On May 14th 2008 the decision to list polar bears as an official endangered species was marred by a loophole in the ruling which disregards the effects of global warming on the polar bear population.
Greenpeace International noticed the exemption in the ruling which was supposed to protect the bears from further population decreases. The exemption means that agencies and oil companies are not obliged to consider the impact of Global Warming on the polar bear populations around the world.
Mike Townley of Greenpeace International is satisfied with the recognition of the causal effects of Global Warming on the polar bear, but is disappointed with the Bush Administration for identifying the problem without following through. The charity accused the administration of protecting "the interests of the oil and gas industry", as well as getting away without taking action on global warming. They believe that the newly established protection fails to protect the animal against its biggest threat.
US interior secretary, Dirk Kempthorne insists that his scientists believe it is "the loss of sea ice, not oil and gas development" that has led to the decreasing numbers of polar bears in the world. But he has exascerbated the concerns of the campaigners by claiming US endangered species law to be "inflexible."
The preferred habitat of the polar bear is on top of the ice that covers the arctic seas for most of the year. However, WWF International report that "arctic seas ice extent has decreased by 14% since the 1970s," and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has confirmed that human-induced climate change is, in fact, a reality. It is this arctic seas ice decrease that has led to the fall in numbers of polar bears.
The world's largest carnivore is decreasing in numbers, a IUCN-PBSG (2006) report states. The report confirms that 5 subpopulations of polar bear are in decline, 5 are stable and there is insufficient data on the other subpopulations to make an assessment. According to WWF International, "the time bears have on the ice, storing up energy for the summer and autumn when there is little available food is becoming shorter."
While Greenpeace (and undoubtedly polar bear enthusiasts around the world) consider the loophole to be a serious oversight, the decision to make the bears endangered is still seen as a major step forward. It seems the frustration caused by the revelation of the exemption will not fade any time soon.
Related posts
Posted under Articles, Environmental News
This post was written by Ben Willis on May 28, 2008