Stop Polar Bear Panic
by Chuck Cushman
Issue 101 - February 13, 2008

Under intense pressure from radical environmentalists over the perceived threat of Global Warming, Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne is dropping hints that under the Endangered Species Act, he will declare the Polar Bear a threatened species after the President's State of the Union Message announcing his concern, starting the regulatory ball rolling down the hill.

This decision would destroy jobs, undermine economic growth and destroy personal choice on the basis of conjecture and computer models. If the next President wants to trash the economy and our living standards and civil rights that is for him to decide. But President George W. Bush should not do it. No matter whether the next President is a Republican or Democrat, the voters will make whoever is elected pay if they make such a terrible decision.

This may seem unlikely to someone unfamiliar with the Endangered Species Act. But under the Act, any activity that is regulated by the Federal Government (because it affects air or water quality, for example) would be subject to further regulation on the grounds of greenhouse gases and potential effects on Polar Bears. That would mean facility emissions or modifications, expanded manufacturing capacity, increased shipping and a host of other activities would come under renewed scrutiny for new reasons. Remember: Virtually everything we do involves fossil fuels and greenhouse gases: 85% of our energy comes from fossil fuels. That means almost every heating, cooling, transportation and electricity generation decision will be affected. Utility and manufacturing companies will be required to slash their CO2 emissions – and be forced to raise their prices to cover those huge new costs.

But it won't stop there.

Every other source of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases will also be regulated and restricted by environmental alarmists: bakeries, breweries, chicken and dairy farms, cattle ranches, dry cleaners, auto manufacturers and dealers, cement and other industrial facilities, and on and on. As their costs go up, so will your costs to heat and cool your home, drive your car, clothe your family and put food on the table. As companies seek ways to cut expenses, to cover GHG control outlays, they will trim their workforces or send jobs overseas.

Basic civil rights and individual freedoms will be hammered. Al Gore and John Travolta will still fly their private jets. But the rest of us will be told what and how much we can drive. How high or low we can set our thermostats. Where or whether we can go on vacation. What we can put on the dinner table. Blue collar, poor, fixed income and minority families will get hit hardest. But everyone's jobs, freedoms and cost of living will be affected.

And in the end it won't matter one whit. China and India will continue to emit more and more carbon dioxide. And our climate will continue to change, just as it has repeatedly over the ages – from natural causes.

The fact is, the entire notion of catastrophic climate change is based on nothing more than hypotheses, headlines, hype, hysteria, worst-case scenarios from climate change computer models – and the insatiable desire of bureaucrats and radical greens to eliminate fossil fuels and control our lives. Secretary Kempthorne has no legal, factual or scientific basis for declaring that Polar Bears are threatened or endangered. There is limited danger to arctic habitats, and very little evidence of imminent threat to Polar Bears. Computer models, hype, headlines and pressure tactics are not evidence.

Average Alaskan temperatures are NOT climbing. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the January-June statewide average temperature for Alaska was 0.55 degrees Fahrenheit colder in 2006 than the 1971-2000 average. "Polar Bears are not going extinct," insists Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a biologist with the government of Nunavut, in Canada's Northwest Territory. According to Dr Taylor, Polar Bears do not even "appear to be affected" by climate change. They adapt well to changing conditions and prey opportunities.

Moreover, there are enough that the Nunavut government allows hunters to kill up to 500 Polar Bears a year, to preserve other wildlife species that the bears eat, and to generate revenue. This can cause temporary declines in bear populations, which has nothing to do with extinction. But even with this hunting, of the 13 Polar Bear populations in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number, according to Dr. Taylor. Overall, there are some 22,000 Polar Bears in the wild.

Weather and temperature swings are the norm - not something out of the ordinary. By selecting the 1975-2000 warming period, alarmists were able to project a trend that – if it continued – would lead to catastrophic Arctic warming. But this is junk science at its worst. It is a completely bogus foundation for public policies that will affect jobs, prices and lives all over the United States. If those scientists had selected a different time period, they would get a completely different result. Between 1938 and 1966, Arctic temperatures fell 6 degrees F. A trend-line based on that would have projected temperatures plummeting by 22 degrees in just one century! They would have reached the temperature of dry ice (minus 109 F) in just five centuries. That would really impact Polar Bears!

Using short-term trend lines as the basis for public policy is completely bogus.

Under the ESA, a species is "threatened" if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. That does not mean 40, 50 or 100 years from now. It does not mean based on worst-case scenarios conjured up by computer models that can't even provide accurate climate forecasts one year in advance – or even the weather two weeks from now. It does not mean for a small portion of a range that extends across most of the Arctic, from Alaska to Canada, Siberia and Finland.

The only factual basis for all this hysteria is a short-term warming trend, which many scientists say is due to air and ocean currents associated with the recurrent Pacific Decadal Oscillation. What we are seeing today is little different from the warming that occurred in the 1920s and early 1930s. The Polar Bears survived that warming – as well as four or more Ice Ages and warm interglacial periods between them. They will survive this warming … and the next cooling period, too.

In fact, recently discovered fossils from Svaldard, Iceland show that Polar Bears survived at least one interglacial that was warmer than the current one. The 130,000-year-old fossil suggests that "maybe we don't have to be so worried about the Polar Bear," said Professor Olafur Ingolfsson.

Another recent study found that that the key to Polar Bear survival is restoring the fat they lose during winter hibernation. They do so by dining on young seals – a task that is made easier by lack of snow cover and ice. Moreover, warmer weather makes it easier for seals to find fish, and more CO2 in the atmosphere increases algae growth and biomass, which means there are more fish. So moderate warming is more likely to increase Polar Bear populations, than limit them.

That's why climate alarmists keep screaming about computer models and their supposed predictions of climate disaster, Arctic meltdown and Polar Bear extinction. But those models and scenarios are worthless and must not be allowed to justify government policies that will impact jobs, families and living standards, for no environmental benefit.

Chuck Cushman is Executive Director of the American Land Rights Association