It's Saturday Night
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Walking the Talk
Walking the walk and talking the talk.
Where have we heard that?
Walking the Talk.
Corporate America
Religious leaders
Even environmental awareness and activism
It's easy to talk. We learn at an early age verbal utterances have rewards. But, when talking is all a political leader can do without 'walking the walk' then it is time for a change. It is also time for more than the average politics of a nation but more political awareness of the cruelty of manipulation in the face of hopelessness and confusion.
We as Americans seek 'consolation' from government. We realize the authority of our laws can control our behaviors. A good example of 'preventive' government is the laws surrounding drunk driving. Also in the case of worker safety, we expect government to react to issues that cause citizens harm in the work place and therefore we assigned such responsiblity to bureaus like OSHA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
The list of agencies within the government is extensive. Each carries with it 'hopes' of a society seeking a status of benevolence for all it's citizens. As a result I think most of us think of government as benign in our daily lives and hopefully benevolent to those less fortunate. I won't discuss the military within those dynamics. That is an entriely differnt matter. In actuality, the military should be 'in focus' here because it's image has been used as an expression of patriot dedication. It is regularly exploited by people who never ' Walked the Talk.'
In the face of an administration, majority Senate and House, mired in political scandal while facing possible impeachment a glaring oxymoron occurred on Larry King Live last night. A Non-Image of the Factual Nature of our Democracy.
"LARRY KING, CNN HOST: Tonight, exclusive, the Christian rock superstar and his near drug overdose, Michael W. Smith in his first interview on how he believes God saved him from losing his life to cocaine."
Now, how can that be an oxymoron. A man found a way to make a living as a rock star. Chocks up his success to finding God. What seems so "W"rong with that?
Three quarters of the program was dedicated in some way to Christian values. And then after an interlude between Cooper and King the program turned political. George H. W. Bush made an appearance to exploit the national audience of Christian Conservatives viewing the show to offer himself as a great man with the insight to find such an astounding story of redemption before the American people.
From the transcript:
KING: We'll be back with our remaining moments with Michael W. Smith. Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE H.W. BUSH, FMR. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The music of Michael W. Smith has had an impact on millions of people all over the world. He has been an ambassador of good news for 20 years. His signature song "Friends" is a personal favorite in our house. Thank you and God bless you Michael for your friendship to me and Barbara and to our kids too.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: When President Bush the first turned 80 there was a gigantic birthday party in Houston at the baseball. I had the honor of being the emcee of that event. Five former world leaders were there and Michael w. Smith was one of many great entertainers. That was a memorable night.
SMITH: And you were a good host.
KING: That was a fun night.
SMITH: That was a great night.
KING: You're a friend of both Bushes, huh?
SMITH: I am.
KING: Are you very political?
SMITH: You know what? Yes and no. You know, I always think about whether I should run one day. I think that's the craziest thing I've ever thought of in my life, because I don't think I would make a very good politician. And it's so funny because Bono the other night said, you should run. I said, what are you talking about? You should run. I said, I can't be a politician. He said don't. Just run and win and don't be a politician.
KING: That's why you run. Don't be a politician.
SMITH: Don't be a politician.But, yes, the Bush family have been really good to the Smiths. We really love them very much.
KING: And also, Billy Graham? S
MITH: Billy's a dear friend. I love him.
KING: He is a friend of ours, too. Billy's watching right now.
SMITH: Is he watching?
KING: Oh, Billy doesn't miss it. Billy is our most loyal viewer.
SMITH: Oh, he loves you know that.
KING: What a story you are. You must pinch yourself a little. From the lowest depths to the top.
SMITH: Well, I guess it's a miracle. That's all I can say. And I'm grateful. I'm humbled. I'm honored. You know, I just want to make sure I do the right thing for the rest of the days of my life. It's too late to miss it.
KING: I wouldn't bet against it. You're a good guy man.
SMITH: Thank you, Larry.
KING: "The Second Chance" opens next Friday. Michael W. Smith, the three-time Grammy winner, one of the major, major stars in Christian contemporary music. Tomorrow night, we'll repeat our program on heart disease. Sunday night repeat the program with "Growing Pains." And Monday night take a look back at United Flight 93 back on 9/11, 2001.
THIS COUNTRY is being manipulated and so is the career of people like Mr. Smith. He has a good deal of talent and an interesting story, but, sadly The Evangelical Christian Right has been tagged by the Republican Party as belonging to them.
Mr. Smith I am sure is a good friend of Bono. We are all aware of the magnificent dedication U2 has brought to the issue of Africa and HIV/AIDS. I am confident those that 'keep company' with Bono are as admirable as he. Those people are important people not just for their gift of music, but, also for their ability to 'reach' people with a message.
