For some people, climate change is a tough cause to rally ‘round—even those who understand that it’s happening and that it’s human-caused get distracted by things like eating, working, having sex, watching TV, or watching people on TV have sex.

While social scientists ponder the best ways to get the message out and motivate the masses—and since we’re gearing up to cover December’s climate talks in Copenhagen—we’ve devised a Grist list of good reasons to care about this global crisis. Got reasons of your own? Let us know in the comments section below.

25. Because supermodels are stripping for the cause. If these lovely ladies are getting hot and bothered, shouldn’t you? At least watch the video. Call it your good deed for the day.

24. Because you don’t want your insurance premiums to go up. The sea level rise, severe weather, flash floods, and windstorms attributable to climate change have all got the insurance industry on edge. Some firms in the U.S. have already raised premiums in coastal areas, and rates in the U.K. are on the rise as well.

Dirt moguls just aren’t the same.Photo: Shay Haas23. Because you like to ski. Listen up, snow bunny: you’ll soon be consigned to schussing in an indoor dome if climate chaos has its way. Shorter winters and decreased snowfall are forcing big ski areas to ramp up their snowmaking efforts (a questionable scheme in the face of global water shortages) and leading smaller ski areas to close.

22. Because you’re a raging hypochondriac. Warmer temperatures mean happy, thriving insects, which might mean increased risk of West Nile, encephalitis, malaria, dengue fever, and yellow fever. Do you really need more to worry about? Isn’t that weird spot on your inner thigh enough?

Nothing to see here, folks.Photo: andedam via flickr21. Because it’s a good excuse to learn weird things about animal sex. OK, you don’t care about the plight of the polar bears. But admit it, you’re curious about polar bear penises, aren’t you? And why they’re larger in snowier areas? That’s nothing compared to the lengths sea turtles go to for reproduction, and the flip-flopping gender of the hot bearded dragon lizard. Go on, check it out —you know you want to.

20. Because you hate oil. If your soul still wilts at the thought of all those people in slickers cleaning slick-covered birds in the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill, if you’d rather ride a bike than participate in the auto economy, then climate change is your issue, man. Fossil fuels got us here, and ending our reliance on them can get us out. But you don’t need us to tell you that.

19. Because you love oil. So maybe you didn’t mind the oily birds and you love driving your car? You should be worried too: according to a report from the U.S. government, the severe storms that are becoming more frequent due to climate change threaten our infrastructure and transportation networks, including the ports and freight lines used to transport oil. The oil-rich Gulf Coast is, as was made painfully clear in 2005, a particularly vulnerable area. Stop climate change in its tracks! Save the oil distribution network!

18. Because you eat rice. It’s a pleasant side dish to you, and for 750 million people, it’s a life-giving staple: rice. But this crucial crop stands to wither in the face of climate change, thanks to rising temperatures, increased flooding, and rats. Yeah, rats—they scurry in after major storms, eat all the rice, and nibble on people too. Care yet?

He speaks truth.Photo: Martin Crook17. Because Stephen Colbert does. Need we say more?

16. Because the Christian Coalition does. Need we pray more?

15. Because it will create jobs. Talk about your silver lining: In the midst of the deepest recession this country has seen in decades, attempts to forestall this global climate scourge could create new jobs in clean-energy industries, weatherization, and other areas. The feds are already steering money toward job training for green professions, and clean-energy legislation now before Congress could create jobs and boost the GDP of every U.S. state.

14.  Because you live near water. Sea levels could rise as much as a meter or more by 2100. That’s enough to put places like Miami, downtown Philadelphia, and parts of Manhattan underwater. How many people live in such vulnerable coastal areas? Oh, just 53 percent of the U.S. population.

13. Because Kardashians interest you more than Katrinas. Who can forget the powerful images beamed around the world when Hurricane Katrina hit: the faces of the forgotten, houses crumpled like paper cups, water washing over everything. And who can forget how they beamed in during your favorite show! So inconsiderate. If this sort of prime-time interruption irritates you, you may want to get involved in the climate fight. Because we’re going to see a lot more storms, and that means a lot more unhappy people beamed in your living room.

12. Because you like breathing. Got lungs? Got a healthy apprecation for fresh air? Well, take a deep breath: warming-induced increases in ground-level ozone and particulate matter are expected to increase respiratory disorders including asthma, and a recent study says more children will be hospitalized over the next decade due to such respiratory problems.

