US Government: polar bear is a threatened species

It's wonderful news that polar bears now get protected, so they won't be hunted. Also, it's welcome news that government acknowledges that greenhouse gas emissions do cause damage; this should translate into further steps to reduce emissions.

Sam, at least try to check the facts. The 2008 ice pack coverage in the artice is at normal levels. Despite the howling of Alarmst who have an aversion to actually checking a fact, the summer of 2008 promises to be cooler than normal.

Recent cold snap helping Arctic sea ice, scientists find

There's an upside to the extreme cold temperatures northern Canadians have endured in the last few weeks: scientists say it's been helping winter sea ice grow across the Arctic, where the ice shrank to record-low levels last year.

Temperatures have stayed well in the -30s C and -40s C range since late January throughout the North, with the mercury dipping past -50 C in some areas.

Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the sea ice expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared to the average winter coverage in the previous three years.

"It's nice to know that the ice is recovering," Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, told CBC News on Thursday.

displaying satellite images that showed that Arctic sea ice had fallen to its lowest level ever recorded, 39% below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000.

Again, let's try to speak to science rather than Alarmism. The lowest level ever recorded for arctic pack ice was 1922. The lowest level recorded by satelitte was 2007.

It is now the middle of May and ice has yet to clear from the lakes in nothern Minnesota, much less the arctic. Further north - people are still ice fishing.

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

"D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

"This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s," says Mr. Lockwood. "I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all."

hmm, they are endangered but their numbers are increasing?

and of course while the Arctic has problems, the Antarctic regions are thicker and more expansive than ever...

Political rubbish, the NOAA reported earlier this year that the Arctic sea ice was at and exceeded those levels earlier this year. Another fact is Polar Bear population is stable, this "pre-emptive" listing is bull and is meant to keep us from going after our own oil resources.
It is getting to the point that as Americans we need to establish a revolt against this purposeful harming of our ability to pursue our lives.
Endangered Polar Bears my ass, do some real research and you will see their population is stable and no where near threatened.
We are a free people, but we are being shackled by leftists using contrived environmental issues to destroy our ability to supply ourselves with cheap energy, to be able to compete in the world markets , to BE Americans.
Why don't we just label ourselves endangered, I mean eventually the Sun is going to go Supernova.
Amazing howso many lack any sort of logical thinking skills as a result of being educated by our illustrious left wing liberal educators, they really molded together a bunch of brainless wonders that believe every crock put in front of them.

good news article, sam. My spin on this was considerably less charitable in my article, but you were trying to be fair. I don't even try any more.

The polar bear population has not yet thinned substantially, but if we have a few more years like last year we will lose most of them. That in essence is what the scientists are saying. Of course the denial squad will have none of this, but it is what it is.

I note that this announcement from the EPA was essentially meaningless talk that will be followed by no action. They were forced to make this ruling by a federal judge, very much against their will. The Bush administration is paranoid on the topic of climate change and had asked them to stonewall it until January. This policy of no action will end in January, no matter who is elected our next president, because even McCain has indicated that he parts company with George on this subject.

How do you ensure the future of the polar bear species without taking action against climate change? Well, let's see, you could build an enormous rubber floating imitation ice shelf extending out from shore into the arctic sea, with little round holes in it every half mile or so, so that polar bears will still be able to ambush seals as they come up to take a breath of air. Hey let's do that, maybe it would only cost a few trillion...

This is a quote from a Candian online news site:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080515.POLAR15/TPStory/National"


"Our scientists in the field as well as Inuit elders have observed an overall increase in the polar bear population," Mr. Okalik said in a statement. "The truth is that polar bear populations are at near record levels.""


Those who are following this drumbeat are ignorant buffoons, nothing more , nothing less, you think putting a species on an endangered list just because you think they might become endangered down the road is typical liberal thinking.
Man-made Global warming has no basis is fact, but you wan to protect us from it "just in case".
Tiny little insignificant people with a need to follow a cause whether it is real or not. and it is not. Sounds like the lemmings Hitler duped into following his vision of a world run by Fascists, in fact if anyone disavows this hoax, we get treated like those who opposed fascism in Hitler's time.
Too bad for you , there isn't going to be a Krystal nacht. You are wrong and the numbers of people growing intolerant of this bullsnot is growing

good news article

In other words, Chris, great article because it ignores the facts while hyping irrational fears.

