GLOBAL WARMING WILDLIFE SURVIVAL ACT

October 22nd marked the final day for comments on a proposal to list the polar bear as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. Federal officials will now review the hundreds of thousands of comments on the proposal with a decision expected in January.

In addition, Capitol Hill could finally lend a hand to polar bears and other wildlife that are facing a grim future due to global warming. Last month, the Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act — crucial legislation already passed in the House — was introduced in the Senate as Senate Bill 2204.

The Bill includes:

  • new national strategies to address the impact of global warming on wildlife and oceans;
  • solid scientific research to inform the strategies development and implementation over time, including a special study toassess global warming’s impacts on endangered species; and,
  • a cooperative long-term effort among federal, state, tribal, and private landowners to implement those strategies.

The House of Representatives has already passed its own version of the Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act as part of its overall energy bill – H.R. 3221. The House vote should surprise no one, but here it is just in case there is a doubt as to where our Representatives stand:

1st District – Visclosky (D) – Aye
2nd District – Donnelly (D) – Aye
3rd District – Souder (R) – Nay
4th District – Buyer (R) – Nay
5th District – Burton (R) – Nay
6th District – Pence (R) – Nay
7th District – Carson (D) – Aye
8th District – Ellsworth (D) – Aye
9th District – Hill (D) – Aye

 

The top picture, taken in 1928, is of the Upsala Glacier, which is a part of the South American Andes in Argentina. The bottom picture is of the same glacier in 2004. The Upsala Glacier is retreating by at least 180 ft. per year.

Take a moment to contact your senators and urge them to support the Senate Bill. Once a species is exterminated – whether through human action or natural consequences – it is gone. Imagine a world without wild animals. I can’t even to begin to think of it, and it takes so little from us as fellow occupants of this planet to take action.

 

Advertisements

About Charlotte A. Weybright

I own a home in the historical West Central Neighborhood of Fort Wayne, Indiana. I have four grown sons and nine grandchildren - four grandsons and five granddaughters. I love to work on my home, and I enjoy crafts of all types. But, most of all, I enjoy being involved in political and community issues.
This entry was posted in Environment, Global Warming, Government, Wildlife. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to GLOBAL WARMING WILDLIFE SURVIVAL ACT

  1. So…

    I thought that “threatened” status wasn’t as bad as “endangered” status.

    Right?

    Are they trying to say that the Polar Bears are coming back?

    -Eric Palmieri

    http://www.ericpalmieri.com

  2. Eric:

    Both are included in the Act:

    The Act “authorizes the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened.”

    Here is a clip from the website for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

    “Before a plant or animal species can receive protection under the Endangered Species Act, it must first be placed on the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Our listing program follows a strict legal process to determine whether to list a species, depending on the degree of threat it faces.

    An “endangered” species is one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

    A “threatened” species is one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. The Service also maintains a list of plant and animals native to the United States that are candidates or proposed for possible addition to the Federal list. All of the Service’s actions, from proposals to listings to removals (“delisting”), are announced through the Federal Register.”

    I hope this helps clear up the issue.

  3. b says:

    A few things we/I can do now:
    I will turn off a few extra lights.
    I will not water my lawn in the winter.
    I will drive a slower until I buy an electric car.
    I will plant two trees this year.
    I will flush my toilet less. If it is yellow, let it mellow, if it’s brown send it down.
    I will act, but not spread panic.

    I will re-post this comment 3 times.

  4. B:

    Thanks for the commitment. There are many things that we, as Americans, can do to save energy.

    I like the saying:

    “Live simply, so others may simply live.”

  5. J. Q. Taxpayer says:

    While I do not share the belief the human is the sole cause of gobal wraming I will agree we sure are not helping it.

    Here is questions I propose to the average person.

    1- Why do we allow woods be clear cut to build homes?

    2- Why do we not require builders to plant a tree per so many square feet of open space in a yard?

    3- Why do we collect grass clipping from yards? It only takes an area of about 5 x 5 feet to contain clippings right on the average yard?

    4- Why do we send fresh veggie waste down the disposal or to the land fill?

    5- Why do we allow for homes to have so much outside night lighting?

    6- If curb side recycling is good then why don’t we make everyone take part in it?

    7- Why do we allow any packaging used by food outlets is made of plastic? This is for any food that can leave the building of the food outlet.

  6. Ken Stocker says:

    J.Q.
    My answers to your questions:

    1. We don’t. White and yellow pine all comes from sustainable tree farms. In fact, the amount of live tree wood is increasing every year.

    2. Do we want to criminalize tree-less yards? What does it accomplish?

    3. Because a pile of grass stinks, and not everybody wants to have a compost pile in their yards. Besides, grass clippings that sit in landfills are a form of carbon sequestering, taking that oh so lethal CO2 out of the atmosphere.

