Home subscribe manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

Opinion
May. 15, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Saving polar bears?

Or is a different motive at play?

Goosed by an environmentalist lawsuit seeking a decision by today, the Interior Department on Wednesday declared the polar bear a "threatened species," saying it must be protected because of the decline in Arctic sea ice caused by global warming.

The department certainly couldn't say it was because polar bear numbers are down. Both the Edinburgh Scotsman and the London Telegraph report there are some 25,000 polar bears in the wild, and that their numbers are growing explosively -- an increase of between 15 and 25 percent over the past decade.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • LETTERS: Professor needs to get with the program
  • LETTERS: Washington loves rewarding failure
  • FROM OUR READERS: We can't do worse than country's current leadership
  • LETTERS: Trickle-down economics is dead
  • EDITORIAL: Tip jar
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Shall we save the economy ... or the government?
  • LETTERS: Don't expect district to cut waste
  • EDITORIAL: Sending the right message
  • EDITORIAL: A tiny bit of good news?
  • EDITORIAL: 'A cautionary tale'



    • Rather, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne cited dramatic declines in the size of Arctic sea ice sheets over the past three decades and computer projections of continued losses.

    The secretary failed to mention that "three decades" was used as the measurement period because we've had sea ice satellite data only since 1979 -- the Arctic is a famously difficult place to survey by any other means, so there's simply no information from previous decades or centuries to tell us to what extent such changes are normal and cyclical.

    Mr. Kempthorne did say it would be "inappropriate" to use his listing decision as an excuse to seek a reduction in man-made greenhouse gas emissions, or to broadly address climate change.

    But the secretary is either disingenuous or whistling past the graveyard. Environmental extremists have sought the listing precisely because the Endangered Species Act now allows them to sue any federal agency, demanding that said agency no longer license or allow any behaviors that might further "endanger" the "threatened" species.

    "If the bears were listed," the Boston Herald warned in an editorial Sunday, "the Endangered Species Act provides that each federal agency would have to 'insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification (our italics) of (critical) habitat of such species.'

    "The environmentalists, if not the service, could claim that any activity that emitted carbon dioxide, the chief gas causing the supposed warming, could not be authorized, financed or done by a federal agency," the Herald continued. "The agencies would have to bring the modern world to a crash as no fossil fuels could be burned in power plants, no highways built and so forth. ..."

    Although Arctic ice is shrinking, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said in October this was caused not by warming but a shift in wind patterns that pushed more ice out of the Arctic.

    "Polar bears have been around for 100,000 years, surviving much warmer temperatures before the last ice age," the Herald noted. "Canada, on whose territory about two-thirds of the bears live, has refused to classify them as threatened or endangered. The United States should follow suit."

    Unfortunately, the deed is done, the precedent now set. The theory embraced is that the animal is somehow "threatened" by consumers burning fossil fuels in their SUVs in Georgia or Alabama, where the lumbering predator has never been seen outside a zoo, all based on cobbled-together computer models.

    If polar bears are placed on the endangered species list, "the legal hurdles to oil and gas drilling will increase," warns biologist Kenneth P. Green of the American Enterprise Institute. "The U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that the area holds the potential for 7 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 32 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas."

    Fuel to help hold down gasoline and energy prices -- fuel the green extremists hope we'll never see.

    Never forget that the goal of the green extreme is to shut down our modern industrial and technological civilization entirely, returning mankind to the "more pristine" state of existence last seen seven centuries ago, when wolves roamed the outskirts of Paris and the average human being died before age 35, toothless, crippled and shivering in the dark.

    "Notwithstanding the secretary's disclaimers, this is the first time the Endangered Species Act has been used to protect a species threatened by the impacts of global warming," The Associated Press noted Wednesday. "There has been concern within the business community that such an action could have far-reaching impact and could be used to regulate carbon dioxide."

    Here it comes.



    Leave Your Comment 18 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    br wrote on May 15, 2008 06:42 PM: Hi Claudia

    I'm in my late 70s and want to spend what time I have left to enjoy my grandchildren. Part of that includes helping them become independent thinkers. Following fads cannot be part of that process.

    Oil will not be all burned up in 60-70 years. I believe other technology will be developed while vast oil still exist. Enviro-wackos delay every attempt made, but people are getting wise to their game.

    Self-centeredness is not my characteristic any more than it is yours. Between our views of nature lies common sense concerns.


    br wrote on May 15, 2008 06:25 PM: Your specific green tech stuff and electric vehicles are interesting. Unfortunately they only offer a very small percentage of our current energy needs. Until those things and any other technology reaches significant levels, the name of the game is oil. I do agree with your demand for a change. I just do not buy the obstructionist tactics of green weenies.

    You want examples of false data. Very briefly, the "hockey stick chart" played a very big part in global warming theories. It has been proven to have ignored several facts. You can do a google search for more info. Nuclear power has been tamed for several decades, but enviro-wackos scream doom at the very mention of it. Al Gore's carbon credits are a complete scam. Finally, we have the ethanol fiasco that threatens food supplies while providing less power than it takes to produce it.

