ClimatetWatch Are polar bears too polarizing? Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) calls the projected loss of polar bears “a wake-up call” to Congress and the Bush Administration. As sea ice retreats, he says, resistance to climate change action “is melting quite rapidly as well.” ERIK A ENGELHAUPT
Polar bears are becoming furry, white icons of global warming. Their future looks grim; the extent of the floating sea ice where they hunt reached a record-setting low this past summer, and two-thirds of the population may disappear by 2050, according to recent reports by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Acting in response to a lawsuit by environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) proposed in January 2007 to list polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA defines threatened species as likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future and endangered species as facing possible extinction. FWS cites declining sea-ice coverage as “the primary threat” to polar bears’ survival. After the proposal, a small group of scientists who monitor and study polar bears, several from USGS, scrambled to pull together everything they knew about the bears’ populations and reliance on sea ice. For 6 months, the team analyzed old and new data to project how much the sea ice will shrink and how bears will fare as it does. In September, USGS released a set of nine reports as guidance for the ESA listing decision. In the reports, models project a 42% loss by midcentury of prime polar bear habitat during summer months, when bears hunt and breed. The team found that polar bear survival was linked predominantly to changes in sea ice. Some environmentalists hope the listing will force the U.S. to curb greenhouse gas emissions. “Global warming is the single biggest threat to polar bears’ survival, and this will require the government to address the impacts on the polar bear,” said Andrew Wetzler, a senior attorney at NRDC, after the proposal.
Polar bears capture the hearts of some and evoke frustration in others, who see a misplaced symbol for global warming.
Scientists agree that melting ice is bad news for the bears. But not all agree that listing polar bears under ESA is the best way to save them—or a good way to force mandated greenhouse gas limits. Ask a group of scientists about polar bears these days, and some type of frustration usually surfaces. “This isn’t the reason people should act,” says Joshua Schimel, an ecologist at the University of California Santa Barbara who studies Arctic ecosystems. Climate change affects much more than polar bears, he says, and a focus on one species draws attention away from other problems. Plus, a warm and fuzzy symbol could further alienate political conservatives from the issue, making the polar bear the new spotted owl. It’s also not clear what protection the bears would gain from threatened status. Typically, the listing means hunting bans and habitat protection until a species recovers.
7592 n Environmental Science & Technology / November 15, 2007
But hunting polar bears is already banned in the U.S., except for a very small number of permits to native Alaskans, and no one is sure how to protect sea ice. Worse, some ice loss may be unstoppable, says James Overland, an oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who recently published modeling results projecting a 40% decline in sea ice by 2050. “I’m afraid to say [that] a lot of the impacts we’ll see in the next 30–40 years are already established,” Overland says. “What we do now has a large effect in the second half of the century,” he adds hopefully, but USGS predicts that by that time only a third of the current polar bear population will remain. “Whatever happens with this listing, it’s not going to affect polar bears,” says Merav Ben-David, a wildlife biologist at the University of Wyoming who studies Arctic mammals. The bears are already protected under the Marine Mammal Act and are managed well through a program of the World Conservation Union, she says. Those who are opposed to climate change legislation are digging in. Longtime skeptic Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) blasts the proposed listing as “the ultimate assault on local land use decision making and suppression of private property rights.” In a speech before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Inhofe voiced fears that the listing could ultimately require any activity that affects climate to be evaluated by FWS for its effect on sea ice. That could restrict oil and gas exploration, shipping, and highway construction in Alaska, and potentially all U.S. emissions. For now, FWS has no plans to designate particular areas as polar bear habitat that would require specific protection but is leaving the option open. Its listing decision is due in January 2008. —ERIKA ENGELHAUPT © 2007 American Chemical Society
