« December 2007 | Main | February 2008 »

January 31, 2008

Study: Republicans Don't Care About Warming Planet

Maybe this just confirms what you already knew, but a new study by Pew shows that Republicans don't care about global warming. Only 12% of Republicans in the January 2008 poll thought dealing with global warming should be a "top priority," as oppposed to 47% of Democrats and 38% of Independents. In fact, global warming was the issue Republicans cared least about.

For a Mother Jones summary of where the candidates, Republican and Democrat, stand on issues like global warming, check out our "Primary Colors" package here.

January 30, 2008

Heat Increases Baby Bottle Chemicals

A University of Cincinnati study has found that the hotter the liquid, the faster polycarbonate plastic bottles release toxins. Currently, reusable water bottles, baby bottles, and many other containers are made out of polycarbonate plastic. (For an easy guide to types of plastics and their dangers, click here.)

Researchers found that plastic bottles holding boiling water released bisphenol A, an environmental pollutant, up to 55 times faster than those containing room-temperature water. Baby formula is commonly boiled in preparation, so it's likely that very hot formula could leach high amounts of bisphenol A from baby bottles. However, the researchers do not know how much bisphenol A humans would have to consume before it became harmful.

Bipsphenol A is known to cause cancer and hormone irregularities and is "just one of many estrogen-like chemicals people are exposed to," said lead researcher Scott Belcher, "and scientists are still trying to figure out how these endocrine disruptors—including natural phyto-estrogens from soy which are often considered healthy—collectively impact human health."

While scientists figure out the effects, you might consider switching your plastic travel mug to stainless steel.

January 29, 2008

Alaska Delays Decision for Tribe to Hunt Young Wolves, Bears

As a vegetarian, pet-owning urbanite who's never been hunting, I find it hard to stomach the idea of grown men with rifles killing fuzzy baby animals. So it was with mixed feelings I read today that Alaskan tribes will have to wait until November to see if they can legally cull wolf pups and bear cubs in their dens along the Kuskokwim River. The now-banned practice, traditional among Orutsaramuit people in southwestern Alaska, is intended to reduce predators killing too many of the moose that tribes rely on for subsistence hunting. While conservationists predictably see the practice as cruel, the real bone of contention lies between the state of Alaska and tribal officials.

The state of Alaska says that the moose population actually increased from 2004 to 2006, years during which at least 70 wolves were killed in reduction efforts. Another estimate, from May 2007, also showed that the moose population in the tribe's area is on the rise.

A natural resources representative from the Orutsaramuit Native Council disagrees. He says the area in contention "was the best moose habitat in the country and it's almost totally gone now...We want to do everything we can to get moose numbers up back to the way they were."

Unfortunately, the Native Council has not supplied any hard numbers (as far as I could see) on moose populations. So what's the state of Alaska to do—trust anecdotal evidence that moose are nearly gone and allow native Alaskans to reduce wolf and bear populations, or trust its own data that there are plenty of moose around—and risk alienating a local tribe? What's your take?

January 28, 2008

Exercise—It Does a Cell Good

Here's yet another reason to keep your New Year's resolution to exercise this year: people who work out have younger-looking cells than those who don't.

In the study, conducted at King's College in London, 1,200 pairs of British twins were tested. Just one hundred minutes of activity a week made cells of active twins look five to six years younger than their couch potato counterparts. With three hours of exercise, the cells looked nine years younger.

Young-looking cells may not seem much to crow about, but scientists have long theorized the younger your cells appear under a microscope, the younger you look on the outside. As cells age, they divide. Over time, a cell loses its ability to divide and dies, causing aging symptoms like wrinkles, reduced organ function, and poor eyesight. So while exercise helps you feel better and keeps you healthy, it may also help you look younger.

Excuse me while my cells and I slip on our running shoes.

Us to Earth: We Will Rock You

Geologically speaking, nature usually calls the shots. Historically it's been the case that major natural events—shifting tectonic plates, volcanoes, even asteroids—have shaped the trajectory of life on this planet. Not anymore. A team of researchers from the University of Leicester and the Geological Society of London is the latest group to make the case that the Holocene era is coming to an end, and the Anthropocene (meaning, basically, man-made) is on its way in. Our impact on the planet is so profound, say the scientists, we've changed our home for good. The evidence:

* Vastly altered sediment erosion and deposition patterns.
* Major disturbances to the carbon cycle and global temperature.
* Wholesale changes in biology, from altered flowering times to new migration patterns.
* Acidification of the ocean, which threatens tiny marine life that forms the bottom of the food chain.