    Your comment about living like the jetsons instead of the Flintstones is baffling. I thought both "lived" in prehistoric times.

    You had better believe I'm not going to live like that. I intend to do my best to insure my grandchildren don't either. You may try to label me as self-centered, but is you who is hypocritical and selfish. I think you and I love nature and want our future generations to enjoy her too. I can't believe you want them to experience it the way we did. We share the times when life was more survival than softness.

    It's going to take oil, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear and anything else we can safely develop. In the meantime oil is critical. Idealistic environmentalist and pandering politicians only delay practical solutions.


    Sad Summerlin wrote on May 15, 2008 04:09 PM: While offered as a work of fiction, Michael Cricton's "State of Fear" has superb research into the effects of media and government on perceptions in this world....

    It is a fun read, but quite informative, and highly sourced and researched... I suggest anyone who haven't read it to do so.

    WE ARE IN TROUBLE.

    Absolutely. We are in trouble in the case of self-destruction. We are so diverse you can find an opinion that supports everything, and a theory to contradict everything too.

    The nice thing about this country is we have freedom of choice... unfortunately, on a daily basis, I read at how those freedoms are eroded for the "common good" every day...

    Our world is like a buffet... take only what you need, enjoy it, look at the pretty decorations, meet new people in line, but most of all, respect the portions... if we all lived by that mantra, we wouldn't need the government looking over us as we grab the 1,000 island dressing saying (ya, know... the fries would be better witch Catsup)...


    Brian wrote on May 15, 2008 03:50 PM: Once again: wake up, people.

    The polar bears are in serious trouble--and so are we.


    TrevorPrice wrote on May 15, 2008 01:53 PM: With the increase in Polar Bear population going unchecked their will be a drop in the numbers in the near future, not do to loss of habitat or global warming but they will over populate deplete their food sources and starve or get sick. The best proven way to manage a renewable resource like bears is through wildlife management including hunting. We need to figure out how many the area they inhabit can sustain and set out to achieve that number. With regulated hunting the bear population will be healthier, there won’t be dramatic population gains and losses; millions will be made to support the small town economies and bear habitat.


    Claudia wrote on May 15, 2008 01:25 PM: I think we should all live by the Native American saying that goes something like this, treat the earth gently, for we do not own it, we are just borrowing it from our children and their children. It is amazing the number of people who can't see beyond their own selfish interests.

    BR, you and I may not be alive in 60 or 70 years when the world has burned all the fossil fuel available, but our grandchildren will be, and I hate to think of them cursing you and me for chosing our own self interest over their future.


    Willard Roker wrote on May 15, 2008 11:07 AM: Ok, br, a lot of green tech will be in the form of add ons to exiting structure, Solar shades for windows, passive hot water heaters, solar panels, computer operated thermostats, water saving devices to name a few. These will create jobs for the people making the product, the people selling the product, and the people installing the product.
    As far as how are people going to get to work. We have electric cars, get rid of the expensive and heavy batteries and install a bio-diesel generator to run the electric motor and you have a green car getting, well I’m not sure exactly how many mpg it would get but in the early 1970’s I read an article in “Popular Mechanics” ( I think, it might have “Scientific America”) where a guy in Australia put an electric motor on a Datsun pickup ran it with a gas generator and got over 100 mpg. This technology exist right now, trains have been doing it for decades. We don’t need more time we need to demand a change.
    I was born in the middle of an oil patch and never ate a chicken that wasn’t raised by my Grandmother until I was a teenager. Strange my country up bringing instilled a love and respect for nature. I want my children and Grand children to grow up in a clean world full of the wonders of nature.
    Could you be a bit more specific about this false data?
    A green future doesn't mean living like the Flintstones it means living like the Jetons.
    I think your last sentence is most telling. ”I'm going to live better than that.”
    It seems you are very self centered and don’t really care about anyone else...remember GREED is one of the 7 deadly sins


    jep wrote on May 15, 2008 10:59 AM: The polar bears have survived untold climate changes, but they are endangered because maybe in the future it could get warmer?

    The climate was warmer 1000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period and even warmer still during the Holocene Climate Optimum -- warmer in fact, than most climate models claim for the year 2100.

    Computer models, btw, do not produce scientific data. They don't make forecasts or projects. Their results are unverifiable without waiting decades. In their current state, climate models are but toys.


    timinator wrote on May 15, 2008 10:03 AM: None of this would even be subject to politicization if the federal government would simply follow the Constitution.

    The states never delegated any power over "endangered species" to the feds, since all of this should have been private matters handled by land owners, not government entities.

    The massive amount of unconstitutional federally "owned" land is the cause of most of these issues.


    rustyrosco wrote on May 15, 2008 09:13 AM: The polar bears aren't in trouble. We are.


    Read All Comments