    4. See #3 above.

    5. Do we want to criminalize outdoor lighting? Consumers are paying for the electricity they are using, let them use it as they want.

    6. The economy of curbside recycling is questionable. If there was a buck to be made doing it, it would be already in place without governmental directive.

    7. Plastic is cheap. it is sanitary. what else is there, tree matter?

    GW is one of my pet peeves. We as humans are NOT causing the global warming. The global warming model of CO2 radiant forcing is based upon a violation of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. In fact, it can be demonstrated to be falsein a high school science project. It is a myth. a Hoax.

  7. Ken Stocker says:

    Here is the report that details the physics in question. Lots of math, but some easier to follow discussion of what the math says.

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf

    and here is a report from NASA as to why the ice is melting in the Arctic.

    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/oct/HQ_07216_Sea_Ice.html

  8. Andy says:

    Ken –

    “We as humans are NOT causing the global warming. ” “It is a myth. a Hoax.”

    You are joking right ??? Where have you been living in a remote cave some where ?

    Thankfully your position is not shared by the majority of reasonable and rational human beings.

  9. J. Q. Taxpayer says:

    Andy,

    Ken and I sometimes agree on certain issues 100%. I think this may be one we are nearly on the opp. ends of agreement.

    I do not believe, we humans, are the main driving force behind gobal warming. But we sure are not helping the issue is my belief.

  10. Ken:

    If global warming is a myth, then why are the temperatures used to gauge soil warmth in gardening zones getting warmer?

    In December of 2006, the National Arbor Day Foundation released an updated map showing that soil temperatures are increasing in the zones. For example, Atlanta was in Zone 7 in 1990; it is now in Zone 8. Many gardening zone bands across the United States are now one full zone warmer.

    Of course, the USDA has so far refused to acknowledge that fact. But what can you expect from an agency controlled by an administration that censors viewpoints that do not mesh with its own. And we all know where Bush stands on global warming.

  11. Ken Stocker says:

    All,
    Did anyone read the article I cited? Can anyone come up with a rebuttal against it? The fundamental model on which the greenhouse gas heating mechanism is not valid. It violates the second law of thermodynamics. If so, the Greenhouse gas models predictions of warming are completely invalid. I am not saying the earth is not currently getting warmer, it might well be. It might just as well start cooling off again. But it is not man made CO2 that is causing it.

    Charlotte, just because soil temps in a given area show a warming trend, does not mean that human induced global warming is occurring. That is a big jump from effect to cause. And a 15 year timespan is a very short sample period to boot. There are records of all sorts of things, many conflicting. There are also other factors that come into play that can explain many of them. One is the often touted melting of the icecap on Mt. Kilimanjaro. It is not because it is warmer, it is because deforestation has reduced snowfall, causing the cap to shrink. And as far as people being censored by the Bush Administration, the censorship is much more prevalent the other way. The one NWS(?) official claiming he was censored had given dozens of interviews without interference. On the other hand, state climatologists have been threatened with being fired for taking a position “not in line” with the political wishes of the state government.

    Andy, I have not been living in a cage. I take it upon myself to look closely into the arguments of BOTH sides, then make a decision. On the global warming side, the arguments are full of weasel words like ” might” High probability, almost certainly. Not so on the other side. If you really want to discuss this, read the presentation I linked to, then find a rebuttal that addresses the issues raised. Or, come up with one yourself. Just saying I live in a cave and implying I am irrational and unreasonable is not arguing your position. I also am not sure that my position is in the minority anymore. More and more “scientists” are coming to the realization of the facts and coming out against the GW crowd, I.E. the weather channel founder.

    J.Q. You and I do agree most of the time. As far as the issues you raised, Only 5 and 7 relate to CO2 in the air increasing because the source of the carbon is from sequestered sources underground that get introduced into the atmosphere. These issues are generated by the sole cause of atmospheric CO2 increases. The others, like grass clippings and veggies going down the drain, do not, and cannot affect CO2 levels. No matter what you do with them, they are part of the carbon cycle, and do not increase CO2. The original source of their carbon was from extracting it from the air to begin with. No net increase or decrease of CO2 was generated by these. Trying to force action in these areas would have no net effect. But things like San Francisco wanting to ban fireplaces to combat global warming is ridiculous. If the wood is not burned, it will eventually decompose bacterially releasing the same amount of carbon. It may make the SF city council feel like they are doing something, but all they really are doing is depriving people of the pleasures of a nice fire to sit by.

    What you really need to do is look at what the results of your actions are going to accomplish to see if there is a real effect. If there isn’t any real results, then why bother?

