Mikkelsen A., Langhelle O. (eds.) Arctic Oil and Gas. Sustanability at Risk?

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

in these extreme conditions (AMAP, 1997: 157). It was also concluded that risks

would increase but that:

it is possible to limit the environmental impact of most routine operations.

But as the exploitation of the huge resources of oil and gas increases, so does

the risk of serious accidents. Although more stringent regulation will reduce

the frequency of accidents, incidents due to human error and technical defi-

ciencies over recent decades have shown that regulation alone cannot

completely prevent spills.

(AMAP, 1997: 145)

The 2002 AMAP report did not address oil and gas production (AMAP, 2002).

The 2006 scientific report focusing on acidifying pollutants, Arctic haze

and acid-

ification in the Arctic, however, discussed oil and gas activities and marine trans-

port as Arctic sources of acidifying pollutants. The report argued that oil and gas

activities are ‘likely to result in increased pollutant emissions’ (AMAP, 2006a: 4).

In the policy report (AMAP, 2006b), it was argued that the increase in shipping and

the expansion of the offshore oil and gas industry may enhance a number of acidi-

fying pollutants. Acidifying pollutants are emitted at every stage, ‘from exploration

to the final closure of the field’ (AMAP, 2006b) and, while the impact of the oil and

gas industry on acidification is low, these emissions could have some impact on the

vegetation, soil and surface waters near emission sites (AMAP, 2006b).

The scientific report, however, argued that the ‘impact of oil and gas activities on

climate in the Arctic areas is a less well-covered issue’than the impacts of a warmer

climate for oil and gas activities, and that emissions to air are likely to increase’

(AMAP, 2006a: 5). The scientific report stated further that a ‘comprehensive cover-

age of all air emissions from the many activities related to oil and gas production

may warrant a separate assessment at some point in the future (AMAP, 2006a: 4).

Oil and gas in the Conservation of Arctic Flora and

Fauna Working Group

The CAFF Working Group addressed oil and gas activities in the assessment report

Arctic Flora and Fauna: Conservation and Status (2001). Habitat disturbance is

seen by CAFF as the most serious threat to biodiversity. This is a global trend,

which is also reflected in the Arctic. It is linked to oil and gas exploration and

development, roads and other infrastructure, off-road use of motorized vehicles,

deforestation and so on, ‘each of which has affected Arctic habitats in various

areas’ (CAFF, 2001: 254). Infrastructure poses a serious threat both to biodiver-

sity and sustainable use in the Arctic:

Between 1900 and 1950, less than 5 percent of the Arctic was affected by

infrastructure. Between 1950 and 2000, the areas affected grew to 20–25

percent of the Arctic, mainly as a result of petroleum development in Alaska

and Russia ... . A recent study by UNEP predicts that continued development

36 Oluf Langhelle, Bjørn-Tore Blindheim and Olaug Øygarden

of existing infrastructure at the current rate will leave few areas in the Arctic

undisturbed in 50 years time. Depending on growth rates, 50–80 per cent of

the Arctic may reach high levels of anthropogenic disturbance by 2050.

For Fennoscandia and parts of Russia, these levels may be reached within

20–30 years. The spread of disturbance will lead to the loss of traditional

lands for most of the indigenous people dependent upon reindeer husbandry

and caribou hunting ... . In northern Scandinavia and parts of Russia, the

current growth of infrastructure is increasingly incompatible with the

requirements of traditional reindeer husbandry. At the current rate of

development, most traditional Saami reindeer husbandry will not be possible

in 50 years, forcing major changes in lifestyle for today’s herders.

(CAFF, 2001: 99)

Oil and gas infrastructure has altered tundra habitats and the distributions of

large mammals in Alaska and Siberia (CAFF, 2001: 86). Oil and gas activities can

cause fragmentation of large intact areas and habitats into smaller units, isolating

plant and animal populations. In addition, the report pointed at a number of

threats from offshore activities. Apart from oil spills, offshore oil and gas explo-

ration and development can have other impacts:

Seismic testing of the seafloor uses air guns, which can kill larval fish within

a few meters of the gun and displace larger fish. The noise may disturb

marine mammals. The installation and operation of drilling platforms, from

human-built islands to mobile rigs, can disturb the ocean floor and alter

coastal currents and fish movements. The migratory paths of marine

mammals may shift to avoid some structures, possibly affecting their avail-

ability to hunters. Pipelines for transporting oil to land or to tankers may

disrupt the seafloor.