This isn't a new idea. The term "Anthropocene Era" was coined by Paul Crutzen, winner of the 1995 Chemistry Nobel Prize. Crutzen identified three phases of the era—and made some guesses as to what we can expect next.

If you're still not convinced, consider another recent study: Soil scientists at Duke University say that these days, even the dirt beneath our feet is man-made. Says lead researcher Daniel Richter:

“With more than half of all soils on Earth now being cultivated for food crops, grazed, or periodically logged for wood, how to sustain Earth’s soils is becoming a major scientific and policy issue.”

To see a cool interactive map of humans' effect on soil worldwide, go here.

January 25, 2008

$1 Ethanol Isn't Innovation, It's a Commitment to Business as Usual

Americans do not reduce. We may reuse, and we may recycle, but our economic system is predicated on steady consumption. So it makes sense that while trying to invent our way out of the consequences of global warming, we would seize upon those ideas that encouraged us to, well, consume. In other words, business as usual.

Today's quick fix is brought to us by Coskata. This Illinois-based energy startup, thanks to a hefty investment from GM, has already announced its triumph in the race for a new global energy source. The winning product? Bargain ethanol. Coskata's innovative technology, which lets anaerobic "patented microorganisms" eat syngas (a carbon monoxide and hydrogen compound formed by processing biomass such as corn husks), allows the company to produce waste-free ethanol from almost anything you give them: tires, factory waste, switchgrass, you name it.

What's more, says the company, because its process can convert so many different types of material into essentially pure ethanol, the fuel could be locally produced anywhere in the world. Each gallon will generate nearly eight times as much energy as it takes to make it, and the product reduces carbon emissions by 84%. The production cost of this miracle fuel? $1 per gallon.

Don't get me wrong. It sounds incredible. And though some of the company's claims may be overenthusiastic, the underlying premise—that all of our scraps could make a whole lotta energy—is essentially sound. There's a danger, however, in hyping solutions to our energy problems that don't require people to change a single habit, or even to know any more about where their fuel comes from.

One of the attractions of corn-based ethanol was the ease with which it could be substituted for regular fuel: sell enough of it to your local gas stations, and as long as his car kept moving Joe Driver wouldn't even notice the difference. But debates over peak oil and fealty to "energy independence" obscure widespread denial of the fact that it is not just our energy supplies, but our lifestyle that is absolutely unsustainable. Coskata could fill every gas pump in the world with truck-tire ethanol, and it wouldn't change the fact that at some point there won't be enough truck tires. Our oil needs are a problem, but our energy needs are a bigger one.

To reiterate: I'm all for technology that reduces emissions, shrinks landfills, and otherwise makes use of all that we currently throw away. And if Coskata really does get its production facilities up and running by 2011, as it claims it can, I'll happily get in line. But in the interest of long-term survival, it'd be nice to see someone devote the same kinds of resources to livable city design, efficient and far-reaching mass transit, and local economies. Unfortunately, scaling down does not a profit make.

—Casey Miner

Insects Creep Out of Asia—And Into Your Backyard?

Invasive species like the Asian tiger mosquito are on the rise in Europe, French researchers recently reported. Nineteen new invasive species made Europe their home every year from 2000 to 2007. (From 1950 to 1975, only about 10 species per year established themselves.)

Europe is now home to 1,517 non-native species of worms and insects. Only 10% were deliberately introduced, the rest hitching rides on ships or migrating on their own. Most of the unwelcome bugs came from Asia and North America.

Of course, the tales of global warming pushing invasive species to, well, invade are not new. But they are increasing in nearly every corner of the globe. The Asian tiger mosquito (mentioned and pictured above) is invasive to Europe, but also to the U.S. It was first discovered in 1985 breeding in some old tires in Houston, Texas. Within two years, it had expanded its range to 17 states, and now lives in at least 25. It's a carrier of Dengue fever and LaCrosse encephalitis, both of which can be fatal. So slap on that insect repellent this summer and light some Citronella candles—you never know what might be buzzing in your neck of the woods.

