Article from the Guardian Newspaper:
US sets aside 'Critical Habitat' for Polar Bear in Alaska
Kassie Siegel, a lawyer for the Center of Biological Diversity says: "Now we need the Obama administration to actually make it mean something so we can write the bear's recovery plan - not its obituary".
To read the full article please CLICK HERE
This is great news for the polar bear; a step in the right direction! A few points on the story:
1) The area is actually less than the preliminary plan released last year...this news is a little annoying but we should be happy they are going ahead with the plan and hopefully will want to expand the area later on.
2) Alaska Governor Sean Parnell is complaining that the preliminary plan was too large and "underestimated the potential economic impact [on the state's oil and gas industry]". Increasingly I am coming to the realization that what makes fighting climate change difficult and the resistance to it (or denial of it) is that a greener planet is completely opposed to the capitalism way of life where almost everything is measured against economic growth and production. As No Impact Man said in my absolute favorite blog entry of his: "Economic growth ≠ Life satisfaction growth". In this instance all I can hope for is that the Obama administration will hold their ground and not give into oil companies and will put the well-being of humans and animals before profit.
3) Kate Moriarty, deputy director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association claims the protected area would hurt oil and gas exploration in Alaska and that "the Fish and Wildlife Service has found over and over again that their activities pose no threat to the polar bear". Is it just me or is she slightly missing the point? Whether their activities pose no direct threat to the polar bear, I'm pretty sure that it does pose an indirect threat to all things on this planet, not just the polar bear. Cause and effect; she should wake up to the bigger picture.