(CAFF, 2001: 199)

The annual report from the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program

(CBMP) (CAFF, 2006), argued similarly, that the still ‘relatively pristine Arctic

environment’ is under increasingly severe pressure from regional development in

the form of roads, pipelines, oil and gas seismic lines, urbanization, forestry,

mining, agriculture, hydroelectric development and more (CAFF, 2006: 2). In

order to prevent further damage to biodiversity and sustainable use activities,

CAFF (2001) argued that ‘a great deal of conservation effort will be required to

minimize disturbance from increasing industrial development’ in many Arctic

areas. This point was further said to be especially true for the cumulative impacts

of many smaller projects and activities. According to CAFF, it is also ‘essential to

recognize that conservation issues must be considered in a global context’ in the

Arctic. Sustainable development ‘is one response to the combined effects of these

various forms of change. The distinctive physical, ecological and social features

of the Arctic are a vital part of the diversity of life on earth, and need collective

efforts to conserve them’ (CAFF, 2002: 2).

Framing Arctic oil and gas 37

Framing Arctic oil and gas

As we have seen in this chapter, sustainable development is a complex concept

that can be related to the Arctic and oil and gas activities in the Arctic in a number

of ways. We have argued that, within the approach to sustainable development

provided by the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), it

is possible to speak sensibly about oil and gas activities in the Arctic despite the

fact that oil and gas are non-renewable resources. This, however, does not imply

that oil and gas activities in the Arctic are unproblematic from a sustainability

perspective. As we have seen, the Arctic Council Working Groups have identified

and discussed a number of social, economic and environmental challenges relat-

ing to oil and gas.

From the Working Groups different approaches to sustainable development,

the sustainable development agenda in the Arctic Council seems, on the one hand,

overfull. The sheer number of issues and challenges, which may be contradictory,

makes it difficult for anyone to develop clear sustainable development targets

in the Arctic. The Arctic Council is also a consensus-based organization, where the

member states with different political agendas can block proposals and more or less

implement what they want. As argued by Koivurova and Vanderzwaag (2007: 191),

moving ‘from words to actions have been challenging in light of the Council’s

limited role as a discussional and catalytic forum – a soft law body – with law and

policy controls remaining within individual member states’. As such, there seems to

be more of a focus on monitoring and assessment in the Arctic Council than on

implementation, which is essentially left to the member states.

On the other hand, the sustainable development agenda in the Arctic Council is

also partial and somewhat biased against a larger discourse on carbon dioxide (CO

)

impacts. Seen in relation to the global sustainable development agenda, there are

some issues that seem to be off the agenda. This is especially visible in the specific

framing of climate change under the auspices of the Arctic Council. In the ACIA

framing, climate change is seen as a global problem with regional effects. The

effects of oil and gas production in the Arctic are not considered relevant in the

larger picture, since emissions first and foremost are related to the consumption of

oil and gas, which primarily takes place outside the Arctic. Even the forthcoming

AMAP study, Assessment of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic, explicitly states

that the assessment ‘specifically does not include the relation between Arctic oil

and gas development and the global CO

emissions and greenhouse warming’

(AMAP, 2006c). This topic, it is argued, is covered in other assessments: ACIA,

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and national assessments.

This is only partially true. None of the activities within the Arctic Council,

including ACIA, look at the effects of Arctic oil and gas on global CO

emissions

and greenhouse warming. Instead, the context in which mitigation efforts are

placed is within the commitments under ‘the UNFCCC [United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change] and other agreements’, and the

‘countries’ share in total global greenhouse gas emissions’ (Arctic Council,

2004d: 5). Thus, the link between oil and gas production in the Arctic and climate

38 Oluf Langhelle, Bjørn-Tore Blindheim and Olaug Øygarden

change is lifted out of the Arctic and placed at the global and national level. In a

sense, the framing of oil and gas production in relation to climate change in the

Arctic is off the agenda, and placed at the global and national levels.