    Regards,
    Ken

  12. Ken:

    Here’s what appears to be happening in the debate over global warming. Many scientists support the theory that global warming is occurring and others dispute that it is happening. Your position appears to be that it isn’t happening or, if it is, it hasn’t been induced by human beings. You, therefore, will look for scientists and authors who support your position. I will do just the opposite because I believe that global warming is a reality.

    I can find articles that support global warming, and you can counter back with articles that it isn’t. In this respect, we are at an impasse.

    I just ran across an article the other day titled “Earth’s tropics belt expands, may mean drier weather for U.S. Southwest, Mediterranean.” The article was published in the journal, Nature Geoscience. The article discusses the reasons for this occurrence, and, just like the one article you cited as to the impact of winds in melting icecaps, this article also says that the Hadley circulation may be the culprit in the widening of the tropical belt.

    The scientists who fall on the side of embracing global warming can argue that it is global warming that is causing the wind patterns to change. I am sure you will go online and find something that bolsters your viewpoint.

    As to the warmer soils, you took the path that it isn’t global warming that is causing it, but you did not give any evidence that it is not global warming which has increased soil temperatures. While you believe that a few degrees is no big deal, others see the harm that is caused by changing the dynamics of ecosystems and biomes.

    We will not agree on this topic, and that is apparent. I did read the article on the melting icecaps, and, as I noted above, I can find articles which will say that the change in wind patterns is due to global warming.

    • Foundersten says:

      Suffice it to say that a strong position on either side is more a political matter than scientific. As such, the broad and expensive global legislation that is being piled up is just political posturing to gain or “redistribute” power. Personally, I don’t much buy into human caused global warming because the data simply doesn’t exist- we haven’t had the technology to establish the data nearly long enough. There’s nothing wrong with erring on the side of caution and being good environmental stewards, but the panic associated with melting glaciers and localized warming trends is the result of conjecture. Human caused global warming is not a scientifically sound conclusion or the argument/counter argument condition you point out wouldn’t exist so readily with the matter.

  13. iceironman says:

    See below for what I already knew about Andy!!!!! Sheep follow without question…

    Andy said
    November 21, 2007 at 1:51 pm
    Ken –

    “We as humans are NOT causing the global warming. ” “It is a myth. a Hoax.”

    You are joking right ??? Where have you been living in a remote cave some where ?

    Thankfully your position is not shared by the majority of reasonable and rational human beings.

    Reply

  14. iceironman says:

    Some more for yall, from heartland.org

    The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on September 7 claimed that two-thirds of the world’s polar bears may die by 2050 due to global warming. Such claims are strongly contradicted by real-world evidence.

    There are currently more than 25,000 wild polar bears in the world, and their numbers are growing – not declining – at an explosive pace in this time of “unprecedented global warming.” According to the February 7, 2005 Edinburgh Scotsman ( http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=143012005), “The world’s polar bear population is on the increase despite global warming.

    “According to new research,” the Scotsman reports, “the numbers of the giant predator have grown by between 15 and 25 per cent over the last decade.

    “We’re seeing an increase in bears that’s really unprecedented, and in places where we’re seeing a decrease in the population it’s from hunting, not from climate change,” Canadian polar bear expert Mitch Taylor told the Scotsman.

    The March 9, 2007 London Telegraph confirmed the ongoing polar bear population explosion ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml). “A survey of the animals’ numbers in Canada’s eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining,” the Telegraph reports.

    “In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today,” added the Telegraph.

    Indeed, polar bears evolved from brown bears anywhere from 200,000 years ago ( http://www.alaskazoo.org/willowcrest/polarbearhome.htm) to 3 million years ago ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/7.shtml). They survived at least one period when polar temperatures were at least 6 degrees Celsius warmer than today ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png) and perhaps temperatures as warm as 15 degrees Celsius warmer than today ( http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070705/greenland_dna_070705/20070705?hub=SciTech).

    Given that polar bear numbers are rapidly increasing and that they survived substantially warmer periods than is expected anytime in the foreseeable future, it is safe to dismiss this latest global warming scare as little more than fantasy.

  15. Andy says:

    @Iceironan –

    As usual, you pluck out a few pieces of data and profess Global Climate (Warming) Climate change to be some fabricated, made up story.

    Just because a few rogue scientists and a loud-mouth conservative talk show host believe global climate change to be a hoax, this doesn’t change the fact that almost every scientific body/organization of international standing has accepted and endorsed the data that the Earth’s climate IS changing at an alarming rate.

    I suppose you think the well-founded documentation of snow melting of Mt. Kilimanjaro is just a ‘hoax’:

    http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/kilimanjaro_20021216/index.html

    Or how about the Antarctic Peninsula which though times lapsed photos, has seen drastic melt offs of ice over the last century. The Williams Ice Shelf in Antarctica Peninsula is close to breaking-up and disintegrating altogether:

    http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM2U5THKHF_index_0.html

    Prof. David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) said: “Wilkins Ice Shelf is the most recent in a long, and growing, list of ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula that are responding to the rapid warming that has occurred in this area over the last fifty years.”