11. Because colorful coral jewelry completes most of your outfits. Prepare to adopt a new accessory, or wear a lot of white necklaces: climate change has led to massive coral bleaching and die-offs. The real problem is the disturbance of the delicate relationship between coral reefs and the teensy organisms that build them and give them color. It’s the foundation of a healthy ocean, which is the foundation of a healthy planet.

10. Because you won’t be able to hold up your end of a conversation with Obama, Lucy Lawless, Glenn Beck, Evander Holyfield, or the Pope if you don’t. You can probably fake it with Miley Cyrus, though.

Fading to black.Photo: burnblue9. Because colorful fall leaves are so pretty. But warmer autumns—and pests that enjoy warmer autumns—are messing with the trees. Duller leaves means less for you to look at, and translates into an economic hit for places like New England that rely on tourism generated by the annual phenomenon.

8. Because you don’t want to serve embarrassing champagne. Rising temperatures are altering the world’s finest champagnes, making the alcohol content “embarrassingly high,” says one British wine critic. How fun! Uh, we meant to say how terrible.

7. Because you like lights to come on when you flip a switch. Remember that blackout in 2003? The one that left 50 million people in the dark? That happened on a hot, hot day when lots of people wanted electricity. Guess what we’re in for more of? Hot, hot days. Guess how much our power grid has improved since then? Not much. For a little bit of Jazzercise for the brain, check out this academic paper on climate’s potential impacts on our power grids and national security—including, oh, crippling our society.

6.  Because: “insect feeding frenzy.” Shudder.

5. Because you support the recycled-soda-bottle fleece industry. What will become of those cozy fleece jackets made from recycled soda bottles? Such an incredible innovation, such a wonderful way forward—but if our northern climes turn temperate and our southern climes turn tropical, no one will wear fleece. And those soda bottles are going right back in the trash.

4. Because you think it’s depressing when old people die alone in hot apartments. Heat waves are the deadliest natural disaster in the U.S.—and the probability of severe heat waves is increasing along with temperatures. If emissions are not reduced, heat waves are projected to double in Los Angeles and quadruple in Chicago. With an aging boomer population, that’s a recipe for one hot mess.

3. Because you think it’s depressing when little kids die. It’s happening. Now. According to Save the Children, 9 million kids die before their fifth birthday each year from diseases that are occurring more frequently because of climate change, which is also affecting access to food and water. What are you, completely heartless?

2. Because everyone at Grist cares. We’re a bunch of (fairly) normal people, with pets and kids and money woes and Twitter obsessions—but we all think this is big. Like, bigger than Elvis. A survey shows that our reasons range from the practical (I live near the coast) to the dire (it’s going to kill my unborn grandbabies). But on one thing we agree: we need to do whatever we can to reverse this course.

1.  Because if we stop climate change, we can stop earnest lists like this. Seriously. We’d rather be doing other stuff too. Like maybe watching that supermodel video again?

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Dearest readers,

OK, so bees might not be your primary concern these days, what with health care and jobs and foreclosures to worry about. But we depend on our buzzing buddies more than you might think: for one thing, they play a key role in producing a third of the food we eat.

So here's an easy way to show your love for the bees this week: tweet!

Through a campaign called Help the Honey Bees (#HelpHoneyBees), Haagen-Dazs is raising funds and awareness. As part of the campaign, from now through November 11, the company will donate $1 per tweet with the proper hashtag, up to 500 per day. The money will support honeybee research at UC Davis. Of course, they could just cough up the $3500 and be done with it ... but that wouldn't be viral and all that good stuff!

Show the world you're as viral as colony collapse disorder ... tweet for the bees today.

And check out my bee hugs video, below. It's one of my favorites. Spread the honey love!

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

There was unfortunate news from PEER recently that the Obamans/NOAA Chief Jane Lubchenco have no plans to consider new marine protected areas. She cited lack of funds as the reason. Hum.

In an era where oceans are under so much pressure, we need to prioritize efforts proven to bring life back to the seas, like MPAs. They work. As Jennifer Jacquet points out at the Guilty Planet blog:

Research by Callum Roberts et al. (2001) published in Science found:

a network of five small reserves in St. Lucia increased adjacent catches of artisanal fishers by between 46 and 90%, depending on the type of gear the fishers used. In Florida, reserve zones in the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge have supplied increasing numbers of world record-sized fish to adjacent recreational fisheries since the 1970s.