From the perspective of global sustainability, however, it is not obvious that this

should be the case. The question of expanding the oil and gas activities or not in

the Arctic involves sustainability questions that are regional and local in nature,

and sustainability issues that go beyond the Arctic. Some actors question, for

instance, the legitimacy of increased extraction and use of fossil fuels in light of

climate change. Thus, the questions that can be, and are being raised from a

sustainable development perspective are, in many cases, global in nature and

cannot be isolated from the debate on oil and gas activities in the Arctic. In order

to put conservation issues higher on the agenda of the Arctic Council, this is

exactly what CAFF attempts to do by arguing that conservation issues must be

considered in a global context.

There are, however, no neat and easy answers to how the global level should be

included in the equation. We have argued that there are two balancing acts that are

necessary, and these are also essentially linked. The first relates to the balancing

of the social, economic and environmental dimensions. What is most important:

to secure and protect the environment or to secure a reasonable standard of living?

The second necessary balancing act is the balancing of global, regional and local

levels. How should local and regional gains and losses be balanced against global

concerns, and vice versa? What is most important: to secure the livelihoods and

traditional ways of living for indigenous people, or to secure global energy supply

and global energy security? And finally, do we need to choose between these

concerns, or are there ways to balance and take all these concerns into account?

There are different opinions on this issue. The overall question is how a sustain-

able development path can be secured and implemented in the Arctic.

In relation to oil and gas in the Arctic, as argued by Fjellheim and Henriksen

(2006: 22), there is a striking paradox:

Most of the Arctic region has potential Oil and Gas reservoirs just waiting to

be exploited. The paradox of facing new industrial challenges as the Arctic is

warming due to the products of the very same industries now entering the

Arctic region is obvious and has not only global implications, but also very

concrete local/regional effects.

Or is it so obvious? The rest of the book tries to grasp and understand different

answers to the above questions, and the possible paradox of oil and gas in the Arctic.

Notes

1 There are, however, also non-anthropocentric perspectives to be found (see WCED,

1987: 13, 57; Benton, 1999; Wetlesen, 1999).

2 The problem of climate change is addressed throughout Our Common Future (WCED,

1987: 2, 5, 8, 14, 22, 32, 33, 37, 58–59, 172–176). Leader of the World Commission,

Framing Arctic oil and gas 39

Gro Harlem Brundtland (1991: 35) has also stated the following: ‘The most global –

and the potentially most serious – of all the issues facing us today is how we should

deal with the threats to the world’s atmosphere’.

3 The strategy was developed by the eight Arctic states and assisted by the Inuit

Circumpolar Conference, Nordic Saami Council, USSR Association of Small Peoples

of the North, Federal Republic of Germany, Poland, United Kingdom, United Nations

Economic Commission for Europe, United Nations Environment Programme and

International Arctic Science Committee (Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy,

1991: 1).

4 See Arctic Council (http://www.arctic-council.org/) for an overview.

5 As noted in the AHDR (2004: 212), the idea of an Arctic political body was taken up

by a number of Canadian non-governmental organizations in the report To Establish

an International Arctic Council. A Framework Report (1991): ‘The idea of some kind

of circumpolar political body had been suggested some twenty years earlier and was

taken up again at the end of the 1980s in a study by Canadian non-governmental

organizations. It proposed an umbrella-type political forum for governments, indige-

nous organizations and different interest groups, and was paralleled by an official

Canadian initiative to create an Arctic Council’. See: http://www.carc.org/pubs/

v19no2/2.htm (Accessed 26 February 2007).

6 There are currently six indigenous people organizations granted Permanent Participants

status in the Arctic Council. The Aleut International Association (AIA) established in

1998, representing the Russian and Alaskan Aleut people. The Arctic Athabaskan

Council (AAC), established in 2000, representing the interests of United States and

Canadian Athabaskan member First Nation governments. The Gwich’in Council

International (GCI), established in 1999, representing the regions of the Gwich’in Nation

in the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Alaska. The Inuit Circumpolar Conference

(ICC), founded in 1977, representing approximately 150,000 Inuit of Alaska, Canada,

Greenland and Chukotka (Russia). The Saami Council, established in 1956, representing

the Sami of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russian Federation. And the Russian

Association of Indigenous People of the North (RAIPON), founded in 1990, represent-

ing 31 indigenous peoples of the Russian North with a total population of over 200,000.

