How does one react to the fact that, according to the IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species, 25% of mammals on this planet are at risk of extinction?

That’s one quarter of all mammals on earth.

How in the hell did we allow it to come to this? That there would be a time in our history in which a quarter of all mammals on this planet would be facing the possibility of extinction. I realize that I’m repeating myself, but I am simply stunned.

And the foremost cause? Loss of habitat primarily due to deforestation.

As the population of the planet increases, and room and resources are required to facilitate such growth, animals are paying the price for it. In fact, according to the authors of the report, 25% could be an underestimate.

It is a good thing that animals do not possess the ability to take up arms and coordinate some sort of counter offensive, because put into human terms they would be fighting for their very survival, something that, given our own rationales throughout history, we would be unable to condemn them for.

And rightly so.

But Matt, isn’t that the natural habitat of most bears in the Pacific Northwest? Yes, it is, but that doesn’t mean that bears shouldn’t be forced to evolve and, as if storybook characters, come to inhabit homes of their own where they eat porridge and sleep in proper beds. After all, we can’t have them wandering into suburban neighbourhoods that have been happily carved deeper and deeper into a vast wilderness.

Bears are largely olfactory creatures, which means that they have a fantastically heightened sense of smell. They can, for example, smell the residue on barbeques, the content of compost piles and refuse, and the slight perfumed essence of little blonde girls that are sleeping in their beds. Of course, that doesn’t give them the right to actually wander into backyards to investigate, no matter how close those backyards happen to be to their own natural habitat. After all, and as we’re all aware, the wild bear’s thirst for human blood is unequaled in the animal kingdom. Were they to organize, surely they would launch a coordinated attack on numerous Vancouver suburban areas, feasting on the flesh of infants, house pets, and demonically swimming in the blood of thousands of innocents.

“Oh sweet irony!” we will exclaim as their incalculable numbers lumber through our once quiet suburban enclaves, devastating everything in their path. Holed up in basements and tastefully appointed second floor ensuite bathrooms, residents will be forced to dawn Ted Nugent t-shirts in hopes that his image alone might act as some sort of magical deterrent against their bloodthirsty wrath.

If we were smart (unfortunately the jury’s still out on that one) we would launch a preemptive strike. Employing some of the Province’s foremost developers we could set about consuming more of the bear’s natural habitat, replacing it with still more houses and golf courses and strip malls, thus driving them further into the northern wilds. Of course, there’s always the possibility that they might still pose a threat to those neighborhoods buttressed against the tree line - but hey, that’s why God invented Napalm.

All Ridiculousness Aside

In truth, wild bears, unless they have cubs, will run from humans the majority of the time – unless, that is, they are intentionally provoked or threatened, and even then, escape due to fear is commonly their primary aim. For the most part, when in their natural habitat, and far removed from humans, bears are commonly unusually docile given their stature and power as compared to other animals of their size and position within the food chain. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, though it is the bear, not ourselves, that we blame for it.

When I was a child, the city of Coquitlam, while technically coveting a vast area, had not yet began to earnestly develop the woods north of the Barnet Highway. Of course, Ioco and the communities along the inlet had existed for decades, but beyond that the area east of them was largely untouched.

In the 80’s things began to change, as the development potential of the Westwood Plateau was finally realized. Thus, the area between the inlet and Lafarge lake saw immediate development, a trend that would spread north into the mountains, with houses soon dominating the Eagleridge bluffs.

That trend continues unabated to this day. In fact, the majority of Coquitlam’s population is now located in what was once a sparsely populated area. They even moved City Hall from its traditional location on Brunette Avenue to Guildford Way, a road that when I was in my early 20’s was still predominantly lined by woods.

So what does this have to do with bears? Well, that’s obvious enough. With the rapid expansion of homes into the hills, the natural habitat of animals has been significantly encroached upon in a very short period of time. Again, when I was in my late teens and early 20’s, it wasn’t uncommon to hear stories of deer wandering into clear cut areas on the hill completely perplexed as to where the forest had gone. Added to that was a sudden rise in coyote sightings, with attacks on dogs and cats in the area becoming more frequent.

I remember walking to IGA in Port Moody one evening, which back then was surrounded by woods, and witnessing a coyote get hit by a car that was coming up to the lights. It was thrown onto the sidewalk by the impact and lay there immobile. Concerned about the animal’s welfare, I ran across the street and, along with the man that had been driving the car, approached it trying to gauge its injuries. The coyote didn’t move, it just lay there whimpering and making an unusual gurgling sound. Finally, reaching the animal, I realized that it was choking on its tongue, so I did one of the most reactionary things I have ever done in my life – I reached into its mouth and coaxed its tongue out of its throat. The man that had hit the coyote called me ‘crazy’, I remember that distinctly, but the animal made no threatening movements once I had removed my hand. After it started to breathe normally, and came to its senses, it simply got up and roughly lumbered away.

