CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › 2/3 of the world's polar bears will be gone by 2050, thanks Big Oil and Big Coal
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2/3 of the world's polar bears will be gone by 2050, thanks Big Oil and Big Coal

post #1 of 57
Thread Starter 
If extreme measures aren't taken to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels that are pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and accelerating global warming, the sea ice in the arctic will melt and the polar bears will die.

Quote:
Polar Bear Population Seen Declining
The Associated Press

Saturday 08 September 2007

Washington - Two-thirds of the world's polar bears will be killed off by 2050 - and the entire population gone from Alaska - because of thinning sea ice from global warming in the Arctic, government scientists forecast Friday.

Only in the northern Canadian Arctic islands and the west coast of Greenland are any of the world's 16,000 polar bears expected to survive through the end of the century, said the U.S. Geological Survey, which is the scientific arm of the Interior Department.

USGS projects that polar bears during the next half-century will disappear along the north coasts of Alaska and Russia and lose 42 percent of the Arctic range they need to live in during summer in the Polar Basin when they hunt and breed. A polar bear's life usually lasts about 30 years.

"Projected changes in future sea ice conditions, if realized, will result in loss of approximately two-thirds of the world's current polar bear population by the mid 21st century," the report says.

Polar bears depend on sea ice as a platform for hunting seals, which is their primary food. They rarely catch seals on land or in open water. Because the general decline of Arctic sea ice appears to be underestimated, scientists said their forecast of how much polar bear populations will shrink also may be on the low side.

"There is a definite link between changes in the sea ice and the welfare of polar bears," said USGS scientist Steven Amstrup, the lead author of the new studies. "As the sea ice goes, so goes the polar bear."

Amstrup said 84 percent of the scientific variables affecting the polar bear's fate was tied to changes in sea ice.

As of this week, the extent of Arctic sea ice had fallen to 4.75 million square miles - or 250,000 square miles below the previous record low of 5.05 million square miles in September 2005, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Scientists do not hold out much hope that the buildup of carbon dioxide and other industrial gases blamed for heating the atmosphere like a greenhouse can be turned around in time to help the polar bears anytime soon.

Polar bears have walked the planet for at least 40,000 years.

"In spite of any mitigation of greenhouse gases, we are going to see the same amount of energy in the system for at least 20, 30, 40 years," Mark Myers, the USGS director, said.
From here.

People at large need to drop the scales from their eyes and see that the "convenience" of fossil fuels is an illusion. Short sighted greed and power mongering are what's keeping the mainstream media from covering this very real crisis in a truthful way. It's also keeping the yes men in Washington from breaking away from the pack and pointing fingers. The powers that be won't do it for us; the people have to demand a dramatic shift in no uncertain terms.

Individuals can do what they can to conserve energy in the meantime, but until the fossil fuel industries are called to the carpet for broad, sweeping changes, we are in a collision course with our own doom. No sense in pussyfooting around that fact.
post #2 of 57
Oh shit I'm going to kill myself.
post #3 of 57
What I'm really interested to hear is what Big Oil's hired spokespeople have to say to that.
post #4 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by stunt poop
Oh shit I'm going to kill myself.
Please feel free to do such a thing.


As to the topic at hand, one of the most heartbreaking things I have seen in the past few years was on Planet Earth when the polar bear was struggling to make it across the breaking ice to find food.
post #5 of 57
What amazing timing.Just last night I watched On Deadly Ground and now this report comes out.coincidence?I think not.