These organizations, no doubt, play an important role in the Arctic Council. As already

noted, The Inuit Circumpolar Conference also played an important role in the transition

from the AEPS strategy to the establishment of the Arctic Council.

7 Although the difference between a task force and a working group is not clear in offi-

cial terms, a task force or group has been regarded as a less formal organization than

is the case with working groups (Vanderzwaag, Huebert and Ferrara, 2003: 152).

8 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) was a joint project by the Arctic Council

and the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), with the aim to evaluate and

synthesize knowledge on climate variability, climate change and increased ultraviolet

radiation and its consequences. In the following, ultraviolet radiation is not discussed.

9 As stated in the report: ‘

... many longer-term impacts could be reduced significantly

by reducing global emissions over the course of this century. This assessment did not

analyze strategies for achieving such reductions, which are the subject of other bodies’

(ACIA, 2004: 9).

10 Arctic haze is explained as ‘a persistent winter diffuse layer in the Arctic atmosphere

whose origin is thought to be related to long-range transport of continental pollutants’

(AMAP, 2006b).

References

Adams, W. M. (1990) Green Development. Environment and Sustainability in the Third

Wo rl d , London: Routledge.

40 Oluf Langhelle, Bjørn-Tore Blindheim and Olaug Øygarden

Archer, C. and Scrivener, D. (2000) ‘International co-operation in the Arctic environment’,

in M. Nuttall and T. V. Callaghan (eds) The Arctic Environment, People, Policy,

Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.

Arctic Athabaskan Council (2007). Improving the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Arctic

Council: A Discussion Paper, March 2007, Arctic Athabaskan Council.

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA; 2004) Impacts of a Warmer Arctic: Arctic

Climate Impact Assessment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

ACIA (2005) Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Arctic Council (1996) Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council. Online.

Available HTTP: <http://www.arctic-council.org/Archives/Founding%20Docs/Arctic%

20Council_Declaration%20on%20the%20Establishment%20of%20the%20Arctic%

20Council.htm> (Accessed 6 November 2007).

Arctic Council (1998a) Iqaluit Declaration. The First Ministerial Meeting Canada, 1998.

Available HTTP: <http://www.arctic-council.org/Meetings/Ministeral/1998/Default.htm>

(Accessed 8 November 2007).

Arctic Council (1998b) Terms of Reference for a Sustainable Development Program.

Available HTTP: <http://www.arctic-council.org/Meetings/Ohers/CBW/ACTermsof

Reference2.pdf> (Accessed 8 November 2007).

Arctic Council (2000) Framework Document (Chapeau) for the Sustainable Development

Program. Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.arctic-council.org/Archives/Founding%

20Docs/Arctic%20Council%C2%A0_%C2%A0Framework%20Document%20

(Chapeau)%20for%20the%20Sustainable%20Development%20Program.htm>

(Accessed 8 November 2007).

Arctic Council (2004a) Reykjavik Declaration. Online. Available HTTP:<http://www.

dfaitmaeci.gc.ca/circumpolar/pdf/Reykjavik_Declaration-en.pdf> (Accessed 8 November

2007).

Arctic Council (2004b) Sustainable Development Action Plan (SDAP), Version 13.10.2004.

Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.arctic-council.org/Meetings/SAO/2004%20Se/

SDAP100304eng.pdf> (Accessed 8 November 2007).

Arctic Council (2004c) Programme of the Russian Federation Chairmanship of the

Arctic Council in 2004–2006. Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.rusembassy.fi/

RArcticCounsilLenta.htm> (Accessed 6 November 2007).

Arctic Council (2004d) Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Policy Document. Online.

Available HTTP: <http://www.acia.uaf.edu/PDFs/ACIA_Policy_Document.pdf>

(Accessed 8 November 2007).

Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS; 1991) Declaration on the Protection of

Arctic Environment, June 14. Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.arctic-council.org/

Archives/AEPS%20Docs/artic_environment.pdf> (Accessed 6 November 2007).