But try to tell that to lobby groups like the Recreational Fishing Alliance. The RFA and their allies (marina owners, charter captains, and, ironically enough for them, commercial fishermen) fight MPAs tooth and nail, even though the reserves work to increase the size and probably the numbers of their favored species. They've got a case that MPAs should be based on sound science, of course, but the rhetoric often gets so overblown that it just starts to sound like their being told that they can't fish a certain area is far worse than catching more and bigger fish, elsewhere. Go figure.

Not waiting for the feds or fishermen to come to their senses, an alliance of ocean groups has just released an ad spot (an MPA PSA!) calling for establishment of marine reserves along the Southern California coast. MPAs here would benefit all sorts of marine life from octopus to seals, abalone to otters.

Heal the Bay, Surfrider Foundation, Save Our Coast and Shifting Baselines all had a hand in producing it, and it's got some star power: Bond sexy-man Pierce Brosnan, a guy from Scrubs I like, and some other people. It's for a campaign simply titled MPAs Work. 'Nuff said.

If the spot makes Joe Television stop and watch, it's a great message to get into the collective earhole:

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

You never get a second chance to make No Impact—oh wait, yes you do

A surprising sneak peek at the clothesline revolution

New Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis: Friendly.Photo: National Park ServiceOne weekend this summer, my wife and I ferried across Puget Sound to Olympic National Park, chose a hiking route with the help of an awesomely smart and patient ranger, and set forth from the highest trailhead in the park. We crossed alpine ridges, dropped into a lush valley, frolicsome marmots etc., etc.

It wasn’t until we set up camp hours later that we discovered … I had forgotten our tent. Whoops. We slept under a ramshackle lean-to, and, fortunately, it didn’t rain.

Jonathan Jarvis, the newly confirmed director of the National Park Service, can’t do much to prevent boneheaded moves like mine. Truth be told, when we spoke this week I was too embarrassed to tell him about forgetting a tent. Instead, I asked about his 33 years in the park service, starting with a volunteer stint when he was fresh out of college and culminating later this month with an office view of the National Mall when the 56-year-old moves to Washington to assume his new post. Jarvis has been a park ranger and superintendent in parks across the West—in Alaska, Idaho, Washington state, and California. He raised his family in parks and worked most recently as director of the service’s Pacific West Region, based in Oakland.

In taking charge of one of America’s most beloved public institutions, Jarvis confronts a formidable list of challenges. Chief among them, he says, will be readying the parks for the ongoing effects of climate change.

Detailed in a recent report, those threats include more and fiercer wildfires, receding glaciers, a shift from spring rains to fall rains, and more rainfall on snow. The rainfall changes will increase flooding, says Jarvis.

“All of those are disturbing, of course, and they’re changing the parks in significant ways,” he said. “But they’re also teachable moments that allow us to communicate with the American public about how this climate-change thing is not some theoretical thing that’s only affecting the polar bears, but it’s actually affecting us here close to home.”

When he was superintendent of Mount Rainier National Park, visitors would ask what happened to the ice caves they remembered climbing in as kids.

“Rather than just saying ‘they’re gone’--because they are--there’s an opportunity to tell them that over the last 25 years, the Tahoma Glacier has receded hundreds of yards and the ice caves have disappeared,” he said. “Based on our long-terming monitoring, all the glaciers are receding. There’s strong scientific evidence that this is the result of climate change.”

I asked if climate change would be the foremost message that rangers would teach. That would be silly, Jarvis pointed out.

“There are ways to incorporate climate change into a lot of messages,” he said. “But, you know, it might be hard to have it part of your Civil War battlefield story. You could probably build it in, but it certainly shouldn’t be your predominate story.”

Fair enough. There’s also the issue of shifting habitats—animals and plant species moving in and out of parks in search of cooler or wetter climes, for example. Historically, Jarvis said, the park service has not done well managing at an ecosystem level by working with nearby landowners—private citizens, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service. One exception has been at Yellowstone National Park, where migratory bison have forced the park service to accommodate them. It can learn from this model, he said.

Another top goal, he said, is “to connect all Americans [emphasis his] to their national parks.”

“[Wallace] Stegner’s idea is that parks are democracy at its best,” he said.

I asked him about a fascinating profile of Shelton Johnson, one of a very few black park rangers, who notes that few African Americans visit parks. Jarvis spoke about the EcoHelpers program at Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, which brought nearby urban youth into the park to help with restoration projects. The students then brought their parents to show off their work, in a model Jarvis would like to replicate elsewhere.

By the way, the parks system includes 58 national parks and 333 other units--national monuments, historical parks, battlefields, national lakeshores, seashores and parkways, wilderness areas and other cultural sites.

