Goodbye, Polar Bears

by Necole Duncan

Most people have accepted by now that global warming is not a debate. However, when you Google search the term the first site you get is globalwarming.org, which deceptively promotes itself as “reasoned thinking…from cooler heads”. The videos on the page are all clips of skeptical commentary from conservative pundits on FOX and CNN. An Inconvenient Truth, for which Gore won a Nobel Prize, is referred to as the “alarmist view”. For example:

How does this happen? The majority of scientists are saying that, yes, there are natural climate fluctuations, but the changes occurring now are happening at a much faster rate than usual. The evidence is building up. In 2007 the United Nations scientific panel established to study climate change presented its final report. They concluded that there can be no doubt that there is a warming trend, and that human activity has “very likely” played a large part in that trend over the last 50 years. That “very” is a huge step. We can see the effects of global warming ourselves in weather patterns of recent years. The polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate. If you speak to professor Jane Waterman on campus, she will tell you that the polar bears only have another twenty or thirty years before they are completely extinct. They are being considered for the endangered species list, though of course the Bush Administration is opposing the move

The answer lies with the environmental skeptics. Those who either refuse to see that there is a problem, because it is not in their best interests, or those who recognize the problem but have other priorities. Governing often consists of a collection of trade-offs based on values. Changes in policy to protect the world from global warming (higher factory standards, restrictions on auto emissions) would cost a great deal of money, and much of the burden would fall to private business and factories. These are collections of people with a great deal of money, powerful interest groups, and therefore disproportionate political power. They pay for negative ads, such as ’Al Gore’s Penguin Army’ (see below). Others fear the impact that such regulation would have on the economy, or don’t believe that the government has a right to place restrictions on private businesses.

One of the reasons scientists have trouble defending themselves in the face of these accusations is that it is difficult to make absolute statements about a phenomena as complicated as climate change. Measurements are imprecise and difficult to obtain, and sometimes there is no absolutely conclusive evidence. Hence the “theory” label that usually precedes the term global warming. However, there is plenty of sound research linking emissions and global warming, though it is difficult to wade through all the bias to get to it. Peer reviewed scientific journals are a good start.

So what can we do about it? 174 states, including the majority of the world’s developed nations, including the E.U., have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, which seeks to reduce greenhouse emissions. The U.S. signed it, but backed out, and it was never ratified. We can support the institution of this important measure, work to raise awareness of green alternatives such as hybrid cars and energy sources such as wind, solar and thermal energy, and make changes in our own lives. It is important to consider our ‘ecological footprint’, or the impact we have on Earth’s limited resources. Then maybe our grandchildren will get to see polar bears, too.

Necole