But seriously that's pretty sad.
post #6 of 57
2/3 of the polar bears gone thanks to big oil, the other 1/3 will surely kick off thanks to diabetes from all that Coca-Cola. Bad times.
post #7 of 57
Great news for baby seals!
post #8 of 57


Quote:
"Fuck those animals stink!"
post #9 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti
2/3 of the polar bears gone thanks to big oil, the other 1/3 will surely kick off thanks to diabetes from all that Coca-Cola.
And Klondike Bars.
post #10 of 57
Planet Earth has a polar bear segment that just broke my heart. Not the one with the cubs, but the one about the lone polar bear. It was really incredibly sad.
post #11 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
People at large need to drop the scales from their eyes and see that the "convenience" of fossil fuels is an illusion. Short sighted greed and power mongering are what's keeping the mainstream media from covering this very real crisis in a truthful way. It's also keeping the yes men in Washington from breaking away from the pack and pointing fingers. The powers that be won't do it for us; the people have to demand a dramatic shift in no uncertain terms.

Individuals can do what they can to conserve energy in the meantime, but until the fossil fuel industries are called to the carpet for broad, sweeping changes, we are in a collision course with our own doom. No sense in pussyfooting around that fact.

Move to Iran, you commie homo.
post #12 of 57
I don't care for polar bears.
post #13 of 57
Isaac Hayes is . . . Big Coal! BOW-CHICKA WOW WOW BOW-CHICKA WOW WOW HUNH!

sorry.
post #14 of 57
genetic mutation could bring us such products as: The super do-do, fun sized giraffes, and the solar bears.
post #15 of 57
Good thing, too. We don't want these fuckers around.

post #16 of 57
Polar bears are dying- and it pisses me off that an issue like this pretty much has to be in the "Political" forum.
post #17 of 57
Thread Starter 
Very true. I think people believe the powers that be will "fix" the problem, but they won't. Everyone needs to get involved; everyone needs to demand a major shift from oil and coal to green technologies. If a true independent politician were to take over, he (or she) could lead a revolution along the lines of the WPA back in Roosevelt's time to convert coal energy to solar/wind/water, etc., and oil use to biodiesel and electric fuel cells.

But the rich, greedy elite running these industries are going to fight to hang on to their fortunes and power, and the lapdogs in Washington will not rock the boat unless an army of pissed off people demands it.
post #18 of 57



Y U DO DIS?
post #19 of 57
Thread Starter 
From Framing Science:


Quote:
Major implications from our analysis of 20 yrs of global warming perceptions

Category: Global Warming • Public Opinion
Posted on: August 29, 2007 6:13 PM, by Matthew C. Nisbet

Here are the major implications from our study analyzing twenty years of American public opinion data on global warming:

1. Global warming skeptics continue to make an impact on public opinion.

As we describe in the article, although a strong majority of Americans say that they believe that global warming is real, that temperatures are rising, and that the release of carbon dioxide is a cause, the public remains relatively uncertain about whether the majority of scientists agree on the matter. As long as the public remains confused about where the experts stand, public support for policy action is likely to be weak and volatile.

Moreover, the article does not include break downs across polls by partisanship, but as Gallup and Pew polls from 2007 show, there still remains a "two Americas" of climate change perceptions. Over the past year, Democrats have become almost universally concerned and worried whereas a majority of Republicans remain skeptical of the science and the urgency of the issue.

It's a result of two different sets of political leaders offering contrasting interpretations that are then relayed via an ever more ideologically fragmented media system.

2. As long as global warming is a relatively low priority for the public, it will be a relatively low priority for policymakers and the news media.

In the aggregate, Americans might say that they are concerned about global warming, but compared to many other policy problems, the issue still remains among the bottom tier of priorities. Even in comparison to other environmental issues, global warming sits at the lower end of worries. As long as global warming continues to lag as a relative concern for Americans, few policymakers will feel an incentive to spend political capital in support of meaningful policy action. Moreover, the issue itself will remain a second tier news agenda item.