Does Jarvis’s job still sound fun? Here are a few more challenges:

“You hear stories about kids seeing the Milky Way for the first time, and they didn’t realize that the sky was full of stars, until they got out into these environments,” he said. “It changes them in profound ways. If we can give every American that opportunity … to see the Milky Way, to see wolves in the Lamar Valley of Yellowstone, to see natural fire burning, or to see the salmon running freely up a river--all of those things, I think, create a sense of social responsibility that will carry through the rest of their lives and make them better citizens.”

It’s a romantic notion. I guess the parks have that effect. Let’s end on a proper note:

Related Links:

New photography project provides stark proof of melting glaciers on the roof of the world

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Oil: enough energy to melt glaciers!

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

The following essay was written by William B. Monahan, Senior GIS Scientist with Audubon California.

The Yellow-billed Magpie’s native habitat in California is threatened by climate change.Alison Sheehey / California Audubon SocietyThey traipse through forest, grass and wetland, through mud, rain and even snow. They carry binoculars and take careful notes of everything they see.

These are the folks—thousands of dedicated bird watchers—that for more than 100 years have been taking part in the Audubon Christmas Bird Count, documenting fluctuations in bird populations the old-fashioned way: counting birds one by one, year after year.

Old fashioned as it is, this data has proven invaluable for researchers through several generations. Now, we at Audubon California have found a way to use the work of these volunteers to shed new light on climate change, one of the most challenging issues for bird conservation today.

For years, people have made substantial investments in conservation—billions and billions of dollars—with their fingers crossed that their work won’t simply be erased by climate change in the coming decades. If we’re going to ensure a future for birds and habitats, then we need to understand the changes that are coming.

Modern science provides a number of tools that enable us to create viable models of the potential future impacts of climate change on the environment. However, sophisticated GIS mapping and climate data are even more useful when we have historical information to both generate and test complex models.

Enter all those birders standing in the rain diligently counting Sandhill Cranes, Wilson’s Warblers and hundreds of other bird species in California and across the United States.

The history of scientific discovery is generally one of newer technology and methods replacing old ones: the telescope replacing the naked eye, the transistor replacing the vacuum tube, etc.

But this new work in the area of climate change is different. Once we combine these two technologies—the decidely low-tech counting of birds and the high-tech computer modeling and mapping—we make some surprising discoveries that wouldn’t have been possible with either on their own.

Perhaps the most notable of these is the fact that while the consequences of inaction are still great, we have a startling amount of power to lessen the impacts of global warming on our wildlife and natural landscapes. While climate change could cause significant range declines in up to a third of California’s birds, these impacts can be greatly lessened for many species if we take immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Take, for instance, the Yellow-billed Magpie, a highly social bird that lives only in California’s Central Valley and Coast Ranges. This species could lose as much as 75 percent of its range under the worst emissions scenarios (a loss that in combination with other pressures such as habitat loss due to development would likely result in the bird’s extinction). However, the magpie could lose as little as 9 percent of its range if we take extra strong measures to reduce greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere.

Meanwhile, the California Gnatcatcher, long a barometer for conservation in California, could lose as much as 56 percent of its range, or as little as 7 percent, depending on how well we address climate change.

These findings are quite different from the apocalyptic predictions that often prompt people to ask what possible difference can it make if they drive a hybrid car or use compact fluorescent light bulbs on their porch. What this is telling us is that, with regard to the future impacts of climate change on birds and other wildlife, the die is not cast. Research is increasingly showing us how we can beat climate change to the punch, and protect much of what makes California and the United States special.

Thankfully, California lawmakers have already put this state ahead of the rest of the country when it comes to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, and there will be a move in the coming year to provide even further support to help birds and wildlife adapt to changes in the climate that are already underway. The rest of the country is following closely behind with legislation on the national level.

There are two ways you can help in this effort:

The first is by taking part this December in the Annual Christmas Bird Count (learn more at audubon.org), or in one of Audubon California’s volunteer science projects year-round.

You can also let your representatives in Washington know that you support the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (HR 2454, often called the Waxman-Markey bill), which represents this country’s first real effort to reduce global greenhouse gases. The Audubon Action Center has resources to help you contact your lawmakers.

