Polar bear was declared a threatened species last Wednesday (May 14) by US Interior Department. This was long time coming, given that the Arctic sea ice, polar bear’s primary habitat, is melting at a rate of 10% each decade over the last three decades - a loss of about 28,000 square miles a year!

According to US Fish and Wildlife Service Department, the agency that administers the Endangered Species Act (ESA), an endangered species is one that is in danger of becoming extinct over its entire (or major part of) range, and a threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered in near future.

Polar bear population across the Arctic from Alaska to Greenland more than doubled, from about 12,000 to 25,000, since 1960. But, a US Geological Survey study last year suggests that sea ice loss would cause a population decline of about 15,000 bears in coming decades, and about two-third by mid-century.

Polar bears depend completely on the ice surface - they walk, hunt, nest and breed on the surface of Arctic ice. Their main food consists of ringed and bearded seals, which come on ice only to give birth. So, bears must be on ice to successfully hunt them. This is a telling example of the damaging effect of habitat loss, currently ranked as the biggest threat to global biodiversity.

The problem with this particular example, according to many who are skeptical that the listing will lead to any significant action, is the thorny political issue of global warming that is melting the ice in the first place. The interior secretary is already quoted as saying that the ESA “is not the right tool to set US climate policy”, and “the listing will not stop global climate change or prevent any sea ice from melting”.

In other words, the government, while admitting that the polar bear is at a danger and needs protecting, would rather take short-term steps to protect isolated bear populations (stop bear hunting, for example), than reduce global warming, which would not only help protect bear habitat and ensure their long-term safety, but also save many other species that will otherwise be in similar peril, today or tomorrow.

The name is inspired by Rachel Carson’s timeless classic Silent Spring. To me Silent Spring’s context is both short- and long-term. The short-term context is what made the book so popular in late 60’s and early 70’s - it raised public awareness against slow chemical poisoning of our ecosystem caused by pesticide overuse, and helped push the 1972 legislation banning DDT in America.

In long-term, Silent Spring continues to remind us to value the nature we live in, and share with other living beings. This is a blog about the science of living nature - the interaction among all life forms, including us, animals and plants, and with our surrounding environment.