Can Sarah Palin Address Alaskan Parks' Climate Change Without Science?

Hubbard Glacier, NPS photo

It’s tough to face the issues of climate change in America’s largest and northernmost state without working to reverse its root causes—but that is exactly what Governor Sarah Palin’s Climate Change Sub-Cabinet, formed in September 2007, has been asked to do.

In the sub-cabinet’s summary document, Palin readily agrees that climate change is taking place, and that its impact on her home state is not only tangible, but potentially disastrous.  However, she states in an interview posted on Newsmax.com, “A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location.  I’m not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made.”

Deep in Palin’s climate change strategy documents, a pie chart makes it clear that the state’s oil and gas industry is the biggest producer of these gases, creating 29% of the state’s total greenhouse gas emissions. The next major source of emissions is the transportation industry: trains, trucks and air traffic. Reductions in these gases, however, do not appear on the state’s agenda for immediate action.

Palin’s climate change strategy acknowledges that melting glaciers and rising sea levels mean flooding and loss of land for towns on the state’s coastline, and that rising water levels and diminishing permafrost will have an impact on safe water sources.

However, the state’s strategy document describes climate change as “the variation in Earth’s global and regional atmosphere over time.  These changes are likely caused by a combination of natural processes and activities.” It goes on to note, “Scientists attribute the accelerating rate of global warming to manmade greenhouse gases,” but makes no further acknowledgement of science as a factor.

There’s no question that Palin’s commission is working to address and mitigate the effects of climate change in Alaska, as they relate to “loss of life and property,” as the recommendations of the Immediate Action Workgroup state. What’s missing are the effects on public lands—in particular, on Alaska’s national parks and national wildlife refuges. 

The National Park Service (NPS) is conspicuously absent from the list of members of the Immediate Action Workgroup.

Luckily, this hasn’t stopped the NPS in Alaska from moving forward to examine and address the problem.

This is reality, Governor

John Morris, an interpretive specialist with Alaska Public Lands—the oversight organization for Alaska’s national parks—notes that a 2004 study, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, provided the most comprehensive list of the challenges faced by the parks. 

“The Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else, in part because of the ice melt in the oceans and on land,” Morris explained.  With less ice to reflect the heat of the sun, water and land have little to protect them from increases in temperature, he said. 

Ice melt means that the polar bear and the walrus, both of which depend on ocean ice as a platform for hunting for food, have significantly less habitat and must move farther north to survive.  Eventually, as ice disappears from the Arctic Ocean, these animals will have no habitat at all.

Why should we care about the polar bears?  Because the challenges faced by one species can tell us a great deal about the dangers ahead for human beings, and for all life on this planet.  The shrinking arctic habitat will trickle down—literally—into regions to the south, causing higher ocean levels, loss of shoreline, and the eventual destruction of oceanfront property and industry.  One animal’s plight may seem trivial, but the entire world may suffer while that animal’s existence is lost.

Yet Governor Palin has worked actively to keep polar bears off the national endangered species list, despite their critical situation.  In an editorial published on January 5, 2008, in the New York Times, Palin states, “I strongly believe that adding them to the list is the wrong move at this time…there is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable future.” She goes on to say, “The Center for Biological Diversity, which petitioned for the polar bear to be protected, wants the listing to force the government to either stop or severely limit any public or private action that produces, or even allows, the production of greenhouse gases.”

Palin’s stand is clear: Oil before environment.

Land-based threats come from underground

The production of methane and carbon dioxide, two prevalent greenhouse gases, is turning out to be a direct result of Alaska’s overall warming, Morris noted.  Alaska’s permafrost, the bedrock-like layer of supposedly permanently frozen ground beneath the earth’s surface, is melting at an alarming rate.  “In the last three decades, we’ve lost 27 percent of the permafrost,” he said. 

When permafrost melts, it not only makes the ground less stable—causing the collapse of structures built on top of it—but it releases methane and carbon dioxide.  A related topographical shift from sparsely vegetated tundra to concentrations of shrubbery, caused in part by the melting of permafrost, also is increasing the release of carbon dioxide.

In Alaska Park Science, a publication of the park service, Morris enumerates more challenges that climate change brings to Alaska’s parks:

Insect infestation:  With shorter winters and precipitation changes, bark beetles have increased their range and are killing black spruce trees in Alaska’s forests. This means that the food supply for many animals, including grizzly bears, has been reduced.  The eventual result will be more bears and other large animals approaching human visitors for food—which could endanger both animals and people.

Fires: Climate change is causing a significant increase in forest fires—the 2006 fire season set a 45-year record for the number of acres burned throughout the United States. More fires in Alaska mean a reduction in habitat for many boreal species, as well as significant limits on visitors’ ability to enjoy the parks.

Fish mortality:  The salmon and trout populations that draw so many sportsmen to Alaska’s rivers are showing high mortality rates, because of flooding—caused by higher sea levels and more rain—and warmer water in the rivers.  This also poses a significant threat to subsistence life in Alaska, as there are fewer fish for those whose lives depend on what they catch, hunt and gather in the arctic lands.

Reduced snow pack:  With less snow and shorter deep-freeze seasons, the timing of surface runoff has changed, making some spring and summer water activities (like fishing and whitewater rafting) difficult or even impossible.  Inadequate snow cover has shortened the season for skiing and other winter sports, limiting snow-based activity in all the northern parks.