Take Action During a Bad Week for Polar Bears

It's been a hard week for polar bears. Last Wednesday, the New York Times reported that scientists and officials from the five Arctic nations concluded that climate change is "the most important long-term threat" to the bears. Now the U.S. Minerals Management Service is considering the approval of oil and gas leases in Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi Seas-- also known as the Polar Bear Seas.

These two developments remind us--as if we needed another reminder--of the precarious state of our Northern ecosystem. I saw it for myself when I traveled by boat through the Svalbard archipelago in the high Norwegian Arctic.

I will never forget passing a polar bear stuck on an island, stranded because the sea ice had receded so far from shore. I knew the bear would not eat until the winter--it simply couldn't hunt without the ice. The climate scientists onboard the ship made it clear that with summer sea ice melting at such alarming rates, the bear we saw stranded was just one of many.

Before the ice melts for good, we've got to do two things: 1) We have to create national and international programs for curbing global warming, and 2) We have to establish an international regime for managing the Artic Ocean. If we don't protect the last undeveloped ocean on Earth, it will go the way of all the other oceans.

Jane Lubchenco, Obama's choice for undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere, will be an important voice in this, but the challenge is that the United States is just one piece of the Arctic puzzle. We need all the Arctic nations to come together before it is too late. Later in the spring, I will be attending a meeting of the Aspen Institute's Arctic Commissions in an ongoing effort to build that consensus.

In the meantime, there is something you can do.

Please click here to tell the Obama administration you don't support the Minerals Management Service giveaway of Arctic wilderness to oil and gas giants. If approved, an invasion of oil rigs could decimate the heart of critical habitat for polar bears and other Arctic wildlife.

One-fifth of the world's polar bear population, along with walruses, whales and other marine mammals, depend on this fragile Arctic ecosystem for their survival.

An oil spill would be devastating for these animals, which are already threatened by global warming, habitat loss, and existing oil development. It's unconscionable to allow oil and gas leasing in this imperiled habitat when scientists fear the extinction of Alaska's polar bears by 2050.

The deadline for comments is March 30th, so please act now and urge the Obama administration to cancel any new oil and gas leasing in America's Arctic.

This post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog.

Comments

[UbiVeritas]

Those polar bears are mean mofos. Take your head off with one swipe.

[Richard2]

Frances Beinecke' s article is timely. Polar bears are mentioned in The History Channel's new program, Predator X. It involves the search for an ancient ocean predator. The exploration takes place in the Svalbard Archipeligo, which Ms. Beinecke references. The History Channel's audio makes the statement that there are 5,000 polar bears on the islands, compared to only 2,000 humans.

Does anyone know whether this statement is reasonably factual, or is it an exaggeration?

If there are anything close to 5,000 polar bears living in the Svalbard Archipeligo, then their existing population in the whole Arctic region is probably doing well.

As to whether future climate change will threaten the polar bears, that all depends entirely on whether the earth's climate remains as it is now, or whether it warms significantly. Recent studies of floating buoys in the Pacific Ocean indicate that the Pacific Ocean has stopped warming, and the sea level rise has slowed or stopped. Now it appears the Atlantic Ocean is about to stop warming. In the Arctic, the Arctic sea ice level is above the low levels of recent years, though not yet back to the 30 year average. There is really very little objective, observable data, such as sea level gauges, thermometers, etc., which show that much global warming is occurring in 2009. The Polar bears should do well during a period of stable or cooling temperatures.

[Richard2]

Last night's TV science show about the search for the bones of a prehistoric ocean mega predator, by digging on a group of arctic islands, the Svalbard Islands, included a surprising statement from the program narrator: that the the island's polar bear population was 5,000, compared to a human population of only about 2,000 humans.

If there are 5,000 polar bears in and around the little Svalbard Islands, which is only a small part of the Arctic Region, then the wild polar bear population should be reasonably well in the rest of the Arctic region.

It appears that man's efforts to protect marine mammels such as seals and sea lions has had the side effect of increasing the populations of predators that prey on the seals, such as polar bears in the Arctic, and great white sharks elsewhere.

[SFTor]

Let's get the numbers straight:

In 1970 the polar bear population was estimated at 5,000. Today the population is estimated at 25,000. My understanding is that this is considered a healthy population. The animal is listed as "threatened," largely on the assumption of potential habitat loss from potential global warming.

There also appears to be about 9.5 million seals lying about in around the Arctic circle, so food seems to be in ample supply.

[Kassandra]

Thank you for the activism link, Ms. Beinecke
It's hard for me to imagine a world which would allow these magnificent animals to go extinct for our addiction to fossil fuels.

[CommonSenseRules]

except that there population has grown from around 2,000 to now closer to 10,000. Tell the truth.

[kobio]

And you think 2,000 was an ok number of polar bears on the planet? Do you know what a small number 10,000 is?

[Taiyo]

Probably a Palin follower who thinks wolves AND polar bears should just be wiped off the face of the earth.

[UbiVeritas]

Yeah, there should be 346,335 ... because I say so.