Here are the facts, the arctic pack ice reduction in 2007 was NOT the result of global warming, but rather was the result of the periodic oscillation in arctic current.

We know we are never going to see science out of you guys, but when might we expect a little honesty?

From Science Daily: Winds, Ice Motion Root Cause Of Decline In Sea Ice, Not Warmer Temperatures

Extreme changes in the Arctic Oscillation in the early 1990s -- and not warmer temperatures of recent years -- are largely responsible for declines in how much sea ice covers the Arctic Ocean, with near record lows having been observed during the last three years, University of Washington researchers say.

It may have happened more than a decade ago, but the sea ice appears to still "remember" those Arctic Oscillation conditions, according to Ignatius Rigor, a mathematician with the UW's Applied Physics Laboratory and a presenter at the American Geophysical Union's annual fall meeting this week in San Francisco.

The Arctic Oscillation is a seesaw pattern in which atmospheric pressure at the polar and middle latitudes fluctuates between positive and negative phases. The wind patterns associated with the Arctic Oscillation affect the surface winds and temperature over North America and Eurasia, as well as the Arctic.

The Arctic Oscillation was in an extreme "high," or positive, phase in the early '90s and is generally in a moderate phase today. Rigor and John M. Wallace, UW professor of atmospheric sciences, say the extreme high caused winds at the surface to circulate in ways that blew most of the thicker, older ice out of the Arctic Ocean into the Atlantic.

"It was as if winds generated in response to the Arctic Oscillation in those years became a far bigger 'broom' sweeping ice out of the arctic," Rigor says.

At the same time, changes in surface winds started causing the already thin ice to re-circulate back to the Alaska coast more quickly, decreasing the time it had to thicken before another melt season started. Today the ice in places remains just too thin to last through the summer melt, he says.

The result is that 70 percent of the ice is 3 years old or younger, Rigor says. In the 1980s, some 80 percent of the ice was 20 to 30 years old or more. As for ice extent -- the area of the ocean covered by ice -- last summer was again among the record low years, nearly 15 percent lower than average. With a wintertime ice pack roughly the size of the United States, that's like having areas equivalent to the states of Texas and Colorado melt away. In the 1980s, it was more an area the size of Rhode Island

Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Forecasting Expert Asserts - May 10, 2008

I thought it was quite telling that the main interest expressed was: "Secretary Kempthorne Announces Decision to Protect Polar Bears under Endangered Species Act Rule will allow continuation of vital energy production in Alaska"

Seems the U.S. Department of the Interior isn't concerned about the Bears, their main concern is the effect it would have on energy production in Alaska.

I've been baffled why the scientific community has never mentioned the connection between Artic/Antartic Ice conditions and underwater volcanic activity.
El Nina & El Nino both are influenced by the warming of waters in the Pacific. All one needs do is review ocean currents and underwater exposure to the regolith flows.
Increased volcanic activity warms the surrounding waters, that water gets pushed around the planet via the ocean currents. Now thats not to say adding another form of stress on top of this activity wouldn't compound the matter.
Similar to the situation developing in China and Burma as we speak.

Child-killing virus ~ There is no vaccine and no treatment

The stress of the earthquake is going to spread this virus like wildfire.

If the polar bears are really dwindling in number, let's capture and breed them. That seems to have worked pretty well for bald eagles, Northern grey wolves, snail darters, spotted owls, and a bunch of other animals that are now thriving.

No need to sign on to a disaster like Kyoto.

It's cheaper to just round up all the polar bears. They are usually show-stoppers at most zoos. I think they'd immediately be superstar attractions in this nation's zoos, as there is a major shortage of them in captivity these days.

