Scientists say polar bears at risk, but threat not imminent

A scientific panel Friday urged Canada to act to safeguard the Canadian polar bear, which it recommended designating as a species "of special concern" but not one imminently threatened with extinction.

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) "has reassessed the polar bear as a species of special concern ... a species at risk in Canada ... (and) in trouble," said panel chairman Jeffrey Hutchings.

"This is a species that is highly sensitive to human activities," he told reporters.

"In some respects, the polar bear is close to meeting some of the criteria (for designation as "threatened") ... in terms of the magnitude of population decline in parts of the bear's range."

But, he added, "Based on the best available information at hand, there was insufficient reason to believe that it is at imminent danger of extinction."

The category for a species "of special concern" is among the lowest in COSEWIC's catalogue of risk assessments with "endangered" topping the list for animals facing imminent extinction.

At its April 20-25 meeting this week in Yellowknife, COSEWIC assessed the status of 31 species, including the polar bear, spotted owl, Western chorus frog and Vancouver Island marmot.

In its assessment, COSEWIC noted that polar bear populations are declining in some areas, are stable in others, but are increasing in some parts. The total population in Canada, where two-thirds of the world's polar bears live, is estimated at 15,500.

The primary threats to the polar bear, said Hutchings, "are over-harvesting in the waters between Baffin Island and Greenland, a decline of summer sea ice in southern parts of its range, and oil and gas development."

But he said the current modeling is unable to determine exactly how much of an impact retreating Arctic ice is having on the bear.

Canada's Environment Minister John Baird now has until November to accept COSEWIC's recommendation for the designation, reject it or ask for a further review.

In a statement, he said he would outline in August how the government will proceed, after receiving COSEWIC's final report.

If he accepts COSEWIC's recommendation, the government must prepare a conservation plan addressing threats to the bear and its habitat.

Canadian environment ministers rejected previous COSEWIC assessments in 1991, 1999 and 2002, citing concerns about insufficient or outdated data, and asked for more research.

Baird said on Friday the government "believes that the polar bear is an iconic symbol of Canada. As such, we also believe we have a responsibility to ensure its population is strong and its future is certain."

"This government cares about the future of the polar bear and as minister of the environment, I am committed to action," he said.

Wednesday, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) warned in a new study that Arctic sea ice is melting "significantly faster" than predicted and is approaching a point of no return, with dire consequences for the polar bear.

"Previous models had predicted that melting sea ice would mean some polar bear populations could become extinct by 2050. The new evidence points to even earlier regional extinctions," said Peter Ewins, director of species conservation at WWF-Canada.

In total, COSEWIC assessed 16 animal, bird and plant species on Friday as endangered, four as threatened and four, including the polar bear, as a special concern.

Three species, including the polar bear, a plant and lichen were deemed threatened due to climate change.

The beach pinweed, a plant found in coastal dunes in eastern New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, was said to be at risk from high storm surges.

And the seaside bone, lichen which grows on pines on the southern tip of Vancouver Island in westernmost British Columbia, is threatened by the loss of host trees during winter storms, COSEWIC said.

A higher frequency of storms on both coasts has been linked to global warming.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service is expected to make its own recommendation on the polar bear, found in the northwest state of Alaska, in June

'An Inconvenient Truth'

Rivers Running Dry

A water crisis is impending. In a new book, Jeffrey Sachs outlines easy, low-cost ways to avoid disaster.

GALLERY

The World's Endangered Lakes

Climate change, increased demand, pollution and other hazards are threatening bodies of water around the globe. A look at lakes that are most at risk.

Greenpeace founder now backs nuclear power

Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power - a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing his former environmental group formed to oppose.

The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, and there is a high-enough risk that "true believers" like Al Gore are right that world economies need to wean themselves off fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases, he said.

"It's like buying fire insurance," Moore said. "We all own fire insurance even though there is a low risk we are going to get into an accident."

The only viable solution is to build hundreds of nuclear power plants over the next century, Moore told the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. There isn't enough potential for wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal or other renewable energy sources, he said.

With development of coal-fired electric generation stopped cold over greenhouse gases, the only alternative to nuclear power for producing continuous energy at the levels needed is natural gas. But climate change isn't the only reason to move away from fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels also are a major health threat. "Coal causes the worst health impacts of anything we are doing today," Moore said.

