Alaska is the only state, not surprisingly, with a natural population of polar bears. One might thus assume that Alaska would want to protect the symbol of their state. However, it is currently being debated as to whether or not polar bears should join the list of threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, and Alaska is against the motion. Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, with the support of the state’s Republican congressional delegation, is in vehement opposition to the motion to protect the bear.
For what reason, you may wonder, would the state oppose the protection of the polar bear? Exactly the same reason as everything else in our capitalist country: money. Alaskans fear that listing the bear on the endangered species act would create a protection plan of the shrinking Arctic sea ice. Now what’s the problem with that? Should they want to protect the environment? No. That protection would prevent the possible project of a natural gas pipeline that would tap the North Slope's vast reserves. That’s right. We’re going to kill off a species for oil.
I am personally disgusted everytime I am faced with a story like this, where we are willing to exterminate an entire speicies for a buck. Is there any compassion left in this world? Can’t we try and do something good for the world and its creatures rather than ourselves and our bank accounts?
that shocks me as well. Polar bears are amazing creatures...although i wouldn't want to be face to face with them lol. Why don't people realize that we are all connected, if you kill of a species it will eventually go down the line
plus because of global warming polar bears are not able to capture seals for food and are starving to death. : (
"because of global warming polar bears are not able to capture seals for food and are starving to death."
I thought they were drowning. LOL
How can you believe that bunk?
A Fact is Always Better Than an Ideal.
"We’re going to kill off a species for oil."
Bull Sh*t.
A pipeline will not kill off any polar bears, let alone all of them.
Alaskans get told what they can and can't do by a distant Federal environmental bureaucracy more than the citizens of any other state. That is why they oppose these type regulations more than liberals in New York City do. When was the last time a city dweller was affected by this type interference?
Get real.
Why do so many people find this type ecco exageration acceptable?
A Fact is Always Better Than an Ideal.
A pipeline may not kill off any polar bears, but the construction and developement of their enviroment may. If polar bears are added to the endangered species list, then any action that is truely not harmful to their well being could take place. Thus, we have a contradiction, because if the desired activities don't harm polar bears, then there would be no problem with having them on the list.
Not always in aplication.
Your exageration, and unfair characterization of the motives for the opinions of Alaskans were my main criticisms.
The endangered species act should be more objective, and less political. That is probably not going to happen. Recently Wolves came off the list. They have had enough numbers to no longer qualify for 6 years, and have continued to increase through those years, but some people that live nowhere near them seem to think thousands more of these deadly predators would pose an inconsequential problem for people in the states affected.
Your Polar Bear post is another example. Which should matter more emotion, or fact?
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b...
A Fact is Always Better Than an Ideal.
The human race needs to learn that money isn't the most important thing in this world.