WWF: Global warming puts polar bears in danger

Associated Press, March 12, 2009

OSLO: Polar bears are in danger as global warming slowly melts their habitat, and Arctic countries must take action at a meeting next week to help protect them, the WWF conservation group warned Thursday.

The five key polar bear territories — the United States, Canada, Russian, Norway and Danish-held Greenland — are meeting in the Arctic Norwegian city of Tromsoe on March 17-19 to discuss immediate steps to help the bears.

Among the topics are identifying and protecting critical polar bear habitat areas, managing legal hunting by indigenous peoples and combating poaching by others.

"The survival of that species is about more than the survival of polar bears, because if the polar bears get into real serious trouble then we are in for serious trouble as human beings and ... as a planet," said Rasmus Hansson, head of WWF Norway, at a pre-meeting briefing.

The Norwegian government-hosted meeting is the first since 1981 called to discuss the 1973 Agreement for the Conservation of Polar Bears and their Habitats. It is a technical meeting, addressing measures rather than new treaties or agreements.

WWF experts said polar bears, which depend on ice to catch the seals they eat, are under pressure from the shrinking polar ice-pack and from manmade toxins that can weaken their immune systems and ability to reproduce.

The group said U.S. studies suggest that two-thirds of the world's 20,000-25,000 polar bears could vanish during the next 50 years because of climate change.

Geoff York, the WWF's polar bear coordinator, said the bears are important in their own right, and as an indicator of the Earth's health, since climate change may be hitting the far north faster than the rest of the planet.

Hansson said the Tromsoe meeting was especially important because it comes ahead of upcoming climate treaty talks in Copenhagen, Denmark.

For the original text, see: EU-Norway-Polar-Bears

For the meeting website, see: Polar Bear Meeting

Comments

[Wyatt Hanson]

Surely not a "new" problem. But I am glad something is finally being put together to combat this problem, which has been unmet in the last few years. Although it's almost as complex as climate change itself. Curious what their results will be!
This meeting will start tomorrow, so we might address it in class on the 18th?

[Lee]

I think that we should all try and make a difference because if EVERYONE tries to "go green" we can really help PUT AN END to global warming. If this warming continues, EVERYTHING and EVERYONE will be at stake.

[Tom Posyniak]

At this stage in the game, humanity simply cannot pull the plug on global climate change. Those days are long gone. Even if the world some how managed to act in concert (a dubious prospect consider how weak global cooperation has been on the subject), the effects of climate change would still induce reactions from those infamous feedback loops. It is as if 10 people started a car rolling down a steadily dropping hill - even if all 10 people hit the breaks, stopping is going to be long, halting and painful. In reality, the world is going to increase its emissions. (The only thing momentarily keeping emissions in check is the current economic recession). Carbon dioxide is likely around 388 parts per million, which equates to nearly a degree or two of temperature change. Humanity probably won't be able to stop it before it reaches 450 parts per million, whereup the most severe effects of global climate change will be manifest.

Personal carbon frugality won't change anything, especially when for every ton of carbon we reduce here is replaced 5 fold in China or India. Our best options to save the arctic, the all important landbased glaciers, and the world from severe weather events, is to start tinkering with the climate ourselves, directly. Geo-engineering will allow humanity to buy time until concerted energy de-carbonization and energy replacement becomes a norm. By then I suspect that no other option will present itself anyway.

[Kyle McEwen]

Continue business as usual and let the mad scientists figure things out for us? I think not! Carbon frugality is the ONLY thing that has a chance of saving us, because ultimately the only thing that will actually reduce our emissions is… reducing our emissions. Lee is right we (humanity) could have this thing under control if we just decided we were going to do it. The biggest problem is the propagation of the idea that this is not “our” problem to deal with. We are constantly fed the notion that this is the responsibility of the government, or big industries, or China, or the Kyoto accord. These institutions will play a part in their own time; Climate change is a type of market failure and a concrete solution will ultimately require government intervention. But in the mean-time, the best option is not to sit on our asses and hope that some fantastical solution without any consequences will materialize out of scientific “tinkering.”
A bad-ass MFer once said, “Be the change you seek in the world.” and then he defeated the British Empire. (Can you guess who?) These things are not insurmountable if we put our minds to them. I recognize climate-change is a ridiculously complex issue that will require coercion at some point, but the best option is not to keep the party going until the cops show up, it’s to try our best to wind it down before they get here, whether it is out of control yet or not. The best option is to lead by example voluntarily (show the world its not all that difficult) and push for regulation in the political sphere as well.
Geo-engineering is just not going to save us. In all likelihood it will just make things worse. We don’t even completely understand the effects of emitting CO2. What makes us think we can control the effects of a giant iron dump into the oceans? Scary stuff.

[Rupinder Gosal]

I agree with Kyle and Lee. On a personal level we can do small things which can amount to a great deal of difference. We can also put pressure on our governments. The more people that become informed about the impact of climate change and the fact that its consequences are becoming reality, the better. When the masses begin to demand that governments do something about carbon emissions, than the big emitters will be forced to bring their emissions down as a result.
Also their is often a negative view of China due to their emissions, but what is often ignored is the fact that China's growth has also resulted in China creating more and more cutting edge technology. They are also focussed on developing an electric car that will appeal to the masses, and would affect world emissions on a huge level. So the idea that China is an evil carbon emitter is wrong.