—

Track the debate and take action >>>Grist Editor’s Note

Climate Citizens call to action: If you receive a response to your letter or email to your senators, pass along the response to the Audubon Society and Grist. Climate Citizens is Grist’s accountability effort to make sure politicians in the nation’s capital speak openly and clearly to the voters about their views on climate change. Email Grist at

Related Links:

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

Bill McKibben says time is running out on climate delays

Let’s look at one of the illegally hacked emails in more detail

Photo: Ralph HockensReason No. 137 that I love commuting by bike in New York City: I get to watch baby hawks go to flight school.

Last year, I was fascinated and then heartbroken by a pair of red-tail hawks that built a precarious-looking nest over the West Side Highway, produced a trio of hatchlings, then lost their offspring before they got a chance to take flight, apparently to rat poison.

So I was happy -- but concerned -- this year when the hawks returned to Riverside Park and took up in a new tree, this time just off the West Side bike path that I frequently ride to work. (New York real estate experts would no doubt call this new nest an upgrade -- it has great views of the Hudson River.)

I didn't watch the pair as closely as I did last year, because I had a newborn of my own that took up most of my attention this spring. But I did check the updates occasionally at blogs that obsessively follow urban hawks, and I always looked up at the nest when I passed by their tree.

Riding home last week, I noticed more commotion than usual. Photographers -- call them hawkarazzi -- were pointing their lenses skyward, and parks employees were surrounding the hawks' tree with a temporary fence and signs warning dog walkers to keep their pooches at bay.

The baby hawks were learning to fly.

I pulled my bike over and craned my neck up with everyone else. I quickly spotted mom and dad high in the branches, watching as their new trio of youngsters tested out their wings. As a new father myself, I felt a shared sense of pride with the plucky birds who -- like me -- call Riverside Drive their home.

Much has been written about the connection that New Yorkers feel with their hawks -- particularly the famous Pale Male, who nested for years on a Fifth Avenue co-op overlooking Central Park that he shared with Mary Tyler Moore. (The Riverside Park hatchlings are likely his descendents.)

For my part, I think it's a sense of validation and connection to nature -- that even here on the island of Manhattan, one of the most densely packed cities in the world, I can see hawks building nests and raising their offspring, and I can do it from the back of my bicycle while riding alongside the majestic Hudson River.

It's one of those hidden treats, those shared experiences that make life in New York so rewarding and exhilarating, despite its daily hassles and challenges and the constant queries from non-New Yorkers along the lines of: "You've got a kid now. When are you going to move out of your tiny apartment and into a real house in the suburbs already?"

If the hawks can make it here, they can make it anywhere -- and so can the rest of us.

I think there's another appeal to hawk watching, as well: A sense that if nature survives and thrives in an environment like New York City, surrounded by all the concrete and chaos, then maybe things aren't as bad as we sometimes fear they are. Maybe the world as we know it will shrug off the pollution of our atmosphere, the changes in temperature, the loss of thousands of species, the massive shifts in climate that science tells us are coming. Maybe nature -- and we -- are tougher than we think.

Of course, that kind of hope can also bring disappointment.

I stopped by the nest again on my ride home last night and learned from my fellow hawk gawkers that one of the three fledglings had been hit by a car and killed. Reports say that it was flying low while carrying a dead rat in its talons -- probably the first meal it had caught on its own. Nature may be resilient, but there are dangers around every turn.

Still, the dead fledgling's siblings hadn't given up. There they were yesterday evening, up in the trees, taking short flights from limb to limb and following their father as he enticed them farther away from the nest with a dead squirrel in his grasp.

I wished the fledglings luck and continued home. Soon, if they survive, the young hawks will fly off for good, leaving an empty nest behind. Surely there are safer places for the adult hawks to raise a family than this busy spot on New York's Upper West Side, but selfishly, I hope they continue to return year after year.

I want to bring my own son here one day, to point up into the trees and hope that he shares my sense of wonder and inspiration at what's learning to soar just above our heads.

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Tweet for the bees

Bicycles, Trauma Centers, and Injury Severity Scores

Dr. Kerry Kriger cracks a smile during his visit to Grist's Seattle HQ.Russ Walker / GristOn Tuesday, the staff at Grist devoured frogs for lunch.  Well, not exactly.

We sat down with conservation biologist Dr. Kerry Kriger of the newly minted nonprofit Save the Frogs! -- one of several stops he's making in Seattle during a country-wide speaking tour. As one of the lone voices raising the alarm for amphibians, Kriger dished about the worst disease ever to hit wildlife, why it's such a big deal that one-third of amphibians are threatened with extinction, and just how many people actually are having frogs for lunch.

