There are a number of schools of thought regarding global warming. Much as some believe the earth was created in one fell swoop and dinosaurs never existed; so some people dispute the fact of global warming. As a reminder, I am not speaking to the root cause of global warming, but the fact that, for whatever reason, the earth is undergoing a warming cycle right now...today...minute-by-minute.

I watched "An Inconvenient Truth" and it did make me pay more attention to the obvious: an increase in global population can, and will, and has, produced more greenhouse gases responsible for raising the temperature even if that is in addition to a natural warming cycle.

I am also skeptical of the "all or nothing"scenarios being laid out on the "yes we are the cause" and "no we are not the cause" fronts. Logical minds and the science back up this statement: we are contributing to something that may or may not be the whole shebang; but it definitely is a factor accelerating the process of climate warming.

But this society will always pay lip service to warm and fuzzy. Americans like cute things. They like cute, fuzzy things even more. So when the issue of the polar bears drowning came out in the open (and it is happening right now, today, minute-by-minute) I was as upset as anyone else.

But there is a much more critical, not warm or fuzzy at all, scenario that also happening that I think the American public is remiss in not openly acknowledging: thawing of the arctic permafrost. Say what? Permafrost? Yes, permafrost.

Some Alaskan Native villages have already started falling into the ocean, the permafrost melted beneath the foundations of houses right at cliff's edge. And what else has permafrost been supporting for decades that is now being affected by the melting? Let's see: roads, pipelines, telephone poles, oh yes...and mine tailing retention structures.

Mine tailings are the fine remnants of mining operations that contain many chemicals used to extract the valuable metals during the mining process; as well as naturally-occurring elements that would not otherwise have been released in large quantities. Gold mine tailings, for example, would include, among other things, cyanide, arsenic, and sulfuric acid...get it? These will enter the water supply. Oops, right?

Ah hell, but who cares about Alaska anyway, right? Yeah, but what about the entire country that is Canada? Remember those wacky Canuks to the great white north? That is a mighty big territory to have the permafrost go caput. And we to the south will be affected eventually...wow. 

But chemically, what the hell does permafrost have to do with the current atmospheric challenges? Organic material ("organic" means carbon based) like lichen, moss, dead critters, and the like, in thawing permafrost decays rapidly. Why? Warmth plus moisture plus dead organic material  = bacterial explosion = ideal environment for decay. Decay, if you are a discovery channel buff or ever took a science class, results in the release of gases as microbes consume and digest dead things.

In the case of permafrost, carbon dioxide and methane will be, and are, released when the permafrost becomes warm enough. Now let's do the math: take the surface area of Canada, Alaska, and northern Russia that are now covered in permafrost (conservatively, millions of square miles) and figure that each is thawing and releasing gases. Not all of it will thaw at once or at the same rate, of course; and some regions will retain the permafrost depending on geographical location in relation to large bodies of water such as inland lakes, or oceans. Those areas further north probably will never suffer permafrost loss.

Nonetheless, we are still talking about a fairly large surface area and, therefore, a large quantity of gas. In fact, regions bearing large areas of permafrost could change from a global carbon sink to a carbon source. Then, instead of slowing the warming cycle, it will be accelerated. Of course there are two schools of thought here: one says, "yes'; the other, "no, you got your data wrong." And both are possible. If anything is absolute about science it's that nothing is ever absolute forever.

But the fact that scientists recognized this within the past decade-and-a-half is good, because permafrost degradation and thawing will not take place overnight. In fact, it will take centuries. BUT the release of relatively-large volumes of methane gas during the natural summer cycles has already affected the global temperature. Then again, the amount released was not near the astronomical solar-radiation-hits-a-comet amount that had been aniticpated in the 1990s.

It is clear that although the results will probably not be as dire as predicted, the fact the events are happening in real time is disconcerting.

And this is where polar bears come into play. As the polar ice melts away, it warms the ocean. Basic principle: white reflects light and dark absorbs it. The light we are discussing is sunlight. Sunlight brings with it heat. Logically, as arctic water bodies absorb more heat that they reflect, permafrost stability will be adversely affected.

So I would suggest that regardless of what your own personal ideas are about global warming, that you take the time to take a few steps to reduce the amount you personally pollute. I live near the Crow Butte uranium mine. In situ leach mining has probably resulted in contamination of the water table with toxic substances, including radioactive material. There is an active movement to shut down the mine and not renew their permits that I, personally, hope is successful whether we stay here or not.

If you live in a region where open pit mining is conducted, and those tailings are stored in a permafrost-based retention structure, you might, in your lifetime, end up adding a little arsenic to your diet. So what harm would it do you to replace a few light bulbs with the compact fluorescents? Or drive a smaller car or hybrid?

I don't know, but it seems that if we want to save this planet, we have to accept the reality that some of the blame for what is happening does, in fact, lie with us. That truth is not inconvenient, it must be accepted. That way, perhaps the old Pogo adage, "I have seen the enemy and it is us" will become obsolete instead of quite so apropos.