The small group of international scientists, politicians and business leaders are using the Arctic research station for urgent talks on how to fast-forward a low carbon economy. They have come to the snowy archipelago of Svalbard, a few hundred kilometers from the North Pole, to hear the latest bad news on melting glaciers and climate change.
“Nowhere are the implications of global warming more visible than in the Arctic. Ecosystems as well as livelihoods are presently undergoing rapid change. In spite of all the evidence provided by science, most governments in the world have failed to take the necessary action,” said Anders Wijkman, the Swedish member of the European parliament (MEP) who is chairman of this special symposium.
After hearing predictions that 30 percent of species could be extinct and a fifth of Bangladesh underwater before 2100, he urges the removal of “all subsidies on fossil fuels” and a much stronger commitment to renewable power in measures to build a sustainable future.
Yet outside the room, in the gray Arctic waters, an oil rush looms which threatens more carbon emissions and the risk to the natural world of an accident similar to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
The drilling also threatens to spark territorial disputes and saber rattling, such as the bellicose noises made by Argentina over British companies seeking oil off the Falkland Islands.
While the polar bears and arctic fox of Svalbard have grazing rights, the legal standing of different human groups in the region is more fuzzy.
Ny-Alesund research station is a base not just for the Norwegians, who have political jurisdiction, but also for British, Indian and Chinese scientists. Few believe the national bases — Beijing’s has huge stone lions outside — are there just for science. They are symbolic political and economic stakes in the future of Svalbard and the Arctic.
Drilling is also under way in earnest off Greenland to the west and in the Barents Sea to the east of Svalbard. Oil price rises and melting ice caps have made the region more accessible for mining, shipping and drilling. Yet ownership of the Arctic seabed is far from clear.
The 1920 Spitsbergen treaty, drawn up after the World War I, gave onshore mineral rights to more than a dozen signatories, including the UK. Yet there are arguments whether Svalbard’s coastal waters are part of the Norwegian continental shelf and fall within Oslo’s jurisdiction. Fishing rights are disputed between Norway and Russia.
Trond Giske, Norway’s trade minister, says the uncertainty should not be exaggerated.
“On our part, we have no problem interpreting the treaty. We have very few conflicts with other countries in this area,” he says, pointing to an agreement with Russia last year to settle territorial boundaries in the Barents Sea.
The impact of that deal over the “gray zone” only brings oil drilling wealth closer to Svalbard’s islands — and increases pressure on Oslo to debate limits to its sovereignty.
Diana Wallis, a British lawyer and former MEP, touched a raw nerve with Norway in a speech in Tromso. She talked of “unresolved disputes around Spitsbergen” and insisted the EU had a legitimate interest in this and the wider Arctic.
A wider debate does not seem to be what countries licensing drilling operations off Alaska, Russia and Greenland want to hear. They have been happy to confine dialogue to an Arctic Council largely composed of states surrounding the Arctic Ocean. And they say territorial disputes — for example, between Canada and the US over seaways — are all being handled through the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
They are determined to defend their right to introduce national oil regulations — which environmental groups and the global community are beginning to challenge.
“Like it or not, what is happening in the Arctic and how it is dealt with becomes everyone’s business,” Wallis said. “This is an issue which Norway and other Arctic states have to accommodate.”
While Greenpeace has physically tried to halt drilling off Greenland and Alaska, Norwegian environmental group Bellona is waging a war of words with Oslo. Its leader, Frederic Hauge, said: “It’s a big, big, big gamble exploring for oil in this area. There are so many stress factors here — be it the fish, the nuclear waste from the Cold War and the fragility of the ecosystem. I am also very worried about the geopolitics of the Arctic. We are acting like petroholics and I do not believe there is widespread support for it.”
Norway’s state energy company, Statoil, has its commercial compass pointing north, believing there is nothing to stop its deep water experience of the northern North Sea being safely applied to the Arctic or sub-Arctic.
Statoil points out it has been operating the first Arctic offshore gas field at Snohvit, since 2007. The company — 67 percent owned by the government — has signed a strategic exploration and production deal with Russia’s state-owned oil group, Rosneft. Statoil is also helping another Russian state company, Gazprom, build the huge Arctic offshore gas field, Shtokman — said to hold more gas reserves than remain in all Norway.
Hauge points to the irony of more fossil fuels being developed in an area where the impact of their carbon production is most acute.
Giske sees no contradiction between Norway’s physical search for hydrocarbons and the hunt for low-carbon solutions at Ny-Alesund.
“We are all going to be dependent on fossil fuels for a long period and natural gas is the bridge into a low carbon world,” he said. “If the EU replaced all its coal-fired power stations with natural gas it would easily meet its 20/20 (20 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020) goal.”
He is more concerned about EU energy commissioner Gunther Oettinger’s recent visit to Oslo to push a new regulatory regime. Oettinger is arguing that Europe is a key customer of Norwegian oil and gas and points to Norway’s membership of the European Economic Area as a reason why a common offshore safety regime would make sense.
Giske said Norway and Britain had more experience than anyone else in Europe — over 40 years — so why change a system that has worked well?
Meanwhile, Norway has moved the headquarters of its army from Oslo to a northern town, Bardufoss, and signed its biggest ever single military contract for jets to be located there.
Who is the enemy? Russia?
“No,” Giske says.
China? He almost chokes.
“Look we don’t need to identify an enemy to justify defense expenditure. We are after all part of the NATO alliance,” he says.
In Ny-Alesund, there is no discussion of a new Cold War over Arctic minerals, with Wijkman more worried about warming. He urges ministers to “raise awareness among the public about the serious risks posed by climate change and the necessity of urgent action.”
Note: The Norwegian government contributed to the cost of flying Terry Macalister to Svalbard.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
After more than a year of review, the National Security Bureau on Monday said it has completed a sweeping declassification of political archives from the Martial Law period, transferring the full collection to the National Archives Administration under the National Development Council. The move marks another significant step in Taiwan’s long journey toward transitional justice. The newly opened files span the architecture of authoritarian control: internal security and loyalty investigations, intelligence and counterintelligence operations, exit and entry controls, overseas surveillance of Taiwan independence activists, and case materials related to sedition and rebellion charges. For academics of Taiwan’s White Terror era —
After 37 US lawmakers wrote to express concern over legislators’ stalling of critical budgets, Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) pledged to make the Executive Yuan’s proposed NT$1.25 trillion (US$39.7 billion) special defense budget a top priority for legislative review. On Tuesday, it was finally listed on the legislator’s plenary agenda for Friday next week. The special defense budget was proposed by President William Lai’s (賴清德) administration in November last year to enhance the nation’s defense capabilities against external threats from China. However, the legislature, dominated by the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), repeatedly blocked its review. The
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
RSS