Polar Bears

So climate change and oil drilling up in the Arctic have been affecting the polar bear population, and the US government has been given a May 16 deadline to decide whether they should be considered an endangered species or not. If they are, then this means that US oil exploration would be severely limited in the Arctic.

This article, I think, highlights some of the issues of politics and the environment, and also the influence that non-state actors, such as conservation groups, have on the decisions that governments must make. The polar bear-issue is a problem that the government does not want to deal with, as evidenced by their continuous stalling, and I can understand why. No government in their right mind would give up resources willingly, especially since there is such a demand for energy resources, but at the same time they can't say, "Oh, no, the polar bears aren't in danger," and risk future consequences of failing to deal with the crisis when all the polar bears are dead.

(I, personally, would be very angry if this happened, because I love polar bears. But I also like having a car, and this is the paradox that most people are dealing with.)

There will always be huge trade-offs involving environmental issues, and this reminds me of how I heard that companies are beginning to use bananas to make ethanol, and how this could contribute to the worldwide food shortage. When do we determine that the losses in one aspect of life are worth the gains in the other? I would say that yes, we need to save the polar bear, but I'm not a government trying to take care of the needs of a nation. I don't think it's really a question of whether the polar bear is endangered, or threatened, or whatever other label, because that can be determined objectively by charts and numbers. The problem is what the government is going to do after that label is given, and it's a tough choice to make.