A scientist by training, Kriger first became involved with amphibians while in Australia researching how frogs are affected by the fungal disease chytridiomycosis, which currently is decimating frog populations and which may be the worst disease ever recorded to hit a group of organisms. It's the chytrid fungus, and it has caused more than 100 extinctions since the 1970s.

Didn't know frogs were in such shoddy shape? Don't worry, you're the norm. Which is precisely the reason Kriger started Save the Frogs! in the first place. He realized he was writing scientific papers about how bad the situation is globally for frogs, which then got published in journals "normal people don't read." On top of all that, he and other scientists were making recommendations based on that research, but there was no one to carry them out. Kriger figured starting a nonprofit was the best way to fill that void.

His current vision for the organization is simple but powerful: "that everyone in America know that frogs are disappearing." Once general awareness is established, especially among the younger generation, it is Kriger's hope that grassroots and legal action to protect frogs and their habitat will follow.

When asked why the average citizen should care about some dying frogs on a mountain somewhere, Kriger took a minute to measure his answer.

"Frogs have been around 250 million years," he said. "They've outlived the dinosaurs ... But in the last 30, 40, 50 years, they're now going extinct."

Because thin-skinned frogs live both on land and in the water, they are biological indicators of the planet's health -- the proverbial canaries in the coal mine. With over one-third of these species in imminent danger of extinction, what's really alarming is that most of us have no idea what's going on.

If that's not cause for concern, he reasoned, you only have to look as far as human disease and medicine. Little-known fact: 10 percent of Nobel prizes in medicine and physiology recognized research that was performed, in part, by researchers using frogs. Additionally, frogs eat disease-carrying ticks and mosquitoes, reducing the spread of malaria, dengue fever, and other less-than-desirable conditions people don't want to catch.

So where is the ray of sunshine in all of this? Kriger admitted he was rarely asked that question, saying, "Good news comes out occasionally."

However, he went on, individuals can do a lot to reverse the threats to amphibians. A few ways to do this are by supporting organics (keeping harmful pesticides far from frogs), by buying pet or food frogs that are captive-bred and local (America is the second-largest importer of frog legs ... who knew?), and by dropping into casual conversation news of the amphibian extinction crisis (over cocktails, naturally).

If you're interested in hearing more from Kriger, take a look at his list of speaking engagements or contact him to help organize an event in your area. And really, consider skipping the frog legs next time.

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

So long and thanks for all the fish

Tweet for the bees

Photo: Thomas Roche via Flicker

Wolf-people, give a howl for your lupine brethren, who lose federal protection under the Endangered Species Act in much of the northern Rocky Mountains and upper Midwest today.

The Obama administration, in one of its least popular moves with environmentalists, upheld a Bush era decision that gray wolves have returned from the brink of extinction and no longer require federal protection. That decision took effect today, opening the gate for hunting in Idaho and Montana, which share a population of some 1,300 wolves.

Wildlife groups have filed notice that they will sue to overturn the decision, saying state management plans don’t provide enough protection for the species that was listed as endangered in 1974.

Last Friday I proposed that "Save the wolves" campaigns typify a strain of old-school environmentalism that is being swallowed by the much broader movement against climate change. The poster-species for the new environmentalism, the polar bear, faces its own day of reckoning this week:

Greenwire has a piece on the behind-the-scenes tussle over the polar bear decision; look for more on Grist on this later in the week.

Oh, and it's also a big week for a little mountainous mammal, the American Pika, whose high-elevation habitat faces climate disruption. KQED's Climate Watch reports on the pika's prospects for protection, which ride on decisions from the courts and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Photo illustration by Tom Twigg / Grist

Next week brings two milestones in wildlife protection that serve as a lesson in contrasts -- examples of what the environmental movement has been and what it's becoming.

On Monday, gray wolves in Montana, Idaho, and parts of other northern states leave the endangered species list, designated as an officially "recovered" species. Once driven nearly to extinction, the wolves will fall under the watch of state management -- which includes hunting -- following the Obama Interior Department's decision in March to sign off on a delisting process put in motion on George W. Bush's watch.

Later in the week, the legal status of polar bears will become clearer when the Obama administration must decide whether to overturn a last-minute Bush move that denied the arctic mammals key protections under the Endangered Species Act. Acknowledging that the polar bear is threatened by a melting habitat, Bush officials still ruled that endangered species protections cannot apply to causes originating outside of their habitat (in other words, the greenhouse gas emissions heating up the polar regions). Obama has until May 9 to overturn the decision; otherwise, it stands.