    Or maybe the retreating of glaciers in Europe:

    http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/detail/Experts_size_up_glaciers_as_they_melt_away.html?siteSect=105&sid=7930981&cKey=1184586834000&ty=st

    “There are large changes ahead for the Alps as scientists are predicting temperatures will rise by between two and 4.5 degrees Celsius by 2100. Under this scenario, only the high altitude glaciers above 4,000m would survive.”

    Or the ‘calving’ of glaciers (due to climate change) in South America:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6534

    Iceironman, please don’t make me continue to provide endless data , photos, statistics, etc. gathered and researched by hundreds of well-respected scientists and institutions from around the globe confirming Earth’s climate is indeed changing.

    I suspect there will be NOTHING to convince you of the fact the Earth‘s climate is changing and manmade activity is playing a major part in this change. Instead, you grasp onto any little bit of thread of doubt that may or may not exist. I do acknowledge there are people alive today who still believe the Earth is flat. Others who may believe a man landing on the moon was a hoax. And some tiny fraction of people who believe Elvis was spotted in a Burger King after his death.
    I’m left to conclude again: Thankfully your position is not shared by the majority of reasonable and rational human beings.

  16. Andy says:

    @Iceironman-

    Taken from the same link to the story in the UK Telegraph which YOU provided:

    “I don’t think there is any question polar bears are in danger from global warming,” said Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union, and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. “People who deny that have a clear interest in hunting bears.”

    “Bear numbers on the west coast of Hudson’s Bay had shrunk by 22 per cent over the past decade, he said.”

    “They are declining due to global warming and changes in when the ice freezes and melts in Hudson’s Bay,” he added. He and other scientists in his group are concerned that the retreating ice in the Arctic may pose a danger to future generations of polar bears because of ‘habitat loss’. “The critical problem is the sea ice is changing. “We’re looking ahead three generations, 30 to 50 years.”

    “To say that bear populations are growing in one area now is irrelevant.”

    “Critics claim the government has an agenda to encourage polar bear hunting and keep the animals off the endangered species list.”

    “In small Inuit communities, hunters kill bears that wander too close to human settlements and, in this particular region, they are licensed to kill six polar bears a year.”

    “Polar bear experts said that numbers had increased not because of climate change but due to the efforts of conservationists.”

    “The battle to ban the hunting of Harp seal pups has meant the seal population has soared – boosting the bears’ food supply.”

    “At the same time, fewer seal hunters are around to hunt bears.”

  17. iceironman says:

    Andy, all of the data to prove global warming was base on the CRU reports and baseline???? The epa now wants to limit carbon and tax you and I and you are going to stick to your illogical points based on what?? False data??? People with agendas??? MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX. BURRY YOUR HEAD ALL YOU WANT AND IGNORE THE GALCIERS OF THE PAST, IGNORE ELNINO AND LA NINA, IGNORE THAT REALLY BIG BALL OF FIRE YOU CONTEND IS NOT THERE THING WE CALL THE SUN.
    A few rogue scientists andy, really, this is the cream of the warmer crop. Why wont they share their data through the Freedom of info act???

    You want Americas middle class fleeced by the un and others for us poluting the environment. You think jobs are hard to find now, wait for cap and tax. Even Charlotte the liberal progessive knows this is a bunch of bs..

    It snowed in Dallas today Andy.

  18. Andy says:

    Iceironman-

    “It snowed in Dallas today Andy.”

    Thanks for reinforcing my point in regards to Climate Change.

    Many parts of the Earth are experiencing bizarre weather patterns/events.

    And in case you missed this one. On the exact same day snow was seen in Texas… Portland, Maine had a RECORD HIGH temperature of 68 degrees:

    http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/December/Rain-Winds-Record-Heat-Hit-Northeast–/

    “In Boston, the temperature hit 69 degrees, breaking the old record of 65 set in 1932. In Portland, the temperature climbed to 68 degrees – crushing the old high of 55 for the date. Providence, R.I., had a record high of 66, and Concord, N.H., set a record at 65.

    “It’s not right. It’s December. It’s supposed to be snowing,” said Jennifer Sporzynski, who sat on a park bench Thursday in Portland’s Old Port. “I like warm weather, but not in December.”

  19. iceironman says:

    Andy, the only reason it is now “climate change” is because anyone with a brain knows global warming doesnt fit the bill anymore.

    Simple question andy, what % of “climate change” is man made in your humble opinion???

  20. Pingback: Presidentapos;s budget ups NOAA funding for climate change… Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act gains new cosponsor « Earthblawg

Comments are closed.