Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Here are two separate stories with links included.

US to add polar bears to "threatened" species list


Polar Bear numbers are increasing in the eastern arctic


Global warming strikes again. I'm not going to comment any further. I think the stories speak for themselves.

5 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

I believe the studies show that from what we can tell, polar bear numbers are decreasing overall.

See here.

auntyemfaustus said...

I agree with McCain that we should not start drilling in ANWR. Polar bears aside, there are Inuit tribes up there that depend on the caribou for their livelihood, and the migration of them should not be disturbed. Nobody seems to care about them.

Also, the Inuit don't take polar bears for sport and make rugs out of them for their lodges. They use every part of the animal.

Emilie
Port Orchard, WA

John Washburn said...

Emilie,

I've heard many arguments for not drilling in ANWR, but this is the most ridiculous. The oil there could be one more step for us in achieving energy independence and getting out from under OPEC's boot. But you think we should leave it alone so as not to disturb the caribou? Seriously?

No disrespect, I just honestly don't get that.

Let's keep paying OPEC whatever they demand, so long as the caribou are happy.

Dan Trabue said...

You misrepresent the argument, John. We would not "achieve energy independence," nor even be a step further in that direction, by drilling in ANWR.

What it would do would be to add a few weeks'/months' worth of oil to our supplies before we have to figure something else out. We won't achieve energy independence until we are living within our means on sustainable energy at sustainable rates.

Auntyem said...

I think there are good reasons for ANWR to have been set aside as a refuge. Caribou and polar bears aside, there are people there that have long maintained themselves with what is there.

I agree with McCain that the ANWR is "pristine" as he says, and should stay that way. He doesn't want drilling there or in the Grand Canyon. More and more places are losing that quality all over the world. I see that a lot has been destroyed up here where I am and it is still green, but I wonder for how long. Too much logging and roads built paid for with tax dollars to get to that wood.

I know some people that had a little restaurant here, and they went up to Canada to work on a project that takes oil out of sand. I looked at a before and after photo of that place, and what was once green is now a desert, all brown and nothing grows.

Why can't we find alternative energy sources to run our things such as nuclear power. Or would that require more destruction of pristine land hunting for the uranium it takes? There might also still be lots of places in our other largest state, Texas, for example, or off-shore that might still yield a little more oil, but all sources of crude will eventually run dry--maybe not in our lifetime, but at the rate they are pumping it out, it is bound to run out all over the world.

Emilie
Port Orchard, WA