Did you know that global transportation...all the cars, trucks, airplanes, ships, locomotives and buses on the planet account for about 14% of the total man made carbon emissions (CO2)? Coal fired power plants contribute about 24%. This is alarming and you may have already been aware of these numbers, but hold on...I'll bet you didn't know that of the total CO2 emissions into our atmosphere, the man made CO2 emissions and all other man made emissions only account for about %0.28 of the total green house gases. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Yep...the vast majority of green house gases are generated by the earth itself....over 99%. The biggest culprit as far as global warming is concerned is water vapor. It's a green house gas too.

I am not advocating not taking care of our planet, but as far as green house gases are concerned, we are less responsible than has been reported...meaning there is less we can do to which will have a positive impact on the reduction of green house gases.

Bret that is a really weird idea, round up the polar bears and breed them all in captivity. The polar bears have a right to be there, and at this time, we can agree that their population exceeds several thousand and is not yet in an immediate danger of extinction in the wild. If it should decline to several hundred, then I will agree with you. But which thing do you believe, that climate change is real, or that it is a conspiracy of liberal scientists? If it is real, the polar bears would probably spend the next few milennia in captivity because the arctic will soon no longer be suitable habitat for them. If it is a conspiracy of pseudo science, then there is no need to capture them because they are fine where they are. I am just asking for clarity.

Chris w...Please ignore Bret if you can. He is just out for sport. His sarcasm is in full swing and the full moon is still a few days away.

What are you smokin', Bret?

Chris -

I have no problem with cleaning up the planet, just for the sake of being good stewards of the planet.

However, I still remember how scientists were so intensively adamant in the 70's that the planet was cooling. They were absolutely certain of it!

Now, those same scientists are absolutely certain that the planet is warming. They are absolutely certain of it!

Consider me skeptical.
I think a lot of the university climatological and research folks are tree-huggers, and would never speak against their own. Hey, their grant money might get pulled if they publicly stated that Global Warming is a fraud. Why would any of them go against their own self-interest?

Let's let more data come in.

Earlier this month, Chris asked: Does anyone care to make a wager what the extent will be of the ice cover in 2008?

Well, on April 30, scientists at the University of Colorado at Boulder predicted that Arctic sea ice will reach another record low in 2008. For 2008, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) also predicts another extreme and presents an animation showing ice changes over the past decades. Below is a NSIDC graph showing ice extent from 1979 to 2006. Do you think the downward trend will continue as it has on the graph below? I believe the line will have to be adjusted downwards. Further below is a NASA satellite image from September 16, 2007, of the Arctic, showing the smallest amount of ice cover ever photographed by satellite.

On making a wager, that may appeal to those who see all this as a game. But apart from looking at the odds of events taking place or not, let's take a look at the consequences of getting it wrong. If we reduce emissions as we should, we will gain in all respects. But if we don't change our ways... well, perhaps it's best compared with Russian roulette, where a six-shot revolver gives a 1/6 (or 17%) chance of a lethal discharge. What is the chance that all the scientific studies on climate change are wrong? In terms of Russian roulette, it's comparable to - say - fully loading a 1000-round machine gun and taking one bullet out somewhere, before holding the gun to your head. And why should we be so stupid, even more stupid that a drunken Russian soldier? And for what? For the greater profit of the oil companies?

Gregg, you write:
>>The 2008 ice pack coverage in the artice is at normal levels. <<

Where have you been in the past few years? In a coma?

The northwest passage through the arctic circle above Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Norway and Russia has for the first time in human recorded history thinned so much as to become navigable by ordinary ship. The only reason there might be more precipitation in the arctic winter with global warming -- and this is a unique phenomenon since most of the arctic landmass actually is a desert -- is due to the increased rate of water evaporation from the oceans that then fall as snow in the arctic.

When I studied the models for this in the 1970's, most oceanographers and environmental scientist then generally suggested that there would go at least a century with elevating greenhouse gases before what now already has happened would happen. We have only begun to empirically better understand the hugely non-linear, interactive "hierarchy" of natural systems that "reveal themselves" slightly in the macrocosm through, eg, global climate change, and countless small microcosms... like reindeer in Norway dying because of blood-loss by mosquito (with global warming and increased precipitation in the arctic, mosquitoes go wild.)

