In less than two weeks, Royal Dutch Shell will enter the pristine waters of the Arctic in search for oil. If successful, it will ignite one of the most destructive resource races of our time.
One of the last great wildernesses left on earth, the Arctic's future now hangs in the balance.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, around a quarter of the planet's untapped energy resources lie at the top of our world.
By the end of this decade, the IMF forecasts that oil prices will double to breach the $200 mark. In an era of dwindling natural resources, the Arctic represents an economic gold mine.
The potential bounty has sparked off a land grab with the U.S., Canada, Russia, Denmark and Norway all vying for territorial claims. According to the Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions, Arctic states are gearing up for a new "Great Game" as they build up their military capabilities in the region.
Four years ago, Moscow announced that "our first and main task is to turn the Arctic into Russia's resource base for the 21st century." It's relying on a strike there in order to maintain its status as the world's largest oil producer.
Earlier this year, Moscow signed a deal with BP. It's now courting other oil majors that are lining up to join Shell in the Arctic. Their success depends on a huge oil strike that can offset the billions of dollars it costs to explore in these hostile waters.
The Arctic is notorious for its extreme cold, long months of darkness and hurricane-strength winds. It's also covered by thick ice for most of the year.
But, global warming has made things easier -- the summer sea ice is now the lowest on record. It's a cruel irony that oil companies are benefiting from the very warming which they have helped to create.
And temperatures in the Arctic are rising faster than anywhere else on earth. According to NASA, since the 1950s the region has warmed by 1.5C -- that's twice the global average.
This is devastating not only for the polar bears that live there, but for our entire world as ice at the top of the planet reflects much of the sun's heat back into space. Less ice at the poles will only accelerate the pace of warming, which according to the world's top scientists, is now nearing a catastrophic tipping point.
The International Energy Agency says that if we continue burning fossil fuels at our current pace, the world may suffer a 6C temperature rise by the end of this century -- this will mark the end of most life on earth. Moreover, our opportunity to remedy to this grave problem is "closing" -- we have but five years.
In the words of Sir Paul McCartney: "It seems madness that we are willing to go to the ends of the planet to find the last drops of oil when our best scientific minds are telling us we need to get off fossil fuels to give our children a future."
Shell's Arctic ambitions have sparked off an intense environmental debate in the U.S. People are not only concerned about global warming, but by the more immediate threat of an oil spill. In the words of Chuck Clusen from the Natural Resources Defense Council, it could "invite a disaster of epic proportions."
One need only remember the Exxon Valdez spill of the 1980s to realize that oil does not break down in such icy conditions. Twenty years later, it still remains trapped beneath the shore around the coast of Alaska.
An oil spill would also spell doom for the region's indigenous people. In the words of Edward Itta, who has been one of Shell's most vocal opponents: "We consider both the sea and the land and the Inupiat Eskimos to be one. Therefore, the fate of the ocean is our fate."
According to independent researchers Sintef: "Today, no proven operational system exists for detecting an oil spill covered by snow and/or ice or hidden under beach sediments."
In a bid to stop Shell's controversial drilling plans, Greenpeace has launched one its largest campaigns ever. It has joined forces with more than 100 celebrities to call for a U.N. resolution to create a global sanctuary around the pole to protect it from mining and fishing.
Such a treaty protects its southern sister, the Antarctic. If a similar accord does not come into place in the great north, the Arctic's unique ecosystem and much of its wildlife may soon be lost in a destructive tide of irreversible change. In the words of Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace's executive director: "The Arctic needs people from around the world to stand up and demand action to protect it."
"At some time, in some place, we need to take a stand. I believe that time is now and that place is the Arctic," McCartney says. And he's right -- it's time for us rise to this great challenge and protect the planet that gives us home, for "the wild places are where we began. When they end, so do we."
In the words of Thomas Jefferson: "Every generation needs a new revolution." With five years left on the clock, saving planet earth must be ours: "What lies behind us, and before us is nothing compared to what lies within us" -- this could be our finest hour.
You can sign Greenpeace's petition to 'Save the Arctic' here
Follow Aiko Stevenson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@AikoStevenson
We are on the threshold of new Earth terminology. There is a term that actually bequeaths rights to those wild places and recognizes that those open places are already occupied . . . SPECIES FOREST, SPECIES DESERT, SPECIES ISLAND,SPECIES SEA and etc. These places are of, by and for all the other species that already occupy those places. Developers and their minions hate these expressions. Developers want us to believe that the most remote places have already been polluted, disturbed or spoiled so that it is no longer considered virgin. Well, perhaps not virgin, but native species still are the occupants.
These natural services are listed as oxygen releasing, the balancing of the gaseous composition of the atmosphere, the natural regulation and moderation of the climate, the sequestration of heat trapping gases, the nitrogen cycle, fresh water, the creation and renewal of the soil, purification of air and water, plus many more free life giving services.
Ecosystems also have ties and loops to the climate and the atmosphere. Ecosystems are all integrated, and they all take care of the life zone of the Earth, the very biosphere or ecosphere.
You have just described the species forest. The species occupants can run the forest better than any developer that builds on it. The other species do not wish to be assimilated.
Less and less medicines, a genetic library, pest control and man's disease pathogen regulation and checking.
We have destroyed 43 to 50% of Earth's natural ecosystems, the eco-nomy of life itself.
Every nation on Earth should be preaching this goal.
How realistic is this "opportunity to remedy..."? Granted that we are now seeing the warming effects from CO2 generated 20-30 years ago. What about what's being generated now? Does anyone get the sense that we're under-estimating "the grave problem?" Then what about the raging escalation of carbon from China, India and others in the future?