That singular event has stayed with me my entire life and has had a profound impact on how I view human encroachment on Greater Vancouver’s outlying forests.

Despite their behaviour in the wild, the mindset of animals is dramatically affected when their environment is encroached upon and they find themselves living in close proximity to humans. Bears, for example, especially if they are born into such an environment, will include in their foraging traits some dependence on human refuse, among other things. They also quickly lose their innate fear of humans, making them bolder and, at times, more aggressive when confronted. But what should not be overlooked, no matter the fears of those of those that live in close proximity to them, is that we have encroached on their habitat and adversely affected their behaviour by doing so – not the other way around.

If you are willing to live in a new home that borders a large expanse of wilderness you should be prepared to deal with the fact that the behavioural patterns of animals in the area will have been altered. That being the case, you have to take special care when it comes to your pets, young children, how you dispose of your garbage, and so forth. The truth is, animals cannot be blamed for the changes in their behaviour when they are exposed to the introduction of humans into what was once their natural habitat. To think otherwise is ludicrous.

There is an old maxim involving sharks that is applicable here. If you happen to go on vacation to a location where sharks are commonplace and decide to go swimming in the ocean, do you blame the shark for confusing you for something other than a human, or do you take responsibility for the fact that you knew the risks before entering the water? The truth is, the shark doesn’t know that you’re on vacation and that you would prefer not to be confused for something that it might commonly prey upon. It’s instincts dictate its actions, and that is something that we will never be able to change.

So if you do decide to go into the water, do you educate yourself before hand, or do you go in blind and arrogantly believe that you are above being attacked simply because you’re a person? The fact is, the shark doesn’t care what you think, you’re in his neck of the woods, and therefore the rules are entirely different.

That example can be applied to any creature in the wild, even those whose habitat has been encroached upon by humans. In short; just because we have opposable thumbs and possess the ability to make bad horror flicks doesn’t make our arrogance defensible.

As time passes, and we continue to grow and develop as a species, despite our many achievements, be they in the arts or architecture or flight, one accomplishment will remain the most important in human history no matter what occurs in the years ahead. We may, in the future, cure Cancer and AIDS, put a person on Mars, or even find a way to curb the planet’s food crises. But despite all of these things, mankind’s greatest achievement is, and will always be, the photograph.

A single image, captured in time, for all time.

Why, you ask, do I believe the photograph to be of such importance? Because, in the century ahead, photographs, along with film, will be all that will remain of many of this world’s inhabitants. Fifty years from now school children may very well only know what a Polar Bear looks like because of photographs. The same can be said of numerous other species that are widely known. Of course, species are rendered extinct on a weekly basis as it is, but most of them aren’t all that familiar to us – certainly not familiar enough to be glorified in the pages of future textbooks.

One wonders what questions the children of the future will ask as to why the Polar Bear did not survive? One wonders what responses will be provided by those children’s teachers?

There, frozen in time, the image of that majestic Arctic bear will remain for generations to gaze upon, as if a thing of legend, almost other-worldly, the inhabitant of a time long since past. And as time passes, so too will the reason for its destruction be forgotten.

Here we find ourselves, on the verge of a photograph, looking to those in positions of responsibility to make the right choices. And with such a profound issue presented them, you need not guess at how they intend to respond…

“The state Legislature is looking to hire a few good polar bear scientists. The conclusions have already been agreed upon — researchers just have to fill in the science part.

A $2 million program funded with little debate by the Legislature last month calls for using state money to fund an “academic based” conference that highlights contrarian scientific research on global warming. Legislators hope to undermine the public perception of a widespread consensus among polar bear researchers that warming global temperatures and melting Arctic ice threaten the polar bears’ survival.

Republican legislative leaders say a federal decision to declare the polar bears “threatened” by climate change would have troubling effects on Arctic oil development and the state’s economic future.

Last week a federal judge ordered the Bush administration to release its already-tardy decision under the Endangered Species Act by May 15. By law, such a decision must be based strictly on science, not on possible economic consequences.

Legislative leaders said they are frustrated that researchers skeptical of the doomsday scenario get marginalized as crackpots or industry shills by the media and scientific agencies.

“We want to have the money to hire scientists to answer the Interior (Department) scientists,” House Speaker John Harris, R-Valdez, said last week.

The $2 million is also to be used for a national public relations campaign to promote the findings of the conference.

Critics say it’s a waste of state money because all the hard scientific research points in the other direction.

