The Arctic This Week Take Five: Week of November 16, 2020
Playing the Trump Card – Arctic Refuge Drilling
On Friday November 13, Reuters reported that a spokeswoman for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had announced the intent of the Trump administration to push through lease sales to the oil industry within the Arctic National WIldlife Refuge before the transfer of power to President Elect Joe Biden takes place. On Monday November 16, the BLM issued a call to nominate plots of land that should be sold within the refuge. The call for nominations will be open for 30 days. According to Reuters, the Trump administration could just barely squeak in a lease sale before the Biden Administration takes over on January 20 by issuing a 30-day notice for an impending lease sale directly following the nomination period. (KTOO, NYT, Reuters, Reuters)
Take 1: This is all happening in a hurry and the U.S. Government doesn’t generally hurry. This strategy leaves only two days of wiggle-room between the end of the 30-day notice period and the transfer of power, and lease sales, if they take place, will have to undergo review in government agencies under the new Biden Administration. The Trump administration also will have to sell the leases immediately following the notice period, a process which typically takes considerably longer. In doing so, it will open the process to even further litigation by environmental groups and democrats, who largely support protection of the Refuge. The incoming Biden administration openly opposes the sale of leases within the Refuge, as such, this process may not result in actual oil development for now, although it is likely to provide a stumbling block for the new administration. Any lease sales that might go through are likely to require considerable time and attention to reverse.
Norwegian Youth Panel Passes Arctic White Paper to the Government
On November 17, High North News reported that a Norwegian youth panel submitted a White Paper on the Arctic to the Norwegian Government. The white paper calls for tangible Arctic policies oriented towards securing wellbeing, education and a stable economy for citizens in Northern Norway, and dedicates a full chapter to the Saami perspective. It calls for both nationalization and localization of the full spectrum of industrial jobs created around natural resources in the Norwegian Arctic, and for less governmental centralization in general to allow for greater policy and decision-making agency for residents of Northern Norway. The paper also calls for creation of jobs where Northern industries, such as fishing, are located – rather than the export of processing to foreign countries. (HNN)
Take 2: Although this White Paper notes a series of tangible changes, it is primarily aimed at re-framing the relationship between Northern Norway and the powers in Oslo. It is a call from the youth of Northern Norway to their government, asking for the nation to re-frame it’s relationship to the North to acknowledge the abundant natural resources and broader economic benefit that currently flow from the North into the South, and into the world in the form of oil-industry jobs and processing jobs in fisheries, timber and other resources. In this paper, the youth of Norway are telling their government in no uncertain terms that they want to keep more of that value in the Arctic. They want inward looking Arctic policies that consider benefits and economic stability for Arctic residents.
Norilsk Oil Spill – Bad Maintenance to Blame
On November 17, the Independent Barents Observer reported that the Russian state service Rostekhnadzor’s investigation of an Arctic oil spill found construction faults and poor maintenance to blame for the spill, rather than melting permafrost, as had previously been suggested. The oil spill in question began on May 29 of this year, when an oil reservoir owned and managed by the Norilsk-Taymyr Energy Company, a subsidiary of Nornickel, ruptured and hemorrhaged more than 21,000 tons of diesel into the surrounding tundra and waterways of the northern Taymyr Peninsula. (IBO)
Take 3: The overall management of this oil spill has demonstrated a push within the Russian government to tangibly improve transparency and adherence to environmental standards in its rapidly accelerating development of Arctic resources. According to Radio Canada International, the slow response and attempted cover-up of both this oil spill and a marine environmental disaster off the coast of Kamchatka likely contributed to last week’s dismissal of Russia’s now-former Minister of Natural Resources, Dmitry Kobylkin. Although the improved standards and re-enforced commitment to transparency within the Russian government are commendable, it’s essential to view them within the context of Russia’s overall Arctic development strategy, which is anything but environmentally friendly. They pave the way for new, behemoth projects under development in the Russian Arctic – Vostok Oil, Arctic LNG II, among others – which are keystones in Russia’s long-term Arctic strategy. These projects, even if completed with improved environmental standards, carry undeniable long-term environmental consequences and staggering implied carbon emissions, and lock Russia further into an indefinite emissions-intensive economy.
Estonia applies for Arctic Observer Status
On Monday November 16, Estonia’s Foreign Ministry formally submitted an application for Arctic Observer Status within the Arctic Council. In discussion of it’s application, Estonia’s Foreign Ministry stated that “sustainable development of the Arctic… should not be the task of Arctic countries alone, instead, it should be the responsibility of all countries and international organizations, especially those close to the Arctic.” (Arctic Today)
Take 4: This application underlines an ongoing conversation within the Arctic about how to engage non-Arctic states, and which nations or entities should be given voice and rights through observer status in the Council. While the Arctic Council draws a clear boundary between the rights and powers of Arctic Nations versus observers in the Council, it is considerably less consistent about who it grants Observer status, and why. For instance, the European Union’s application for observer status was rejected by the Arctic Council in 2009 – at the same time, numerous non-Arctic nations in Europe are observers, including France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain, all of which lie far from the Arctic. As such, it seems likely that Estonia’s application will be accepted – but that will do little to clarify the requirements for Observer status.
“Worst Case Scenario” of Sea Level Rise this Century may be an Underestimate – Greenland
New research published in Nature Communications on Tuesday, November 17 used historical photographs of the Jakobshavn, Helheim, and Kangerlussuaq glaciers in Greenland to calculate their ice loss by mass between 1880 and 2012, and sea-level rise over that period – approximately 8.1 ± 1.1 millimetres. Using their historical data, the researchers projected mass loss and contributions to sea-level rise for the three glaciers under a “business as usual” worst-case emissions scenario, between now and 2100. Their calculations suggest a sea level contribution of 9.1–14.9 mm from the three glaciers. (Nature Communications)
Take 5: This finding indicates that global governments may be planning based on a significant underestimate of worst-case sea-level rise in the coming century. The projected contribution of the three Greenlandic glaciers to sea level rise indicated by this research is substantially more than would be expected based on the models in common use for global change projection and planning. Specifically, they indicate that the model used to calculate global sea-level rise under a worst-case, business-as-usual emissions scenario called RCP 8.5 in the fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report may substantially underestimate Greenland’s future contribution to sea-level rise, and therefore global sea level rise under that worst-case scenario. Projections in the fifth Assessment Report are used by global governments to indicate climate change effects under a series of different emissions and implied warming scenarios. This is a sobering reminder that even with the best of science, traveling down the business-as-usual path pushes us into new territory for the climate system in which predictions are difficult, and planning even moreso.