Well, all this mess by human greed in the various ecological structures that sustain life has resulted in the chaos we now see in or world. Due to simple entropy, environmental stressors can just as easily result in the social chaos of war, famine, pandemics... as the current living organism extinction rate of three per hour. Yes, every hours now some 3 species of life go extinct.

Some fatalists might suggest that all this is a reality of evolution anyways. Well, if that's the case, why do we have an intelligence looking back on our mess to try and undo it?

Oh, I see many of my friends above have already answered Gregg's rather comatose comment.

Sam Carana -

Let's get the Europeans, Chinese and Russians to kick in the first money to "combat Global Warming".................whatever that may mean. Where do you start spending that money?

Do we just need a few thousand snow machines at the North Pole?

I've heard a lot of people on Gather grouse about the problem, but almost nobody put forth a good plan to stop or reverse it.

Nice posting about the Polar Bear. A dirty rotten shame what we have done to our earth in selfishness.... It really saddens me... :(

as Americans we need to establish a revolt against this purposeful harming of our ability to pursue our lives?

Really Keith Kalish,

Pursue our lives huh?

Let me guess, without illegal aliens, or homosexuals or poor people.

Spoken like a true servile minion for the Republican power bosses.

the ability to pursue our lives?

what about the lives of the people who were killed in an unjust war?

How do you rationalize their lives at your young republican meetings?

Bret: "..almost nobody put forth a good plan to stop or reverse it."

I propose a Framework of Greenhouse Gas FeeBates, which is the most effective way to achieve an 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

Sam Carana -

Who pays the bill for a Global cleanup? As I understand it, that was a big sticking-point with Kyoto.

we will all pay for the consequences of inaction. The "tragedy of the commons" dictates that it is easier to get humans to compete on who will be the first to use up a shared resource than it is to get humans to forge an agreement on sharing costs and burdens.
nonethless that agreement will need to be forged and the sooner the better.

Bret: "Who pays the bill for a Global cleanup? As I understand it, that was a big sticking-point with Kyoto."

The sticking point with Kyoto was the Bush administration. We're now talking about a post-Kyoto agreement and all presidential candidates support this. There are clean and safe ways to produce electricity and they are price-competitive with fossil fuel, while cost of fossil fuel keeps rising. Over time and with economies of scale prices of electric cars will fall and they will be far cheaper than gasoline cars. Burning biowaste by means of pyrolysis can produce hydrogen and AgriChar, which can improve soil fertility and water retention, reducing the need for nitrogen fertilizers. Moreover, it's a way to store carbon into the soil. All such developments can be facilitated by means of a Framework of Greenhouse Gas FeeBates that are budget-neutral and do not result in a government bureaucracy that is dependent on tax revenues, in fact such feebates can phase themselves out as the desired shift eventuates. With such feebates, the polluter pays to help facilitate the shift and we're all better off as a result.

Brett,

It is very simple to reverse it. You just take personal responsibility in your own daily actions and decisions -- like what you buy, how you buy and sell, who you vote for etc. In this way, you take more and more personal responsibility for how the "marketplace" in your immediate environment impacts our global biocultural ecology.

We can bitch and moan over the who's, why's, where's, how's etc of global warming and its relatives, war, starvation, terrorism, pandemics etc etc. We can point fingers at governments and industry. But the simple fact is that the only change any of us can implement is how our personal day to day activities either are smart or stupid.

Bent -

I already do what you've suggested.
In fact, I've gone one further than almost everyone else on Gather...............I sold my car, thus reducing my carbon footprint down to almost nothing.

However, I don't see folks like Al Gore doing the same. It's the hypocrisy of people like Al who really make me question this movement's sustainability. I mean, if he isn't doing it.............

Chris/Sam/Bent -

I want to know who is going to cough up the hard currency to get a good global cleanup moving.

I don't care about "feebates" or tax-neutral initiatives. Those are WAY down the road, once this is already a well-managed system.

I want to know who is being asked to come up with the STARTUP Dollars, Euros, Yuan, Rupees, Rubles, etc. Who?