It sounds silly to say it--it's so off the radar of our shared ideas--but isn't the prospect of die-off of most life by century's end the likely thing to happen? If this is true, what should we be doing about a catastrophe that we will not be able to forestall? How we build and manage water and land are among possibilities to help ourselves and our communities. But even this dire, survivalist prospect, given the assault on planetary resources that survival would need, requires the revolution Aiko refers to. For, instead of rational planning for maximum survival while life goes extinct, there is a false paradigm of progress along the past and current unsustainable lines. Maybe that paradigm is what we need to confront.
"isn't the prospect of die-off of most life by century's end the likely thing to happen?" Yes.
" If this is true, what should we be doing ?"
Good question. I don't think there is a correct answer, just what you can live with. Personally, I think if it happens as fast as possible--the more likely there will be enough life left around to allow for a similar biosphere to rise up again quickly. If we drag it out it will take eons....Nothing to back that up with, mind you.
I'd rather shoot for that scenario though,but thats just a personal bias for me. IMHO this natural world dominated by mammals is truly spectacular and beautiful versus other periods of life on earth that we know of. But to each to their own I guess.
And personally, the truth is I doubt what we think or do really matters all that much in the grand scheme of things. Our time here as a spp, no matter how it could have played out, is just a lightening flash in the grand scheme of things. And our individual experience of it isnt even a blink of an eye.
I think from a big picture POV, each of our lives amounts to just an opportunity to have the privilege to bear witness and hopefully notice the wonder of it all. If thats true, most people miss it.
https://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com/2012/06/30/what-would-a-real-transition-to-a-sustainable-society-look-like/#more-8691
"According to the climate-modeling group of the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, we need 100% cuts by 2050 to avert 2°C warming. Their calculations show that even this rate of reduction would leave a 1 in 3 chance of rise over 2°C. James Hansen, in the same 2011 paper referenced above, notes that if emissions cuts don’t begin until 2020, the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, currently around 395ppm, will not decline to 350ppm (considered the highest safe level for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere) for almost 300 years."
350ppm is the magic number which is believed to avert the positive feedbacks within the system.....
Regarding individual lifestyle changes:
"This is an excellent first step. However, it is important to recognize that the vast majority of energy consumption and waste production comes from the commercial and industrial sectors – that is to say, business....
So even if all of the 350 million people in the United States reduce their energy consumption and personal waste production drastically, it would have marginal effects on the global situation. It bears repeating often and loudly that the US military is the largest consumer of fossil fuel on the planet. So while simple living is certainly a moral necessity, it does not fundamentally challenge the globalized industrial economy "
Of course, all of these professors who founded the radical group were on target; however, the FBI dissolved the group because they were breaking laws, like the right to own property, etc. It all begins with the civilized worldview and all of these rights. Who should have the inherent right to kill the Earth? What other animal is so stupid as to kill his only nest?
A famous American scientist recently said, man will be extinct in 100 years. I think it will be sooner. The problem is, few see what is the living Earth and what is as life-supporting as the dust on the moon. The natural and wild surface of the Earth is the living, life giving Earth and man's changes to this natural surface destroys all the cycles, systems and functions that are life and the life giving of the planet.
Twenty years ago there was a promising movement to create "urban growth boundaries" on the west coast. Portland might still be a prime example of this principle, which firmly prevents development at a prescribed border around the urban hub. The green, surrounding area is known as a "greenbelt." This entailed more compact development within the urban hub.
You'd think I'd jump at this "solution," but I had misgivings. I was working to protect very precious and unique open space WITHIN my city, and the blanket prescription to densify the city willy nilly flew in the face of my goals.
I did have a solution, but sadly didn't then realize how I could effectively make the case for densification and open space at the same time. Among the solutions are to build houses around trees, to substitute narrow driveways for monster roads, to submerge the bottom story--a half story--into the ground, add a set-back, partial story above the second.
There are even less intrusive solution to densifying urban areas while saving urban open space. Trying to get these plans past the city council, ignorant as rocks, was beyond my poor political skills, however.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-copenhagen-global-warming-targets-climate-change?fb=native
From this October, we have 100 months before global warming hits the point of no return:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jul/02/lead-climate-predicament?CMP=twt_gu
It's all one as all ecosystems are not only integrated, but they all are interconnected to not only the fate of all life but interconnected to life itself. What is life but the living Earth. The land, the seas and man's fate are all interconnected. Are one.
The difficult (and vital) work is to constructively engage all stakeholders (Nations, IOCs, NOCs, NGOs, and a great many others) to address the many challenges that must be addressed to remedy the global warming issue. IMHO, Greenpeace has been effective at making spectacles but has not been successful in engaging stakeholders in constructive dialogue toward real change.
The head of oil giant Exxon Mobil recently admitted this. So, you are quite right - it's unfair to blame Shell. One should include all oil companies and all the investors who support them. Moreover, our world leaders who subsidize them, when they should be ploughing those billions of dollars into developing the green energy sector instead.
So, according to your logic, we should blame everyone who invests in oil companies. That includes millions of institutional investors who depend upon those investments for their retirement income.
Also, many IOCs and NOCs are themselves investing in green energy. Are you saying that we should turn our backs on their green investments as well?
I acknowledge climate change, and agree with the need to addtress it. But, I am pragmatic and experienced (old) enough to understand that changing markets and human behavior takes time and takes great effort to engage stakeholders, consolidate "wins" and continue to drive progress. My comments to your article were targeted at this point -- namely that Greenpeace has a strategy (if not policy) of creating spectacles and not engaging their targets in constructive dialogue in change.
Frankly, I do not believe that the strategy of pushing against the NOCs will be effective. If you want to drive real change, you need to find a way to pull together with them.