Arctic Ice, Polar Bears, ANWR and Sarah Palin

AP reported today in a story that sea ice is at its second lowest levels in thirty years. This is concerning for the daily discourse on the health of the environment, but presumably not a siren call that all is lost and we are at a tipping point?

Momma and baby polar bear cub

The broader issue of an unhealthy environment and melting ice cap quickly gives way to the atomic level as we contemplate the fate of specific animals (vs the theoretical – the planet is warming). “Federal observers flying for a whale survey on Aug. 16 spotted nine polar bears swimming in open ocean in the Chukchi. The bears were 15 to 65 miles off the Alaska shore. Some were swimming north, apparently trying to reach the polar ice edge, which on that day was 400 miles away.”

Skins from hunting in Greenland

As I have opined in other blog postins that the plight of the polar bear is going to be “the tipping point” for this discussion on climate change. In a Reuters story today, “the U.S. Geological Survey said last September that two thirds of the world’s polar bears could be gone by mid-century if predictions of melting sea ice in the Arctic hold true.”

Since the US declared in “May it was listing polar bears as a threatened species”, their plight is inextricably linked to the threat of rising seas, melting ice and greenhouse gas. Their photos pull on the heart strings of the public in the lower 48 and will serve as a photogenic reminder that the planet is in peril, to use CNN’s tag line.

This discussion becomes all the more interesting with Sarah Palin’s nomination to the VP spot. Her approach to drilling and ANWR,

ARCTIC Wildlife Refugee

her acting as the conservative administration’s mouthpiece for environmental concerns will be a foci for the next two month’s presidential discussion (ANWR.org).

Prior to this morning’s annoucement, the environment was number 9 or 10 on the list of “hot buttons” for the candidates.  I think it will quickly hit the radar and become a “top 5” issue discussed purely based on “where she is from” (ie Alaska).  Fair or unfair, it will help elevate the discussion to the platform of the presidency.  If her nomination acts as a catalyst to discuss the environment as a pressing concern, equal to that of terrorism, the economy, social security and international affairs, then by all means! Lets chat!

Polar bears, endangered species, global warming and “the tipping point”

In my last life, I was probably an environmentalist in some shape or size.

My interest in the habitat for our humanity started to manifest itself (in this life) when I entered Bucknell University and took a number of classes in undergrad to qualify for an Environmental Studies minor. At that time, way back in 1995, such focus wasn’t deemed too useful as a career so I opted not to take the remaining class in environmental chemistry and instead focused on economic theory, finance and accounting in order to secure a much coveted job at an international investment bank.

But hark, my interests in the subject matter surface every now and then when topical news highlights the problems in our current business/politcal/environmental/economic system. The environment, sustainable development, post industrial alternatives, fair trade, “green policy” and endangered species are tags that catch my eye when perusing news of the day. Seeing the big picture and understanding the vast dependencies instead of believing our economy functions on a linear system is of particular interest.

What caught my attention recently is the evolution around the discussion as to whether polar bears should be added to the the endangered species list because their habitat is melting. National Geographic covered this subject back in December of 2006 when the administration was sued by the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council. “If the bears are given federal protection, they would be the first U.S. mammals officially deemed to be in danger of extinction because of global warming, the conservation groups said.”

Fast forward to 2008, this month (May), the “U.S. Department of the Interior added the polar bear to the list of threatened species under the Endangered Species Act” according to Bloomberg news. This is a seachange (pun intended) and I believe a turning point of epic proportions. This recognizes that global warming and the associated habitat destruction due to melting ice caps is the culprit vs oil and gas mining in the arctic.

Evidence that surfaced back in 2005 that polar bears were drowning because they couldnt swim the distances, often more than 60 miles on occasion, from one ice flow to another, caused alarm. More recent situations such as the Ayles Ice shelf (which is the size of Manhattan) snapping free from the North Pole back in 2006, rang additional environmental alarm bells. CNN recently covered the 5,500 square miles of ice shelf (about the size of Connecticut) that is literally hanging on by an ice thread and about to break off into the ocean. Are we literally seeing the ice caps melt before our eyes? In 20 years, will we have discussions like “I remember when”…..

Adding the polar bear to the species list is “the” turning point in my opinion, with respect to the global warming discussion. The consciousness of the average citizen is aware of the problem. We just now need to figure out how to empower people to “make a difference” and potentially change their behaviors. Invest now and make proactive decisions today or react tomorrow.

Nothing captures the challenge of the diametrically opposed forces (in this country at least) causing some of the problems of global warming than the photo below. Our need for a robust economy powered by our expenditure and consumption, our consumer equation founded on the tenets of “planned obsolescence” to perpetuate our consumption, the consumption creating mountains of waste, the ever increasing needs of an energy source (fossil fuels, nuclear, etc), the need for a strong military in these trying times, the need for a strong economy in order to fund a strong military….the cycle continues.

Photo: a nuclear powered sub jutting through the ice shelf juxtaposed with the bears…priceless.

Happy Earth Day

I “celebrated” by not printing any documents today at work (instead opting to go people’s desks and discussing word/ppt/excel on their monitors). I also chose to walk home (vs taking a taxi). 30 blocks of clean living.

Small steps….raise the conscious…if only for a spell.

