Willravel

My statement means that a vast majority of scientists are of the opinion that CO2 levels are too high and man is having a measurable effect on the Earth's warming...therefore we could change our behavior so that the Earth remains in this part of the warming trend for longer, effectively slowing global climate change to make life more stable, at least in a climatological repsect. We should ultimately work to 1) preserve ourselves and therefore 2) preserve the world around us. We live in a symbiotic relationship with the world around us, so it would be in our best interest to protect all parts of that relationship.

Polar bears may not seem important (unless you work at a zoo, in which case they are the lifblood of the industry), but it's possible that they are holding several parts of their ecosystem together and a change in that ecosystem could effect us eventually. Say, for example, that polar bears keep seals in check. Without polar bears, seals become the dominant species and eat too much of their food, lets say small fish. Seals start starving because they eat up all their food, a food that fisherman also look for to provide food for people, and seals starve and fishermen lose their jobs and there are less fish on the market total, raising the price of fish. How much are you willing to pay for tuna? How long before Northern Cod is no longer available? How long before that changes the amount of kelp? This might seem a simple problem, but it's implications could be far reaching.