3. Global warming remains very much a public communication problem.

Scientists, environmental groups, and some Democratic leaders have been very good at mobilizing a certain baseline level of urgency, but if the rest of the public is going to be activated, new media platforms, opinion leaders, and frames will have to be employed. For more, see the recent articles published at Science and at the Washington Post
post #20 of 57
post #21 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti
2/3 of the polar bears gone thanks to big oil, the other 1/3 will surely kick off thanks to diabetes from all that Coca-Cola. Bad times.
When I read the thread title I honestly thought it said "cola" not "coal".
post #22 of 57
Without the polar bears, who will kill the walrus'? Those fat blubbery fucks are up to something.
post #23 of 57
I don't think many people will take global warming seriously until they realize how royally fucked WE'RE going to be.

"Killing the planet" sounds great and menacing, but its hyperbole. There was a time when Earth was a fetid pus-ball, and there were times when it was struck by celestial objects the size of Delaware - and it recovered just fine.

WE'RE the ones that are going to suffer greatly - I mean, aside from all the niche species like polar bears that will be extinct within a century. But even if you told people that in 200 years our species diversity will likely be a fragment of what it is today, they won't get there's a problem until we start fighting wars over fresh water resources.

But its all OK because eventually humans will be extinct and the Earth will be able to recover again. Let's hope its sooner rather than later.
post #24 of 57
The only thing I'm certain of is that Stephan Colbert (coincidently to this thread pronounced "coal bear") is sleeping like a baby after hearing this news.
post #25 of 57
Aren't we overdue for an Extinction Level Event? I'm pretty sure I've read that we're several million years overdue for both an asteroid strike AND a Super Volcano erruption. Hopefully we can get both.

The only reason I ask is because I have determined it's time for humanity to go. We've got nothing left to offer but destruction, strife, chaos, and misery. Sure, some individual people are ok but a few good apples doesn't change the fact that we've rapidly turned into a disease that's killing an entire planet.
The sick reality is even if we could come up with ways to turn this thing around, we'd never implement them. The path we're headed down is most certainly irrevesible at this point because of our obsessions with things like religion and politics.

So yeah, we need some of them good ole' fashioned Asteroid antibiotics. We may destroy ourselves and take a good chunk of what exists around us with us, but the planet will soldier on as it has through countless other disasters. I mean, as bad as we've been to the environment I doubt we're going to create something on the level of the Permian-Triassic Extinction, and if life survived that it'll certainley survive us.

I just wonder what life form gets it's shot next? I'm hoping for some sort of Minotaur action. That would be pretty awesome. Sapient cattle would probably be kinder to everything than we were.
post #26 of 57
What depresses me the most is that here in Greece only this summer people started to understand what I meant when I told them that we're going to lose half the country in a few decades.
post #27 of 57
Who are these people who are rooting for the extinction of the human race? What the fuck do I care if the spotted owl comes back if all the people are dead?
post #28 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
Who are these people who are rooting for the extinction of the human race?
*ahem*
post #29 of 57
As much as I try to be as ecological as I can, Carlin said it best.
post #30 of 57
In terms of bad things that will happen because of global warming, this ranked close to having to add extra ice to your drink. For the record, Polar bears are great white assholes and make very little difference in the food chain. I'm more concerned about those ugly, boring glaciers that keep being added to the ocean.
post #31 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
Who are these people who are rooting for the extinction of the human race? What the fuck do I care if the spotted owl comes back if all the people are dead?
It's the non-thoughtful answer to "why does everything seem so fucked these days?" The thoughtful one is "everything's always seemed fucked," which should probably be followed by the question, "so what are you going to do about it besides lying on the couch, eating Cheetos and bitching about how horrible everything is."

It's so fucking lazy to paint humanity as evil and "nature" (which, I guess, would be the part of the universe that somehow doesn't include humanity) as pure. We're all part of the same continuum. Humanity is what it is, and the intellect that allows us to fuck up the environment on such a grand scale is also what allows us to recognize that we've fucked up the environment on a grand scale and, perhaps, fix it for both ourselves and other organisms. At the very least, it would be irresponsible of us to not clean up our mess.
post #32 of 57
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to DaveB again.
post #33 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB
It's the non-thoughtful answer to "why does everything seem so fucked these days?" The thoughtful one is "everything's always seemed fucked," which should probably be followed by the question, "so what are you going to do about it besides lying on the couch, eating Cheetos and bitching about how horrible everything is."