Antarctica Is Melting, After All

A while back, I blogged about how global warming skeptics were all smug and glowy (and wrong) about how Antarctica's not melting. If the sea ice in the South Pole is actually increasing, the reasoning went, then how could the planet be warming? Huh? Huh? Well, for a number of reasons, that logic is false, but guess what? It may be moot point anyway, since it turns out that the western part of Antarctica is melting—and fast: Ice loss in the region has increased by 75 percent over the past ten years.

A team of researchers led by scientists from UC Irvine discovered that the underlying cause for the melting was accelerated glacier flow, which is, in turn, caused by warming oceans. All that melting means higher sea levels:

They detected a sharp jump in Antarctica’s ice loss, from enough ice to raise global sea level by 0.3 millimeters (.01 inches) a year in 1996, to 0.5 millimeters (.02 inches) a year in 2006.

That level of melting puts western Antarctica almost on par with Greenland, a dubious distinction, to say the very least.

January 24, 2008

Has California's Low-Carbon Fuel Standard Actually Increased Carbon Emissions?

Last year California passed a much-heralded law requiring oil companies to cut the carbon intensity of their fuel 10 percent by 2020. The state is allowing ethanol to be used as one low-carbon substitute, and recently raised the cap on ethanol in gasoline from six to ten percent. You've probably read about the ways the ethanol craze contributes to higher food prices around the world, but what nobody has calculated, until now, is how this affects ethanol's true carbon footprint. In an analysis released January 17th, two UC Berkeley researchers found that ethanol actually produces more carbon emissions than gasoline. As a result, the carbon intensity of California fuel has ironically risen, between 3 and 33 percent.

The researchers, professors Michael O'Hare and and Alexander Farrell, take issue with the model state regulators used to calculate ethanol's carbon output, arguing that it did not factor in the indirect effects on the global food supply. Among other things, higher corn prices cause farmers half-way around the world to convert more forests into farmland, and those trees are then burned or decay, releasing more carbon into the atmosphere. The professors pointed this out in a letter sent earlier this month to the California Air Board, which is discussing changing its carbon model in light of the findings.

The Nobel Laureates Have Spoken: We Need a Presidential Science Debate

Eleven Nobel laureates, nine congressmen, multiple university presidents, and the heads of numerous science organizations have signed a petition calling for a presidential science debate this year. "Science and engineering have driven half the nation’s growth in GDP over the last half-century, and lie at the center of many of the major policy and economic challenges the next president will face," says Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "We feel that a presidential debate on science would be helpful to America’s national political dialogue."

It's not surprising that the candidates haven't jumped at the idea. Global-warming- and evolution-denying Republicans would look hilarious in such a forum, but even Democrats might worry about making a gaffe while weighing in on debates that are normally left to the experts. Still, it seems like an idea Democrats should take seriously. By signaling to voters that science is important, it would drum up support for the party's ideas, and, more fundamentally, lay out how post-Middle-Ages worldview translates into superior leadership.

January 23, 2008

How High Gas Prices Are Making Us Safer. Seriously.

Gas prices, thanks to the Global War on Terror and Hurricane Katrina, are now the highest in the nation's history. Gas easily tops $3 per gallon in San Francisco, Boston, Los Angeles, Miami, and other cities across the nation, making driving an expensive way to get around. For reference, gas prices have increased roughly 100% since 9/11.

What's the upside? That ridiculously expensive petroleum is prompting people to drive more slowly on highways, drive less often, buy more fuel-efficient cars, and take mass transit more often. A recent Congressional Budget Office report found that based on statistics from 2003 to 2006, a theoretical 15-year, 10% increase in gas prices would reduce consumption by 4% as consumers replaced their gas-guzzlers with more fuel-efficient cars.

And I do mean cars. Sales of light-trucks dropped 10% beginning in 2003, when the Iraq invasion made gas prices spike. Sales of compacts and mid-size vehicles, on the other hand, have been on the rise: the combination of more compacts and fewer SUVs means the average vehicle on the road today has a higher fuel-efficiency than three years ago.

Although the CBO report did not list the amount of CO2 saved by having fewer trucks on the road, it did say that a 20% rise in gasoline prices created a 2% increase in mass transit ridership and took 730 vehicles (per weekday) off the freeways. A bonus: the drivers on the roads drove more slowly.