Plus, uranium can be found within the United States and also comes in large quantities from Canada and Australia. Nuclear Power reduces the reliance on supplies in dangerous places including the Middle East, he said.

Moore spoke at the chamber breakfast after an appearance in Idaho Falls Tuesday night that attracted 300 people. He also spoke to the Idaho Environmental Forum in Boise, all sponsored by the Partnership for Science and Technology.

He represents the Clean Air and Safe Energy Coalition, a nuclear energy-backed group promoting reactors for electric energy generation. He began his career as a leader of Greenpeace fighting nuclear testing and working to save whales.

In recent years, he has taken on causes unpopular with his former group, like old-growth logging, keeping polyvinyl chlorides and now nuclear energy.

He says his change of heart comes from his background in science and a different approach to sustainability.

He sees a need for maintaining technologies that are not harmful while fixing or replacing those that are harmful.

"We don't believe we have been making too much electricity," he said. "We believe we've been making energy with the wrong technologies."

His critics, like Andrea Shipley, executive director of the Snake River Alliance, say he has simply sold out.

"The only reason Patrick Moore is backing something as unsafe and risky as nuclear power is he is being paid by the nuclear industry to do so," Shipley said.

Global warming slows weed invasion

Important native grasslands are threatened by climate change. (ABC News: David Hudspeth)

• 
  

Tasmanian scientists have discovered a possible benefit to global warming.

In 50 years, it is expected our climate will be two degrees warmer with elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

The School of Plant Science at the University of Tasmania has simulated those conditions so they can see how global warming will affect important biosystems.

The seven-year study by the University of Tasmania has found climate change can slow the invasion of some types of weeds threatening native grasslands.

Dr Mark Hovenden from the School of Plant Science says it has been predicted that increasing levels of carbon dioxide will promote the growth of weeds.

But he says higher temperatures could change that.

"When you add warming to an experiment as well, the warming actually knocks the weeds out very strongly," he said.

"The type of weeds that we're talking about are the big problem weeds for grasslands across the country and these are the introduced flat weeds like dandelions and plantagos."

But it is not all good news.

A carbon dioxide-rich environment increases productivity, but only if there is substantial summer rain, and predictions point towards worsening summer droughts.

"It's highly unlikely that carbon dioxide's goinf to be the panacea that people see it," says Dr Hovenden.

Some of the findings are being applied to dairy pastures in Tasmania's north.

Mark Smith from DairyTas says adapting to climate change is a high priority for the industry.

"The scientific evidence is fairly clear, there are going to be some impacts through temperature and rainfall changes in the next 20 to 30 years," he said.

But Mr Smith says the industry is remaining optomistic.

"There's no panic in this, from a dairy industry point of view, but it's making sure that we're at the forefront with the scientists, knowing what the likely impacts are going to be," he said.

The research team is seeking funding to continue its studies for another five years.

We must put the heat to our politicians on global warming

Earth Day has come and gone again. And again, people are reflecting on the tremendous pressures we put on the earth and the environment and what they can do to live a greener more sustainable life.

Perhaps this year, we should also reflect on Canada's stubborn insistence on being a part of the climate change problem rather than part of the solution.

Earth Day was created nearly 40 years ago to inspire awareness of the earth and appreciation for our environment.

Millions of Canadians took part last year, joining an estimated half a billion people worldwide.

Much of the Canadian interest focused on calling for action on climate change.

Public opinion in Canada has consistently favoured taking action on climate change. Support has grown even stronger since the federal government signed the Kyoto Protocol in 2002 and committed the country to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012.

Canadians were rightly proud when the federal government signed and then ratified the Kyoto treaty.

But somehow that public pride and concern about climate change has not convinced successive governments to make progress on reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

By 2005, Canada's emissions had risen to 30 per cent above 1990 levels.

In response to the public's desire for action on global warming and Canada's rapidly escalating greenhouse gas emissions, the current government produced "Turning the Corner" that falls drastically short of what is urgently needed.

Not only does this half-measure of weasel words and soft targets not meet our legally binding commitments to cut GHG emissions, it will certainly not achieve the deep reductions scientists say are needed to prevent truly catastrophic climate change impacts.

It is a case of government actively planning to fail the most critical challenge facing our planet today.

