The Words ‘Global’ and ‘Climate’ Shouldn’t Lead to Political Babble

I’ve been hearing some chatter, as well as read a little, about the US decision to put polar bears on the ‘threatened’ list. Some of the comments I hear, and from journalists who don’t know shit-all, say that it’s ridiculous because that population is apparently thriving. They can’t believe that the polar bear is a symbol of the threat of global warming, and can’t help but call out the ‘eco-radicals’ on their shenanigans.

Here’s a segment from an “article” I found (among top of Google search, which makes it all the scarier):

“What’s really going on here?

Kenneth Green at AEI exposes the politics behind the eco-radicals’ polar bear campaign and the consequences:

Listing the polar bear as a threatened species would have significant public policy consequences. It would set a new precedent, representing the first linkage of species endangerment with global warming. Such a listing would basically wall off the entire Arctic region to exploration, resource extraction, and development–at least by U.S. companies–and a threatened species listing would give environmental groups the ability to sue future U.S. governments to force them to reverse climate change by whatever means necessary.”

AEI – who chose to ‘expose eco-radicals’ (above) and write about how our bears are ‘just fine’, is funded by Exxon Mobil. Go figure.

I recommend only visiting that site if you want to continue to browse radical conservative shyte. I’ll save you the pain, and here are some comments regarding that post above which I found silly and misguided:

**WHAT?!? The polar Bear population is 5 times MORE than it was in 1960!!! WTF does an animal whose population is INCREASING land on the endangered list?!

**When will people wise up to this global warming farce? What a joke…

**I have lived in Alaska since ‘74 and I can tell you first hand it is NOT getting any warmer here. Of course we are sometimes influenced by the warm currents from the Pacific Ocean and so even in winter we can sometimes have a warm spell. I am all for a little warming, but it a’int happening!

**The polar bears at the Houston zoo do fine in the summer,average temp of around 95 with 90% humidity.

After throwing-up a little, I figured that it needs to be understood that the concern is more than imagery of a warming planet, and an ice-less polar bear (a threatened list doesn’t have the power to influence climate policy, yet): There should be focus on protecting land from further, and unprecedented development. So, lets say all that arctic ice melts back and polar bears die off. Saying that the concern is the bears themselves puts their previous habitat at risk of development free-for-all. That gives us all the more reason to protect what might be a future forest or grassland. Thanks, global warming.

An important step in curbing public opinion is creating a monument that opinions rally around. For example, how much would you care about the Bald Eagle going extinct if it weren’t a symbol of a nation? The bird may be a glorified crow when it comes down to it, but its bold eyes and American-esque wingspan make it a symbol of freedom and power. Like magic, we care.

Can we not leave human development out of at least selected habitats? It seems that when an initiative does so, there’s always a way to complain. We are perfectly capable of turning land into ecological disasters in every-which way, so don’t give me your politics to screw this one up.

Politics and ‘eco-radical’ bashing utterly confuses the situation and makes no sense. We should be seeing the habitat as fragile, and not focusing on just the bears.