federal actions? The most obvious would be any activity on or near Arctic ice, but that's not the gold ring the environmentalists are reaching for.
They will argue that every federal permit that allows directly or indirectly for increased emissions of hydrocarbons is a federal act that might impact the polar bear --every port expansion, every refinery opening or repair, every Army Corps of Engineers permit that allows for more homes or office buildings to rise.
Don't believe me. Believe the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the plaintiffs in the suit filed to force the listing.
You can follow this link to read the rest.
Now Hewitt has read the Chron's editorial and wonders:
Note that the writers present no contrary evidence to the case that ice loss is imperiling the bears.
Even more telling is that the editorial doesn't even hint at the vast impact of the listing in the lower 48. Do you suspect the writers don't know, or just prefer to keep their readers in the dark?
Our readers, of course, are not at all surprised the editorial board members either left out facts, or just plain don't know the facts. Smart money would bet that the ed board doesn't actually know many of the facts related to this topic.
But that has never stopped them before.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 05/04/08 01:35 PM | Print |
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
ADVERTISING
DISCLAIMER
All content © 2004-09, blogHOUSTON and the respective authors.
blogHOUSTON.net is powered by Nucleus.
Site design and Nucleus customization are by Kevin Whited.