Provincially, only Manitoba and Quebec have agreed to meet their share of Canada's Kyoto commitment. No jurisdiction in Canada, federal or provincial, has agreed to reduce its emissions 25 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020 - the minimum reduction the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said is necessary to avoid disastrous impacts.

What does this lack of progress mean for Canadians who support Earth Day and who want to be part of the climate change solution?

It means making a pledge to change your personal habits and reduce your carbon footprint.

Turn out the lights when you leave the room and caulk those drafty windows. Walk to the store and buy locally grown produce - we must do everything we can to lower our personal emissions and every bit counts.

But these are voluntary measures and the future of the planet can't be left to individual goodwill. The biggest lifestyle change you can make following this Earth Day is to turn up the heat on your elected politicians. Climate change is a global problem that requires a united global response and requires government action on a major scale.

It requires bold leadership and government regulation that will make significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

It is about limiting the output of Canada's largest emitters and using every carrot and stick available to make these cuts in short order.

If no jurisdiction in Canada has committed itself to make the cuts necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change impacts then how do we get our elected representatives to move? It is time to exercise our responsibilities as citizens and engage in democracy in order to achieve those things we want for ourselves, our children and our communities.

Democracy is not a spectator sport. It goes without saying that the tar sands oil companies, the automobile industry and all the large emitters of GHGs are exercising their democratic rights with governments - it's time for individuals to do the same.

Because of this Earth Day, commit to a lifestyle change that will speak volumes: Call your member of Parliament, let him or her know you want effective action on climate change and that you support politicians who take action.

Then let them know you will be paying close attention to their position on climate change.

Bruce Cox is the executive director of Greenpeace Canada.

Global Warming? An Open Letter to John McCain

Dear Mr. McCain

It seems that some leading Republicans such as yourself, Newt Gingrich, and even President Bush, have accepted the premise of Anthropogenic Global Warming – that man is spewing millions of tons of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere each year, and that this is causing an unprecedented rise in earth's temperature that threatens us all. And, if we spend enough money to reduce CO2 emissions, we can change it.

I urge you to reconsider. More than 19,000 scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition to protest the Kyoto accord, and declare their opposition to the theory that man's CO2 emissions are causing Global Warming (the Global Warming Petition at http://www.oism.org/pproject/). Written and sponsored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, the Petition reads:

Global Warming Petition

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases, is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of Earth's climate. Morever, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide [willl] produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

There is certainly no "consensus." The IPCC Report on Global Warming (2007) from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that it was "reviewed" by 600 authors from 40 countries, and over 620 experts and governments. The 19,000 scientists who have signed the Global Warming Petition outnumber those who have "reviewed" the IPCC report by more than 15 to 1.

The illustrations below are from www.GlobalWarmingArt.com, a website created to graphically illustrate the evidence for Global Warming Theory, and since they were created by proponents of Global Warming Theory, I will adopt them, and stipulate to their accuracy, and explain very simply why this evidence produced by the Global Warming proponents proves them wrong.

The Global Warming theorists always point to rises in temperature (by fractions of a degree) within the last 200 years, or the last 1,000 years, but such a small sample of climate history is not historically representative, and is not a large enough data set to be scientifically meaningful. It's cherry-picking the evidence. To be intellectually honest, we must look at all the evidence we have, not just a small fraction of it. To be scientifically meaningful, we must look to the long history of climate changes, as shown in the six illustrations below.

Exhibit 1. Holocene Temperature Variations: The IPCC Is Wrong

Here we see that the present Warm Era (the Holocene) began almost 12,000 years ago. It peaked circa 8,000 years ago at 1.5 degrees above the baseline, a full 1 degree warmer than now, at the beginning of what climatologists call the Holocene Optimum.

According to the IPCC Report on Global Warming, rising CO2 causes Global Warming, and CO2 now is higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years. If this were true, then it would be warmer now than at any time in the last 650,000 years. But it is not. 8,000 years ago, CO2 was 120 parts per million lower than now, and the climate was warmer than now. Now, CO2 is higher, but the climate is cooler. Thus we know that the IPCC's global warming theory is false. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is wrong. Openly and obviously wrong. Clearly and conspicuously wrong. Irrefutably wrong.