Two different species located in very different places -- what's the connection?

The wolf story is a chapter in the environmental movement's decades-long efforts to protect specific species and eco-systems -- a campaign descended directly from "save the whales" and "stop the logging." Protecting the polar bear, however, is all about confronting the existential threat of global warming.

Wolf, meet bear. When it comes to saving the planet, you're just a sideshow.

Gray wolves are a classic "old environmentalism" problem. Humans threatened the species in a very localized way: they shot too many wolves and settled in their habitat. Local ecosystems were disrupted, and when the federal government introduced a Rocky Mountain recovery plan in 1995, it tried to balance the interests of local parties, such as cattle and sheep farmers. Environmentalists fought for stronger protections through their long-preferred method -- lawsuits. This continues: a coalition led by Earthjustice will sue to overturn the wolf decision in June, once a 60-days-notice requirement has been met.

For years the Bush administration sought to remove wolves from the endangered species list, and wolf advocates twice blocked the move in court. When Interior Secretary Ken Salazar upheld the Bush policy in March (it had been put on hold by the new administration), it was like, well, upholding a Bush environmental policy -- exactly the opposite of what many in the environmental community expected.

In public and private statements, Interior officials have framed wolves' resurgence as a success story -- what the Endangered Species Act intended. They cite the wolf population across the Northern Rockies -- about 1,600, including about 100 breeding pairs -- and evidence that wolf packs in three distinct areas (Yellowstone ecosystem, central Idaho, and northwest Montana) have enough contact to interbreed and ensure genetic diversity.

"The population has really come back from the brink," said Seth Willey, a Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regional recovery coordinator in Denver. "There's been scientific consensus on this for a long time."

The delisting hinges on management plans submitted by the states. Montana's and Idaho's plans were approved, though the department rejected Wyoming's trigger-happy plan [PDF] as inadequate, so wolves will remain federally protected in that state.

Wildlife groups find the Montana and Idaho plans nearly as troubling; Idaho, in particular, would allow hunters to reduce the current population to 104 animals, down from a current count of 778. Idaho Gov. Butch Otter (R) famously said he would be first line for a wolf hunting license.

"We've made all this progress," said Noah Greenwald, a conservation biologist at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Instead of continuing with that and ensuring the wolves recover to a larger area of their historic range, we're going to shut the door and allow them, particularly Idaho, to reduce their population to the point where it's questionable they're going to be viable."

Suzanne Stone, an Idaho field conservationist for Defenders of Wildlife, a leading wolf advocacy group, questioned whether the Rocky Mountain populations are sufficiently connected, as FWS claims. She said federal recovery goals are based on an outdated 1987 plan [PDF].

"Since that time, wildlife scientists have repeatedly warned that the original wolf recovery goals were set too low and in order to reach a recovered metapopulation, the northern Rockies wolf population needs to be much larger than a few hundred wolves," she wrote in an email. "... Genetic scientists have also confirmed that when our regional wolf population reached 450 wolves region wide (the current requirement for delisting), the wolf population was still disconnected and not functioning as a metapopulation by providing genetic connectivity between all three subpopulations."

The Interior Department maintains its plans are based on the best available science. The government's recovery findings were detailed in the Federal Register [PDF] on April 2, written largely by wolf recovery architect Ed Bangs. Further, said spokesperson Hugh Vickery, the Endangered Species Act compels a species to be delisted when it has recovered, meaning Salazar's decisions was less a judgment call than a requirement.

"How the decision is made is clearly spelled out in the law," Vickery said. "If the best available science says to do it, we have to do it."

The department's handling of the announcement didn't win it any friends. Wildlife groups that had worked on the issue for years resented being caught off guard by the announcement.

"It's too soon to pass judgment on how [Salazar] will ultimately do as secretary, but certainly it was a warning flag that more needs to be done to arrive at these decisions carefully, that more communication needs to occur," said Bob Irvin, the senior vice president for wildlife at Defenders.

Congressional supporters of continued protections also felt left in the dark on announcement. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) wrote to Salazar asking him to delay the effective date (he did not). She also questioned whether the Endangered Species Act allows the department to single out a particular area -- Wyoming -- for continued protection, a point Defenders of Wildlife also raises.

A staff member for Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), another longtime wolf advocate, said simply that Dicks found the announcement unexpected, disagreed with it, and had spoken to Salazar about it.

Defenders of Wildlife filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents showing whether Salazar looked at any new research before making the "scientifically flawed" decision. It's awaiting a response, Irvin said.

