'The message is clear: the melting Arctic is a dire warning, not an invitation.'
(Image: Greenpeace/Oil Change International)
Aug 14, 2015
When you think of the Arctic, you may picture vast glaciers, frigid waters, miles of ice, and probably the quintessential polar bear. For centuries, the Arctic has been the final frontier, the end of the earth.
But a new reality is setting in in the region - a reality of a changing climate and the scramble of Big Oil to move in where sea ice is disappearing. But this irony is just the beginning. Royal Dutch Shell is leading the charge in the Alaskan Offshore Arctic, investing billions in a high-risk bet that the world will fail to tackle climate change.
In a new report we published Thursday with Greenpeace USA, we lay bare the case for why the future of Arctic oil is inherently tied to action on climate change. The bottom line is that there is no room for Arctic oil in a climate-safe world.
Here are the key reasons why:
- Fossil fuels that have not yet been proven are not burnable in a climate-safe world, given that the vast majority of the fossil fuels we already have access to will need to be left in the ground.
- Industry and government claims that Arctic oil is "needed" are based on oil supply and demand scenarios that will lead to at least 5 degrees Celsius warming by 2100 - i.e., climate disaster.
- The Obama Administration relies on this disastrous scenario as its Reference Case for long-term U.S. oil supply and demand planning. Under this scenario, U.S. CO2 emissions would be 190 percent higher than 'safe' climate levels in 2040.
- Large investments in Arctic oil are a multi-billion dollar bet that the world will fail to address climate change, and continue hazardous levels of oil use, for decades to come.
- From an investor perspective, U.S. Arctic oil is an asset that risks becoming stranded as billions are poured into exploration for a resource that cannot be safely burned.
- U.S. Arctic oil will be exposed to increasing risks associated with mounting public opposition. These public accountability risks cost other high-carbon industries, such as the Alberta tar sands, billions of dollars and are the most significant barrier to expanding fossil fuel infrastructure. Concerned citizens are increasingly willing to step up where governments and markets fail to protect the climate, the environment, and impacted communities.
The fossil fuel industry wants us to believe that oil, gas, and coal will continue to dominate our energy supply for decades to come. This fatalism is far from reality, yet it is the basis for flawed policy worldwide and justifies ongoing exploration. It is time to align energy policy with climate science and start planning for the energy transition everyone knows we must make to meet our collective climate goals.
By allowing Shell to drill in the U.S. offshore Arctic Ocean, the Obama Administration is ignoring the world's best scientists and millions of concerned citizens in North America and beyond. The message is clear: the melting Arctic is a dire warning, not an invitation.
Don't miss the new report: Untouchable: The Climate Case Against Arctic Drilling.
An Unconstitutional Rampage
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
© 2023 Oil Change International
Hannah Mckinnon
Hannah McKinnon is a program director at Sequoia Climate Foundation, where she leads the Foundation's work on oil and gas. Previously, she was a contributing writer for Oil Change International.
albertaarcticbig oilclimate changeclimate crisisclimate emergencyenergy transitionfossil fuelsgreenpeaceobama administrationoil change internationalpolar bearsshelltar sandsarctic drilling
When you think of the Arctic, you may picture vast glaciers, frigid waters, miles of ice, and probably the quintessential polar bear. For centuries, the Arctic has been the final frontier, the end of the earth.
But a new reality is setting in in the region - a reality of a changing climate and the scramble of Big Oil to move in where sea ice is disappearing. But this irony is just the beginning. Royal Dutch Shell is leading the charge in the Alaskan Offshore Arctic, investing billions in a high-risk bet that the world will fail to tackle climate change.
In a new report we published Thursday with Greenpeace USA, we lay bare the case for why the future of Arctic oil is inherently tied to action on climate change. The bottom line is that there is no room for Arctic oil in a climate-safe world.
Here are the key reasons why:
- Fossil fuels that have not yet been proven are not burnable in a climate-safe world, given that the vast majority of the fossil fuels we already have access to will need to be left in the ground.
- Industry and government claims that Arctic oil is "needed" are based on oil supply and demand scenarios that will lead to at least 5 degrees Celsius warming by 2100 - i.e., climate disaster.
