Background
In our society, we are extremely dependent upon the use of fossil fuels, particularly oil. As one of our main sources of energy for the past 150 years, oil has been key to our societal transition from life without automobiles, to space travel. However, with oil consumption hitting an all-time high in 2019, we are rapidly depleting what's left of our current oil reserves. To overcome this obstacle, many big oil companies such as Shell, Exxon, and Russian giant Gazprom have all proposed to open oil operations in the Arctic. Although the Arctic’s oil reserves are plentiful, there are many hazards and dangers that come along with it. One of the many dangers in doing so is the possibility of a spill. With our current knowledge and technology, cleaning up such a mess would be extremely difficult. Essentially, drilling in the Arctic is seen as a double-edged sword.
Drilling Industry’s Proposal
The economic enticement of oil drilling in the Arctic is the major player in moving operations up north. With an abundance of untouched land, the Arctic is believed to hold around 20% of the world's total oil reserves. Considering this, many oil companies plan to jump at the chance of getting their fill. Industry giants such as Exxon, Shell, and Gazprom are the forerunners in what many are calling “the oil rush.” Bård Glad, a spokesperson for the Norwegian oil company, Statoil, released a statement saying, "I think there is a general understanding of the challenges in the Arctic and the need to develop technology and competence." Despite the harsh Arctic climate and a lack of experienced drilling there, oil companies appear to have a confident stance in their ability to obtain the Arctic’s oil.
The Recent Discussion on the Trump Administration Rushing to Sell Oil Rights
Recently, a last minute decision was enacted by the Trump administration. The goal is to auction off the development rights to the Arctic before Trump steps down from office. To be specific, the Trump administration opened the Arctic for oil drilling in August. **Note: this is rights to sell (not set for drilling yet), companies can decide where they are interested to extract oil. According to federalregister.gov, "The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Alaska State Office is issuing a call for nominations and comments on the lease tracts considered for the upcoming Coastal Plain (CP) Oil and Gas Lease Sale". All of these nominations and comments on these tracts must be received by BLM Alaska on or before December 17 2020. In 2017, the Republican lead congress approved the notion of opening part of the refuge to oil development (npr.org). There have been many concerns raised as Trump is meant to leave office very soon and this type of push is very controversial; many environmental groups believe cramming in this last minute decision doesn't give the public enough time to raise concerns. There have been copious amounts of lawsuits filed in hopes of stopping the extraction of oil in the Arctic. On the other side of it, many believe drilling for oil in the Arctic will not only provide more jobs but improve the economy as a whole. There are possibilities that environmental organizations could partner will large oil companies in order to extract the oil safely but, this is very rare.
Here are Some Things to Note:
-Biden claims he has plans to protect the Arctic refuge, "He will launch a national effort aimed at creating the jobs we need to build a modern, sustainable infrastructure now and deliver an equitable clean energy future (Joedbiden.com). It is unsure if these claims will be followed through.
-If the depletion of wildlife occurs in the process of drilling for oil, certain animals will obviously die. Many Alaskan natives rely heavily upon different animals for food and culture.
-The process of drilling is very costly
-There are billions of dollars locked in the Arctic (billions of dollars in oil)
-According to CNBC, the Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else in the planet
-The Arctic's ecosystems are worth billions of dollars as well (take into account things like tourism and food brought in)
-Big companies like Goldman Sax, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup all want to end Arctic oil investments
-Some people believe drilling for oil doesn't mean the destruction of the Arctic's ecosystems.
-The two sides with valid points: There is immense value in the untapped oil vs there is immense value in preserving the current ecosystem
Scientific Response
Many scientists and environmental activists are very opposed to the idea of extracting the Arctic's oil. This response is primarily due to the many harmful and detrimental factors oil drilling poses to the environment. Among the outrage, an environmentalist group, Greenpeace, directly opposed this idea, was not shy to voice their opinions on this topic. In a recent statement from Greenpeace, they claim that “no oil company has ever successfully cleaned up a major spill.” This is significant because The U.S. Department of the Interior believes that the likelihood of a major spill from drilling in the Arctic would be approximately 75%. Alongside the risks of an oil spill, scientists believe that siphoning the Arctic oil would also accelerate climate change.
Many believe that if we were to get our hands on this oil it would further extend our dependence on fossil fuels thus indicating that finding an alternate energy source is temporarily less important. Along with this, if we were to exhaust the oil reserves in the Arctic, we would be exceeding our planet's temperature threshold by at least 2°C. This change in temperature would mean the disappearance of numerous mountain glaciers and rivers. Incidentally, by the year 2100, we’d see a rise in sea level of at least a meter, which would expel approximately 10% of the world's population from their homes and residences.
Renewable Energy
Many people are doubtful on whether or not our generation will suffer the environmental consequences of the long-term dependence on fossil fuels, and the answer to that question is most likely yes. At our current rates, we will exhaust all of our natural gas and crude oil reserves roughly 52 years from now. This statistic is quite alarming because it doesn’t give us much time to make a global transition to a more environmentally friendly and cleaner energy alternative. For these reasons, many scientists and people who share an interest in the health of our planet, are calling for us to start this transition sooner rather than later. The leading alternative to fossil fuels is currently electric power. We can obtain this energy with numerous different processes and in various other ways. Among these processes is hydroelectricity, a process which uses the power of rivers and streams to generate electricity. Another example of how we can gather electric power is through the process of solar energy, this requires solar panels placed on the roofs of homes to capture light from the sun and in return convert it into a clean energy source.
The benefits of using electricity over oil and gas are that it doesn’t accelerate our production of greenhouse gasses, which act as an insulation barrier in our atmosphere. These gasses trap heat and therefore trigger the rising temperatures in our oceans and on our landmasses. A transition of such right now would likely see us not exceed our planetary temperature threshold, but if we were to continue on this path of consuming fossil fuels we would likely see an increase in our average temperature of 8°C by the year 2300.
Where do I stand?
No one really likes the idea of destroying ecosystems. The root of drilling for oil is essentially boosting the economy and how profitable it can be. Here's a list of questions that can help determine where you stand on this issue:
Which form of profit outweighs the other? Extracting? or leaving the oil? Is it even possible to weigh potential effectively? Is this debate ever really going to go away? Will there come a point where we eventually have to drill in the Arctic? Why don't we do it now? Is the issue here Trump implementing this so late in his presidency or our reliance upon fossil fuels? Is it both? Was this inevitable? How much damage would this all really cause?
This is clearly a lot to take in. If you are interested in learning more on this issue the sources below are very helpful if you would like to further develop your opinions.
Check out this video on CNBC's website: click here.
Sources:
Comments