Well, that’s it, then. The Al Gore Inc special-interest lobby has won another victory. The United States has declared the polar bear to be an endangered a threatened species. So from today, global waffling alarmists can cite the doomed polar bear in support of their doctrinaire opposition to energy production, industrial projects and economic development.
Care to make further strides in reducing poverty, increasing life expectancy, growing prosperity and improving quality of life? Sorry, poor pretty polar-bear cubs with small plaintive voices will stand astride history yelling: “Stop!” This is what, these days, they call “progressive”.
Yesterday’s press release was to the point:
Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne today announced that he is accepting the recommendation of US Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The listing is based on the best available science, which shows that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar-bear habitat. This loss of habitat puts polar bears at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, the standard established by the ESA for designating a threatened species.
I’ve pointed out in considerable detail before that polar bears should not be listed by any reasonable interpretation of the various criteria that apply. The motives for listing them as endangered threatened — opposition to oil exploration and pathological fear of climate change — are also quite explicitly stated by the green lobby. The only possible scientific reason for listing them (the reason cited by Kempthorne) is wild speculation about future changes in their habitat, combined with the assumption that polar bears won’t bother to adapt to their environment, if it did indeed change.
But here’s what’s really happening to the population:
(Studies, in chronological order, are by: IUCN, Schuhmacher, DeMaster & Stirling, Nowak & Paradiso, Watson, Garner, Truett & Johnson, Schliebe, Lunn et al, IUCN, IUCN. Background photograph is by Steve Amstrup of the US Geological Service.)
Alarmists have a nasty habit of citing the high estimate in 1996, and the low estimate in 2006, to make their case for being alarmed. This technique of carefully selecting time intervals to “prove” a dubious point by noting changes from an outlier is a very common and simple means of lying with statistics.
Given these studies, the more honest interpreter would use the longest available data series along with the most conservative estimates to guess at a doubling in the population in the past 40 years. Or, if you prefer, you can assume the early research for technical reasons to be incomplete and inaccurate, and argue that the population appears stable at worst. However, that would appear to be unnecessarily pessimistic, as this article from last year points out:
“There aren’t just a few more bears. There are a … lot more bears,” biologist Mitchell Taylor told the Nunatsiaq News of Iqaluit in the Arctic territory of Nunavut. Earlier, in a long telephone conversation, Dr Taylor explained his conviction that threats to polar bears from global warming are exaggerated and that their numbers are increasing. He has studied the animals for the Nunavut government for two decades.
Native wisdom, usually treated with great reverence by the environmentalist left, is undoubtedly a crock of self-serving lies in this case:
Inuit hunters make their own estimates of the polar-bear population based on the number of animals they encounter on their travels. Taylor says scientists have ignored the anecdotal evidence of the Inuit, who say bear numbers were rising. Inuits also report more polar bears wandering into their towns and villages, where they are a threat to children.
“I’m pretty sure the numbers [of polar bears] are climbing,” says Pitselak Pudlat, an Inuit hunter and manager of the Aiviq Hunters and Trappers’ Organisation at Cape Dorset, Baffin Island. “During the winter there were polar bears coming into town.”
(To be fair, note the chart in my earlier post, which shows growing, stable and declining populations.)
I reckon if the environmentalists are really so concerned about tiny areas of industrial activity in the vast wildernesses of the Arctic, they should just ship the fluffy little man eaters to the Antarctic. It’s uninhabited by people, full of nutritious food and the ice is getting thicker over there.
This suggestion is, admittedly, not as funny as the pathetic caveat that Kempthorne, having caved to the pressure groups, adds to his press release:
In making the announcement, Kempthorne said: “I am also announcing that this listing decision will be accompanied by administrative guidance and a rule that defines the scope of impact my decision will have, in order to protect the polar bear while limiting the unintended harm to the society and economy of the United States.”
Good luck, Mr Kempthorne. You have a polar bear’s chance in hell. Perhaps you can get a job with Al Gore’s investment company, though. The self-serving capitalists of Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers certainly owe you one. Maybe he’ll let you be a roadie on his next great rock-star tour.
(First published (and since corrected) on my own blog.)
Can you eat polar bears? What purpose do they serve other than posing for photos for air-conditioners and ice-lollies? (These days we can photoshop a teddy bear to the same end.)
After all, if the polar bears died out, we might just have to go out and bash more of those little white Alaska fur seals on the snout with our baseball bats rather than have them conveniently ripped to bloody shreds by polar bears, surely?
Pooh! looks friendly (especially the white one) i believe he needs some sort of a protection over extinction…Though the majority of the world population die without seeing the poor thing.We only manage to watch it on Animal Planet or National Geographic channel…Good on America, atleast we have to agree and supoort them at times, we’ve been too hard on them for a while.
