Images of the polar bear (which lives primarily in Canada's melting Arctic) struggling to hunt and falling in and out of the frigid ocean waters as a result of the increasingly thinning ice in the Arctic have been pasted all over mainstream media outlets; from major motion pictures like An Inconvenient Truth to book covers and climate change coverage from news broadcasters. Whether it likes it or not, the polar bear is the face we have put to climate change.
But is the polar bear the right image we want to portray in the effort to mitigate climate change?
The polar bear is a magnificent creature that many are willing to protect. To lose such a creature is a thought that bothers a great deal of people. And the loss of other animals like elephants and whales has prompted a level of concern to deal with other environmental issues. To Canadians in particular it is a symbol of our national identity (even though the United States placed it on their Endangered Species list before Canada did).
But climate change is such a complex problem with a variety of impacts. If we want human beings (especially in the developed world) to start taking climate change seriously, should we really be placing a lot of emphasis on an animal? Or should we instead begin to really highlight the aspects of climate change that will have immediate and direct effects on human beings?
Severe droughts in the south-eastern United States, the eradication of BC and Alberta forests from the Mountain Pine Beetle, more frequent and powerful storms, loss of fresh water resources and more heat waves are just a few issues that could be the main face of climate change.
The polar bear is a magnificent creature and losing it would be devastating. But human beings naturally place concern over something to a much greater degree when it affects them directly, so should we really be holding the polar bear as the climate change martyr?
did you have a bad experience with a polar bear?
ReplyDelete