That message along with the fact 'Evangelical Christians' have been sequestered into a political resource should be awareness to the country including the citizens whom identify with that religion. An awareness that their 'loyalty' to their religious teachings and the manner in which they conduct their faith has been 'resourced' into obscurity for a purpose. To harness a group of people with a message of hope yet desperately out of the mainstream of society has been the venue of the Southern Republican Party to the detriment of that religion as well as the country. To victimize a segment of the USA for political harvesting is "W"rong. It secludes them into an exculsive 'box canyon' where promises to fulfill their religious mandates take political precedent. That is unconstitutional regardless of the 'harvesting of thought' misconstrued from the 'words' of the USA Consitution. Believe me when I tell you the men whom signed that document were not evangelical Christians, they were men who believed in religous freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly as well as freedom of the press. All those freedoms of self expression are safeguards to prevent tyranny.
Those Constitutional Safeguards were never meant to control people, but, to liberate them including those that did not want to practice faith. They have a right to their own belief systems as well. It's long been known the human mind has a higher reception of visual cues than any other of the five senses. It is a highly developed survival mechanism for a human standing upright. Due to that quality the visual media has a very powerful effect on messages it delivers over the airwaves.
To return to 'the oxymoron' keeping in mind all else written here, I might also recognize the enthusiasm to 'Believe in Elvis.' It is widely held by many people that 'Elvis Lives' and by many more that his ghost still walks the ground of "Graceland." It is a reinforcing belief for the subtstantial amount of people that believe it and the tabloid newsprint that 'plays to it.' I won't contest it. It is benign and there are just people out there that love "The King." He was a great man. He was a mover and a shaker at the same time he espoused patriotism. People loved Elvis. They still do by every measurable indicator out there. His family has kept him alive. It has benefitted them, but, it would not have been possible if there wasn't a 'popular' demand for it either.
"The Oxymoron" is this. How can a so called journalist, host an hour of Christian Fundamentalism and then spring a surprise appearance of a political figure with 'enlistments' into fear by referring to the September 11th attacks in the middle of February 2006. The entire country is surprised and astounded by the revelations of reality surrounding Mr. Abramoff, Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney and a host of others elected to office, to realize none of this was possible if honesty and loyality actually prevailed.
Mr. Abramoff would not have been successful if the permission wasn't realized in DC and rewards for the money exploited from Native American Indian tribes weren't turned into bribes.
Valerie Plame would still be a covert CIA agent seeking information about WMDs. The REAL WMDs if Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney didn't try to snuff out the testimoney of Joe Wilson regarding the lies made by Bush in the State of the Union address.
The scandals that have been glossed over in the manner Larry King glossed them over on Friday night is typical of a desperate group of men interested in not only power but the control of vast amounts of financial interests outside of the political arena of DC.
I purport that it is high time the Evangelical Christians liberate themselves from 'the grip' of corrupt government with false hopes of dominating this country's value system and come to take their chances of political activism with the rest of Americans.
I apologize. I never realized how sequested they were from a society that longs for the joy of diversity. If my apology is mistakenly naive or rejected, then any rant about 'benevolent values' in alliance with this country's constitution brought forward by any religious entity is nothing but fraud for the sake of profits and potential victimization of our freedoms.
Elect government that not only "Talks the Talk" but especially "Walks the talk."
Where have we heard that?
Walking the Talk.
Corporate America
Religious leaders
Even environmental awareness and activism
It's easy to talk. We learn at an early age verbal utterances have rewards. But, when talking is all a political leader can do without 'walking the walk' then it is time for a change. It is also time for more than the average politics of a nation but more political awareness of the cruelty of manipulation in the face of hopelessness and confusion.
We as Americans seek 'consolation' from government. We realize the authority of our laws can control our behaviors. A good example of 'preventive' government is the laws surrounding drunk driving. Also in the case of worker safety, we expect government to react to issues that cause citizens harm in the work place and therefore we assigned such responsiblity to bureaus like OSHA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
The list of agencies within the government is extensive. Each carries with it 'hopes' of a society seeking a status of benevolence for all it's citizens. As a result I think most of us think of government as benign in our daily lives and hopefully benevolent to those less fortunate. I won't discuss the military within those dynamics. That is an entriely differnt matter. In actuality, the military should be 'in focus' here because it's image has been used as an expression of patriot dedication. It is regularly exploited by people who never ' Walked the Talk.'
In the face of an administration, majority Senate and House, mired in political scandal while facing possible impeachment a glaring oxymoron occurred on Larry King Live last night. A Non-Image of the Factual Nature of our Democracy.
"LARRY KING, CNN HOST: Tonight, exclusive, the Christian rock superstar and his near drug overdose, Michael W. Smith in his first interview on how he believes God saved him from losing his life to cocaine."
Now, how can that be an oxymoron. A man found a way to make a living as a rock star. Chocks up his success to finding God. What seems so "W"rong with that?
Three quarters of the program was dedicated in some way to Christian values. And then after an interlude between Cooper and King the program turned political. George H. W. Bush made an appearance to exploit the national audience of Christian Conservatives viewing the show to offer himself as a great man with the insight to find such an astounding story of redemption before the American people.
