September 2, 2010

Alaska Dispatch

Twitter Facebook YouTube RSS
Tundra Telegraph

Let's fight climate change, not the ESA

| Jan 2, 2010

The Alaska Legislature is willing to pay $1.5 million for a conference and public relations campaign to persuade Congress to limit the Endangered Species Act and launch a program to "reverse the negative economic effects from (Endangered Species Act) listings based on climate change." Their primary concern: The Endangered Species Act will create negative economic impacts for the state of Alaska by impeding development.

I suggest, instead, that we reverse the negative economic effects from ESA listings based on climate change by slowing climate change, prominently placing Alaska, with its continually growing body of university researchers, government scientists, environmental advocates, and local citizens, in an international leadership role to solve the climate crisis. If we can tackle the threats to climate change in Alaska, such as the ongoing erosion of coastal communities, the loss of sea ice habitat for multiple arctic species and the loss of subsistence lifestyle as species disappear, we will not need to hire a PR campaign to fight the "negative impacts of Endangered Species Act listings" because we will not need Endangered Species Act listings.

As the rest of the world watches international leaders in Copenhagen make significant efforts to curb the climate crisis on an international level, our local leaders in Alaska choose to stick their heads in the sand about the climate crisis, the loss of our precious natural resources, of species that are iconic in our children's books written by Alaskan authors, species that are the basis of lifestyle for so many Alaskans. The Alaska Legislature is behind the times, willing to spend over a million dollars to ask the question, "Should polar bears be listed under the Endangered Species Act?" That question has been answered; the best available science says "yes," and they are listed as threatened. If we hire a PR firm to search for an answer they cannot find, soon we will not have "threatened" polar bears in Alaska, we will have "endangered" polar bears in Alaska.

Let's move on. Instead of fighting a myth, let's instead work together on the reality of finding solutions to our growing environmental catastrophes in the arctic. We cannot expect other states to step up to bat for us. We cannot expect the federal government to hold our hand as our sea ice melts, our villages erode, our polar bears disappear, our bowhead whales change migration patterns, and our walruses end up trampled to death on the shore. We have the ability, as well as a duty, to lead the country in solving a climate crisis by starting with our home turf. We are an arctic state. We could have the strongest voice in the country. Instead, we choose to spend money to squelch our own screams.

The Alaska Legislature does not represent all of the state's citizens, neither does it mimic the voice of the majority. However, it is going to launch a campaign to fight the ominous "endangered species monster." As years progress, and we continue to stick our heads in the sand, we will continue to lose the natural treasures that define Alaska and set us apart from nearly every other location on the planet. We will be looking for another PR firm, one that can help us try to save face as we deplete our own resources and rake our own landscapes clean of iconic, almost legendary species such as the polar bear and walrus. We will probably be a poor state by then, because tourism will tank, money garnered from resource extraction will be spent on restoring communities on the brink of disaster, and we will be in severe debt to the federal government because disasters -- including flooding, erosion, and ecosystem collapse -- will cost more money than we can generate with the trickle of oil and gas reserves that will be left at that time. So, I am guessing we might not start the bidding at $1.5 million, trying to attract New York City PR firms with no basic knowledge of life in the Arctic. No, we might just have to look for volunteers.

Anchorage resident Dr. Natalie Dawson is a staff scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity.

Discuss
Member Comments
Posted By: Aapa @ 01.04.2010 9:40 PM
Is "akgasman" the only nitwit left in Alaska who thinks Healy "clean coal" was a good idea? Of course, the Usibelli family made out like the bandits they are, on that one, but I doubt gasman has any piece of that pie.
Posted By: AKgasman @ 01.04.2010 12:32 PM
It appears that Aapa just wants to obstruct. And has been trying to obstruct for 20 years. CO2 stays where put, CO not a concern. and if Aapa really understood what Aapa was were saying Aapa would raised the question of H2S. But then that also helps in recovery
Posted By: Aapa @ 01.04.2010 10:14 AM
I've been on crusades in Alaska for over 20 years, thank you, winning most, losing a few (like Health "clean" coal that set taxpayers back hundreds of millions), and lived on the North Slope for 7 years, also thank you.