It's so fucking lazy to paint humanity as evil and "nature" (which, I guess, would be the part of the universe that somehow doesn't include humanity) as pure. We're all part of the same continuum. Humanity is what it is, and the intellect that allows us to fuck up the environment on such a grand scale is also what allows us to recognize that we've fucked up the environment on a grand scale and, perhaps, fix it for both ourselves and other organisms. At the very least, it would be irresponsible of us to not clean up our mess.
You cannot affix any logic to the short-sightedness of corporations, government and individual people destroying natural resources and the domains of thousands of species in the name of short-term profits, laziness or convenience. And yet that's the situation. People like to put themselves outside of and superior to nature, but we're a part of nature. We are nature. When we destroy it, we're destroying ourselves.

It's not that hard to fix things -- the pieces are all there, waiting to be picked up. What's stopping any progress in that direction are greedy corporations and the supine political hacks that serve them, with a healthy dose of consumerist media saturation and our addiction to consumption, convenience and disposability.
post #34 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
Who are these people who are rooting for the extinction of the human race? What the fuck do I care if the spotted owl comes back if all the people are dead?
I believe the scientific definition would be "whackos".

And the scientific definition of those that don't believe that our first priority should be ensuring mankind's survival because it might disrupt their supposed quality of life is "genocidal criminals".

Now, broad generalizations aside, mankind is at a crossroads right now. Only with major changes in our way of life can we avoid massive loss of life in the future. A degree of disruption to our ecosystem is unavoidable anyway. To try and ignore this is suicidal.
post #35 of 57
Ok, here's where it gets interesting: how do you actually do this in the context of our global political and economic systems?

We do not have a "king of the world" to make everything as it should be. History shows that those who've tried have turned out to have done more harm than good (I'm looking at you, Mao.). So, given that the entire planet isn't about to bow to an authoritarian environmentalist government who will command sweeping change, what are the reasonable steps? How do you get China to stop building coal-powered electricity generating stations? How do you get the UAE to stop building those monumental air conditioning units? How do you do it?

I'm asking because I've been operating under the assumption that, eventually, the oil would run out and the ship would right itself. I didn't count on the vast oil reserves that global warming will make accessible, and which may put off the end of the oil civilization by a century.
post #36 of 57
Thread Starter 
China's immense growth has put it neck and neck with the US in terms of highest carbon emissions by nation in the world. No, the US can't force China to stop destroying the Earth, but the US could set an example by ending its reliance on oil and coal.

From Architecture 2030"
Quote:
There are 151 new conventional coal-fired power plants in various stages of development in the US today.

HOME DEPOT
Home Depot is funding the planting of 300,000 trees in cities across the US to help absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions … The CO2 emissions from only one medium-sized (500 MW) coal-fired power plant, in just 10 days of operation, will negate this entire effort.

WAL-MART
Wal-Mart is investing a half billion dollars to reduce the energy consumption and CO2 emissions of their existing buildings by 20% over the next seven years. If every Wal-Mart Supercenter met this target … The CO2 emissions from only one medium-sized coal-fired power plant, in just one month of operation each year, would negate this entire effort.

CALIFORNIA
California passed legislation to cut CO2 emissions in new cars by 25% and in SUVs by 18%, starting in 2009. If every car and SUV sold in California in 2009 met this standard … The CO2 emissions from only one medium-sized coal-fired power plant, in just eight months of operation each year, would negate this entire effort.

EVERY HOUSEHOLD
If every household in the US changed a 60-watt incandescent light bulb to a compact fluorescent … The CO2 emissions from just two medium-sized coal-fired power plants each year would negate this entire effort.