Instead of this action being seen as unjustified and unnecessary, I think it is truly wonderful what America has decided to do. Instead of waiting for a crisis to occur and then only dealing with it when it is too late to do anything or the amount of work and money that would have to be poured on to it in order to stem the crisis is too much they have decided to deal with things before it is too late. This is an example of something that environmental agencies and most of the human population has been lacking in the past as far as protection of our environment and biodiversity is concerned, that is the ability to use a tiny bit of foresight. Perhaps if we practiced a bit of foresight with all environmental problems instead of running blindly forward with no concern other than profiting in the present we could save more species such as the polar bear, so hats off to America!
@ Siphiwo: They’d deserve to be protected from extinction, if they indeed were threatened with extinction. They aren’t, so they don’t.
@ Alex: I don’t object to your sentiment, although I disagree that people “run blindly forward with no concern other than profiting in the present”. The fact that everyone always states the obvious in this way makes me wonder where all those people are who supposedly act this way. I constantly see people building for the future, saving for the future, preparing for the future, betting on the future, anticipating the future, and looking forward to the future. Despite the quasi-religious apocalypse rhetoric of much of the media and most of the environmental movement.
Either way, however, I do object to governments enforcing needless costs and regulations on their citizens. There are plenty private conservation organisations that do great work (and a few that don’t). I can’t see how it is helpful to devalue endangered species status by listing species that are not endangered, simply to serve the political ends of a special interest group.
The polar bear doesn’t need saving. Spending money on doing so pours resources down the drain. Those resources would be better spent on more pressing problems facing humanity, or, at worst, on protecting genuinely threatened species.
“The polar bear doesn’t need saving. Spending money on doing so pours resources down the drain. Those resources would be better spent on more pressing problems facing humanity, or, at worst, on protecting genuinely threatened species.”
Spend the money on making people responsible for thier environment, like limiting thier child output to 2.1 kids per couple. Then we won’t have to save any species as we won’t threaten their existence – but my views on this are already stated.
Poverty and the decline of species are inextricably intertwined – the common denominator is the rampant abuse of finite resources, a causal result of our unsustainable overpopulation of our planet.
Data can be manipulated – it may give some evident substance to your argument, but it doesn’t change the state of decline that the planet is in. Or have you simply not noticed that the shit is hitting the fan?
Take a look around you. Things have changed. Sitting around ridiculing those who are attempting to drive the most obvious message of our time into your thick bonce is in no way constructive and from any angle denialist claptrap.
Do something more constructive with your talent and your platform, for christsake.
Thanks for that eloquent, considered rebuttal, Paul Edwards. Permit me to respond just as thoughtfully: that’s bull, idiot.
All resources are finite. That’s why we buy and sell them, rather than give them away, so they can get allocated where they are most highly valued and are most productive. Resources rise in price when their scarcity increases. Therefore, your fear about finite resources betrays a profound failure to grasp elementary economics.
Our “overpopulation” of the planet is clearly sustainable, as evidenced by the fact that on average we are eating better today, are dying less of infectious diseases, and enjoy a higher standard of living, than we did when we had half, a quarter, or a sixth of today’s population.
And if you’re going to make the grave accusation of “manipulating data”, please bring some evidence. Because no, I have not noticed that “the shit is hitting the fan”, to use your high-falutin’ technical terminology.
But since we disagree, it stands to reason that I’m thick. You couldn’t possibly be mistaken. You couldn’t possibly have fallen for the classical apocalyptic myths peddled by prophets of doom since the dawn of mankind. You couldn’t possibly have swallowed the fear-mongering that quacks and preachers have used for millennia to part fools and their money. Nope, because you’re no fool, are you? You’re special. Thanks for reading, anyway. Now please go fret, or whatever it is you do with your time.
Ivo,
I’m battling a little to understand whether you’re cynical about the idea of human activity influencing climate change in general. Or whether you believe that man should be allowed to do whatever he pleases within the environment, unrestricted and without regulatory limitations. Maybe a bit of clarity here?
As an aside, I do a fair bit of work related to the environment and a small amount of technical work (nothing to do with the fundamentals) on climate change projects. So over the last 6 or 7 years I’ve interacted with other professionals, generally in technical fields (some very highly qualified) and often from outside of South Africa. In conversation about climate change, the number of cynics and sceptics has steadily decreased. Must be the “consensus opinion” that critics of Al Gore sneer at.
@Ivo – There is an error in your logic.
In your answer to Alex – Your view is that we should not spend money on a non threatened species.
