Global Warming to De-throne Arctic King
February 20th, 2008
By Hannah Johnson
Illustration by Sarah Morean
During the polar bear’s approximate 200 thousand years on Earth, they have been called many things — from vicious killer to fuzzy, adorable, Coke-guzzling marketing technique. The Inuit call polar bears Nanook, meaning master of all bears, and considered them wise, powerful, and close to human. Early Arctic explorers viewed polar bears as fearless marauders, killing as many as possible and eliminating them from several regions in the Arctic. As of the printing of this article, however, one thing they have not been called is endangered. In January, Congress was supposed to reach a decision on whether to protect Alaska’s polar bears under the Endangered Species Act. The decision was delayed, causing many to cry conspiracy. As the Fish and Wildlife Service was delaying the decision to protect polar bears, the Mineral Management Service announced its final decision to sell leases for oil drilling in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska’s northwest coast, a major bear habitat.
Regardless of their status as an endangered species, polar bears are in trouble. In September the United States Geological Survey released a comprehensive report on the status of polar bears, predicting that by 2050, two thirds of the world’s polar bear population will be gone as a result of habitat loss and the melting of sea ice due to global warming. This means the species could be extinct by the end of the century. While some bear experts are claiming that this prediction is overly grim, others say that depletion of the polar bears’ population could happen much sooner.
“[The study] was based on a very, very conservative model,” Robert Buchanan, the president of Polar Bears International, a nonprofit organization dedicated to polar bear conservation says. “Over the past summer, the rate of ice lost increased ten fold. Where we thought the ice was going to be in 2035 is where it was this past summer.”
Because they spend so much time on the ice, polar bears are classified as marine mammals. Their scientific name Ursus maritimus literally translates to “sea bear.” The seasonal sea ice in the Arctic is a crucial hunting ground and habitat for polar bears. The bears depend on the ice flows to hunt ringed seals, their primary source of food. Scientists have been recording sea ice loss every year since 1978, although, as Buchanan said, ice loss has rapidly increased in rate. Each year, the ice arrives later and melts earlier, leaving bears less time to hunt and build up fat stores for the summer which they spend fasting on land.
“There are four things that the average person can do to help polar bears: plant a lot of trees, recycle, conserve energy and encourage industry to find innovative solutions.”
According the USGS, the fate of the polar bear is largely sealed (no pun intended). Even a drastic reduction of carbon emissions will not prevent the rapid shrinking of the sea ice. Buchanan, however, remains optimistic.
“Is it irreversible now?” he asks. “No. Will it become irreversible? Yes. We’ve got about 10 to 15 years. Our best shot [at saving the polar bears] is to find geographic pockets where the species can survive.” He says that there are four things that the average person can do to help polar bears: plant a lot of trees, recycle and, more importantly, buy recycled goods, conserve energy, and encourage industry to find innovative solutions.
PBI’s slogan is “Conservation through research and education,” and with that in mind the organization has teamed up with 35 zoos and aquariums from around the country in a campaign to educate and raise awareness about polar bears and Arctic conservation. In partnership with PBI, the Como Zoo in St. Paul is building a new, state of the art polar bear exhibit. Scheduled to open in 2010, the $14 million Polar Bear Odyssey will replace the zoo’s current polar bear exhibit, which consists mostly of cement, with a habitat nearly four times the size of the original. The exhibit is designed to mimic the bear’s natural environment, and will give them the opportunity to pursue natural behaviors such as digging, swimming, foraging, and hunting.
The importance of the plight of the polar bear goes deeper than the conservation of a single species. Polar bears have become the mascot for global warming awareness initiatives because they are the dead canary in the coal mine of global climate change, an indicator of the health of the entire Arctic ecosystem, foreshadowing what is to come for the rest of the world.
“[Polar bears] are a sentinel species, and what that means is if you lose a key species like that, it’s a warning sign that other species are in serious trouble,” says Buchanan. “It doesn’t matter if we caused it, what matters is that it’s our job to fix it.”