[Thomas Posyniak]

As I already said, even if everyone stopped their carbon economy tomorrow morning (Canada, US, Europe, China - Everyone), Climate change would continue until changes to the ecosystem would find blowback in the political world. This train simply will not stop because everyone joined hands and wished really hard that it would.

Now, I am not saying we do nothing. Governments have to react. People have to take personal responsibility for their environmental legacy. But that's the rub. You say we can get this under control if we, humanity, 'just decide' we're going to do it. How touching. But sadly that's not the way things are. It is our responsibility but as long as the effects are uneven, unfair, and disseminated around the globe, the incentive for individuals and governments to stop their high energy and high carbon lifestyles is nearly minimal.
Again, I'm saying we shouldn't try. But we shouldn't get our hopes up either. It is going to take a number of powerful shocks before we're going to finally realize that some aspects of our high energy economy will have to go.

These climate shocks (a war over the Indus river perhaps, or a massive die off in the mid Nile basin or a hurricane in the eastern sea board) will be the impetus for action. But by then, it will be too late. Carbon will be at 400-420 ppm. Almost the end game, since temperatures around the globe will be 1-3 C above normal, instigating a plethora of albedo-feedback loops (also known pejoratively as "Climate bombs") that make climate change cataclysmic. After this we will hit our population ceiling: water and food will cease to support bloated populations in the developing world, and people will die in the millions, either through starvation/dehydration or through the inevitable wars incited to mitigate the latter. When all this is happening, what kind of politician will have the moral intransigence and ecological piety to ignore the clamouring for someone to do anything to turn down the heat? The answer is no one. Governments will either act in concert to conduct geo-engineering, or they will do it unilaterally. Wishing it away as another example of Man's environmental folly won't stop it. Yes, we can do things if we put our minds to it. Unfortunately, will not act collectively, and when our initial mitigation efforts (from now until 2020 or so) fail, climate engineering will simply become accepted orthodoxy for saving lives, at the cost of a familiar global ecosystem.

We absolutely do not understand the ultimate effects of climate engineering, and few advocates claim to be able to control all the effects. But when does our influence on the environment ever have anything to do with control? We have to accept the fact that the earth will never be pristine again, or that we're ever going to live in perfect balance with nature. That story ended when some goonba near the Euphrates river noticed he could get more food from Flax rather than running around with a spear all day. The earth is the dominion of man; it is our vessel, we must use it to survive. Otherwise what is the point?

PS. Gondi did not defeat the British Empire. The Kaiser, Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt did that well before Gondi had any effect.

[Thomas Posyniak]

Did I say China is 'an evil carbon emitter'? Did I even make that implication? No. Obviously, you were seeing the argument you wanted to see, and ignored what I actually said...

China has the right to emit as much Carbon as its development requires. The western world bequeathed the development model that the rest of humanity inevitably followed, much to the detriment of our climate. However, for the immediate term, any carbon reductions in the west are being offset by development in China, India, and the rest of the developing world. This is just the way it is, and the way it will be.

As for China's 'cutting edge technology', I remain skeptical about China's ability to, first and foremost, provide a standard of living comparable to a developed country, let alone doing that in a way that is near carbon neutral. No, China may have some promising comparative advantages in some areas, but the lion's share of their development will be through carbon based energy: coal, oil, gas etc. This is no failing of the Chinese moral character; we're all in this together whether we acknowledge it or not.

As for the "small things that do great things argument", this again goes back to basic premise: climate change, even if we made a heroic and zealous effort to cut emissions by 70, 80, 90% in 20 years (pretty much impossible considering the direction of economies and how governments work, and how they work together), carbon in the atmosphere would probably slip past 400 ppm, a major sign post in the world's climate health. Its a commendable thought, but ultimately governments must convert, en mass, energy production to non-carbon based resources: nuclear in all likelihood), people must be encouraged, if not forced with their wallets, to move away from carbon based transport, and industry must be coaxed or bludgeoned into low emissions. Even then we will still be compelled by our fear of a rapidly unfolding homeostasis to try to buy time. Geo-engineering is gaining credence. Within a fear years, after a few force five hurricanes, a flood in Bangladesh, and a 10 year drought in Australia, Geo-engineering will be come orthodoxy in lieu of a concerted anti-carbon plan. With a few more years we can probably stop carbon at 450 ppm and learn to adjust to turning up and down the global thermostat.

[nikki sotelo]

everyone has their own god damn opion. & i'm just writting this because i'm at school researching about all of this polar bear stuff. but the people that are being possitive keep doing what your doing .

& the nEgAtIvE people can keep being negative & reatarded cause your damn negative opions will not keep the damn planet .
pce .♥

[Polar bears and global warming]

This is so sad that the polar bears are badly affected by this climate change. One of the reason of melting these cold region is human technology advancement. Due to which there are many natural calamities are taking place worldwide. So now we need to do something about it. Save these precious species, they deserve to live and remember 3Rs Reduce,Reuse and Recycle.