From the transcript:
KING: We'll be back with our remaining moments with Michael W. Smith. Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE H.W. BUSH, FMR. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The music of Michael W. Smith has had an impact on millions of people all over the world. He has been an ambassador of good news for 20 years. His signature song "Friends" is a personal favorite in our house. Thank you and God bless you Michael for your friendship to me and Barbara and to our kids too.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: When President Bush the first turned 80 there was a gigantic birthday party in Houston at the baseball. I had the honor of being the emcee of that event. Five former world leaders were there and Michael w. Smith was one of many great entertainers. That was a memorable night.
SMITH: And you were a good host.
KING: That was a fun night.
SMITH: That was a great night.
KING: You're a friend of both Bushes, huh?
SMITH: I am.
KING: Are you very political?
SMITH: You know what? Yes and no. You know, I always think about whether I should run one day. I think that's the craziest thing I've ever thought of in my life, because I don't think I would make a very good politician. And it's so funny because Bono the other night said, you should run. I said, what are you talking about? You should run. I said, I can't be a politician. He said don't. Just run and win and don't be a politician.
KING: That's why you run. Don't be a politician.
SMITH: Don't be a politician.But, yes, the Bush family have been really good to the Smiths. We really love them very much.
KING: And also, Billy Graham? S
MITH: Billy's a dear friend. I love him.
KING: He is a friend of ours, too. Billy's watching right now.
SMITH: Is he watching?
KING: Oh, Billy doesn't miss it. Billy is our most loyal viewer.
SMITH: Oh, he loves you know that.
KING: What a story you are. You must pinch yourself a little. From the lowest depths to the top.
SMITH: Well, I guess it's a miracle. That's all I can say. And I'm grateful. I'm humbled. I'm honored. You know, I just want to make sure I do the right thing for the rest of the days of my life. It's too late to miss it.
KING: I wouldn't bet against it. You're a good guy man.
SMITH: Thank you, Larry.
KING: "The Second Chance" opens next Friday. Michael W. Smith, the three-time Grammy winner, one of the major, major stars in Christian contemporary music. Tomorrow night, we'll repeat our program on heart disease. Sunday night repeat the program with "Growing Pains." And Monday night take a look back at United Flight 93 back on 9/11, 2001.
THIS COUNTRY is being manipulated and so is the career of people like Mr. Smith. He has a good deal of talent and an interesting story, but, sadly The Evangelical Christian Right has been tagged by the Republican Party as belonging to them.
Mr. Smith I am sure is a good friend of Bono. We are all aware of the magnificent dedication U2 has brought to the issue of Africa and HIV/AIDS. I am confident those that 'keep company' with Bono are as admirable as he. Those people are important people not just for their gift of music, but, also for their ability to 'reach' people with a message.
That message along with the fact 'Evangelical Christians' have been sequestered into a political resource should be awareness to the country including the citizens whom identify with that religion. An awareness that their 'loyalty' to their religious teachings and the manner in which they conduct their faith has been 'resourced' into obscurity for a purpose. To harness a group of people with a message of hope yet desperately out of the mainstream of society has been the venue of the Southern Republican Party to the detriment of that religion as well as the country. To victimize a segment of the USA for political harvesting is "W"rong. It secludes them into an exculsive 'box canyon' where promises to fulfill their religious mandates take political precedent. That is unconstitutional regardless of the 'harvesting of thought' misconstrued from the 'words' of the USA Consitution. Believe me when I tell you the men whom signed that document were not evangelical Christians, they were men who believed in religous freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly as well as freedom of the press. All those freedoms of self expression are safeguards to prevent tyranny.
Those Constitutional Safeguards were never meant to control people, but, to liberate them including those that did not want to practice faith. They have a right to their own belief systems as well. It's long been known the human mind has a higher reception of visual cues than any other of the five senses. It is a highly developed survival mechanism for a human standing upright. Due to that quality the visual media has a very powerful effect on messages it delivers over the airwaves.
To return to 'the oxymoron' keeping in mind all else written here, I might also recognize the enthusiasm to 'Believe in Elvis.' It is widely held by many people that 'Elvis Lives' and by many more that his ghost still walks the ground of "Graceland." It is a reinforcing belief for the subtstantial amount of people that believe it and the tabloid newsprint that 'plays to it.' I won't contest it. It is benign and there are just people out there that love "The King." He was a great man. He was a mover and a shaker at the same time he espoused patriotism. People loved Elvis. They still do by every measurable indicator out there. His family has kept him alive. It has benefitted them, but, it would not have been possible if there wasn't a 'popular' demand for it either.
"The Oxymoron" is this. How can a so called journalist, host an hour of Christian Fundamentalism and then spring a surprise appearance of a political figure with 'enlistments' into fear by referring to the September 11th attacks in the middle of February 2006. The entire country is surprised and astounded by the revelations of reality surrounding Mr. Abramoff, Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney and a host of others elected to office, to realize none of this was possible if honesty and loyality actually prevailed.