“This truly is the conference to nowhere,” said University of Alaska researcher Rick Steiner, who has pressed the Palin administration unsuccessfully for five months to release any scientific backup for its position opposing the federal polar bear listing.

The time for debate is over, especially when the opposition is using “junk science,” said Melanie Duchin with Greenpeace in Alaska. “This is clearly the same sort of ‘question, deny and delay’ tactic used by Exxon Mobil and the Bush administration to confuse the public over the severity of global warming and stall any meaningful action to deal with the problem.”

In the documentary 11th Hour, former CIA Director James Woolsey, of all people, makes a very important point with regards to the correlation between consumerism and industrial opportunism and the ability to affect change in a very short period of time given what are traditionally viewed as ‘exceptional circumstances’.

Woolsey’s point of reference was the transformation of the US auto industry into an industrial mechanism with which to produce aircraft, tanks, and a variety of other military necessities during the early stages of America’s involvement in the Second World War. That transformation took, believe it or not, merely six months. Put into context, if the disastrous environmental reality that we are currently facing was seriously addressed by government, the implementation of alternative energy use, that being non-carbon based energy (fossil fuels), could be introduced in a very timely fashion. It would also create jobs, which would replace those lost in the transformation. The only loser in that transformation would be the corporate oil sector, which possesses such enormous influence that, in truth, they are largely responsible for the inability, or unwillingness, of government to act. Ultimately, greed has become the foremost factor in the inability to seriously implement alternative energy sources that would significantly impact the amount of damage that fossil fuels do on a daily basis.

Of course, many economists will argue tooth and nail that such a transformation would be disadvantageous. But that supposes that the economy is of greater significance than the environment. The only problem with such logic is that economies can grow; as can populations and the waste they produce. The environment, on the other hand, cannot expand to match it. It is a limited and immovable thing, and therefore unalterable with regards to meeting the demands of economic growth.

In the last half of the twentieth century the world’s population has grown faster than at any other point in human history. In fact, during that period it has increased so much that that increase alone constitutes a figure greater than the population of the planet at any time prior to the industrial revolution. During that increase, the primary source of energy used by the population of the planet has been carbon based – which includes everything from food production to transportation to the production of electricity.

For the majority of human history our species relied on available sunlight for energy. But since the discovery of fossil fuels, we have become wholly dependent on an energy source that is not only unsustainable, but also catastrophically damaging with regards to its impact on the environment. Thus, we now find ourselves in an era in which we are forced to make a very important choice – to either disregard the realities of that dependency and its ramifications or to address our dependence on fossil fuels and work to eliminate it.

In the end, and despite our intelligence, our species may very well constitute nothing more than a global parasite, one that, having been given the chance to grow and consume the benefits of its host may very well find itself the author of its own destruction because of it. Given that, it should also not be overlooked that despite the damage caused, our host will outlast us, no matter how superior we believe ourselves to be. It has, in the billions of years of its existence, seen life forms come and go, and to think that we are somehow immune to that natural eventuality is, perhaps, the primary reason that we refuse to alter our perspective.

Of course, there are those that faithfully believe that a higher power created the world and that what we do to it doesn’t matter because is it, in the end, part of a greater divine plan. There is little that can be said to such individuals regarding this subject, only that if a divine plan does exists, our eventual demise is a part of it, and that the endurance and eventual reconstitution of the natural world is as well. Unless, that is, God’s plan is to also destroy the natural world in the process.

Today is Earth Day, which is largely a symbolic day on which we attempt to assuage our guilt by feeling somewhat distraught about the fact that the world is going to hell in a hand basket. Tomorrow not being Earth Day, we will continue to consume and waste and destroy at a level that is unprecedented in human history and wait for next year to hold our heads in our hands and wonder how it could have remained just as bad.

Of course, there are those that disagree. There are those that continue to believe that, for example, global warming is nothing more than leftist propaganda and that everything is fine.

You can’t win ‘em all.

Never mind that the planet is attempting to provide us ‘hints’ as to the ramifications of our actions, never mind that the Northwest Passage is, well, passable for the first time in recorded human history, or that umpteen species are rendered extinct on a weekly basis, or that we have actually succeeded in not only fishing massive swaths of the oceans out but there is actually a mass of garbage floating in the Pacific that’s the size of Texas. All of that is irrelevant next to the formidable ambition of our society, an ambition that perpetrates the myth that we can have our cake and eat it too.

You know what’s truly depressing? The fact that a considerable portion of the world’s population could subside off of the food that’s thrown away in North America on a daily basis. Seriously, how many hundreds of millions could live off of our garbage alone?