So why do we spend so much money / time / resources on the human species as it is not threatened?
Also the cow for example is not threatened yet we spend a hugh amount on it trying to improve its protein content or its milk output – to the point where one wonders if it is still a cow.
We have modified the chicken so much that we can have them for dinner in a mere six weeks.
Yet we should not spend a cent on a non threatened species like the polar bear. I guess as they have no value to you. (ie they don’t taste so good)
I agree that the US has got it wrong BUT your arguments don’t make sense either.
We need to treat the cause not the symptoms. Various species are being pushed to the edge of extinction due to there being toooooo many people.
So treat the cause and save many species including our own by restricting the human population growth.
@ japes: I’m cynical about the manipulation of the polar bear’s status to achieve political goal on how to respond to climate change. Whether those goals are valid or not is a different discussion. Those who believe they are should bring their case before the legislature, where the people’s representatives can write appropriate law.
But on global warming, yes, I do disagree with the “consensus”. I disagree that there is consensus on the causes, extent, likely effects and appropriate political action. Even if there is consensus, this is hardly a meaningful concept in science. And in politics, consensus doesn’t trump a valid argument either. Lots of political decisions are wrong, despite a consensus in their favour. And no, that doesn’t mean I advocate pollution.
@ Owen: It’s not just about spending money on species. If this was just about protecting the polar bear, I wouldn’t object so much. But it’s not, as I explained in a follow-up post here. It’s the political motive, not the actual protection of a supposedly threatened species, that galls me.
What private people do in their own interests — be that conservation or fattening cows — is up to them. As people get more prosperous, and their quality of life improves, the quality of the environment rises on their priority list. First for obvious reasons of preserving resources (farm productivity, for example), then for quality of life reasons (clean air, for example) and eventually also for the sake of the environment in itself. I support conservation, am willing to invest in a clean environment, and admire people who do the same. However, I oppose imposing such behaviour on people by force. Especially when this threatens their prosperity or quality of life, which is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive to people’s own ability to take an interest in and prioritise the quality of the environment.
Your example of cows doesn’t wash. Cows are protected by their owners. There’s no law that requires everyone to adjust their behaviour or restrict their economic progress to protect the cow.
You’re wrong about extinction too. Firstly, extinctions are natural. Second, even though it’s true that man has an impact on his environment (and man has a natural right to use his environment), only a few species are actually “on the edge of extinction”. Third, even those few don’t often cross that edge, thanks more to the efforts of privately funded conservation organisations than to the imposition of government bureaucracy. Fourth, even when we do choose to protect them by force of government, the protection is limited — it doesn’t make driving a car (or just about any other economic activity) a legal risk. That’s where this case becomes so egregious, as opposed to being just another case of just another protected species.
How you propose to “restrict human population growth” I won’t go into right now. For a start, the overblown fears of the population bomb — Malthusian growth, starvation, resource depletion, mass poverty — can be shown to be false. Even if they weren’t, any planned means of restricting population growth I can think of seem fraught with injustice.
Well, now.
Truly Klein-bottle logic there, Ivo. Positively gymnastic.
You ‘disagree with the “consensus”‘ yet concede that there may not even be one.
Extinctions are indeed natural. However, our decimation of the habitat of certain species is not, ergo, species made extinct by human activity are not natural.
Human population growth will limit itself by natural, and entirely avoidable, means.
H5N1 is coming. Got Tamiflu?
It’s going to get all ‘Twelve Monkeys’ out there if people who reject “consensus” continue to impose 20th-century ideals on a 21st century dynamic.
Tick, tick, tick.
12 Monkeys is an ironic example. It’s never made clear if the protagonist is merely hallucinating all the events in the film
Ivo, do you get your arguments from Penn and Teller shows or do you go straight to the Cato Institute and the CEI for your bizarre dances of myopic illogic
This article reeks of the usual hack and slash logic of libertarian fundamentalists: anything that doesn’t agree with our arbitrary and epistemologically flawed axioms must be distorted, ignored, reframed, ridiculed or ‘disproven’ (via the use of the most myopic kind of research and resulting confirmation-biased statistics), without any regard for the fact that the world might be a touch more sophisticated than a Parker Brothers game and usually entirely confusing means with ends.
I’m particularly worried about your knee-jerk assertion (did you check before you jerked) that there is no extinction problem – have you heard of the 6th great extinction crisis? It’s not just waffling alarmists using this term; prominent biologists like E.O.Wilson seem to agree.
Indeed, as time goes on, those free market zealots who insist on applying their cure-all and rhetoric to every conceivable aspect of the world are seemingly becoming an increasingly misguided lunatic fringe in matters of social, environmental and economic development.