Now, this may be a coincidence, but since gas prices went up, traffic fatalities for all vehicles (except SUVs) have decreased. Overall, 2006 (the most recent data year available) had the lowest traffic fatality and injury rate in five years, and most of the decrease was due to reduced accidents during daylight hours on weekdays (commute time).

So is the high price of gas making us safer? Indeed. With fewer commuter vehicles on the road, especially roll-over prone SUVs, and more people taking public transit, the facts suggest there's less chance for accidents.

January 22, 2008

Prince Charles (in Hologram) Lauds UAE's Green Cities Investment

Which is more bizarre? Prince Charles' hologram walking and twiddling his way across a stage, or a proposal for a no-waste, carbon-neutral city in a desert where searing temperatures make air conditioning a must?

Both the hologram and the city plan made appearances at the World Future Energy Summit, in Abu Dhabi, which began yesterday and runs through tomorrow. It might seem strange to discuss energy efficiency and global warming in a country that sells oil for a living, but 2,500 delegates from around the world are doing just that. Some tidbits from the summit thus far:
-Prince Charles, OB Wan Kenobi-style, called for immediate climate change action.
-Abu Dhabi, partnering with MIT, will build an alternative energy university.
-A British architect announced an elaborate plan for a car-free, zero-emissions city for 50,000 to be powered by solar panels.
-Abu Dhabi will spend $15 billion on a green energy initiative and will build the world's largest hydrogen power plant.

Now, if only Las Vegas would follow in the footsteps of Abu Dhabi, that'd be something to hologram about.

Richard Branson's Friendly Skies of Pond Scum?

Next month, Richard Branson's Virgin Atlantic airline plans to fly a Boeing 747 from London to Amsterdam, powered (in part) by an unspecified, but supposedly clean and sustainable biofuel. It will be the first bioful test flight of a commercial jet, and, if successful, could augur a new age of ecofriendly aviation. Among the fuels Branson might test, that green muck from your fish tank... Read more here.

January 18, 2008

30 Million Years to Recover From Extinction?

Scientists have been saying for a while that by the end of this century, half of all species could be extinct. And a new study says that it could take an awfully long time for Earth to recover—30 million years, to be specific.

Back in the Permian era, Earth lost more than 90 percent of all life. Scientists once thought that species rebounded quickly from the hit, but it turns out they were sort of missing the fine print, according to researchers at Bristol University:

Sahney and Benton looked at the recovery of tetrapods – animals with a backbone and four legs, such as amphibians and reptiles – and found that although globally tetrapods appeared to recover quickly, the dramatic restructuring that occurred at the community level was not permanent and communities did not recover numerically or ecologically until about 30 million years later.

And when the species were struggling to rebound back then, they didn't even have to deal with us.

January 15, 2008

FDA Approves Cloned Animals for Store Shelves

The FDA announced today that cloned animals (and offspring and milk produced by said clones) are safe to consume. The agency said that cloned cows and pigs and other farmed animals "are as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals." Which, as you may have read, isn't saying much.

But with cloned animals costing tens of thousands of dollars each, it's unlikely they will become a staple of our diet unless the technology that produces them is radically less expensive. Their offspring, instead, may be killed to provide consistent meat and milk products.

If you don't want to buy clones or cloned offspring, caveat emptor: the FDA "is not requiring labeling or any other additional measures for food from cattle, swine, and goat clones" or their offspring because the agency considers clones and non-clones identical. Food retailers and consumers, I think, will see the issue differently. I can just see the ads now: "the Carl's Jr. 100% ORIGINAL beef burger! No clones!"

To Eat or Not to Eat? That Ain't the Question.

Yesterday the LA Times posed a question to its readers: Why do we eat? More specifically, why do we overeat? Their answer, supported by several scientists and studies, was that the sheer ubiquity of food triggers an almost Pavlovian eating reflex.

Several recent studies, papers and a popular weight-loss book argue that eating is an automatic behavior triggered by environmental cues that most people are unaware of—or simply can't ignore. Think of the buttery smell of movie theater popcorn, the sight of glazed donuts glistening in the office conference room or the simple habit of picking up a whipped-cream-laden latte on the way to work.

In short, Americans are so divorced from the idea of food as nutritious that we don't even react to our bodies' physical cues, instead responding to subliminal environmental messaging. The fact that our environment is saturated with unhealthy foods creates the illusion that we have no choice but to eat them. The only solution, sigh the scientists, might be government regulation of everything from vending machines to portion size.