But that’s irrelevant, as today is Earth Day. Perhaps we need to create a new day – maybe ’They Could Live Off Our Garbage Day’.

The interesting thing about Earth Day is that those that are too poor to actually contribute to the planet’s demise are the ones that are the closest to it on a daily basis. The people that still have to walk a mile to fetch water from a river, the people that spend the majority of their time worrying about simply feeding themselves, not what’s on television tonight or the fact that they could use a larger television because the one they have now is too small.

Irony’s a bitch, isn’t it.

That said, I’m going to jump in my sports car, fill it up with supreme, and cruise around with the top down - because I can.

For those of you that are unaware, the Province of Alberta is the world’s largest exporter of oil to the United States. Since the invasion of Iraq, instability in the Middle East has made the arduous and expensive process of exploiting Alberta’s oil sands lucrative. Since then, it has become one of the most magnetic oil reserves in the world, with both foreign and domestic corporate interests operating in the Province paying unbelievably low taxes for the privilege of raping the Canadian wilderness. In return, numerous Albertans have gained from the boom while some haven’t, and the rest of the country really hasn’t – but that’s not really an issue of import next to the damage that process itself is doing.

According to Environmental Defense, the excavation of the oil sands is, itself, producing enormous amount of greenhouse gasses. The process is also poisoning local water supplies. Of course, and not surprising in the least, output is projected to grow to a level that, by 2015, will see 3 million barrels of oil produced a day.

Money, as we’re all aware, is far more important than the environment. It is also, in some cases, worth running the risk of creating public health problems as well. But as long as the bank is fat, it’s easy enough to dismiss such concerns as long as those benefiting continue to benefit – and that most certainly includes both the Albertan and federal governments.

While futile, the question must be asked – how much damage must be caused before the Province, and Ottawa, realize what it is they’ve done? Besides the global affects of the greenhouse gasses produced, what of the affects on the environment itself? On the ecosystem and ground water? How much of the northern Albertan landscape has to be turned into something that more resembles the surface of the moon than the earth before we wake up to the fact that it wasn’t worth it in the end?

You know, it’s interesting how easy it is to forget that this planet has finite resources, and that the longer we abuse it the more assured our own demise as a species becomes. Of course, there are those that will argue until their dying breath that that isn’t the case, that we couldn’t possibly consume so much of this planet’s resources as to actually cause our own extinction. Then again, the last two times the world went to war we exclaimed after each - never again - and look how that’s turned out.

Any species that has already created a means with which to destroy itself several times over certainly can’t be taken at its word with regards to the exploitation of its own environment. Destroying is, in truth, the only thing that we actually excel at. Even our creations cause destruction. Truthfully, the seeds of some of our most brilliant advancements have come from our never-ending love affair with exacting the art of killing one another in a more timely and efficient manner.

Nowhere in the natural world does that phenomenon exist, and that fact is something that we should take to heart. That is, if we haven’t wiped out every living example on this planet before we finally do. Because every hour of every day, three species, be they plant or animal, are rendered extinct. That’s 500 species a week. Given the law of averages, we can’t avoid the inevitable forever.

Watch the entire thing at storyofstuff.com. Here’s a teaser…

There are numerous things to touch on this morning. Here are some of the stories that I have been following…

Chavez Says He Will Step Down At End Of Term

After last week’s defeat of proposed constitutional reforms, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has said that he will step down when is term is up in 2013. Chavez has vowed to keep fighting to have the reforms passed, requiring a petition of 15% of voters to secure the possibility of a new referendum.

Vancouver Airport Reforms Announced

The Vancouver International Airport will spend $1.4 million dollars a year to “improve service for international travelers”. The measures include the following…

Had such measures already been in place, Robert Dziekanski would still be alive today.

Canada Fourth Worst In Climate Change Performance

Based on emissions produced over the last year, climate change policies, and emission level reduction efforts, Canada has ranked fourth to last in the world behind Australia, the United States, and Saudi Arabia.

Canada is currently rated 53rd out of 56 countries, a drop from 51st place a year ago. Well done, Mr. Harper.

$1 Billion Worth Of Military Equipment Missing In Iraq

According to CBS News…

“Tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, crates of machine guns and rocket propelled grenades are just a sampling of more than $1 billion in unaccounted for military equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces, according to a new report issued today by the Pentagon Inspector General and obtained exclusively by the CBS News investigative unit. Auditors for the Inspector General reviewed equipment contracts totaling $643 million but could only find an audit trail for $83 million.

The report details a massive failure in government procurement revealing little accountability for the billions of dollars spent purchasing military hardware for the Iraqi security forces. For example, according to the report, the military could not account for 12,712 out of 13,508 weapons, including pistols, assault rifles, rocket propelled grenade launchers and machine guns.”