Arctic Human Development Report (AHDR; 2004), Akureyri: Stefansson Arctic Institute.

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP; 1997) Arctic Pollution Issues: A State

of the Arctic Environment Report, Oslo: AMAP. Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.

amap.no/> (Accessed 11 November 2007).

AMAP (2002) Arctic Pollution 2002, Oslo: AMAP. Online. Available HTTP: <http://

www.amap.no/> (Accessed 11 November 2007).

AMAP (2006a) Arctic Assessment 2006. Acidifying Pollutants, Arctic Haze, and

Acidification in the Arctic, Oslo: AMAP. Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.

amap.no/> (Accessed 11 November 2007).

AMAP (2006b) Arctic Pollution 2006. Acidification and Arctic Haze, Oslo: AMAP.

Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.amap.no/> (Accessed 11 November 2007).

Framing Arctic oil and gas 41

AMAP (2006c) Assessment of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic. Process and Outline

Content. Online. Available HTTP: <http://arcticportal.org/en/amap> (Accessed 11

November 2007).

Benton, T. (1999) ‘Sustainable development and accumulation of capital: reconciling the

irreconcilable?’, in Dobson, A. (ed.) Fairness and Futurity. Essays on Environmental

Sustainability and Social Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Birch, C. et al. (1979) Faith, Science, and the Future, Preparatory Readings for a World

Conference Organised by the World Council of Churches at the Massachusetts Institute

of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., USA. Church and Society. World Council of Churches,

Geneva, Switzerland.

Brundtland, G. H. (1991) ‘Sustainable development: the challenge ahead’, in Stokke, O.

(ed.) Sustainable Development, London: Frank Cass.

Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF; 2001) Arctic Flora and Fauna.

Conservation and Status, Helsinki: Edita. Online. Available HTTP: <http://arcticportal.

org/arctic-council/working-groups/caff-document-library/arctic-flora-and-fauna>

(Accessed 11 November 2007).

CAFF (2002) Arctic Flora and Fauna: Recommendations for Conservation, 14 pp. Online.

Available HTTP: <http://arcticportal.org/arctic-council/working-groups/caff-document-

library/arctic-flora-and-fauna> (Accessed 17 June 2007).

CAFF (2006) Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program 2006 Annual Report. CAFF

CBMP Annual Report, CAFF International Secretariat, Akureyri: Iceland. Online.

Available HTTP: <http://archive.arcticportal.org/270/01/annual-report.pdf> (Accessed

11 November 2007).

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD; 2004) ‘Strategic Plan: future evaluation of

progress’, COP 7 Decision VII/30, Kuala Lumpur, 9-20 February 2004. Online. Available

HTTP:<http://www.cbd.int/convention/cop-7-dec.shtml?m=COP-07&id=7767&lg=0>

(Accessed 6 November 2007).

Dixon, J. A. and Fallon, L. A. (1989) The Concept of Sustainability: Origins, Extensions,

and Usefulness for Policy, Washington: The World Bank, Environment Department,

Division, Working Paper No. 1989-1.

Dresner, S. (2002) The Principles of Sustainability, London: Earthscan.

Dryzek, J. S. (1997) The Politics of the Earth. Environmental Discourses, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Fjellheim, R. and Henriksen, J. B. (2006). ‘Oil and gas exploitation on Arctic indigenous

peoples’ territories. Human rights, international law and corporate social responsibility’,

Gáldu Cála. Journal of Indigenous Peoples Rights, 4: 8–23.

Grubb, M., Koch, M., Thomson, K., Munson, A. and Sullivan, F. (1993) The Earth Summit

Agreements. A Guide and Assessment, London: Earthscan.

Haavisto, P. (2001) Review of the Arctic Council Structures. Consultant’s Study, Helsinki,

29.06.2001. Online. Available HTTP:<http://arctic-council.org/Meetings/SAO/2001%20Ro/

re_AC_final.pdf> (Accessed 6 November 2007).

Heininen, L. (2004) ‘Circumpolar international relations and geopolitics’, in AHDR

(Arctic Human Development Report) (2004), Akureyri: Stefansson Arctic Institute.