But if it's true that people have no free will when it comes to food, the message hasn't yet reached marketers. Far from subtle, the motivations behind ad campaigns are often brutally clear.

A Burger King ad currently running in Bay Area subway stations, for example, shows a picture of the Golden Gate Bridge with the caption, "Now You Can Eat and Pay Rent." Residents of the country's third-most expensive city will not miss the point: You'll choose Burger King because if you want to keep a roof over your head, there's no other choice.

It doesn't have to be that way. A new study in the American Journal of Public Health shows that, surprise! Low-income people—Burger King's target demographic—buy fresh, local fruits and vegetables if given the means to do so (the study gave participants $10 vouchers to use for produce at farmers' markets or supermarkets) The money might not buy as many calories, but it still helped study participants eat close to three extra servings of fruits and veggies per day. So forget eating and paying rent. Maybe we can thrive and pay rent.

—Casey Miner

January 14, 2008

Dead Hearts Beat Again, Thanks to Science

Scientists at the University of Minnesota have combined young cells with dead hearts to make...new hearts. Yes, that's right sci-fi fans: They grew a new, living, beating heart right there in their lab.

How they did it: Researchers used new heart cells from baby rats and combined them with the valves and "outer structure" of an adult rat's dead heart. In two weeks, "the cells formed a new beating heart that conducted electrical impulses and pumped a small amount of blood," reported the New York Times. As the scientists detailed in Nature Medicine yesterday, the newly created hearts were implanted in other rats, and were not rejected. The process, called "whole organ recellularization," could be done with virtually any organ, said researcher Doris Taylor.

Heart disease is a leading cause of death in our country. Currently, there are about 3,000 people waiting for donor hearts and 550,000 people are diagnosed with heart disease each year. Even for those lucky enough to get a donor heart, the surgery provides no guarantee that their body won't reject the organ. The new process reduces risk of rejection and actually increases the chance that the body will grow new blood vessels and muscles on the implanted heart. So the discovery that we may be able to some day re-grow our own hearts for implantation is encouraging, to say the least. If this kind of procedure were to be used in humans (and scientists involved in the experiment emphasize that that's about 10 years away), stem cells from the patient's own bone marrow would be injected into a specially prepared heart-like structure made from cadaver parts.

But if we ever have the ready option of organ replacement, will we live our lives differently? Will we eat hamburgers and cheesecake in abandon, secure in the knowledge that heart #2 is waiting for us in a freezer somewhere? My biggest question, really: Would this therapy be affordable for all, or for like many other medical breakthroughs would only the rich be able to afford it? Which brings us back to reason number 2,360 to support universal healthcare.

January 11, 2008

Toyota Tops Consumer Reports' Greenest Cars

Although "eco-friendliness" ranks well behind "safety" and "value" among qualities consumers consider when buying cars, Consumer Reports did due diligence finding out which brands of cars are perceived as the most green. To be clear, they only tested for brand's perception as an eco-friendly car-maker, not how friendly the actual car is to Mother Earth.

It's probably no surprise that Toyota ranks the highest, with its seemingly ubiquitous Prius. Nearly half of the consumers surveyed say they associate Toyota with being green, twice as many as selected the runner-up brand, Honda. Ford (Escape Hybrid), Chevrolet (Tahoe Hybrid), and GMC (Yukon Hybrid) came in at third, fourth, and fifth places, respectively.

Although being "green" came in fifth among qualities consumers say they look for, it's encouraging that eco-friendliness was ranked higher than "design/style" and "technology/innovation." To me, that signifies that Americans may be more willing to put the environment above looks and style or unnecessary doo-dads when purchasing their next automobile. Of course, if we had better public transportation systems, we might not need all those cars on the road at all. But hey, a gal can dream.

January 10, 2008

Iditarod Race Feels Global Warming's Heat

Citing "less-than-winter conditions," and encroaching suburban development, Iditarod officials are moving the famous dog race's starting point 30 miles north from Wasilla to Willow. They're also shortening the first, ceremonial leg of the competition (the short, easier race that precedes the harsh, longer race to Nome) by seven miles.