If the oil corporations could be induced to use power plant gas to pressurize oil deposits to aid recovery, that would be wonderful. It won't totally sequester CO2, though, which you should know if you're a gas man. It isn't only CO2 that's being released, I assume, but CO.

I worry more about the oil industry's wanton disregard for the health of Alaskans in populated areas, such as near the Flint Hills refinery in North Pole. Charles and David Koch are the eight and ninth richest Americans, the second and third richest oil men in the world, yet despoil the environment because they can get away with it.

The champions of the dangerous and polluting gas industry, such as Scott Ogan, with his pimping for shallow bed methane, are still sucking at the state teat. They need to pay more attention to the ultimate health, safety and welfare of Alaskans instead of putting profits above all else.
Posted By: AKgasman @ 01.04.2010 9:07 AM
If you greenies really wanted to do something for the North Slope rather than find another excuse for bitching, why don’t you greenies start a crusade to inject all of the power plant gas on the North Slope into Prudhoe Bay reservoir to raise the reservoir gas pressure, which will increase not only the rate of oil recovery and the maximum oil recovery but also sequester the C02and remove all of the polutants that spewed all over the tunda. Injection of flue gases into is long established EOR, enhanced oil recovery. AKgasman
Posted By: Aapa @ 01.03.2010 10:11 PM
The Palin administration tried to conceal the polar bear science from academics and the public. Parnell and the House majority are no better.

Here's part of a Sheila Toomey piece on the subject from a few years ago.

Oil industry watchdog Rick Steiner recently submitted a Freedom of Information request to state Fish and Game for public records regarding the listing of polar bears as endangered. He wanted the records "to see how politics influenced their position to oppose the listing," Rick said in a note.

F&G Commissioner Denby Lloyd wrote back that the fee for what Rick wanted would be $468,784. Rick, a prof at UAA, said he's going to ask if they'll accept his IOU. Denby gently suggested Rick might want to narrow his search request. Rick not so gently suggested it was obstructionism by Palin, who has said publicly she doesn't think polar bears should be listed.
Posted By: JimAK2 @ 01.03.2010 10:58 AM
Thank you Dr. Dawson.

The ESA could be treated as an opportunity to gather federal and global resources to target root problems; adding to the economy as well as adding to science-based learning and to policies that enhance environmental and social quality. Instead, too many Alaskans choose minimization, denial, ideological self-delusion, active ignorance, and self-destruction as the alternative.

As an aside, I find the ultra right-wing Conservative and Christianist movement in Alaska and other parts of the country immoral, almost to the point of evil.
Posted By: KaiserKind @ 01.03.2010 7:52 AM
Dr. Dawson's comments subtly reflect a linguistic trap that we environmentalists have allowed ourselves to fall into. For a variety of reasons, the public has now reduced ecological debates into two categories, economy and environment, or, more to the point, economy vs. environment. This is a classic false dichotomy and we must no longer contribute to its maintenance.

One of the natural outcomes of advanced civilization is a large and growing proportion of the population who has the desire, time, and resources to spend more time in natural settings, both enjoying and learning more about our physical and biological worlds. This capability is a direct result of economic growth. A key part of this development has been this population's growing awareness of the complexity, fragility, and importance of biological systems for long-term global economic growth, the creation of new medicines and sustainable energy sources just two obvious examples (not to mention the psychological benefits of exposure to natural systems.) Environmental, including biological, protection is not anti-economic growth. It IS economic growth.

For those who disagree, please visit, or at least learn about, air pollution in Bejing and Mexico (make sicko) City, or throughout much of Eastern Europe. Most Americans would not let their dogs live in such places.
Posted By: JimAK @ 01.03.2010 6:19 AM
The largest pile of booshwa unloaded in some time.

busy