International Union for Conservation of Nature/World-Wide Fund for Nature/United

Nations Environment Programme (IUCN/WWF/UNEP; 1980) World Conservation

Strategy. Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development. Gland,

Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

Jacob, M. L. (1996) Sustainable Development: A Reconstructive Critique of the United

Nations Debate, Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.

42 Oluf Langhelle, Bjørn-Tore Blindheim and Olaug Øygarden

Jacobs, M. (1999) ‘Sustainable development as a contested concept’, in Dobson, A. (ed.)

Fairness and Futurity. Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice,

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kirkby, J., O’Keefe, P. and Timberlake, L. (eds) (1995) The Earthscan Reader in

Sustainable Development, London: Earthscan.

Koivurova, T. and Vanderzwaag, D. L. (2007) ‘The Arctic Council at 10 years: retrospect

and prospects’, UBC Law Review, 40 (1): 121–194.

Lafferty, W. M. (1996) ‘The politics of sustainable development: global norms for national

implementation’, Environmental Politics, 5 (2): 185–208.

Lafferty, W.M. and Langhelle, O. (eds) (1999) Towards Sustainable Development. On the

Goals of Development – and the Conditions of Sustainability, Basingstoke: Macmillan

Press Ltd.

Lafferty, W. M. and Meadowcroft, J. (eds) (2000) Implementing Sustainable Development.

Strategies and Initiatives in High Consumption Societies, Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Langhelle, O. (1999) ‘Sustainable development: exploring the ethics of our common

future’, International Political Science Review, 20 (2): 129–149.

Langhelle, O. (2000) ‘Sustainable development and social justice – expanding the

Rawlsian framework of global justice’, Environmental Values, 9 (2000): 295–323.

Malnes, R. (1990) The Environment and Duties to Future Generations, Lysaker: Fridtjof

Nansen Institute.

McManus, P. (1996). ‘Contested terrains: politics, stories and discourses of sustainability’,

Environmental Politics, 5 (1): 48–73.

Meadowcroft, J. (1997) ‘Planning, democracy and the challenge of sustainable develop-

ment’, International Political Science Review, 18: 167–190.

Mugaas, P. (1997) ‘Fra Stockholm via Rio til New York’, in Lafferty, W. M., Langhelle, O.,

Mugaas, P. and Ruge, M. H. (eds) Rio + 5. Norges oppfølging av FN-konferansen om

miljø og utvikling, Otta: Tano Aschehoug.

Nuttall, M. (2000) ‘Indigenous peoples, self-determination, and the Arctic environment’,

in Nuttall, M. and Callaghan,. T. V. (eds) The Arctic Environment, People, Policy,

Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.

The Nuuk Declaration, (1993). Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.arctic-

council.org/Archives/AEPS%20Docs/Arctic%20Council%C2%A0_%C2%A0The%20

Nuuk%20Declaration.htm> (Accessed 6 November 2007).

O’Riordan, T. (1993). ‘The politics of sustainability’, in Turner, K. R. (ed.) Sustainable

Environmental Economics and Management: Principles and Practice, London:

Belhaven Press.

Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME; 2002) Arctic Offshore Oil & Gas

Guidelines. Online. Available HTTP: <http://old.pame.is/sidur/uploads/ArcticGuidelines.

pdf> (Accessed 6 November 2007).

PAME (2004) Guidelines for Transfer of Refined Oil and Oil Products in Arctic Waters

(TROOP). Online. Available HTTP: <http://old.pame.is/sidur/uploads/ArcticGuidelines.pdf>

(Accessed 6 November 2007).

Redclift, M. (1993). ‘Sustainable development: needs, values, rights’, Environmental

Values, 2 (1): 3–20.

Reid, D. (1995) Sustainable Development. An Introductory Guide, London: Earthscan.

Reimer, C. (1993) ‘Moving toward co-operation: Inuit circumpolar policies and the Arctic

environmental protection strategy’ CARC - Northern Perspectives, 21 (4). Online. Available

HTTP: <http://www.carc.org/pubs/v21no4/moving.htm> (Accessed 6 November 2007).

Framing Arctic oil and gas 43

Scrivener, D. (1989) Gorbachev’s Murmansk Speech: The Soviet Initiative and Western

Response, Oslo: Norwegian Atlantic Committee.

