Click to go mobile
Search articles from thousands of Examiners
Los Angeles News Global Warming Examiner
 
Find out more about John:

John Ryden is an Engineer with a background in Finance and Economics. Here he will discuss how energy production, energy use, and conservation affect us and the rest of the world with a focus on the economic implications.


 
Subscribe to John's Email Alerts

Get alerts when John submits a new article
Email Address


  Include other special offers from Examiner.com
Terms of Use

John has been added to your favorite examiners
·

Polar Bears Threaten Energy Development

May 15, 3:52 PM
11 comments
RSS

The Interior Department has placed polar bears on the list of threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. [Link] The bears depend on the Arctic sea ice and global warming is causing a decline in the amount of sea ice. This threatens their habitat and could cause a drastic decline in their population if they can’ adapt.

Usually when an endangered animal is threatened with the loss of habitat, the cause is some type of development project like building commercial structures. Typically the development project is challenged and halted, thus preserving the animal’s habitat.

The challenge with the bears is different. The bear’s habitat is threatened not by encroaching commercial development, but by the burning of fossil fuel all over the planet. Some environmentalists might use this as an excuse to prohibit drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The proximity of the drilling is irrelevant to the global warming problem. Could environmentalists use this as an excuse to challenge any energy project in the United States? Could the construction of a new electric generating plant fueled with either coal or natural gas be challenged on the basis of protecting the bears?

If reasonable energy development is stopped in this country, it would have a serious negative effect on our economy. That may have the perverse effect of actually making the global warming problem worse. Let’s say we can’t develop energy in this country and it drives industry off-shore to a country like China. We not only loose the jobs and investment in our economy, but the production may be much less energy efficient in China. That would result in a worsening of global greenhouse gas emissions and be counter-productive to saving the bears.

What the bears really need is a national energy policy that reduces greenhouse gas emissions over time that also projects our economy. We should start by reducing the use of those fuels, like coal, that produce the most greenhouse gas emissions. A long term national energy plan may call for the development of fossil fuel energy resources like oil to replace coal in the short term. Closing off oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge may actually hurt the bears.

Author: John Ryden
John Ryden is a National Examiner. You can see John's articles on John's Home Page.
Find out more about John:
John Ryden is an Engineer with a background in Finance and Economics. Here he will discuss how energy production, energy use, and conservation affect us and the rest of the world with a focus on the economic implications.
Subscribe to John's Email Alerts
Get alerts when John submits a new article
Email Address


  Include other special offers from Examiner.com
Terms of Use

John has been added to your favorite examiners

Comments

Name:
Comments:
characters left

Write for us

Now Recruiting in Los Angeles
We are now looking for Los Angeles writers to cover hundreds of topics, including: View all available topics »