Mr. Abramoff would not have been successful if the permission wasn't realized in DC and rewards for the money exploited from Native American Indian tribes weren't turned into bribes.
Valerie Plame would still be a covert CIA agent seeking information about WMDs. The REAL WMDs if Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney didn't try to snuff out the testimoney of Joe Wilson regarding the lies made by Bush in the State of the Union address.
The scandals that have been glossed over in the manner Larry King glossed them over on Friday night is typical of a desperate group of men interested in not only power but the control of vast amounts of financial interests outside of the political arena of DC.
I purport that it is high time the Evangelical Christians liberate themselves from 'the grip' of corrupt government with false hopes of dominating this country's value system and come to take their chances of political activism with the rest of Americans.
I apologize. I never realized how sequested they were from a society that longs for the joy of diversity. If my apology is mistakenly naive or rejected, then any rant about 'benevolent values' in alliance with this country's constitution brought forward by any religious entity is nothing but fraud for the sake of profits and potential victimization of our freedoms.
Elect government that not only "Talks the Talk" but especially "Walks the talk."
Let's keep our government honest.
Walking in Memphis by Marc Cohn
Put on my blue suede shoes
And I boarded the plane
Touched down in the land of the Delta Blues
In the middle of the pouring rain
W.C. Handy -- won't you look down over me
Yeah I got a first class ticket
But I'm as blue as a boy can be
Then I'm walking in Memphis
Walking with my feet ten feet off of Beale
Walking in Memphis
But do I really feel the way I feel
Saw the ghost of Elvis
On Union Avenue
Followed him up to the gates of Graceland
Then I watched him walk right through
Now security they did not see him
They just hovered 'round his tomb
But there's a pretty little thing
Waiting for the King
Down in the Jungle Room
They've got catfish on the table
They've got gospel in the air
And Reverend Green be glad to see you
When you haven't got a prayer
But boy you've got a prayer in Memphis
Now Muriel plays piano
Every Friday at the Hollywood
And they brought me down to see her
And they asked me if I would --
Do a little number
And I sang with all my might
And she said --
"Tell me are you a Christian child?"
And I said "Ma'am I am tonight"
They've got catfish on the table
They've got gospel in the air
And Reverend Green be glad to see you
When you haven't got a prayer
But boy you've got a prayer in Memphis
Put on my blue suede shoes
And I boarded the plane
Touched down in the land of the Delta Blues
In the middle of the pouring rain
Touched down in the land of the Delta Blues
In the middle of the pouring rain
And I boarded the plane
Touched down in the land of the Delta Blues
In the middle of the pouring rain
W.C. Handy -- won't you look down over me
Yeah I got a first class ticket
But I'm as blue as a boy can be
Then I'm walking in Memphis
Walking with my feet ten feet off of Beale
Walking in Memphis
But do I really feel the way I feel
Saw the ghost of Elvis
On Union Avenue
Followed him up to the gates of Graceland
Then I watched him walk right through
Now security they did not see him
They just hovered 'round his tomb
But there's a pretty little thing
Waiting for the King
Down in the Jungle Room
They've got catfish on the table
They've got gospel in the air
And Reverend Green be glad to see you
When you haven't got a prayer
But boy you've got a prayer in Memphis
Now Muriel plays piano
Every Friday at the Hollywood
And they brought me down to see her
And they asked me if I would --
Do a little number
And I sang with all my might
And she said --
"Tell me are you a Christian child?"
And I said "Ma'am I am tonight"
They've got catfish on the table
They've got gospel in the air
And Reverend Green be glad to see you
When you haven't got a prayer
But boy you've got a prayer in Memphis
Put on my blue suede shoes
And I boarded the plane
Touched down in the land of the Delta Blues
In the middle of the pouring rain
Touched down in the land of the Delta Blues
In the middle of the pouring rain
One might notice how this adult female Polar Bear is under weight as well.
Arctic giant: a polar bear and her cub stand on a frozen beach in Barrow, Alaska. With global warming shrinking their habitat, the US Government has agreed to study whether polar bears should be added to the nation's endangered species list.
FEMALE of any species when it comes to mammals have it doubly tough. They have to maintain their own health and body weight while carrying their young and /or lactating the current generation of dependants. Females drop body weight but hormones that support ovulation and lactation are supported by 'lipids.'
When the female of any species including humans don't carry enough body fat they literally don't ovulation anymore.
There is a human condition female athletes suffer from called "Triad." Women's Triad can literally eliminate female secondary sex characteristics. Which brings up a subject not relating to Polar Bears, but, explains all to clearly the recent attack on Low Fat diets by a fundamentalist administration without sound scientific principles.
But, back to the bears. They need our loyalty and they need their "Homeland Secured" as well. As with many aspects of Earth's balance our icefields and ice oceans are vital.
On thin ice
By Brian Payton
BRIAN PAYTON is author of the forthcoming "Shadow of the Bear: Travels in Vanishing Wilderness."