Scrivener, D. (1996) Environmental Cooperation in the Arctic: From Strategy to Council.

Oslo: Norwegian Atlantic Committee.

Scrivener, D. (1999) ‘Arctic environmental cooperation in transition’, Polar Record 35

(192): 51–58.

Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG; 2006). Work Plan for 2006–2008.

Online. Available HTTP:<http://portal.sdwg.org/media.php?mid=468> (Accessed 6

November 2007).

United Nations (1989) General Assembly. GA/res. 44/228. Online. Available HTTP:

<http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/ares44-228.htm> (Accessed 6 November 2007).

United Nations (1993) Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and

Development. Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992. Volume 1. Resolutions Adopted by the

Conference, New York: United Nations.

United Nations (2002) Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development. Online.

Available HTTP: <http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/

POI_PD.htm> (Accessed 6 November 2007).

Vanderzwaag, D., Huebert, R. and Ferrara, S. (2003) ‘The Arctic Environmental Protection

Strategy, Arctic Council and multilateral environmental initiatives: tinkering while the

Arctic marine environment totters’, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 30

(2): 131–171.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED; 1987) Our Common

Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wetlesen, J. (1999) ‘A global ethic of sustainability?’, in Lafferty, W. M. and Langhelle, O.

(eds) Towards Sustainable Development. On the Goals of Development – and the

Conditions of Sustainability, Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd.

Worster, D. (1993) ‘The shaky ground of sustainability’, in Sachs, W. (ed.) Global

Ecology: A New Arena of Political Conflict, London: Zed Books.

WWF Arctic Bulletin (1996) ‘Different views: environmental protection under the Arctic

Council’, WWF Arctic Bulletin, No. 4, pp. 6–8.

Young, O. R. and Einarsson, N. (2004a) ‘Introduction’, in Arctic Human Development

Report, Akureyri: Stefansson Arctic Institute.

Young, O. R. and Einarsson, N. (2004b) ‘A human development agenda for the Arctic:

major findings and emerging issues’, in Arctic Human Development Report, Akureyri:

Stefansson Arctic Institute.

44 Oluf Langhelle, Bjørn-Tore Blindheim and Olaug Øygarden

3 Climate change and

consequences for the Arctic

Torleiv Bilstad

Introduction

The United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC, 2007) Working Group I (WGI) declared in February 2007 that the world

is warming and that humans are mostly to blame. Another IPCC working group,

WGII, reported in April 2007 that humans are also behind many of the physical

and biological changes that are occurring. Owing to increasing levels of green-

house gases, mostly carbon dioxide (CO

) emissions, the world is experiencing

receding glaciers, early-blooming trees, bleached corals, acidifying oceans, killer

heat waves, fires, pests and diseases, butterflies retreating up mountain sides,

oceans warming and cod reproducing further North towards the Arctic Ocean

compared to only a few years ago.

The ice sheet losses have contributed to observed sea-level rises between 1993

and 2003 of 3.1 mm/year, compared to an average rate of 1.8mm/year between

1961 and 2003. All these warming effects are summarized as a combination of

solar radiation, land-use changes, and the prevalence of greenhouse gases and

aerosols in the atmosphere. The net contribution on the energy balance in the

Earth–atmosphere system is described in terms of watts per square metre, W/m

This change is called radioactive forcing and is an indicator of the climate change

impact. The WGI document includes excellent illustrations of the various warming

and cooling influences. Greenhouse gases far outweigh any other influence, with

contributing more than three times that of methane – 1.66 and 0.48 W/m

respectively.

The closing section of the summary of the report ‘Climate Change 2007: The

Physical Science Basis’ (IPCC, 2007) concludes that there is a high level of scien-

tific understanding about the mechanisms and effects of greenhouse gases.

Projections of climate change are given for various emission scenarios based on

observations and a large number of simulations available from a broad range of

models.

The April 2007 IPCC report sees a bleak future if humans persist in their ways.

The negative climate impacts fall hardest on those least capable of adapting to

change: the poor developing countries, as well as the globe’s flora and fauna.

Drying will be concentrated at low latitudes, causing damage to crop production.