Comments & Discussion
Perhaps the University should consider renaming the paper “The Snooze”. Hannah’s diatribe about the loss of Arctic sea ice is misinformed and naively perpetuates the myth that man is causing global warming. I sincerely hope that the critical thinking skills of our university students would not allow them to succumb to propaganda. Hannah fails to enter certain facts into the picture, perhaps because the facts may get in the way of her belief that man bad - nature good. How about these facts.
-The NOAA reported this week that nearly all of the Arctic sea ice that had been lost has returned.
-Antarctica has more ice than normal for the time of year.
-The northern hemisphere has the most snow cover since 1966.
-China, which is a very big country, had its coldest winter in 100 years.
-South America had its coldest winter in 90 years.
-Baghdad saw its first snow in 100 years.
Is this evidence of global cooling, climatic variability or global warming? Some will claim that these facts are just additional evidence of global warming. As proof, some of India’s leaders claim that a recent cold wave was due to global warming. http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14603730
There’s a lot more scientific evidence out there. The scientific consensus that man is causing global warming is a myth. Over 400 scientists, many from the IPCC, say that man is not the cause and that the warming is minimal. In fact, studies show that the earth has cooled slightly in the past 10 years. In a few weeks, a new report will be issued by the Non-governmental Panel on Climate Change (a group of scientists as opposed to politicians and policymakers). This report will debunk much of what has been published by the IPCC. Hannah, I suggest you don’t read it as it will disrupt your world view on climate change and perhaps lead you to seek psychological counseling.
One last thing on polar bears. If the Arctic freezes over, won’t it be more difficult for them to get into the water to find food?
Well, I’m convinced.
Why don’t you and yours give it a rest already?
THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!!!
Or at least get your stories straight:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/
I figured out why they call the paper “The Wake”. The students are brain-dead. The universities and colleges are suppose to be this bastion of critical thinking but it appears they are just short-term stops for gullible kids who readily fall prey to every piece of liberal propaganda that comes their way. I shouldn’t be so hard on you guys. I was once like you. I went to college at UMM and sucked up the liberal propaganda of the day. I’m happy to say that I’ve overcome my college days. Now I’m able to study a wide variety of information and form a reasoned opinion. I can only hope that most of you will achieve the same result. But until then you’ll probably vote for Barack Obama because he makes good speeches not because of any accomplishments. http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/hannitys_name_one_obama_accomplishment_question_redux/
McCain is no gem either but at least he has some history of accomplishment.
Thank God. I don’t have to worry about global warming anymore.
You’re right. All that liberal propaganda was getting in my way. Those environmental scientists have a lot to gain by propagating global warming. I should just relax and buy as much gasoline as possible. Thanks for the advice, I’m glad my choices have no effect on the planet.
It’s not like anybody profits off of a docile, unquestioning public. Especially not the anti-global warming advocates with their lucrative stakes in oil companies and other environmentally friendly services.
Those fucking liberals, trying to stop me from driving my SUV to the Burger King across the street. Damn us.
People are undeniably leaving a large ecological footprint on the planet - with exponential population growth since the industrial revolution and a complete lack of concern about the planet it would be impossible not to. Those who argue are living in a fairy tale.
The current economic model in the U.S. is not applicable to a real world with limited resources. We have been trying to apply this model for several hundred years now and are starting to feel the backlash. This is only the beginning.
It’s not all that simple, either. The ecology of the planet is in complicated equilibrium. Human effects are widespread and varied. Unexpected snow and cold is connected to global climate change, it just points out, again, that the climate has been disturbed. Take a biology class for goddsake before you go running your mouth. The complicated effects of global climate change interact with one another and form unpredictable results.
The bottom line is - we should be concerned. We should be working to find solutions and reverse some of what we have done. Those too narrow to see past political bickering (not much different from celebrity gossip) should shut the fuck up.