Brett, your comment above sounds like how the financial risk management team walked all over human suffering for Ford Motor Co., deciding it was cheaper to deceive the public for ten years about the Pinto, maintain the capitalistic status quo, and pay their lawyers to fight hard and pay low when life/limb-loss damages were adjudicated on behalf of those wealthy and empowered enough to take on the highest paid army of lawyers in the world at the time.

How absurd and like a stupid male chimp who decides to run up a tree, display, and attempt to fight for dominance at the approach of a hurricane.

How do you assess the suffering and loss of life among billions of people who are being deceived by the G-8, the World Bank, most western governments? How do you assess the financial catastrophes our current market structure is taking us towards from so many various vectors, like mythological lemmings leaping from an arctic cliff (they don't actually quite do that, by the way)? How do you assess the loss of entire major coastal and river cities, as their populations struggle to survive the pandemics, wars and other chaoses resulting from the collapse of their infrastructures? How do you assess the loss of billions of childhoods, generations forever having lost their cultural heritages of survival and countless possibilities of where humanity could go to explore the virtually limitless horizons of the universe... when all we - who are mostly responsible for this mess - do is greedily consume to satisfy here and now lusts while constantly reacting to those on the bottom of the pyramid as they rebel against being capitalized upon?

It's very simple, Brett.

Just take a walk of a different type on the Internet, using key words like "solution", "impact", "global warming" "suffering" and "economics".

You'll find that actually all the answers are there, like incredibly exciting horizons for us to pursue in the name of life, liberty and happiness. There are far more people on this planet who are silently working hard on the solutions than the few, from DC to the hills of Afghanistan, who saber rattle to preserve their various self destructive ideologies.

Sad that so many life forms must be fought for, including ourselves. Care 2 Petition Site has some great info and links. Ellen B

Nice article by the way, if someone is not on the "watch", the children will lose another species. Ellen B

We lose 3 species now every hour, 24-7, Ellen

Bret: "I want to know who is going to cough up the hard currency to get a good global cleanup moving."

I'm not sure what you mean with your global cleanup, Brett, but what's needed most now is a cleanup of politics. All it takes for that is for people to vote.

"I don't care about "feebates" or tax-neutral initiatives. Those are WAY down the road, once this is already a well-managed system."

Feebates are most urgent, in order to facilitate the shifts that need to take place.

"I want to know who is being asked to come up with the STARTUP Dollars, Euros, Yuan, Rupees, Rubles, etc. Who?"

I don't know what kind of project you want to start, Bret, but to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, feebates are most effective. No "start-up" investments are required for that, the polluters will pay fees that will fund rebates on better alternatives.

I've often thought, Sam, that any "risky behavior that is on the marketplace," such as plastic, cigarettes, gasoline etc etc. ought to be taxed as proportional as possible to the cost of cleaning up the mess it leaves behind, including assessments of products outsourced based on the industry's more local impacts on their less-protected environments and labor force, for a few examples. IE, cigarettes then would pay for a lot of public health and the marketplace will compete strongly to produce the least risk- and cost-prohibitive products.

Bent: "We lose 3 species now every hour, 24-7, Ellen"

Please read my new article, Save the Rainforest.

Odd, isn't it, that part of the driving force that is decimating the Amazon, had to do with what many thought was a good idea back in the 70's: 1st generation biofuels via sugar cane and soy beans.

I agree, Bent, what should be incorporated in the purchase price is the cost to clean up the damage and remedy harm that is inflicted on the environment in the process of manufacturing, usage and disposal. It will take us some time to get there, I'm keen to see the national bottle recycling bill approved. For now, it's most urgent to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and feebates are most effective to facilitate this. Of course, there's a lot to be done out in terms of education, restoration, helping those who are harmed, finding better alternatives, etc.

Bent: "Odd, isn't it, that part of the driving force that is decimating the Amazon, had to do with what many thought was a good idea back in the 70's: 1st generation biofuels via sugar cane and soy beans."