We also know that prior to 12,000 years ago, sea level was 400 feet lower than now. Most of that water was bound up in vast glaciers on the northern continents, in some places as much as three miles deep. From 12,000 to 6,000 years ago, there was so much glacial melting that sea levels rose 400 feet to their present level. That is, before the present era of Global Warming began, 12,000 years ago, sea level was 400 feet lower than now.

Before Global Warming began, twelve thousand years ago, you could walk from Alaska to Siberia on the Bering Land Bridge, or Beringia, a thousand miles of dry land, north to south, as large as Australia, now under the cold ocean of the north Pacific, the Bering Sea. You could walk from England to France on dry land under what is now the English Channel.

Exhibit 2. The Surface Temperature Record

Here we see the recent trend line rising 1/2 degree (0.5 degrees) from 1980 to present, with temperature spiking circa 1998 to 0.7 degrees above the 1980 benchmark, and cooler since then. One half a degree. In San Francisco, the temperature can rise or fall by half a degree in a minute. And, for most of us, a half degree change in temperature is too small to notice.

Exhibit 3. Reconstructed Temperatures: Last 1,000 Years

While this looks fairly "dramatic," this is only because the scale of the graph is so narrow. It is only 1.6 degrees from the bottom to the top of the chart, barely enough climate change for most of us to feel. From the benchmark of 0 at 1,000 CE (for Common Era, or AD, as we used to say, one thousand years ago), the chart only shows a range of 0.6 degrees up, and 1 degree down. Since 1,000 years ago, global temperature fell 0.9 degrees to the bottom of the Little Ice Age, four hundred years ago, and then it began rising, and has risen about 1.3 degrees to reach 0.4 degrees above the benchmark of 0 from 1,000 years ago. Thus, we see that our climate today is a trivial 0.4 degrees warmer than it was 1,000 years ago, before the Little Ice Age. Less than one-half of one degree. And a full degree cooler than at the peak of the Holocene Optimum, eight thousand years ago (Exhibit 2).

Exhibit 4. Ice Age Temperature Changes

Let’s look at some more history. Over the last 450,000 years we see five episodes of "Global Warming" above the 0 baseline. The previous four eras of Global Warming, approximately 120,000 years, 240,000 years, 330,000 years, and 400,000 years before now, were warmer than now, with very long intervening ice ages much cooler than now. The next ice age will be disastrous for agriculture in the northern half of the northern hemisphere. And, unless the long natural cycle of global warming and ice ages is somehow broken, the coming of the next ice age is a matter of when, not if. Perhaps we should be grateful for Global Warming while we have it.

It won't last forever.

In order to be credible science, Global Warming Theory must explain (a) what caused the last 5 eras of Global Warming, and (b) what caused the last 5 eras of Global Cooling. If it does not do so it is not good science, but merely opinion, merely speculation, an unproven hypothesis, that would not be admissible as evidence in any court under the Federal Rules of Evidence. To my knowledge, it does not do so.

To be admissible evidence in court, scientific evidence must be "generally accepted in the scientific community," as the U.S. Supreme Court held in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 US 570 (1993). Otherwise it is deemed too speculative and unproven to be reliable, and therefore inadmissible. Since there are many thousands of scientists who reject Global Warming Theory, it cannot be seen as "generally accepted science." It is highly disputed science, a highly disputed, unproven theory. It is my opinion that this theory, and the crystal-ball computer models that purport to predict the future, the future of global climate changes, are not admissible as evidence to prove that they are true, unless they can first be proven to be "generally accepted science."

Are we to base national climate and energy policy on a theory that is not even sufficiently proven and accepted to be admissible as evidence at trial, in a judicial proceeding, in a court of law?

If we were to do a computer model of future climate changes based on extrapolations and inductions from historic patterns and cycles of climate change, it would very likely tell us that the earth will soon enter another long era of Global Cooling, another periodic Ice Age.

Exhibit 5. Five Million Years of Climate Change

Looking back five million years, we see that (a) there have been dozens of cycles of global warming and global cooling over the past five million years, (b) the swings between the extremes of global warming and global cooling in each cycle have been growing more dramatic, and (c) there has been a steady long-term cooling trend over the last five million years. Earth's climate, in the long trend, is growing colder, not warmer.