February 11, 2006
ONE AUTUMN NIGHT, I fell asleep near a pair of hungry polar bears. I was out on the tundra in a mobile lodge on the shore of Hudson Bay, spending some time with the world's largest land predators. My bunk had a small window by it with a view onto a patch of snow illuminated by a large spotlight. After an unforgettable afternoon photographing bears at rest and play, I stretched out in my sleeping bag as they took turns sitting up on their haunches, peering back at me.
The largest member of the bear family, adult male polar bears (Ursus maritimus) weigh between 770 and 1,500 pounds. The skin of a large male specimen could cover a small car. Incredibly, most polar bears are born weighing just over a pound.
They are the newest bear species, evolutionarily speaking. Polar bears are thought to have evolved into a distinct species between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. Previously, seals were able to haul themselves onto the ice pack and nurse their young in peace — until a brown bear (Ursus arctos) noticed and decided to investigate. The descendants of that bear came to depend on seals and developed into the white bears we know today.
Polar bears spend the winter and spring on the ice and are forced ashore in summer to await its return. Because there isn't much for them to do in summer, they spend a lot of time wrestling and watching the tourists and scientists who have come to watch them.
These days, however, it's becoming increasingly difficult to look them in the eye.
Life at the top of the Arctic food chain means polar bears' bodies concentrate many of the chemicals that waft up from our activities in the industrial south. For years, scientists have been tracking increasing levels of toxins (including DDT and PCBs) in polar bear flesh, organs and milk. And now, with polluted bodies, they are faced with an even bigger threat.
Polar bears rely on ice that forms fresh each year adjacent to land. They hunt seals at the ice's edge, at breathing holes in the ice and in snow-covered hollows on top of the ice where seals hide their pups. For polar bears, it's all about ice. Unfortunately, the ice is disappearing.
Arctic temperatures are rising twice as fast as the rest of the globe — and there has already been a dramatic reduction in the Arctic Ocean's summer ice pack, which is 20% smaller than it was in the 1970s. Scientists expect it will continue its precipitous decline, resulting in dramatic effects throughout the Arctic ecosystem. In their 2004 "Arctic climate impact assessment," the world's foremost climate and Arctic scientists predicted that, by the end of this century, the changes in the north because of global warming may be so profound that the entire species (estimated at 22,000 to 27,000 polar bears) could vanish — along with the environment that shaped them.
Watching those bears outside my window, I couldn't help but wonder: How will their end come? Will a few stragglers lie down on the shore of Hudson Bay, waiting for the ice that never forms? Or will they head for the nearby town of Churchill, in Manitoba province, and make their last stand at the dump? In Inuit legends, polar bears are actually people when inside their dens and transform into bears only when they don their hides to go out into the cold. Perhaps polar bears will have to leave their fur coats at home.
Or will we take the necessary steps to save them and their environment? Will urbanites forgo their SUVs in favor of public transit? Will voters stop electing politicians who are contemptuous of science and international cooperation? Even as we contemplate these questions, our window of opportunity to save the polar bear is closing.
As I returned their gaze that cold, autumn night, I wanted to believe that awareness fosters change. Then the generator shut down, and I watched my companions fade to black.
BRIAN PAYTON is author of the forthcoming "Shadow of the Bear: Travels in Vanishing Wilderness."
February 11, 2006
ONE AUTUMN NIGHT, I fell asleep near a pair of hungry polar bears. I was out on the tundra in a mobile lodge on the shore of Hudson Bay, spending some time with the world's largest land predators. My bunk had a small window by it with a view onto a patch of snow illuminated by a large spotlight. After an unforgettable afternoon photographing bears at rest and play, I stretched out in my sleeping bag as they took turns sitting up on their haunches, peering back at me.
The largest member of the bear family, adult male polar bears (Ursus maritimus) weigh between 770 and 1,500 pounds. The skin of a large male specimen could cover a small car. Incredibly, most polar bears are born weighing just over a pound.
They are the newest bear species, evolutionarily speaking. Polar bears are thought to have evolved into a distinct species between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. Previously, seals were able to haul themselves onto the ice pack and nurse their young in peace — until a brown bear (Ursus arctos) noticed and decided to investigate. The descendants of that bear came to depend on seals and developed into the white bears we know today.
Polar bears spend the winter and spring on the ice and are forced ashore in summer to await its return. Because there isn't much for them to do in summer, they spend a lot of time wrestling and watching the tourists and scientists who have come to watch them.
These days, however, it's becoming increasingly difficult to look them in the eye.
Life at the top of the Arctic food chain means polar bears' bodies concentrate many of the chemicals that waft up from our activities in the industrial south. For years, scientists have been tracking increasing levels of toxins (including DDT and PCBs) in polar bear flesh, organs and milk. And now, with polluted bodies, they are faced with an even bigger threat.
Polar bears rely on ice that forms fresh each year adjacent to land. They hunt seals at the ice's edge, at breathing holes in the ice and in snow-covered hollows on top of the ice where seals hide their pups. For polar bears, it's all about ice. Unfortunately, the ice is disappearing.
