Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai was once famously asked for his assessment of the consequences of the 1789 French revolution. His response showed a remarkable sense of the slowness of history, and the solidity of its contours. "It's too early to say", Zhou Enlai was reported to have told his over-eager American interlocutor.
As the Gulf of Mexico spill draws to its excruciating close -- we hope -- pundits are already predicting that the spill is a "game changer" for oil exploration and production, particularly in difficult areas such as the Arctic. This is premature.
Righteous public anger at BP, and less well-directed anger at the industry in general, has been willfully amplified by Washington. Oil companies have taken a short-term hit. The specific errors and oversights which led to the Deepwater Horizon disaster have been employed to make a series of much wider assertions: that the industry cannot be trusted; that offshore exploration and production must stop forthwith; that the Arctic frontier must remain untouched.
But there are compelling reasons to think that the spill, however dreadful, is unlikely to spell the end of offshore oil and gas exploration in the Arctic, or anywhere else. Just last month, at the height of the political fallout from Deepwater Horizon in the US, the Self-Rule government of Greenland approved a plan for a British company, Cairn, to drill off their coastline. Even if a US moratorium on Arctic offshore drilling becomes permanent, this is unlikely to mean that resources in other parts of the Arctic -- in Russia, Norway or Greenland, not to mention Canada -- will necessarily remain undeveloped.
Many of the assertions made in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster stick. The laxity of BP's approach to some operational issues is a matter of deep concern, though it does not follow that all companies (or all BP projects) are as bad. The weaknesses of the regulatory system -- highlighted for years by environmental groups -- have been more fully exposed. The basic reality that all oil and gas exploration and production carries a greater or lesser risk of environmental damage, with different and sometimes unmeasureable factors determining risk and consequence, has been underscored.
In this context, the Arctic is often presented as a worst case. Whether or not the Arctic is the most risky environment in which to drill offshore -- and the really crucial factors here are not so much latitude as the technology used, the depth of water, the presence of ice and storms, and the culture of the operator -- it is certainly the case that the ecological (but not economic) consequences of a spill in the Arctic would be far greater than elsewhere.
It's not just about a fragile environment. There is simply no way that clean-up resources could be mobilised in the north on the same scale they have been in the Gulf. Physical accessibility may be becoming less of a problem -- driven by global warming, Arctic sea ice extent is on track to reach a new low this Fall. But even now, the most likely way of dealing with an oil spill in broken ice would simply be to burn it.
In the end, the United States has a choice. Opening more of the American Arctic to oil and gas exploration would certainly bring benefits to Alaska, which is why Alaskan politicians are stout defenders of it (and not just Sarah Palin, but both of Alaska's Senators, including Democrat Mark Begich). Western oil companies -- hard-pressed to find new oil reserves in a world that is increasingly unfriendly to them -- are, unsurprisingly, in favour. But, in the end, there is no overwhelming national strategic requirement to drill for oil or gas in the north.
Promises of "energy security" coming from Arctic exploitation are even more empty now than they were when President Nixon first gave them in the 1970s -- America's dependence on imported oil is far too great for that. From a national perspective, there's more to be gained - and more cheaply -- from boosting energy efficiency than from drilling in the Arctic. Indeed, the Gulf spill is an opportunity to reform a rotten regulatory system, and to swing American public opinion behind alternative energy sources.
But -- and this is a big caveat -- the US is not alone in the Arctic. The decisions made under public pressure in Washington will not fundamentally alter the dynamics of decision-making elsewhere.
Russia will press ahead with offshore development in the Arctic where it can. The country's position internationally and the Kremlin's position domestically are too bound up with continuing hydrocarbon exports for the Gulf spill to deflect it from development. China has begun to take an interest in Arctic oil. Greenland, whose eventual independence from Denmark will likely depend on oil and gas development, is unlikely to give up its leasing programme because of events in much deeper water, half a world away. Canada's developments have stalled, but this is due to the financial crisis and the emergence of shale gas as much as Deepwater Horizon. Norway, which has one of the best regulatory systems in the world, already has hydrocarbon developments in the Arctic. These will continue, and likely expand.
We can hope that the Gulf of Mexico spill will thrust responsible trusteeship of natural resources, rather than rapacious exploitation of them, to the fore. Western companies have got much better in recent years - they have further to go. The Gulf spill can be expected, rightly, to raise the costs of offshore development and sharpen demands for transparent, science-driven assessments of risk and environmental protection.
But it's too early to predict the demise of frontier oil and gas developments, in deepwater, in the Arctic, or anywhere else. As things stand, rightly or wrongly, the Arctic is still on course to be a developing hydrocarbon region. In the long-term, the only way of protecting Arctic and other fragile environments is to curb consumption, globally. We're still very far from doing that.
Charles Emmerson is a former Associate Director of the World Economic Forum and the author of The Future History of the Arctic (Public Affairs, 2010)
J Henry Fair: Carbon Handprint
http://www.youtube.com/rantcaster#p/a/u/0/1OTu8j-kzbA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9wut9Xb4g8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rokZikefcyg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp7RO5ptlVA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1CPeuOQzVw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfAQdHucNUA&feature=related
Every bit of cheap oil will be extracted from this Earth; there is no way to stop it.
The illusion is that people are collectively in charge of their actions.
They are not; they act individually, and only in their short-term nature.
People cannot be changed when they don't want to, and they don't.
But cheer up: oil will become increasingly expensive, and we will switch to alternatives.
But only when we have to, when the oil's mostly gone. People change perforce, not by will.
The sun shines here on earth, it shines onto relatively worthless land. It shines onto our rooftops too.
A good portion of our household consumption of electricity is used to create heat. Imagine the idiocy: we burn a fossil fuel to create heat( steam) to drive a turbine to make electricity. We than transport that electricity over hundreds of mile into a household to make warm water for the shower, dishwasher, washing machine and the heating system. After being used for the above uses the still warm water goes into the sewage system
So we'll suffer the wrath of frightened conservative and moderate voters at the polls, while having gained nothing.