Oil industry’s wanted to drill offshore in the Arctic for 20 years. A United States Geological Survey report released last November; cut by 90 percent the agency’s estimates of onshore oil in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve, after environmentalists successfully challenged a decision to grant the company air-quality permits , throwing Shell's exploration program into disarray. This is a victory especially for the polar bears as the oil and gas development was planning to drill in America’s most important polar bear habitat. The polar bear is not a small species is the representation of an entire ecosystem. Additionally, large carnivores are sensitive indicators of ecosystem health; WWF has identified the polar bear as a unique symbol of the complexities and inter-dependencies of the arctic marine ecosystem.
The environmental problem associated with oil is also the burning and the transport that contribute to global warming. The Arctic sea-ice, the Polar Bear Habitat may be reduced if Greenhouse gas emissions are stabilized (USGS, 2010). In addition, according to the journal, Nature, habitats essential to polar bears would benefit if global greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced. Due to Oil and gas activity, and shipping, the Arctic between September 2006 and September 2007, has a loss of sea ice equaled the total amount of ice lost during the previous 27 years (USGS, 210). This exponential loss of ice in such a short time was one of the reasons why so many scientists were concerned that there “might be a tipping point beyond which sea ice would be irreversibly lost” (USGS, 2010).
One aspect of increasing fossil fuel costs is to try to drill at any price the last fossil fuel world’s reserves regardless of the terrible consequences for the environment. Offshore oil drilling is a good example of what human can do to an already highly polluted ocean when huge financial interests are involved. Oil spill can spoil the ecology and economic value of a region for decades. Offshore drilling jeopardizes our natural richness for short term economic profit for Multinational Corporations which pays taxes also offshore, thus, do not contribute to the local economy and do not including the cost of environmental damages into the equation. The oil industry’s benefit is at the opposite of the long term perceptive that concerns the environment and social, health, ascetic, educational, environmental and natural heritage. Furthermore, environmental damages can be irreparable if animal species or coral reefs are harmed.
The oil companies can drill and make us pay the high price of any non-renewable declining commodity, a clean cut benefit for them. Some scientists estimate that the reserve of oil will be depleted within 50 years, thus, our children will live in a world without fuel. Even with technological advances, the most optimistic predictions are for global oil production to peak around 2035 (Murck, Skinner, 2010). We are the last generation to be able save what left of the Arctic and the world’s biodiversity. While the discussion of drilling in the Arctic is ongoing, the technology in photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, biomass and some many innovative scientific technologies is only waiting for a little investment.
References:
Murck, B. W., Skinner, B. J., & Mackenzie, D. (2010). Visualizing geology, 2nd ed. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley. USGS. Press release (2010) http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2666&from=news_side New York Times. Editorial (2010). http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/u-s-firms-up-critical-habitat-for-polar-bears/?scp=4&sq=offshore%20drilling%20Arctic%20National%20Wildlife&st=cse VANISHING KINGDOM, The Melting Realm of the Polar Bear. (n.d.). [Brochure]. Retrieved from
http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate/Publications/WWFBinaryitem4928.pdf