Arctic temperatures are rising twice as fast as the rest of the globe — and there has already been a dramatic reduction in the Arctic Ocean's summer ice pack, which is 20% smaller than it was in the 1970s. Scientists expect it will continue its precipitous decline, resulting in dramatic effects throughout the Arctic ecosystem. In their 2004 "Arctic climate impact assessment," the world's foremost climate and Arctic scientists predicted that, by the end of this century, the changes in the north because of global warming may be so profound that the entire species (estimated at 22,000 to 27,000 polar bears) could vanish — along with the environment that shaped them.
Watching those bears outside my window, I couldn't help but wonder: How will their end come? Will a few stragglers lie down on the shore of Hudson Bay, waiting for the ice that never forms? Or will they head for the nearby town of Churchill, in Manitoba province, and make their last stand at the dump? In Inuit legends, polar bears are actually people when inside their dens and transform into bears only when they don their hides to go out into the cold. Perhaps polar bears will have to leave their fur coats at home.
Or will we take the necessary steps to save them and their environment? Will urbanites forgo their SUVs in favor of public transit? Will voters stop electing politicians who are contemptuous of science and international cooperation? Even as we contemplate these questions, our window of opportunity to save the polar bear is closing.
As I returned their gaze that cold, autumn night, I wanted to believe that awareness fosters change. Then the generator shut down, and I watched my companions fade to black.
US Considers That Polar Bears Are An Endangered Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has announced that it is opening the formal process to list polar bears as officially "threatened" due to the unprecedented meltdown of their sea-ice habitat caused by global warming. The finding comes in response to a December lawsuit filed under the federal Endangered Species Act by three conservation groups.
"Federal officials have now acknowledged that global warming is transforming the Arctic, and threatening polar bears with extinction," said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity. "It's not too late for polar bears if we act immediately to start cutting global warming emissions."
The Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and Greenpeace filed the action against Secretary of Interior Gale Norton and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to respond to the groups' petition to list polar bears under the law. A federal judge has scheduled a hearing in that case on March 17.
Just yesterday, the government's National Climatic Data Center announced that January temperatures in the United States were the warmest on record, beating the average figure by a full 8.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Two weeks ago, scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies confirmed that worldwide, 2005 was the hottest year ever recorded.
Polar bears live only in the Arctic and are totally dependent on the sea ice for all of their essential needs, including hunting their prey of ice seals. An enormous body of scientific evidence shows that the Arctic ice is vanishing much faster than previously expected. The thick multiyear ice has been shrinking as much as 10 percent per decade, and some climate models predict that the Arctic could be ice-free in summer as early as 2040.
As temperatures rise, researchers say that Arctic sea ice is forming later, breaking up earlier, and the area covered by it is shrinking. Dramatic changes have occurred in Alaska, where scientists with the U.S. Minerals Management Service documented the drowning of at least four polar bears in September 2004 when the sea ice retreated a record 160 miles off the state's northern coast. The researchers said that more polar bears likely drowned than were spotted, and predict increases in such deaths as global warming advances.
In Western Hudson Bay in Canada, polar bears are forced onto land for a period of fasting when the sea ice melts in the spring, and cannot hunt again until the ice freezes up again in the fall. Because of global warming, the season for bears to hunt on the ice has already become too short for the bears to build up sufficient fat stores for optimum health and reproduction. As a result, this population of polar bears has declined approximately 14 percent in 10 years, from 1,100 in 1995 to fewer than 950 in 2004.
Listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act -- America's safety net for plants and animals on the brink of extinction -- will provide broad protection to polar bears, including a requirement that U.S. federal agencies ensure that any action carried out, authorized or funded by the U.S. government will not "jeopardize the continued existence" of polar bears, or adversely modify their critical habitat.
"Federal officials have now acknowledged that global warming is transforming the Arctic, and threatening polar bears with extinction," said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity. "It's not too late for polar bears if we act immediately to start cutting global warming emissions."
The Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and Greenpeace filed the action against Secretary of Interior Gale Norton and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to respond to the groups' petition to list polar bears under the law. A federal judge has scheduled a hearing in that case on March 17.
Just yesterday, the government's National Climatic Data Center announced that January temperatures in the United States were the warmest on record, beating the average figure by a full 8.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Two weeks ago, scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies confirmed that worldwide, 2005 was the hottest year ever recorded.
Polar bears live only in the Arctic and are totally dependent on the sea ice for all of their essential needs, including hunting their prey of ice seals. An enormous body of scientific evidence shows that the Arctic ice is vanishing much faster than previously expected. The thick multiyear ice has been shrinking as much as 10 percent per decade, and some climate models predict that the Arctic could be ice-free in summer as early as 2040.
