AMERICA'S HOTTEST IDEA
Climate Change ‘Greatest Threat’ to National Parks, Report Says
Drought. Floods. Death. It's already happening, the report says.By David Frey, 10-09-09
![]() |
|
| Grinnell Glacier, Glacier National Park. Photo by Photo by David Restivo, courtesy of the National Park Service. | |
It’s not just melting ice at Glacier National Park. A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council calls climate change the “greatest threat” to America’s national parks.
It lists 25 parks most at risk to melting ice, drought, flooding, diminishing wildlife and other factors.
“This is not just a concern for the future,” says the report, which was produced by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization for the NRDC. “The national parks that we Americans so cherish are already being harmed by a changing climate.”
Among the Western parks the report says are at risk are:
Yellowstone National Park, which is losing its whitebark pines. Their nuts are considered a major food for grizzlies. Summers have become hot enough to kill trout, it says.
Rocky Mountain National Park, which is losing its mature lodgepole pines.
Bandelier National Monument and Mesa Verde National Park, which have lost most of their piñon pines.
Zion is losing its piñon-juniper forests to drought, while suffering from more damaging floods.
Glacier National Park, where streams and waterfalls are vanishing along with the glaciers.
If we continue heedlessly adding heat-trapping pollution to the atmosphere, we could lose whole national parks for the first time,” the report says.
It outlines 11 top threats to national parks: loss of ice and snow; loss of water; higher seas and stronger storms that could affect coastal parks; more flooding; a loss of plants; a loss of wildlife; loss of historic and cultural resources; intolerable heat in desert parks; loss of fishing; more overcrowding and higher concentrations of air pollution.
The report calls for 32 specific actions, including new and expanded national parks, protection of migration corridors between parks and national action to limit heat-trapping gases.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.





Comments
Just like those who predicted over population should have done us in by now or the bird flu, AIDS, and today H1N1.
Ain't skerd, I'll go when its time.
Wheather or not "humanity" will act in time to mitigate this ever increasing problem is questionable but I do know that the best and brightest of the world's leaders, scientists and CEO's accept the reality of human induced climated change.
Just the other day I read where the CEO of Duke Power Company--the largest user of coal in the US--stated that "human created climate change is a reality". Other "conservatives" that have recently come on board include: T. Boone Pickens-Texas oil billionaire, the CEO billionaire of Fox News (forget his name at the moment) and many other CEO's. Other than Putain of Russia (I do not know where he stands on this issue), all other world leaders of industrialized countries acknowledge this fact. And they are backing their belief's with billions of $'s.
It may be true that all of the taxi-cab drivers and barbers of the world are not, yet, on board but we will just have to move on without them.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sci/climate-change/basics/
In tomorrow's Oregonian newspaper, there is an article that says in the 12 salmon generations since the erection of dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers, it now appears that fall chinook salmon have, (Darwin, don't swoon), changed their behavior out of the egg and some, instead of rushing off to the sea on the spring freshet, are now hanging out in the cooler waters of the reservoirs and growing very large for a year, and then smolting off to sea too big to be easy prey for squawfish (oops! Northern Pike Minnow) and Caspian terns. They ADAPTED to their new environment, and those who stay around to get larger have now a 10 times higher statistical chance of showing up as an adult to spawn as a year older and larger fish than their classmates who rush off at their first chance to hit the ocean. Cod forbid!!! We have another environmental crisis!!!
Most of those grand vistas and fascinating sites in the Western National Parks have been formed by erosion, which is bad. Or at the least a bad good. And those who celebrate burning the Wilderness ought to pow wow with the NRDF about mature lodgepole being burned is just how it is supposed to work. Or at the least, get a good story that will work for those who decry the loss of mature lodgepole and those who celebrate the incineration of mature lodgepole. Then present your crisis plan.
Rahm Emanuel, the primary thinker for ObamaNation, says don't waste a good crisis. Evidently, he is running the NRDF as well as the White House. This whole deal is about exploiting a perceived crisis to gain power and treasure. Only they don't tell you the whole of the physical process of the earth is about plate tectonic action raising the earth's mantel to where it can be eroded, or molten rock from the bowels of the earth can be emitted to add to the erodible surface. It is all about change. Short term change, mid term change, and long term change. Change is the only certainty. Making change a crisis, to gain access to Grandma's purse, is the whole story. One would hope Grandma will mutter something about "...and the horse you rode in on, little buddy. Get lost!"
My perspective is that you can't continue to mess in the pool you live in without consequences. So, if global warming is the issue that gets countries to clean up their act, so be it. Whatever creates the rally cry that leads to the desired result of a cleaner planet for all of us if fine by me. How the governments are going about it though is certainly up for debate, and so far pretty poorly managed.
if you just stick your head in the sand then maybe it won't be a problem.
record cold temps have a direct corelation to global climate change. I hate hearing you wing nuts sqweal with delight everytike a cold day comes around. Climate Cahnge not Global Warming
and bearbreath stop diverting away from the issue as usual
poor logging and fire management practices have created the dense, intense fire prone forests of the west and you as a former corporate logger greatly contributed to it so get off your soap box you are are not a person who is in a position to be giving advice about public lands issues. Thanks for wrecking the Tongass at tax payers expense as well :(
Climate change is what drives the earth. The last million years or more has been the 100,000 year Ice Age, followed by the Interglacial warming period of 10-20,000 years. I seriously doubt if anthropomorphic influence is going to interrupt that cycle. Find some long johns, Dude, 'cause they are going to be needed.