Yes, global warming has only recently received more attention. But many better alternatives (such as electric cars) have been around for a long time. One of the problems is that scientists keep analyzing the probelms, rather than that they speak out on solutions, especially when politics get involved. I believe that th ehuge amount of public funding that goes to scientific research comes with a duty for scientists to speak out, but all too often scientists are overruled or contractually restricted at their place of work.

Sam, have you read about the huge and growing garbage island floating out in the middle of a seldom-journeyed region of the mid-Pacific, due to a Coriolis action type circulation of oceanic currents. It is being fed by all the city effluents, river pollutions of the Pacific Crest, and that is a huge population. I'm too busy at the moment to write an article about it... but thought you'd be interested in researching and writing about that one.

That's a great topic for a new article, Bent, thanks!

Good to see that some people do speak out on things. Good article and topic, Sam.

Sam Carana -

"I don't know what kind of project you want to start, Bret, but to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, feebates are most effective. No "start-up" investments are required for that, the polluters will pay fees that will fund rebates on better alternatives."

Would India, China, and Russia be included in that as well, or would this be another unilateral bail-out by the USA?

Bret: "Would India, China, and Russia be included in that as well, or would this be another unilateral bail-out by the USA?"

We need an international commitment to reduce emissions. Such an agreement can and will be reached by 2009 at the latest, since all US presidential candidates support this. Emissions from India are insignificant, and China and Russia will also agree, especially if we use the threat of tariffs on products from non-cooperative nations. The EC is ready to impose such tariffs. The agreement should leave it up to each nation to implement effective policies.

Meanwhile, we should already start shifting to electric cars and to energy that is clean and safe. This will give us a technological lead, it will create many domestic jobs and reduce oil imports, which will benefit the national debt and budget deficits, as well as the environment.

Feebates are the most effective way to achieve this and we should start with this now. We should implement a framework of FeeBates, including fees imposed on new gasoline cars, with the proceeds used to fund rebates on electric cars. Another FeeBate should impose fees on fossil fuel, with proceeds used to fund rebates on purchase and installation of wind turbines and solar facilities.

I couldn't agree with you more on the electric cars plan. I want to get one of the new Tesla's myself. I think that type of vehicle would kick us off our addiction, and return the Middle East to a docile position in the world.

However, I don't want to see the US foot the bill every single time. We do far too much of that already.

And Sam, leaving India or China out of a global agreement like this is stupid. They are huge and growing................and produce LOTS of pollution. Ever been there? The cities are the filthiest I've ever seen..............and that includes Beijing, which doesn't hold a candle to Mumbai.

As I said, Bret, I'm convinced that China will join an international commitment to reduce emissions, in the face of threats that tariffs will be imposed on products from polluting nations. The EC is ready to impose such tariffs. India will also join, since its emissions are not very significant in the first place. Moreover, the commitment to reduce emissions will lead to financial gains, not costs. Reducing oil imports makes financial sense, and so does the creation of job opportunities in areas like electric cars, solar and wind energy, making the electric grid smarter, etc. Reducing pollution will also reduce illness and will help the environment and species that are under threat. It's a win/win situation in so many respects. What bill are you talking about? The possibility that oil companies may not make the obscene profits they are making now?

bill = Kyoto

I'm not that concerned about the oil companies. Their net profits are within the customary range...............around 8%. I get all the oil company prospecti each quarter.

But they aren't the ones really reaping the big dollars. No, that would be the OPEC nations. I would love to see them starved back to the Stone Ages.

The undeserved profits of oil companies are the product of the Bush administration's support for oil companies. These profits have in many ways come at the expense of the environment and of the much-needed clean technologies such as solar and wind energy. Have a look at this record of the Bush administration's conduct. You may be a Bush supporter, but in doing so you represent a tiny minority view. All presidential candidates promise to give the environment more support and it's nonsense to suggest that the opposite will happen.

Sam Carana -

I have never seen the term "undeserved profits" on any company's P&L, balance sheet, or cash flow statement.

And 8% is well within the norm for a major corporation in this country. You just don't like what they do to make that 8%. Am I right?

Incidentally, I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter.............but still a Conservative Democrat.