As temperatures rise, researchers say that Arctic sea ice is forming later, breaking up earlier, and the area covered by it is shrinking. Dramatic changes have occurred in Alaska, where scientists with the U.S. Minerals Management Service documented the drowning of at least four polar bears in September 2004 when the sea ice retreated a record 160 miles off the state's northern coast. The researchers said that more polar bears likely drowned than were spotted, and predict increases in such deaths as global warming advances.
In Western Hudson Bay in Canada, polar bears are forced onto land for a period of fasting when the sea ice melts in the spring, and cannot hunt again until the ice freezes up again in the fall. Because of global warming, the season for bears to hunt on the ice has already become too short for the bears to build up sufficient fat stores for optimum health and reproduction. As a result, this population of polar bears has declined approximately 14 percent in 10 years, from 1,100 in 1995 to fewer than 950 in 2004.
Listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act -- America's safety net for plants and animals on the brink of extinction -- will provide broad protection to polar bears, including a requirement that U.S. federal agencies ensure that any action carried out, authorized or funded by the U.S. government will not "jeopardize the continued existence" of polar bears, or adversely modify their critical habitat.
Casting a Cold Eye on Arctic Oil
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF (NYT)
912 words
Published: September 10, 2003
ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, Alaska - Here's a helpful hint for backpackers here in the Arctic: If you're lying in your sleeping bag and suddenly feel a pat on the behind from outside the tent, YELL!
Several campers have been subjected to this kind of sexual harassment lately, and when they opened their tent flaps, they found polar bears grinning at them. This refuge is, after all, a bit like a wildlife safari in reverse -- curious animals have the opportunity to gawk at humans.
After rafting and backpacking through this wilderness for a week, weighing whether Congress should allow oil drilling here, I've reached a few conclusions. One is that both the oil industry and environmentalists exaggerate their cases.
For starters, no one has any idea how much oil is here, and we will never know unless it is explored. There has been limited exploration and test drilling in Eskimo-controlled lands in the refuge, but those results have been kept secret. Environmentalists say contemptuously that there's only a six-month supply, while Big Oil speaks of a 25-year spigot -- and they're both talking through their hats.
Estimates range from 3.2 billion barrels (which would supply all U.S. needs for six months) to 16 billion barrels, but these are all wild guesses. The top end of the range would be very significant, coming close to doubling America's proven petroleum reserves of 22 billion barrels, but there is some reason to be skeptical of the higher estimates -- particularly because the oil here may not be economical to extract.
One clue, for example, is that the Badami oil field, almost adjacent to the Arctic refuge, is now being mothballed because it was producing only 1,300 barrels a day instead of the 30,000 expected.
Arctic oil can be chimerical, and it would be tragic to sacrifice this wilderness for a series of dry wells.
It is true that oil drilling would not ravage the entire refuge. Only the coastal plain, 7 percent of the total area, would be open to drilling. The coastal plain is endless brown tundra, speckled with ponds and lakes, boggy and squishy to hike in. It is by far the least scenic part of the refuge, and if one has to drill somewhere in the area, this is the place to do it.
It's also only fair to give special weight to the views of the only people who live in the coastal plain: the Inupiat Eskimos, who overwhelmingly favor drilling (they are poor now, and oil could make them millionaires). One of the Eskimos, Bert Akootchook, angrily told me that if environmentalists were so anxious about the Arctic, they should come here and clean up the petroleum that naturally seeps to the surface of the tundra.
Yet drilling proponents who dismiss the coastal plain as a wasteland -- Alaska's governor, Frank Murkowski, has likened it to a sheet of white paper -- are talking drivel.
They should have been with me as I sleepily opened the tent flap early one morning to see a herd of caribou outside, or beheld the polar bears swimming along the coast, or admired a huge grizzly as it considered dining on nearby musk oxen.
(For a Web tour of the refuge, with audio, maps and photos, including pictures of those musk oxen, see www.nytimes.com/kristof.)
Drilling supporters also grossly understate the impact of drilling when they speak of only a 2,000-acre ''footprint'' in the Arctic. The reality is that oil would mean roads, lodgings, pipelines, security fences, guard stations and airstrips -- and my children would never be able to experience the Arctic as I have.
True, we need to get our oil from somewhere, and Americans are dying now in Iraq because of our dependence on foreign oil. So I would endorse drilling in the Arctic refuge if it were part of a mega-environmental package that also addressed global warming, an environmental challenge where we have even more at stake than in the Arctic.
Daniel Esty, a Yale scholar of the environment, proposes such a deal -- with trepidation -- in the interest of breaking the national deadlock on environmental policy.
The package could include careful oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (exploratory drilling could be done in winter without permanent damage) and, if it turned out to be the oil lake that proponents claim, commercial drilling as well.
In exchange, the right would accept a beyond-Kyoto framework to control carbon emissions, with tighter standards but a longer time frame. The deal would include $1 billion in additional financing for solar, wind and hydrogen energy, and significant increases in vehicle mileage standards to promote conservation.