The most evident change I can see is that with dams, the rivers don't freeze clear to the ocean anymore. That old deal about water getting close to 40f, the temp it is most dense, and then dropping to the bottom of the reservoirs, bringing the warmer or colder water to the surface to either cool or warm, keeps the rivers from freezing below them as the water never gets to freezing. Other than that, and the heat sinks that are concrete cities, radiating their heat or expelling it with air conditioning, has made cities warmer. But they only take up a minute amount of the earth. Statistically insignificant.
I think the predicted, intended, allowed burning of our public forests in the West will change the climate to cooler. All that surface without tree needle cover, without those trees holding snow to sublimate and never reach ground or become ground or surface water, will cool great areas. Also, snow as a reflective surface will reflect heat back to space. Forestland won't absorb as much heat and it will insulate snow below it for a later runoff. Burn all the watersheds and you will get more runoff. Perhaps by double. That is a good way to increase California water resources. Burn all the vegetation and build more dams and have more reservoirs. Capture the runoff. And, you will have more snow stay for longer in the spring. Constant fire kept the ground clear below the Sierra Redwoods and allowed snow to accumulate beneath them for summer watering. That is how they survived from warmer times in the past. Oh? It has been warmer than now? Concept!!!
This whole climate deal is about getting government to spend money with universities for research. Academics need money to exist. State or local government no longer has that money since we exported our earnings ability of the masses. There ain't no there, there, to tax to support the University. So now they want the Feds to borrow to support them. Climate scare has proven to be a good way. How about a tide crisis? Oh, I forgot. That will come with climate change. The world as Venice.
Maybe the end of indigenous burning of the landscape on an annual basis is the real climate change vehicle. But then we have to explain away the awful greenhouse gases produced in gigantic amounts.
The best way to regain control of our earth is to fund my retroactive vasectomy research. That is a non violent way to reduce population, and do it in a hurry. Introduce the agent into the potable water supply, drink some, and POW! everyone that you produced is instantly gone. The upside is that your grandson's pregnant girlfriend is no longer pregnant. And he isn't around to set another seed. The downside is that he won't be here, either. And your only real worry is that someone will get to Dad in the Loving Arms Rest Home. And POW!, you are gone. Damned dementia.
Unfortunately there is a consequence to this kind of temperature, the potato and sugar beet crops were heavily damaged by freezing in the ground. they are trying to savage as many of the sugar beets as they can before they spoil, I understand the spuds are done for and they are now evaluating the area as a disaster area. A FREEZING disaster....and you guys want the temps lower????????????
So why would I care or comment? Because I grow crops that need heat and sun, and a certain number of frost free days in a row. We are not getting them. So you can worry about climate change, and I will worry about the rest of this year and next. And, if I need to, we will employ some strategies to mitigate or change the effects of climate. One we have already done. We have installed orchard fans to move air in the spring to prevent freeze damage. About half the cost is subsidized, tax forgiven, because we are not employing smudge pots and fouling the airshed. Government cannot give you something they have not already taken from you or someone else. So thank you, tax payers. We just make a lot of early morning noise. The big block Chevy engines run on propane. About 12 gallons an hour each. Fighting this global warming costs money.
The thought that cold weather might hold them at bay is not a working proposition. They are abundant in Sapparo, Japan, where they held the Winter Olympics. Not an option. I am hoping for a bait and trap deal. Or them being sorted out in the soft fruit selector in processing. Homeland security can't keep nothing out of the US. Nor can APHIS. The US is dysfunctional, on a national government level. If we can't keep insect pests out, mostly from our addiction to Asian manufactured and food goods, (you know, where our jobs went), we are lost. A shame, really. But, when it comes to climate change and heating, what difference does it make if you get imported pests that take you out, anyway? Why should I care about ag and global climate change? I already have global insect exchange. Sort of like who can save sage hens from habitat destruction if they are all dead from West Nile mosquito bites?
Not to worry, boys. Humans have no effects. Just keep peeing in the soup.
Anthropogenic climate change is intellectually quite similar to seining for farts...full of good intentions with no possibility of success, and no meaningful way to measure either success of failure. At least with good science, you should be able to measure either, and modeling is not measuring. Modeling to science is what derivatives are to finance: firing shots in the dark at moving targets using other peoples money to buy the bullets, all with an expectation of a good result, and betting on what the result will be. There is now no evident difference between Wall Street and the local Indian Casino. Except, maybe the casinos are better run, more honest, and will limit your losses to what you have...
In light of that, Wall Street NEEDS carbon cap and trade, because they don't make money on profits, but the trade itself. Always the trade. Vigorish is their trade and profit. So this possibly huge Ponzi, literally in the sky, without diamonds, global warming and climate change, is Wall Street's future. Even God want's his ten percent. And into the breech we charge. We will get global warming and climate change no matter what. Milo Minderbinder is running things, as he always has. And Yosarian will have to keep on flying, even in his tenth decade. doo dah... Camptown race track five miles long...
is--we're damned lucky to have a bunch of sh!thouse scientists around to keep us wondering about whether our civilization has been good for the earth or not!
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Besides, the question remains, even if you did not believe in global warming as most of us do, why do you want to foul your own nest. My concern is saving what is left for my grandchildren and their grandchildren.