This isn't the first time officials have had to change the traditional sled dog race's route. Just six years ago, a lack of snow forced them to move the 1122-mile-long race's start point 200 miles north, from Wasilla to Fairbanks. And even now, they have to truck in snow for the ceremonial start.

Warm weather isn't the only element threatening the Iditarod: Increasing suburban development has crunched in previously wide-open spaces. "No matter what the weather conditions would be, there's a lot of asphalt and other things that don't mix well with competitive racing," said Stan Hooley, executive director of the Iditarod Trail Committee. "To be around that is stressful for the dogs."

You can see an interactive map of the trail for this year's race, which begins March 1, here. To see the NOAA satellite view of the land around the start point, go here.

Antarctic Sea Ice Increase: Fodder for Global Warming Skeptics?

Hold onto your hats, kids, because climate change skeptics are sure to have a field day with this one: Researchers have found that for the past 20 years, while ice in the Arctic has been rapidly decreasing, Antarctic sea ice has actually been increasing. "See?" The skeptics will say. "If the world really were getting warmer, then it wouldn't be all cold and icy in the South Pole."

But like many global warming denialist arguments, this one doesn't leave a whole lot of room for scientific nuance. Not all that science is fully understood yet, but until it is, you can fire back at doubting Thomases with a few basic facts: For starters, South Pole ice is much thicker than North Pole ice (2 miles in the Antarctic vs. 6-10 feet in the Arctic). Also, the ice in the north sits on open ocean, so it gets warmed from beneath&8212;while in the south, much of the ice sits on a continent.

Sydney Indymedia e-mailed renowned NASA climate scientist James Hansen, and he kindly put the Antarctic trends in some context:

All of the models, and the observations, have the central parts of Greenland and Antarctica growing faster because of global warming. This is a consequence of warmer air holding more moisture, thus increasing snowfall. But the net effect of warming on both continental ice sheets is mass loss, the increased melting being a larger effect than the increased snowfall.

And according to Hansen, not all of Antarctica's sea ice is increasing:

He also said "The fact that West Antarctica is shedding mass at a substantial rate, even though there is only small warming of surrounding sea surface temperatures, is a telling fact in my opinion, and a likely consequence of the warming ocean at depth, which affects the ice shelves that buttress West Antarctica, as discussed in our paper 'Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study.'"

So there you have it: As usual, climate change is much more complex than skeptics would have us believe.

If China Can Ban Plastic Bags, Why Can't We?

Communist governments may be oppressive to American eyes, but they do have the power to make sweeping environmental changes. Key example: China.

As Jacques Leslie reports in our current issue, China is the world's top CO2 emitter and uses more coal than any other nation. But in a bid to reduce pollution, effective June 1, the country's Communist government has banned those flimsy, white, petroleum-based plastic bags. And not just in a few cities, but across the entire nation of 1.3 billion people.

"While [the bags] providing convenience to consumers," the central government said in a statement, "they have also caused serious pollution, and waste of energy and resources, because of excessive use and inadequate recycling," China uses about 3 billion plastic bags a day.

Thicker plastic bags will still be allowed, for a fee, but the government is highly encouraging people to use traditional baskets or re-usable cloth bags. Citizens have been receptive, perhaps because pollution is so bad in China that most have experienced its effects (poor water quality, lung-searing smog) firsthand.

One consequence could be, since production of the bags in China will be banned, that perhaps we'll end up with fewer over here. Everything else we sell is made in China, if our plastic bags are too we might face a welcome shortage.

January 9, 2008

Feds Miss Deadline to Help Polar Bears

Federal authorities missed the deadline this week to classify polar bears as "endangered." Seems rampant habitat loss due to global warming isn't compelling enough to get them listed.

Well, today three conservation groups announced that they're going to sue the Department of the Interior to get the endangered status for the bear.

This all started last January, when an Interior Secretary proposed putting polar bears on the federal endangered list. The Endangered Species Act requires a final decision no later than a year after such a proposal. While the government claims that the deadline was missed because of the complex science involved, and because there has never been a species listed due to global warming, conservationists say that the federal government consistently uses such administrative excuses to keep animals off the list or meddle in scientific findings.

Just to give some context for the "science" part of the argument, a National Geographic study found that polar bears may be extinct by 2050 due to global warming, and in summer 2007, there was 40% less Arctic ice than there was in 2000, according to a study by the National Snow and Ice Data Center. As we wrote about last year, glo