Ask the Experts: Drilling in the Arctic
What is the significance of drilling for oil in one of the last polar bear habitats on the planet? Dr. Steven Amstrup, polar bear project leader for the US Geological Survey's Alaska Science Center, addresses this.
Question:What is the significance of drilling for oil in one of the last polar bear habitats on the planet? Despite the accepted links between fossil fuel emissions and global warming, drilling for oil in the Arctic seems to be a statement that we are
not interested in changing behavior. Can you speak to this?
Answer: Regardless, any development in polar bear habitat has to be weighed on an individual basis depending on where it is, what is being proposed, and the timing of the proposed activities. Also, of course, the relative risks of a spill must be considered.
But the important thing to remember is that it is not the exploration for or extraction of hydrocarbons which cause problems for polar bears (although they could on a local scale, if not managed properly). Rather, it is the burning of the hydrocarbons. Anyone who thinks we are not going to depend on hydrocarbons for at least the next half century is not thinking clearly. What is important is that we immediately change the ways we use them. We need to minimize and indeed eliminate the unnecessary uses (those for which we have or can quickly develop substitute energy sources) of hydrocarbons. We need to increase the efficiencies of the uses from which it will be more difficult to wean ourselves. And we need to save the hydrocarbons for the things that will be most difficult to substitute. But regardless, we will continue to extract hydrocarbons for some time to come.
There are no remaining non-controversial places from which to extract non-renewable resources. That means that we will continue to extract hydrocarbons, etc., from some places. Which places should be determined by a smart energy policy which includes a full cost benefit analysis of all possible developments. That cost/benefit analysis must include all costs including environmental costs. Maybe the costs of developing oil at 11,000 feet in Wyoming will be higher than that of developing in the ANWR, maybe not. But the full comparison must be made.
When we make the efforts to change how we use our remaining hydrocarbons, and when we do a full cost/benefit comparison of the remaining sources of hydrocarbons, we will be showing that we are interested in making the changes that will be necessary to prevent the loss of polar bears as well as the ecological and economic damage that would accompany that loss.
Question:What is the significance of drilling for oil in one of the last polar bear habitats on the planet? Despite the accepted links between fossil fuel emissions and global warming, drilling for oil in the Arctic seems to be a statement that we are
not interested in changing behavior. Can you speak to this?
Answer: Regardless, any development in polar bear habitat has to be weighed on an individual basis depending on where it is, what is being proposed, and the timing of the proposed activities. Also, of course, the relative risks of a spill must be considered.
But the important thing to remember is that it is not the exploration for or extraction of hydrocarbons which cause problems for polar bears (although they could on a local scale, if not managed properly). Rather, it is the burning of the hydrocarbons. Anyone who thinks we are not going to depend on hydrocarbons for at least the next half century is not thinking clearly. What is important is that we immediately change the ways we use them. We need to minimize and indeed eliminate the unnecessary uses (those for which we have or can quickly develop substitute energy sources) of hydrocarbons. We need to increase the efficiencies of the uses from which it will be more difficult to wean ourselves. And we need to save the hydrocarbons for the things that will be most difficult to substitute. But regardless, we will continue to extract hydrocarbons for some time to come.
There are no remaining non-controversial places from which to extract non-renewable resources. That means that we will continue to extract hydrocarbons, etc., from some places. Which places should be determined by a smart energy policy which includes a full cost benefit analysis of all possible developments. That cost/benefit analysis must include all costs including environmental costs. Maybe the costs of developing oil at 11,000 feet in Wyoming will be higher than that of developing in the ANWR, maybe not. But the full comparison must be made.
When we make the efforts to change how we use our remaining hydrocarbons, and when we do a full cost/benefit comparison of the remaining sources of hydrocarbons, we will be showing that we are interested in making the changes that will be necessary to prevent the loss of polar bears as well as the ecological and economic damage that would accompany that loss.
Page 1 of 1