It's an interesting situation now that the US has named polar bears as a "Threatened" Species. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said that "the loss of Arctic sea ice in a warming climate could drive them to the brink of extinction in less than four decades". Kempthorne goes on to say that in saving the polar bears, it is not a time to look at policy. Really?
Per the Washington Post, "Under the law, the federal government is now required to draft a recovery plan for the species, which entails assessing the population and its habitat. The ruling also compels federal agencies to consult with the Interior Department when considering decisions that could further imperil the polar bears."
I see no way that we can "save" the polar bears without looking at our current policy, or lack thereof. As has been proven before, greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for the sea ice melting. Therefore, how can you stop or at least lessen the ice melt without addressing greenhouse gas emissions?
Is there anything else we can do to save the polar bears in the immediate or long-term future? Are we going to have to wait until January 2009? I think this YouTube video speaks for itself...
Thursday, May 15, 2008
How to deal with Polar Bears
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
I completely agree! We need something that will protect these species long-term! Under the Endangered Species Act, the agency involved needs to be in communication with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The agency needs to submit a biological opinion for the action that they are taken on the land that would jeopardize the species. If the biological opinion is agreed upon, then a taking (harming the species in any way) is merely incidental and legally doesn't violate the ESA.
We need some sort of long-term protection.
Post a Comment