Exhibit 6. Sixty Five Million Years of Climate Change

Here we see (below) that over 65 million years global temperature has risen and then fallen dramatically from the Eocene Optimum, some 50 million years ago, not in a straight line, but in a general, long term cooling trend. Unless this long trend is somehow reversed, the earth is slowly cooling, not warming.

Thus it becomes clear that:

(a) The present era of Global Warming (the Holocene Era) began some 12,000 years ago, long before human civilization or modern technology. It was warmest circa 8,000 years ago, and has been slowly getting cooler every since, with some short term warming cycles, but a long term cooling trend.

(b) The present era of Global Warming is right on schedule in the long cycle of Global Warming and Global Cooling approximately every 120,000 years.

(c) The present Global Warming is cooler than each of the four previous warm eras, and the climate has been on a long-term cooling trend since the Eocene Optimum, some 50 million years ago.

(d) We see per the IPCC report that CO2 is higher now than in the last 650,000 years, yet during that time there have been at least four (4) eras of Global Warming with temperatures higher than now.

This fact conclusively disproves the hypothesis that rising CO2 causes global warming. If the premise that CO2 causes global warming were true, then the climate now would be warmer than at any other time in the last 650,000 years.

But it is not.

Let us also note that the CO2 rise from 280 ppm (parts per million) to 380 ppm at stated in the IPCC Report is a rise from a mere 0.028% of the atmosphere to a mere 0.038% of the atmosphere. Our atmosphere is more than 99.9% nitrogen, oxygen, and argon, and less than 0.1% everything else. At 380 ppm, or 0.038%, CO2 is less than 4% of 1% of the atmosphere.

Over the last 100 years, the increase in CO2 has been a trivial 0.01% of the atmosphere, or 1% of 1% of atmospheric composition, one part in ten thousand. To visualize this, imagine that you have a swimming pool that holds 10,000 gallons of water. Then you add one gallon. That is how much atmospheric CO2 has increased in the last 100 years, according to the IPCC. Not much.

The earth's climate has been changing continuously for millions of years, as far back as we can reconstruct it, and doubtless long before that, for as long as the earth has had a climate to change. Nature changes continuously everywhere we look. Nothing in nature stays the same. Our contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is truly trivial, less than one part in ten thousand, less than 1% of 1% – even if we assume that all of the CO2 increase in the last 100 years has been due to us, which may not be true. Has it been proven?

Before the United States makes enormous changes in public policy and spends hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars to "stop climate change," don't you think we should demand some pretty convincing proof that the climate change we see is not natural? Is the climate change we see really man-made, and can we really change it? Or is it the unchangeable natural cycle of Global Warming and Global Cooling?

Children concerned about global warming

Children from across Jakarta attended an Earth Day festival held Saturday by Bina Nusantara (Binus) School in Simprug, South Jakarta.

James, a first grader at an elementary school, was one of many students involved in a series of competitions held on the Binus campus.

He sat among dozens of children designing pictures to promote awareness of environmentalism. On his paper was the blue-and-green sphere of planet Earth floating in space.

"The theme is 'Going Green', that's why I'm drawing our planet."

The one-day event featured six contests, including singing, drawing, dancing and music, involving more than 100 kindergartners and elementary school students.

The school's public relations chief, Adilah, said the school wanted to raise awareness of global warming, especially among younger generations.

"We are trying to stimulate awareness on this issue among young children, in the hope they will embrace green lifestyles and become involved in efforts to preserve the environment," she said.

Another drawing contestant, Gerdan, of Global Mandiri School in Cibubur, Bogor, said he had never heard of Earth Day, but knew ways to help save the Earth.

"Bottles. Recycling used bottles can save the earth."

Gerdan's teacher, Forina, who accompanied her students to the event, said her school taught a number of ways for students to live greener lives.

"They learn that recycling is important, but also easy. In our school, we invite our students to bring used plastic bottles from their homes each week to be recycled," she said.

Voracious human activities are thought by many to be the cause of rising temperatures, changing weather patterns and rises in sea-levels.

Last December in Bali, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change outlined a roadmap for nations to overcome the problem.

In response to the meeting, many companies and residents have planted trees in their premises and neighborhoods, and two weeks ago, thousands attended a three-day convention called Green Festival held in the city, which provided information and tips for residents on how to conserve energy and promote a greener Jakarta. (dre)