"We're very disappointed in the [wolf] decision, but it's way too early to draw any lines between it and future administration actions," said Andrew Wetzler, endangered species project director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This is a bad decision among a number of good decisions."

Unlike gray wolves, the threat to polar bears' habitat isn't local. It won't be fixed with a regional management plan, which can't address greenhouse gases from tailpipe emissions in Los Angeles or coal plants in India. It won't be fixed with a typical lawsuit -- wildlife advocates can't litigate a national (or global) climate change plan into existence.

True, polar bears are furry and loveable (from a distance!), and much like wolves inspire awe at nature's untamed predators. Like wolves, they require protection from local habitat destruction. But polar bears have become the poster-species for the issue that defines the new environmental movement -- one that concerns itself less with charismatic species than with the tremendous disruption to human life that climate change will bring.

On its surface, the wolf delisting puts President Obama in an awkward spot -- upsetting a key plank in the Democratic platform -- environmental voters -- and complicating the clean break he's tried to make from Bush's environmental policies. The political sensitivity of the decision was made clear by the fact that Salazar's announcement back in March came on a Friday afternoon, the classic time for downplaying unpopular news, and was issued with no comment from the White House.

But if the White House upholds the Bush decisions on wolves, it may show that Obama is making a political calculation. The president's selection of Salazar, a Colorado senator with a fairly strong environmental record and deep family ties to ranching, can be seen as a signal of the president's belief that it's more important to mediate culturally charged western states issues like wolves and save political ammunition for the bigger challenge -- enacting a comprehensive strategy for combating climate change.

"The science makes it so clear that the polar bear is threatened by greenhouse gas emissions, and it's such a well-known species, that they should be considering rescinding [the Bush-era rule]. I think it's still possible they will," said Greenwald of the Center for Biological Diversity.

Overturning the Bush exception, Greenwald said, could lend additional weight to efforts to strengthen auto-efficiency standards and block offshore drilling and oil shale development.

Interior Department Press Secretary Kendra Barkoff said the department had not yet decided on the polar bear rule. A decision must come by next Saturday.

More Information and How You Can Take Action

Related Links:

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Hot planet to Obama: What’s your Plan B?

Hoppy Save the Frogs Day!As I've mentioned before, frogs and other amphibians are doing about as well as the global financial system. The good news is that even though the Year of the Frog (2008) is over, we still have the first annual Save the Frogs Day to get hopped up about the plight of amphibians. Happy Save the Frogs Day!

Besides frogs being indicators of ecosystem health, keeping Egyptian Pharaohs in check, and helping create breakthroughs in medicine, I've found another handy reason to support amphibian conservation: saving frogs fights climate change!

Let's examine a list of top threats to frogs:

Now let's look at how addressing these threats fights climate change:

In honor of Save the Frogs Day, learn more about threats to amphibians worldwide, tell your representative that you support strong climate legislation, and blow a virtual kiss to frogs via these and these handy tips for frog-friendly living.

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Tweet for the bees

Roll-up for the world’s largest mangrove planting project

60 Minutes had an extraordinary piece by Bob Simon this weekend on how U.S. poison manufacturer FMC is exporting Furadan (banned in Europe and strictly controlled in the United States) to Kenya, where it's being used to poison lions, leading to an 85 percent drop in their population:

Call FMC at 215-299-6000 to let the company know what you think about how it continues to manufacture such a dangerous poison, or email them here.

Related Links:

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Because nothing signals a democracy on the mend like a profusion of czars, salmon defenders are now calling for a federal salmon czar.

According to Wikipedia my deep and nuanced understanding of Russian history, we can expect a salmon czar to quickly go drunk with power, lord over peasant salmon, and assassinate political rivals in fits of paranoid rage.

Or, you know, coordinate various government bureaucracies and administrate a sensible management plan.

"It would be better to have one Washington, D.C. office with real power to deal with salmon issues, instead of the highly dispersed and dysfunctional mish-mash that now governs," writes the Daily Astorian editorial board.

But, really, can't they find more democratic titles for these new positions?

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Tweet for the bees

James Bond calls for more marine protected areas

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Tweet for the bees

This Halloween, cut flesh for the climate

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Related Links:

The tar sands blow

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Oil: enough energy to melt glaciers!

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Disappearing slave history

Tweet for the bees

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving

The North Face, Aspen, and climate policy

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Tweet for the bees

James Bond calls for more marine protected areas

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

A Penny Saved Is…

Tweet for the bees