Most of us are aware that something is wrong with our climate and that some countries that have four seasons are seeing those seasons slowly disappear. We also know that scientists have been divided on the issue of climate change. Some scientists argue that climate change is a fabrication, some agree climate change is occurring, and some have even made a fortune discussing the issue. For example, the former American Vice President Al Gore made millions of dollars from his book An Inconvenient Truth, and subsequently owned Current TV that he later sold to Al Jazeera at great profit. The climate change debate has evolved as more and more research is being done about global warming’s impact on the economy, on the public, and even as a threat to national security. Several factors continue to impact the issue. The oil companies are not very transparent about their polluting activities. Also, global energy demand indicates fossil fuels will not disappear overnight. No magic bullet will solve this problem, but is may be retarded if all the governments, first, focus on renewable energy and reducing emissions by switching from coal to natural gas for electricity generation, second, deploy carbon capture and storage technology, and third, create a fair, balanced carbon-pricing system. Oil companies should enter into the public debate alongside other NGOS, scientists, and public and private sectors to offer some realistic solutions to our global climate change, not just rely on some big oil lobbyists’ reports.
President Obama’s administration has currently decided to permit Royal Dutch Shell back into oil exploration in the Alaskan Arctic despite the risk to the environment. The Department of the Interior approved Royal Dutch Shell Oil’s return to the Chukchi and Beaufort seas within the Arctic area. Shell attempted to explore for oil in the region three years ago, but because of harsh conditions, their drilling rig ran aground. The Arctic has been an important component of America’s national energy strategy, because according to estimates by energy consultant Wood Mackenzie, the region belonging to Russia, Norway, the US, Canada and Greenland, may hold as much as 166 billion barrels of oil. Therefore, exploring oil and gas reserves held under the Arctic will meet expected global energy demands beyond the 2040. The oil companies argue that total energy demand will increase by 37 percent over the next 25 ears and that without new reserves, the world could face a challenging shortfall of oil and gas. Shell plans to use two rigs to extract around 400,000 barrels per day of crude oil. The company has already spent more than 5 billion. Some argue that Alaska Arctic alone could deliver more than 1 million barrels a day. The figure is very significant and almost equal to two thirds of Saudi Arabian reserves. Despite the recent very low price of crude oil, around $50 per barrel, oil companies are willing to shoulder the high-risk and very costly drilling oil projects working in the frozen Arctic region. However, Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell admits,
“This unique, sensitive and often challenging environment requires effective oversight to ensure all activities are conducted safely and responsibly.”
The problem, however, is that even if the US government effectively maintains oversight to ensure all activities are conducted safely and responsibly, it will cause other countries to tap their Arctic resources. Will they also be careful in terms of oversight to ensure all activities are safe? According to Greenpeace, Russia suffers more pipeline leaks than any other country, and as a result, millions of tons of oil products are leaking into the environment annually. Canada and Russia are watching Shell’s drilling plans closely. Russian state-run Rosneft and the Gazprom gas producer have a monopoly and are eager to explore the Russians’ vast Arctic continental shelf, but work has been put on hold because of current American and Western economic sanctions on Russia for its support of the Separatists in Ukraine.
Environmental groups have criticized President Obama‘s decision to open 30 million acres of US Arctic water for oil exploration because they argue the Arctic is melting rapidly as a result of climate change, and oil and gas exploration will expedite the melting. Last year’s temperatures in the Arctic were the hottest on record, and the nations have agreed to keep human induced warming to 3.6 Fahrenheit. But the current trajectory implies warming far beyond this limit if the oil companies continue avoiding the reality of the oil companies’ footprint. The Russian government has charged some of the Greenpeace activists with piracy for their protest on a Gazprom oilrig in 2013. Greenpeace activists argue that we do not have the technology or the infrastructure to deal with the specific challenges of a disaster in the Arctic; therefore, it will have a huge impact on global warming. To avoid the risks to security and to the environment, energy companies must collaborate on safety standards in hopes of minimizing mishaps and climate alteration.
Dr. Aland Mizell is President of the MCI and a regular contributor to Mindanao Times. You may email the author at:aland_mizell2@hotmail.com