By the way…did anyone see the Google art today celebrating Earth Day on their home page logo? Did anyone think it looked more like green slime dripping from their letters vs a robust and verdant leafy picture of a healthy Gia?

New York City “the greening of Gotham” by Travel and Leisure

Picking up the November 2007 issue of Travel and Leisure, I enjoyed the article on NYC.  A few tidbits:

– In April, the mayor announced PlaNYC that would cut the city’s greenhouse gas emissions by 30% .

– Plant on million trees.

– put a park within a 10 minute walk of every inhabitant in the city.

The article rattles off a few stats that caught my attention:

– only 5 percent NY’ers commute into Manhattan by car.

– Average NY’er CO2 output is less than a third of the national average (not sure how this is?)

– a pair of LEED certified hotels are on the way

Carbon Offset

Read a Conde Nast Traveler article this weekend which suggested that jet engines produce 3.5% of the world’s human generated carbon dioxide.   

The same article also stated that auto’s produced 15% of CO2.  According to the article, scientists suggest that releasing CO2 at higher elevations is 3x more damaging than discharging them on the ground. 

The article didnt provide more evidence…but curious to understand the “why”.

Save me money…with “green” in mind

My interest in all things “green” is continuing to evolve…as referenced in my recent posts such as the “global gas prices” and “carbon footprint”.

As I scour my reading sources for additional information on how to save the planet (vs a cheerleader)…the recent article in Money Magazine’s June edition by Jean Chatzky caught my eye.  She discusses saving a buck AND saving the world.  Now you have my attention. 

Increasing the consciousness of the average consumer has historically (at least my impression) been through fear …ie the world is going to heat up 10 degrees celsius or the entire rainforest will be chopped down and used as timber for Ikea furniture in the next 15 years…etc.   Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” or sites such as StopGlobalWarming attempt to educate but also leave the user with a sense of despair.  The pendulum of fear and greed are basic motivational forces.  We, as a capitalistic society, need to start using greed (vs fear) as a weapon to hasten change vs throwing mountains of data at a consumer and then telling them to start recycling and do their part (or else).  Uh, talk about losing the message along the way.

Dont get me wrong…these prognostications may come true and the ocean may rise 10 feet as the glaciers in the artic region melt at an ever increasing rate.   The following picture of a few hapless polar bears stranded on an iceberg was a powerful visual cue.  The notation suggested they have been tracked swimming over a hundred miles (and are now drowning on occassion) as the break up of ice flows has made it increasingly more difficult for them to survive. 

The polar bear, along with the open plains of the west, the rugged coastline of Oregon and other iconic imagery, have a place in my mind as bastions of freedom, and are idyllic.  To lose one of them, awakens a sense of urgency, and peaks my interest in the outcome of this battle.

Not sure what I can do in my daily life to make a dent?  Maybe I can drive my car a bit less, or turn off my A/C when leaving the house?  I will paraphrase a few “to dos” from Jean and hopefully a viral approach to saving the environment will be more beneficial than seeing a movie about how the earth is heating up and feeling helpless without a sense of purpose on how to change the situation.

– Install a power strip: connect TVs, VCRs, microwaves, and other big appliances if possible.  They use up to 10% of a given month’s energy bill even when turned off.  Thus, when leaving for a weekend or a long trip, “unplug” them by turning off the strip.  “Saving 10% on your electric bill could easily put $200 or more a year in your pocket”.

– Replace standard lightbulbs with the “squiggly compact fluorescent ones”.  They use up to “75% less energy and last up to 10x longer”.   

– “22 billion plastic bottles are discarded every year.”  I recently bought a Nalgene 1,000 ml water bottle for work and a water filtration jug for my fridge.  An easy way to reduce the plastic water bottle consumption.  Very easy.  Plus, I have grown fond of the taste of tap water.  Make me feel alive. 

– Bank online.  This saves time, energy as well as personal headaches of payment, mail, stamps, etc.  18.5 million trees could be saved a year if all Americans banked online.  This should be an easy one to implement for the average internet user.

Well, I am not sure this is going to move the proverbial “global needle”?  But it beats sitting by and hoping for a better day with no grass roots activism…at least on a basic, micro level.

Global Gas Prices

A recent article in Wired (June 2007) outlined what world citizens are paying for gas.  Oil producing nations (ie Venezuela at $0.17 and Iran at $0.33) have it much cheaper than places like Hong Kong at $6.30 or Seoul at $6.06 a gallon. 

Oslo, Norway at $6.48 was the outlier in terms of countries with production capacity and high level’s of gas prices.  Despite having the third largest export production quotas, enviro taxes aimed at reducing CO2 keep this country’s cost per gallon in the stratosphere vis a vis other countries.

 

Will China’s continued economic boom drive prices higher as their demand swelters?  Will the US implement tax havens for citizen’s purchasing hybrids?  Will companies that reduce CO2 emissions and/or rely on gas for production of product receive incentives to reduce their consumption?  Are the economic interests aligned to incentivize users to reduce consumption? I think the answer is probably no. 

 Cities and their gas / gallon prices

London – $6.65

Berlin – $6.42

Rome – $5.62

Nairobi – $4.20

SF – $3.32

Bangkok – $3.04

Havana – $3.03

Moscow – $2.89

NYC – $2.76

Chicago – $2.69

Buenos Aires – $2.32