I’d say something witty, but it depressingly doesn’t come as a surprise.

One would think that something as pressing as global warming would be of significant import to any government, and that whatever steps could be taken would be taken given its ramifications, even if it mean agreeing to the emplacement of binding targets. Unfortunately, our government doesn’t seem bright enough to see it that way…

“Prime Minister Stephen Harper is facing heavy political pressure to agree to binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions as Commonwealth summit delegates in Uganda attempt to form a strong, united front in the fight against climate change.

Other than Australia, whose leader is not at the summit, Canada is the only member of the 53-nation grouping that has not fallen in line with the wording in a climate change resolution calling for binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.

The three-day conference is trying to reach a consensus before December’s United Nations meeting in Bali, Indonesia, where more than 190 nations will discuss the future of the Kyoto protocol.

“One of the biggest challenges we all face [is] climate change,” Malta’s Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said Friday in a speech in the Ugandan capital, Kampala. “The challenge of climate change not only requires a united front, but an unprecedented level of co-operation and firm action.”

But the small island nation’s drive for environmental unity faces challenges from Canada’s Conservative government, which does not support binding reductions.”

Economically, Canada gains nothing by agreeing to restrictions. In truth, there are detriments to it. There’s really no arguing that point, nor has there ever been when it comes to the choices made in this country regarding environmental protectionism and commerce. For decades we have laboured under the misconception that forests can be replanted and reconstituted, which is complete nonsense. Reforestation is, in truth, one of the greatest PR achievements of our time. You cut down old growth forests, wipe out entire ecosystems, completely decimate the nutrients in the soil, and then? Well, then you hire well-meaning individuals to plant trees believing that in a century everything will return to the way it was. Of course, that’s a fallacy. Hard wood yield from second growth forests is minimal and by no means significant enough to support the continuation of that industry in the decades ahead. In short, what we have done in the past, and are currently doing, is securing the death of an industry and the loss of jobs while promoting the belief that it’s a sustainable resource.

It’s precisely that sort of arcane thinking that is being employed by the government with regards to agreeing to firm restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. We have significant industries in this country that would be affected by such restrictions, and the truth of the matter is that when it comes to confronting the industrial sector, especially powerful parts of it, the political stakes are too high. So, in short, confronting industry with regards to the regulation of emissions translates into the loss of federal political support. In the end, it has nothing to do with global warming whatsoever.

For the first time in Nobel history, the coveted Peace Prize has been awarded for environmental activism. It was jointly awarded to former US Vice President Al Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Gore, in a brief press conference after receiving the news, said that he would donate his half of the $1.5 million dollar prize to the Alliance for Climate Protection.

While it is fantastic that this issue has received such attention by way of the world’s most prestigious award, on the US political front, The Nation’s John Nichols makes some very valid points about Gore’s participation in the upcoming Presidential election…

“…the inconvenient truth is that never has the man who might yet be president needed to more seriously consider his personal legacy–not to mention the small matter of his potential to make the world anew–than now.

There is, after all, the matter of the open space at the end of what is now the most remarkable resume of anyone seeking – or considering seeking – the presidency.

Let’s review.

This is how Al Gore’s resumé reads as of this morning:

Son of a great senator.

Harvard graduate, with honors.

Vietnam veteran.

Award-winning investigative journalist.

Congressman.

Senator.

Vice President.

Winner of the popular vote for President of the United States.

Best-selling author.

Environmental activist.

Academy Award winner.

And, now, Nobel Peace Prize winner–he shares the prize with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change–for “their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about manmade climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”

As resumés go, that is one for the top of the pile.

But it begs the question: Shouldn’t a man who has gotten this far be thinking about how to finish the journey?

And isn’t the last stop the Oval Office?

To think that Gore is not pondering these questions today would be absurd.”

I whole-heartedly agree. I firmly believe that Mr. Gore has a responsibility to run, especially after this latest triumph. Given the state of affairs in the United States, it seems insane to me that he wouldn’t; that he would leave the fate of the nation to what I consider lesser candidates – perhaps with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, who has really no chance of winning the Democratic nomination anyway.

If ever there was as time for an individual like Al Gore to run, it’s now. Beyond what he could do environmentally as President, given that the United States is one of the world’s foremost polluters, his impact on the disaster in Iraq, not to mention numerous domestic failures, would be, I believe, significantly positive.

There is no question that whomever inherits the mess left by the Bush administration will have their hands full, not to mention be left in the proverbial hot seat because of it, but I think that if anyone can truly handle that challenge, it’s Al Gore.