Don’t get me wrong, I love polar bears and I want them to survive for a very long time. However, on my list of climate actions, saving the polar bears comes after many, many other more important priorities, starting with limiting our greenhouse gas emissions and averting the world food and water crisis.
Al Gore’s “we” campaign has made saving the polar bears its first initiative. Every other day I get a mail informing me of ‘Progress on polar bears‘. Never mind all the research saying that you’ve got to make global warming personally relevant . . .
Al, when are you going to get this one right?
La Marguerite 
I also received their mails. I agree with you Marguerite that saving the polar bears comes after many other priorities.
But I guess that for some people – the ones that aren’t focused a lot on climate change mitigation like us, and they are the majority – these bears are seen as an icon of the fight.
So, I guess that for Mr. Gore and his team, it is a driver for change and action.
And, perhaps I am way too forgiving ( not sure the word is right here ), but heck, they are urging people to act. and to act in the right direction.
So, even if it is not exactly the right thing to do, they’re acting.
Furthermore, I think that communicating on such an issue is pretty difficult.
You once stated that they are forgetting the people. I agree with you.
I wrote to them when they launched the we campaign and they asked me to fill out a questionnaire; I did it but never received even a single mail from them.
( perhaps they don’t give a damn about Europeans… )
Anyway, enjoy your weekend ! 🙂
The WWF has the panda bear, Linux has a penguin, and the Climate Movement the Polar Bear? Like Eduoard, I think the polar bear is pretty good as a symbol. It may be that the fate of the planet and the fate of the polar bears are intertwined.
They’re like the canaries in the coal mines.
I think it would be interesting to make an analysis of why the polar bear might go extinct, and what this would mean for our climate and sea level.
I think it’s strange that they have such an external result, a symptom of our illness as it were, as a first priority. I think their first priority should be education about our economy, lifestyle choices and the like. The public need to be explained how everything fits together, together with concrete advice how an individual can make an improvement in this situation.
The Alliance For Climate Protection is actually based in Menlo Park, I think. And, I think that its CEO, Cathy Zoi, is based in either Menlo Park or Palo Alto.
I think it would be great to meet with her at some point. I wonder if she would be interested in meeting for an hour, or over coffee, or over breakfast?
Do you (Marguerite) have any idea of how to reach her?
I must admit: Although many people and other beings would suffer from climate change (if we don’t address it), I don’t like the idea of threatening or harming Polar Bears in any way. It would be a shame (very literally) if our human actions lead to their extinction or dimunition. When I think of that possibility, my blood temperature goes up.
Cheers.
FYI, Jeff, I have tried to reach out to the Alliance for Climate Protection. The furthest I have gone with them was an email exchange with their ad agency.
I am in agreement that the the polar bear is merely a face on an issue. It’s a marketing tool. I believe that the efforts are for the same end goal. It shouldn’t matter what face it takes to get people to pay attention, as long as they pay attention.
The listing of polar bears as an endangered species is clearly a political move foisted upon us by climate alarmists.
There is an abundance of evidence indicating that the polar bears have survived warmer climates in the past.
Best regards,
ClimateSanity
In light of one of the recent comments, I find it very interesting (and revealing) how some people argue that the polar bears are fine, or not threatened, because there are estimated to be 25,000 of them (now living in the Arctic region of North America, Norway, Russia and Greenland).
Let’s compare two numbers:
25,000
Over 6,500,000,000
Do we see the difference? Or, do I have my decimal places wrong?
The second number, of course, is the number of humans living today. The first number is the number of polar bears people have been arguing about, including whether the number has been going up or going down.
This week also helps us put the smaller number in context. Unfortunately, in just one weather event in one country, far more than 25,000 people were killed. A couple of other statistical comparisons:
Many more cars cross one human bridge (the Golden Gate Bridge) in one city in a single day than the total number of polar bears mentioned above.
And, on a single evening in a single concert venue (the HP Pavilion), during the last tour, there were more than 25,000 people present to see Madonna (for example).
The notion that some people are upset or angry over the fact that many other people are (deeply) concerned that there are only 25,000 polar bears alive today, as we humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and as the vast majority of scientists know that doing so will lead to warming, is bizarre, it seems to me. How can people not care that there are only 25,000 polar bears?