Yet President Bush's push to open the Arctic refuge is not part of such a bold and thoughtful package to break the stalemate on the environment. Rather it is simply a lunge for oil. Without trying to conserve oil, Mr. Bush would gobble up a national treasure, the birthright of our descendants, as a first resort.
The argument that I find most compelling is that this primordial wilderness, a part of our national inheritance that is roughly the same as it was a thousand years ago, would be irretrievably lost if we drilled. The Bush administration's proposal to drill is therefore not just bad policy but also shameful, for it would casually rob our descendants forever of the chance to savor this magical coastal plain -- and to be slapped in the butt by a frisky polar bear.
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF (NYT)
912 words
Published: September 10, 2003
ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, Alaska - Here's a helpful hint for backpackers here in the Arctic: If you're lying in your sleeping bag and suddenly feel a pat on the behind from outside the tent, YELL!
Several campers have been subjected to this kind of sexual harassment lately, and when they opened their tent flaps, they found polar bears grinning at them. This refuge is, after all, a bit like a wildlife safari in reverse -- curious animals have the opportunity to gawk at humans.
After rafting and backpacking through this wilderness for a week, weighing whether Congress should allow oil drilling here, I've reached a few conclusions. One is that both the oil industry and environmentalists exaggerate their cases.
For starters, no one has any idea how much oil is here, and we will never know unless it is explored. There has been limited exploration and test drilling in Eskimo-controlled lands in the refuge, but those results have been kept secret. Environmentalists say contemptuously that there's only a six-month supply, while Big Oil speaks of a 25-year spigot -- and they're both talking through their hats.
Estimates range from 3.2 billion barrels (which would supply all U.S. needs for six months) to 16 billion barrels, but these are all wild guesses. The top end of the range would be very significant, coming close to doubling America's proven petroleum reserves of 22 billion barrels, but there is some reason to be skeptical of the higher estimates -- particularly because the oil here may not be economical to extract.
One clue, for example, is that the Badami oil field, almost adjacent to the Arctic refuge, is now being mothballed because it was producing only 1,300 barrels a day instead of the 30,000 expected.
Arctic oil can be chimerical, and it would be tragic to sacrifice this wilderness for a series of dry wells.
It is true that oil drilling would not ravage the entire refuge. Only the coastal plain, 7 percent of the total area, would be open to drilling. The coastal plain is endless brown tundra, speckled with ponds and lakes, boggy and squishy to hike in. It is by far the least scenic part of the refuge, and if one has to drill somewhere in the area, this is the place to do it.
It's also only fair to give special weight to the views of the only people who live in the coastal plain: the Inupiat Eskimos, who overwhelmingly favor drilling (they are poor now, and oil could make them millionaires). One of the Eskimos, Bert Akootchook, angrily told me that if environmentalists were so anxious about the Arctic, they should come here and clean up the petroleum that naturally seeps to the surface of the tundra.
Yet drilling proponents who dismiss the coastal plain as a wasteland -- Alaska's governor, Frank Murkowski, has likened it to a sheet of white paper -- are talking drivel.
They should have been with me as I sleepily opened the tent flap early one morning to see a herd of caribou outside, or beheld the polar bears swimming along the coast, or admired a huge grizzly as it considered dining on nearby musk oxen.
(For a Web tour of the refuge, with audio, maps and photos, including pictures of those musk oxen, see www.nytimes.com/kristof.)
Drilling supporters also grossly understate the impact of drilling when they speak of only a 2,000-acre ''footprint'' in the Arctic. The reality is that oil would mean roads, lodgings, pipelines, security fences, guard stations and airstrips -- and my children would never be able to experience the Arctic as I have.
True, we need to get our oil from somewhere, and Americans are dying now in Iraq because of our dependence on foreign oil. So I would endorse drilling in the Arctic refuge if it were part of a mega-environmental package that also addressed global warming, an environmental challenge where we have even more at stake than in the Arctic.
Daniel Esty, a Yale scholar of the environment, proposes such a deal -- with trepidation -- in the interest of breaking the national deadlock on environmental policy.
The package could include careful oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (exploratory drilling could be done in winter without permanent damage) and, if it turned out to be the oil lake that proponents claim, commercial drilling as well.
In exchange, the right would accept a beyond-Kyoto framework to control carbon emissions, with tighter standards but a longer time frame. The deal would include $1 billion in additional financing for solar, wind and hydrogen energy, and significant increases in vehicle mileage standards to promote conservation.
Yet President Bush's push to open the Arctic refuge is not part of such a bold and thoughtful package to break the stalemate on the environment. Rather it is simply a lunge for oil. Without trying to conserve oil, Mr. Bush would gobble up a national treasure, the birthright of our descendants, as a first resort.
The argument that I find most compelling is that this primordial wilderness, a part of our national inheritance that is roughly the same as it was a thousand years ago, would be irretrievably lost if we drilled. The Bush administration's proposal to drill is therefore not just bad policy but also shameful, for it would casually rob our descendants forever of the chance to savor this magical coastal plain -- and to be slapped in the butt by a frisky polar bear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)