EDUCATION
The Campus Climate Challenge calls for all college campuses in the US to reduce their CO2 emissions to zero. If every college campus building in the US met this challenge … The CO2 emissions from just four medium-sized coal-fired power plants each year would negate this entire effort.

NY, ME, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI, PA, NJ, DL, MD
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a cooperative effort by 11 Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states to reduce their CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2014 … The CO2 emissions from just 13 medium-sized coal-fired power plants each year will negate this entire effort.

CONGRESS
Congress is considering many climate change bills this year to reduce US carbon dioxide emissions … The CO2 emissions from any new coal-fired power plants work to negate these efforts.

THERE IS A “SILVER BULLET” FOR SOLVING GLOBAL WARMING …

—————————————————————————————————————————

NO MORE COAL
Without coal, all the positive efforts underway can make a difference.
post #37 of 57
post #38 of 57
How long have polar bears been around? Millions of years?

How many times have their habitat changed over that period of time?
post #39 of 57
Thread Starter 
The money and power behind the industries bearing the brunt of responsibility can buy and sell scientists like Frito's. It's a load of $#!#.
post #40 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector
How long have polar bears been around? Millions of years?

How many times have their habitat changed over that period of time?
They've actually only been around for less than 50,000 years.
post #41 of 57
Honest libertarians would claim (incorrectly) that a solution could be arrived at via their libertarian ways. Most libertarians know that this is folly, so they pretend there is no problem to solve. They are liars and fools.

Your citation is not from a scientific body, it's from a libertarian thinktank with an axe to grind. From your link:

Quote:
"This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery."
also . . .

Quote:
Hudson Institute is a non-partisan policy research organization dedicated to innovative research and analysis that promotes global security, prosperity, and freedom.
Your citation can be dismissed out of hand.
post #42 of 57
But I get a kick out of the way a Libertarian with an axe to grind and a known corporate shill and liar are being presented as scientific authorities. You insult my intelligence, and the intelligence of everyone here with the wherewithal to click on "About Us" links and to use Google.
post #43 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
Ok, here's where it gets interesting: how do you actually do this in the context of our global political and economic systems?

We do not have a "king of the world" to make everything as it should be. History shows that those who've tried have turned out to have done more harm than good (I'm looking at you, Mao.). So, given that the entire planet isn't about to bow to an authoritarian environmentalist government who will command sweeping change, what are the reasonable steps? How do you get China to stop building coal-powered electricity generating stations? How do you get the UAE to stop building those monumental air conditioning units? How do you do it?

I'm asking because I've been operating under the assumption that, eventually, the oil would run out and the ship would right itself. I didn't count on the vast oil reserves that global warming will make accessible, and which may put off the end of the oil civilization by a century.

Here's the only answer you need: You don't and you can't.

I was being sarcastic (well, about 99% sarcastic, anyway) in my post calling for the eradication of humanity, but the reality is that we probably won't right our wrongs not because it is impossible but because we aren't willing to change. And the only thing that will accomplish turning this thing around is massive, world wide change.

There are conceivable methods to, at the very least, start slowing the damage we're doing but we won't implement them because doing so would require wholesale changes to our economic and social structures. We've had electric car technology for years, but no one bought them. We've got alternate energy sources that could start weaning us off of oil, but they're expensive to get up and running and no one is willing to front the money for them to start operating on a massive basis.

It doesn't help matters that oil-centered concerns have a massive amount of power in this world.

I'd like to think at some point we'll wake up and turn it around. But I just can't force myself to be that idealistic. I know at the very least it won't happen in my or my children's lifetime.
post #44 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
European energy reform approved
Gas pressure-gauge
The move will encourage new entrants to the sector, the EU says.
The EU has adopted plans that would force European energy markets to be open to more competition.

Its executive, the European Commission, backed proposals meaning that energy giants must "unbundle" operations.

This means that businesses which generate power and supply gas will not also be allowed to control the network of pipelines.

Firms will be forced to either sell transmission networks or lease them to new operators.