A problem with focusing on the polar bear is they are probably a lost cause. Nothing we can do will save them due to the long lead times. My gut tells me there is a great danger in focusing on short term (10-20 year) lost causes in what must be sustained for a longer period.
I think people need to have positive images if they are going to buy into a movement. Many greens tell people “you must” and offer stark choices – some of which are difficult to handle. As a result very little gets done. We need a very different psychological model.
While I sort of agree with the commenters that say that climate change needs a mascot or icon to rally around, I don’t think the polar bear is going to get many people riled up and active about environmental issues. WWF has a panda, as Meryn pointed out, but the plight of endangered species doesn’t seem to be getting through to a majority of people. Sea turtles? Manatees? Whales? I could go on but many people I believe are more concerned about their own lives and problems than that of animals, and therefore consider the protection of endangered animals to be left to “bleeding-heart liberal environmentalists.”
If we’re going to connect a face or an image to climate change, we need to make sure that face is us – “we.” Show the plight of the polar bear, by all means, but also show the food riots across the globe, the plastic-coated beaches of Hawaii, the lack of available clean drinking water, the oppressive and violent governments we support through our desire for more, and more, and more oil. Show the “we” who are biking to work, gardening, composting, living in voluntary simplicity, making changes both small and large in our own lives and our own communities. Because after all the years of having a panda, we’re still not getting through to the majority of the public how important our environmental problems really are.
Steve, welcome to La Marguerite. Your blog is a wealth of information! I am adding it to my blogroll.
JenRob, I am with you a hundred percent. What you are describing is exactly the kind of “we” campaign we need.
I don’t think any single message will work for all people, of course.
Much of the vistion/message should involve the positive future we can create.
Another compenent should help make things easy, or at least as easy as possible. Great environmentally-friendly cars need to be available, as people won’t want to build environmentally-friendly cars from scratch or from kits.
The polar bears and other species are still very important parts of the mix, key for many people.
And, a key component (I think) for many involves an understanding of what we “should” do, meaning a basic appreciation for the ethics of the matter. I’m not talking about mere detail or “theory.” Instead, I’m talking about the fact that people have paradigms and values. For example, some people are largely driven by the paradigm of “now” or “during my lifetime” and by the value of maximizing (MY) personal freedom. Well, it can be shown (fairly simply) that those aren’t the real, groundable, foundational paradigms and values. Put another way, we have other obligations and in-built, but sometimes dormant (in some people), values that involve the larger picture, future generations, and so forth, i.e., that aren’t defined merely by “MY NEEDS, TODAY.” To different degrees for different people, it helps to understand this. For example, many of the religious leaders speak out about these broader responsibilities. But, can those broader responsibilities be demonstrated based on science and basic logic? The answer is, yes.
Also, there is another way (but complementary to all of the above) to tell the story. But, I’m still trying to find the time and the venue and method to share this “story”, or this approach to the story.
In short, I don’t think any single uni-dimensional message will motivate all people. A mix is important. But, some elements of the mix are still missing or not being well told.
Anyhow, that’s it for now.
Cheers to All.
Oops. Lots of spelling and typo errors in the previous message. Sorry.
“If we’re going to connect a face or an image to climate change, we need to make sure that face is us – “we.””
Very well said. And I think that in general, we also must stress that we want to keep on the safe side. We’re gambling with a whole planet, the only known habitable planet in the whole universe.
And if we personally won’t experience the outcome of the bet, our kids will. So it’s either us or our kids who will be confronted with a possible really bad outcome, if we don’t change course.
I don’t think that polar bears have to come “after” anything. The reality that we all need to realize and embrace is that we are all interconnected. By approaching global climate change issues from any and all angles we are helping ourselves and the polar bears. But people in general have a hard time grasping the concept that the actions that we take have ramifications that we never physically see with our eyes. I think the idea behind “saving the polar bears” is an attempt to inspire people to change by putting a cute face to the campaign.
[…] September 19, 2008 by lamarguerite Maybe I will change my mind about the “we” campaign? […]
Hello I really like your post and I think that itís curious. I would like to use it in my article. Is it possible? Of course, I will write a source