A persistent assumption stemming from climate change and its disproportionate impact on the Arctic is that this is "opening up" the region to industrial development, especially exploitation of oil and gas. As The New York Times recently claimed, "As the Arctic rapidly thaws and surrenders access to its awesome wealth of energy and precious minerals, it is inevitable that nations in the far north will stake claims�"
But as I mentioned in this space a while ago (after participating in an Arctic history conference in Nuuk), this notion needs careful analysis. Not just climate change, but a host of political and economic factors drive northern development decisions � energy prices, Putin's ambitions, environmental protests. (And even climate change isn't only making the Arctic more accessible: a melting Greenland ice cap can produce more icebergs, not fewer, so making northern shipping more hazardous than before.)
Recent events confirm this: companies are encountering new challenges in their efforts to "open up" Arctic resources, and once expansive dreams of industrial development are scaling back. It's partly a matter of low oil prices, but there is much else going on as well.
So what's needed is a little more caution before adopting the kind of neo-environmental determinism that is often seen in discussions of climate change (and in many other environmental issues). Environmental change can create a new reality, but, as ever, humans will shape just what that reality is, and how we respond.
No comments:
Post a Comment