It is not clear how the consideration of an oil spill should affect the decision to "list" polar bears as an "Endangered Species."  But we should certainly recognize the danger to many species of Arctic animals that an oil spill poses.  After the Exxon-Valdez spill, we saw countless oil-touched birds perish, from inability to keep themselves warm.

Certainly we should be aware that there are two quite different kinds of environmental issues in play here.  One obviously has to do with global warming, and the procuring and use of a GHG-emitting fossil fuel.  As we all know very well, that indirectly destroys the environment of such Arctic animals as polar bears.

But the other has to do with the direct destruction of the Arctic marine environment.

This is perfectly analogous to what we see in mountain-top-removal/valley-fill coal-mining.  As we all know very well, coal is one of the principal enemies of the human race.  But also, more immediately, MTR/VF means the utter destruction of many ecosystems.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Canis writes:

Certainly we should be aware that there are two quite different kinds of environmental issues in play here.  One obviously has to do with global warming, and the procuring and use of a GHG-emitting fossil fuel.  As we all know very well, that indirectly destroys the environment of such Arctic animals as polar bears.

But the other has to do with the direct destruction of the Arctic marine environment.

This is perfectly analogous to what we see in mountain-top-removal/valley-fill coal-mining.  As we all know very well, coal is one of the principal enemies of the human race.  But also, more immediately, MTR/VF means the utter destruction of many ecosystems.

It's common that we see these issues where there are two lines of environmental assault, global warming and "conventional" destruction.

To me, these are inextricably linked, though I sometimes get the impression, mistaken I hope, that some people care only about the global warming angle and disregard habitat destruction itself. The coal example is the best one. I'm not sure it doesn't follow that, if you support CCS, you implicitly support the horrific MTR with all its environmental, economic, and cultural atrocities. At the very least, one seems to be saying, MTR is the lesser of two evils.

I confess I do not understand such a mindset. The very thought of MTR fills me with horror and rage. This is the kind of thing which made me an environmentalist in the first place. Therefore, even if there were no other reasons to be against CCS (though there are), MTR and strip mining would make it a non-starter for me. It's self-evident to me that, if MTR can in any way be construed as acceptable, then what's so bad about even the worst projected effects of global warming?

I'll assume this was written by a 12 year old. Polar bears simply do what polar bears are programmed to do. You can't sit and debate with a polar bear about the merits of its approach to feeding. Only people are capable of changing their ways and habits. (Well, at least some people are. I am not counting the village idiot who's currently President). That's both good and bad. As we've seen, over the last 10,000 years we've changed our habits so extensively, we now threaten just about every other species except the cockroach. The point here is that perhaps we can convince some people to change their habits again, so both us and other species can co-exist.