The Arctic This Week Take Five: Week of November 2, 2020
Norway’s Top Court Begins Landmark Hearing on Arctic Oil
On Wednesday November 4, hearings by the Norwegian Supreme Court began on a case that challenges the legality of Norway’s 2016 sale of 10 oil licenses in the Barents Sea. The case is brought against the Norwegian Government by Greenpeace Norway and Nature and Youth. Its legal basis is the idea that the implicit carbon emissions and resultant climate impact of the sale endanger Norwegians’ right to a healthy environment, which is enshrined in Norway’s constitution. If the government’s decision were found to be illegal by the courts, it will set a precedent in Norway that the sale of new licenses for oil development or exploration in the Arctic, by the government, is illegal in other cases, which would effectively halt new oil development there. Two lower courts – a district court and court of appeals – previously ruled that the government decision to grant the licenses was legal. (Arctic Today, Reuters)
Take 1: As noted by Reuters, this is part of a global, emergent branch of law that seeks to use the nation’s founding principles as a basis for holding governments legally responsible for curbing carbon emissions. Although it seems unlikely that the Norwegian Government will be found guilty, if they were it would set a remarkable precedent with powerful implications for climate action in Norway, and in the rest of the world. Under the Paris Agreement, Norway has pledged to reduce its emissions by 50-55% in 2030 compared to 1990. According to Frode Plyem, the head of Greenpeace Norway, this cannot be achieved if Norway continues to drill. At the same time, oil has made Norway one of the richest and best educated nations in the world, which has driven it to the forefront of renewable energy technology, sustainable economy and global climate action. Is it better to seek to invest, with good faith in responsible governance and the potential for true low-carbon economy, or to seek to cease production immediately?
Russia’s Arctic Strategy Operationalized in New Planning Document
On October 28, High North News reported that a new “Strategy for the Development of the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation and Provision of National Security for the Period through 2035” was approved by Russian President Vladimir Putin. The document focuses on operations and domestic challenges, including a warming climate, outmigration from the Russian Arctic, and challenges to public service access and health care. (High North News)
Take 2: The Russian Government has long viewed Arctic development as a keystone to the nation’s economic future and role in global leadership, and is now gearing up to take on the Chairmanship of the Arctic Council from 2021-2023. It is not surprising that this document is one of several strategic documents about the Arctic and Russian Far East to be published by the Russian government this year. It follows up a more general, goals-and-vision oriented document signed by Putin in March, “The Foundations of State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic through 2035,” and the “Socio-Economic Development of the RAZ [Russian Arctic Zone]” document. According to Elizabeth D. Buchannan, as cited in High North News, this third document dives into detail about domestic mechanisms through which the goals and development plans outlined in the preceding documents are to be realized.
Greenland and U.S. Sign Agreement to Strengthen Ties
On October 29, Reuters reported that the United States and Greenland have set forth an agreement to strengthen economic and trade ties. The diplomatic path for this agreement was paved by the commitment of the U.S. Military to award a service contract for the U.S.’ Thule Air Base to a company registered in Greenland or Denmark, with majority Danish and/or Greenlandic ownership, when the current contract expires in 2024. (High North News, Reuters)
Take 3: This agreement marks an early success of the U.S.’ recent re-investment in diplomacy with Greenland, with tangible benefits for all parties involved. For Greenland, the agreement and re-establishment of the Thule Air Base service contract, which is worth $95 million per year and was awarded to a U.S.-based company in a breach of tradition in 2016, is a matter of pride which will also confer tangible benefit to the island’s relatively small economy. Denmark benefits from having supported and brokered the deal, which strengthens its value proposition of continued sovereignty over the semi-autonomous island, which is Denmark’s avenue into the Arctic. Greenland and the Thule Air Base are key to the U.S. and NATO’s ballistic defense and early warning system, and the U.S.-Greenland relationship is also key to the U.S.’ ability to balance the growing powers of China and Russia in the Arctic. Since 2018, the U.S. has established a consulate in Greenland and donated $12 million towards economic development on the island. In another indication of the U.S.’ re-engagement with Greenland through economic diplomacy, EXIM Bank, the U.S.’ official export-credit agency, also offered to finance nearly half of the Ironbark Zinc mine in Greenland, described in Arctic Today as a “flagship” of the island’s emergent mining industry.
U.S. leaves the Paris Agreement
On Wednesday November 4, the U.S. became the one and only nation to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. The departure was set in motion by the Trump administration three years ago, and is likely to remain regardless of the results of the ongoing U.S. election. Joe Biden has promised to recommit to the Accord if elected, but election results hang in the balance and at this time it appears he would face a divided senate and considerable obstacles. (Nature, The New York Times, Washington Post)
Take 4: Take a deep breath.
Ask yourself: Does the future of the Arctic really hang on… Accord?
Puns and election results aside, this is an interesting moment to reflect on climate goals, and what it means for the Arctic and the world if the U.S. continues down the path of fossil fuel development and climate denialism. Daunting though that idea may be, and significant though U.S. emissions are, there are silver linings – encouraging signs that actors within the U.S. and other nations see the importance of stepping into the leadership vacuum. For instance, the U.S. military has become increasingly strident in its communication of climate change implications in the Arctic under the Trump Administration, as evidenced in Coast Guard and Navy Arctic Strategy documents published since 2019. Russia also ratified the Paris agreement in 2019, and all other Arctic nations remain signatories. The EU recently revealed plans to cut emissions to 50% of 1990 levels by 2050, and China announced its intent to become carbon-neutral by 2060. If there has been one upside to the deterioration of U.S. leadership in this realm, it has been the clear message that we cannot depend on any single agreement, nation or individual to lead us through this ongoing crisis. Responsibility for the future is on each and every one of us.
Moscow Cabinet Ministers Commissioned to Make Big Drilling Plan
The Independent Barents Observer reported that on Monday November 2, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin issued action points to his ministers, based on Russia’s new Russian Arctic Strategy document (discussed above). The list includes a plan on drilling in Arctic waters that is to be presented to the Ministry of Natural Resources by December 18, 2020, based on goals to boost Arctic oil production in Russia to 26% of national output by 2035. (IBO, IBO)
Take 5: Many nations are struggling with their relationship to Arctic resources this week, and with the unique paradox faced by all Arctic states – that of being heavily affected by climate change, while simultaneously having astounding, vast and valuable resource reserves, and the potential power the wealth represents, at their disposal. As the climate warms and pressure builds upon all nations to assess their economic plans and climate goals as they relate to oil, heat is on Arctic nations in particular, at the national and global level. There are three approaches that nations can take. First, they can seek to not extract at all – an idea that Norway is toying with at the level of its Supreme Court this week. Second, they can extract, and reinvest in renewable energy and a sustainable economy, with the dream of one day becoming independent from oil. Third, they can extract, and either reinvest or squander the money without intent of moving away from an oil-dependent economy. At present, Russia’s approach appears to be to commit to plans for long-term extraction. Although these plans are coupled with investments in low-carbon technology and environmental protection, in the end, there is no indication of intent to move away from oil and extraction as the economic backbone of both the North and the nation.