- The Obama Administration relies on this disastrous scenario as its Reference Case for long-term U.S. oil supply and demand planning. Under this scenario, U.S. CO2 emissions would be 190 percent higher than 'safe' climate levels in 2040.
- Large investments in Arctic oil are a multi-billion dollar bet that the world will fail to address climate change, and continue hazardous levels of oil use, for decades to come.
- From an investor perspective, U.S. Arctic oil is an asset that risks becoming stranded as billions are poured into exploration for a resource that cannot be safely burned.
- U.S. Arctic oil will be exposed to increasing risks associated with mounting public opposition. These public accountability risks cost other high-carbon industries, such as the Alberta tar sands, billions of dollars and are the most significant barrier to expanding fossil fuel infrastructure. Concerned citizens are increasingly willing to step up where governments and markets fail to protect the climate, the environment, and impacted communities.
The fossil fuel industry wants us to believe that oil, gas, and coal will continue to dominate our energy supply for decades to come. This fatalism is far from reality, yet it is the basis for flawed policy worldwide and justifies ongoing exploration. It is time to align energy policy with climate science and start planning for the energy transition everyone knows we must make to meet our collective climate goals.
By allowing Shell to drill in the U.S. offshore Arctic Ocean, the Obama Administration is ignoring the world's best scientists and millions of concerned citizens in North America and beyond. The message is clear: the melting Arctic is a dire warning, not an invitation.
Don't miss the new report: Untouchable: The Climate Case Against Arctic Drilling.
Hannah Mckinnon
Hannah McKinnon is a program director at Sequoia Climate Foundation, where she leads the Foundation's work on oil and gas. Previously, she was a contributing writer for Oil Change International.
When you think of the Arctic, you may picture vast glaciers, frigid waters, miles of ice, and probably the quintessential polar bear. For centuries, the Arctic has been the final frontier, the end of the earth.
But a new reality is setting in in the region - a reality of a changing climate and the scramble of Big Oil to move in where sea ice is disappearing. But this irony is just the beginning. Royal Dutch Shell is leading the charge in the Alaskan Offshore Arctic, investing billions in a high-risk bet that the world will fail to tackle climate change.
In a new report we published Thursday with Greenpeace USA, we lay bare the case for why the future of Arctic oil is inherently tied to action on climate change. The bottom line is that there is no room for Arctic oil in a climate-safe world.
Here are the key reasons why:
- Fossil fuels that have not yet been proven are not burnable in a climate-safe world, given that the vast majority of the fossil fuels we already have access to will need to be left in the ground.
- Industry and government claims that Arctic oil is "needed" are based on oil supply and demand scenarios that will lead to at least 5 degrees Celsius warming by 2100 - i.e., climate disaster.
- The Obama Administration relies on this disastrous scenario as its Reference Case for long-term U.S. oil supply and demand planning. Under this scenario, U.S. CO2 emissions would be 190 percent higher than 'safe' climate levels in 2040.
- Large investments in Arctic oil are a multi-billion dollar bet that the world will fail to address climate change, and continue hazardous levels of oil use, for decades to come.
- From an investor perspective, U.S. Arctic oil is an asset that risks becoming stranded as billions are poured into exploration for a resource that cannot be safely burned.
- U.S. Arctic oil will be exposed to increasing risks associated with mounting public opposition. These public accountability risks cost other high-carbon industries, such as the Alberta tar sands, billions of dollars and are the most significant barrier to expanding fossil fuel infrastructure. Concerned citizens are increasingly willing to step up where governments and markets fail to protect the climate, the environment, and impacted communities.
The fossil fuel industry wants us to believe that oil, gas, and coal will continue to dominate our energy supply for decades to come. This fatalism is far from reality, yet it is the basis for flawed policy worldwide and justifies ongoing exploration. It is time to align energy policy with climate science and start planning for the energy transition everyone knows we must make to meet our collective climate goals.
By allowing Shell to drill in the U.S. offshore Arctic Ocean, the Obama Administration is ignoring the world's best scientists and millions of concerned citizens in North America and beyond. The message is clear: the melting Arctic is a dire warning, not an invitation.
Don't miss the new report: Untouchable: The Climate Case Against Arctic Drilling.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.