The Commission says that the move will encourage new entrants to the sector as well as boost investment in infrastructure.

The proposals also shield markets from outsiders such as Russia's Gazprom, which supplies about 25% of Europe's gas.

If it wanted to enter the market, it too would have to separate its supply and network businesses under the regulations.

'Competitive'

The Commission's report said that the existing dominance meant that too many EU residents and firms "lack a real choice of supplier".

That dominance gave the energy titans "an inherent interest to limit new investment when this will benefit competition," it said.

Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso said that energy was a "driving force of our economy".

"We need a common European response to combat climate change, to achieve greater energy security and provide abundant energy at a fair price for citizens.

"This is only possible if we have a competitive gas and electricity market."
More here.
post #45 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Pope to make climate action a moral obligation
By James Macintyre
Published: 22 September 2007

The Pope is expected to use his first address to the United Nations to deliver a powerful warning over climate change in a move to adopt protection of the environment as a "moral" cause for the Catholic Church and its billion-strong following. The New York speech is likely to contain an appeal for sustainable development, and it will follow an unprecedented Encyclical (a message to the wider church) on the subject, senior diplomatic sources have told The Independent. It will act as the centrepiece of a US visit scheduled for next April - the first by Benedict XVI, and the first Papal visit since 1999 - and round off an environmental blitz at the Vatican, in which the Pope has personally led moves to emphasise green issues based on the belief that climate change is affecting the poorest people on the planet, and the principle that believers have a duty to "protect creation".
The Independent, UK
post #46 of 57
Great news out of the Vatican. My jaded, lapsed eyes don't get to see that very often.
post #47 of 57
From todays Forbes:

For the latter half of the bull run in energy prices, oil has traded in a $10 band either side of $70 a barrel, with the occasional spike above $80 a barrel. The reason? Supply has struggled to keep up with the other face of the energy market, demand.

Economic growth around the globe in developed and developing economies alike has kept the world hungry for more energy. Supply has barely kept up. Stocks are thin and any threat of interruption to supply sends oil futures traders scrambling to bid up the price. And oil seems to exist mainly in trouble spots such as the Middle East and eastern Nigeria, or in weather challenged locations such as the Gulf of Mexico or the North Sea.

All that has been true for the past four years. It has sent nations scurrying to secure supplies, the best example being China's expanding natural resources diplomacy in Africa.

The demand shows no sign of abating. The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts that energy demand between now and 2030 will increase by a half, an annual average increase of 1.6%. Two-thirds of the new demand will come from developing nations, with China accounting for 30%.

What is new is the focus on the environmental impact of consuming as much energy as we do in the way that we do. And that is what provides the hope that the world can modify its demand for energy, or at least its fossil-fuel energy demand, through efficiency and conservation.

What happened? The political impasse impeding progress was broken.

The climate change deal reached by leaders of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) at their summit in Sydney in early September--a gathering that included all the main players save for the European Union--coalesced regional support for what could be called the pro-growth camp backed by the Bush administration.

This approach puts technology, voluntary targets and energy efficiency at the heart of any global agreement on climate change in a way that would contain the growth of greenhouse gas admissions but still not curtail economic growth.

===
Click the link for more.
post #48 of 57
Voluntary targets are a sham. If energy companies were inclined to act voluntarily, they'd be doing so anyway. If it's cheaper to buy off the government and attempt to poison the public discourse, they'll do that instead.

Limits on pollution intensity are also a sham: limiting pollution per unit but not limiting units means there's no limit on pollution.
post #49 of 57
Thread Starter 
Agree, this is lip service at best and also too little too late. People at large and lawmakers in particular need to get serious. This problem is only going to get worse, and by the time big business "self regulate" it will if not Road Warrior, close to it.
post #50 of 57
Here's a useful site to help educate yourselves, hope it helps.
http://www.junkscience.com/index.html
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › 2/3 of the world's polar bears will be gone by 2050, thanks Big Oil and Big Coal