It's vague, and carries no actual weight, but we're sure this arctic fox is pleased to know that there's a 7-point scheme to save it when its habitat melts.
By Dan Nosowitz Posted 03.27.2013 at 5:29 pm 11 Comments

Sleeping Arctic Fox
Sleeping Arctic Fox Wikimedia Commons

This week the Obama administration showed off its new strategy for protecting America's flora and fauna from climate change. Said David Hayes, Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior:

Fish and wildlife or plants, our land, our habitat, is not just something we feel good about because we like nature, but in fact they're providing a lot of services to us - jobs, recreational opportunities, we're seeing that they provide wonderful protection from storm surges, that the wetlands are filtering our water, providing clean water.

The plan is called "The National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy." It incorporates seven key ideas, and it is incredibly vague. To be fair, it's not exactly a to-do list; it's more a learned set of general recommendations for the future. For example! Goal number six is to "Increase awareness and motivate action to safeguard fish, wildlife, and plants in a changing climate." But the plan has no authority to actually do those things; it just suggests that they'd be a good idea.

Other items on the agenda include "Conserve habitat to support healthy fish, wildlife, and plant populations and ecosystem functions in a changing climate," which, okay, that means very little, and "Increase knowledge and information on impacts and responses of fish, wildlife, and plants to a changing climate," which means about the same amount. But, this is important; we're just guessing at how climate change will affect our wildlife, but as we learned from the story of America's rarest turtle, it's vital that we do figure it out, and quickly.

[via Nature World News]

11 Comments

Link to this comment
Mister Thomas
03/27/13 at 6:52 pm

So what's going to happen when it's habitat 'melts?' Seems like it's going to take more naps on grassy sand. Maybe find different ways to catch mice that aren't hidden under snow.

If I were an arctic fox, I might be more interested to see what the Canadians were planning than president 'vaguely hope and change for the worse.'

Link to this comment
Bagpipes100
03/27/13 at 7:01 pm

Dont think of it as losi g species....celebrate climate change like it was a giant asteriod killing of the dino's to usher in a whole new wealth of flora and fauna. ;)

Link to this comment
laurenra7
03/27/13 at 7:24 pm

Dan, can you explain why it's vital that we figure out how global warming will affect wildlife? We don't even know how it will affect humans, nor is that a problem. The change happens so slowly that humans and wildlife will adapt, as they have since...well, forever ago. And please spare us the myth that warming is accelerating since we all know there is no reliable evidence to support that theory.

Link to this comment
theLordsDevil
03/27/13 at 8:10 pm

The plan? Survival of the fittest. Say hello to my little DNA, it's going watch everything else fail to make the grade.

Link to this comment
ppardee
03/27/13 at 8:26 pm

Obama has been vague with almost every policy he has ever had except one. That one policy is that, since he wants a one world government, sovereignty of other nations is irrelevant. He also seems to not really care about checks, balances or due process, but he hasn't actually come out and said he wanted to be king. You just glean that from his actions.

Anyway, his vague, non-binding check list of things that he wants to do to control the weather shouldn't shake us up much considering he has had 4 years to address climate change and hasn't done a thing about it that I have seen.

The easy part of policy is the 'what'... the 'how' is the hard part. If the Earth really is warming unnaturally, how would we propose to preserve a habitat threatened by this change without addressing it, and how will we address it when a full 80% of the supposed culprit gas is emitted by other countries we have no control over? Its not like we can do a huge solar-powered freezer in the arctic.

The only thing that has any actionable items in this is to 'motivate' action to safeguard fish, wildlife, and plants in a changing climate, which means to use the force of the federal government to bully people who don't go along with the farce of AGW.

Link to this comment
dualsweat
03/27/13 at 8:47 pm

Because the government is SO good at taking care of wildlife.

www.seashepherd.org/dam-guardians/blog/2013/03/26/dam-guardian-report-march-26-2013-1

Link to this comment
vanderleun
03/27/13 at 10:43 pm

"we're sure this arctic fox is pleased to know that there's a 7-point scheme to save it when its habitat melts."

Try not to lead with rancid nonsense, Dan. You'll never get out of the Intern pay schedule if you do that. That or be demoted back to "Assistant" and have to get pastries for everybody.

What a waste of life these little squibs of yours actually are.

Link to this comment
scottmana
03/28/13 at 12:56 am

A few hundred years ago the Earth was warmer then it is now. Humanity in Europe did really well because if it. The point being that it was warmer then now and not caused by humans.

So now, in modern day, people are a bit slow. So slow that global warming (having been pushed for many years) is finally sinking in but it is now outdated by new information. A rush to deal with "Global warming" would be a disaster because it is built on dated information. There is nothing wrong with wanting to protect the Earth, (our home) what is wrong is operating on false information that wastes the time of people that want to make a difference as well as money and heaven forbid, the good will of people that would contribute to a better world.

Link to this comment
gizmowiz
03/28/13 at 9:27 am

Evolution loves global warming.

Mankind needs to evolve badly so global warming is good for man.

Link to this comment
NoOneYouKnow
03/28/13 at 1:12 pm

I can only take comfort in knowing that the global warming hype is something less than it use to be. Like I tell people, CO2 levels were 180% greater 145 million years ago than they are today yet the earth was thriving with life. 201 million years ago there was actually less CO2 than there is today and life was still thriving.

I mean, the fact that we are experiencing solar maximum is totally moot right? The sun is the driving force behind global weather, you learn that in bloody grade school.

Link to this comment
berk99
03/28/13 at 5:06 pm

Obamacuts!! free hair cuts for the artic fox to keep cool.


140 years of Popular Science at your fingertips.



Popular Science+ For iPad

Each issue has been completely reimagined for your iPad. See our amazing new vision for magazines that goes far beyond the printed page



Download Our App

Stay up to date on the latest news of the future of science and technology from your iPhone or Android phone with full articles, images and offline viewing



Follow Us On Twitter

Featuring every article from the magazine and website, plus links from around the Web. Also see our PopSci DIY feed


April 2013: How It Works

For our annual How It Works issue, we break down everything from the massive Falcon Heavy rocket to a tiny DNA sequencer that connects to a USB port. We also take a look at an ambitious plan for faster-than-light travel and dive into the billion-dollar science of dog food.

Plus the latest Legos, Cadillac's plug-in hybrid, a tractor built for the apocalypse, and more.


Online Content Director: Suzanne LaBarre | Email
Senior Editor: Paul Adams | Email
Associate Editor: Dan Nosowitz | Email
Assistant Editor: Colin Lecher | Email
Assistant Editor:Rose Pastore | Email

Contributing Writers:
Rebecca Boyle | Email
Kelsey D. Atherton | Email
Francie Diep | Email
Shaunacy Ferro | Email

circ-top-header.gif
circ-cover.gif