Bloomberg, February 1, 2008: Exxon Mobil made over $40 billion profit in 2007 and had a 28% return on capital employed, despite the fact that crude output from Exxon Mobil wells fell 6.4%. Chevron posted a fourth-quarter profit of $4.88 billion. ConocoPhillips reported a fourth-quarter profit of $4.37 billion. Shell's net income was $8.47 billion.

The cause of these obscene profits is the price of oil, which keeps rising as the Bush administration keeps sabotaging the shift to clean and safe technology that we need. I'm calling for impeachment of Bush. In addition to the link I gave above, James just published an article about the congressional investigation into the conduct of the Bush administration regarding the EPA. The impeachment of Bush should lead to retrospectively charging oil companies high fees on their previous sales and using the money for rebates on clean and safe facilities, such as solar and wind energy.

Sam Carana -

"Return on capital employed" is not a term you'll see in any accounting statement. It's a term that you use to go and get a loan, when you want to puff up your books. Know why? Because it is very misleading, and doesn't take into account a lot of the costs on the cash flow statement.

"Obscene" profits, Sam?
8% is not that obscene. In fact, 8% is rather ordinary. Pretty good in a down year like this one, but nothing exceptional.

You can call for the Impeachment of Mr. Bush all you want. But you'd better come prepared for battle when you accuse a President of something. I hope you have something far better than the Center for Constitutional Studies' "Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush". A couple of University of Chicago law professors here in town totally tore it to pieces on CNN, as "wishful thinking" on the part of the two authors. I read it and agreed.

So Sam.............what charges are you thinking will be filed against Mr. Bush?
And why haven't those charges been filed yet?
When will they be filed?

What makes profits of over $40 billion and returns of 28% obscene is that they came at the expense of the environment. Moreover, this was inflicted by a president who didn't honor the promise "to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", but who instead put his personal interest before the interests of the country and indeed the entire world. Impeachment procedures have already started, among other things with the Senate investigation into the way Bush influenced the EPA.

Sam Carana -

The profits on Big Oil are an average of 8% this year, and there just aren't that many of them to spread it around on. $40 billion sounds like a lot, but not when you realize that you're talking about a half dozen of the biggest companies in the world.

We may talk glowingly of "green" and "clean" fuels into the future, but we have to live with "dirty" fuels until then. Otherwise, expect the green equivalent of $20 per gallon at the pump.

Impeachment proceedings have begun, Sam? Where?
Name the committee in the House who's doing that.

For a long list of reasons why Bush should be impeached, have a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush.
You can add the obscene situation of oil companies making billion dollar profits, skyrocketing gasoline prices, large-scale pollution and destruction of the environment, and while you may say that there was "nothing exceptional" about this situation, this situation has been created by politicians who chose for oil at the expense of the safe and clean alternatives that we need instead. As I said, Bush has put his personal interest before the interests of the country and indeed the entire world. Time is running out to get Bush impeached before the presidential election of November 4th, but I'm convinced that both Bush and the oil companies will be made to pay for the damage they have inflicted.

Bret: "Impeachment proceedings have begun, Sam? Where?"

H.RES.1258
Title: Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] (introduced 6/10/2008) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 6/11/2008 House floor actions. Status: On motion to refer the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 251 - 166 (Roll No. 401).

The bill is discussed at Gather at:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977371022

ARTICLE XXXII.--MISLEADING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, SYSTEMATICALLY UNDERMINING EFFORTS TO ADDRESS GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on October 22, 2009, announced a proposal to designate critical habitat for the polar bear, with a 60-day public comment period on the measure.

The total area proposed for designation would cover approximately 200,541 square miles and is found entirely within the lands and waters of the United States.

Barrier island habitat includes coastal barrier islands and spits along Alaska’s coast, and is used for denning, refuge from human disturbances, access to maternal dens and feeding habitat, as well as travel along the coast. Sea ice habitat is located over the continental shelf, and includes water 300m and less in depth.

Terrestrial denning habitat includes lands within 32 km (about 20 miles) of the northern coast of Alaska between the Canadian border and the Kavik River and within 8 km (about 5 miles) between the Kavik River and Barrow.