Aside from the pomp, pageantry and political grandstanding that will accompany the visit of President Barack Obama to Alaska, there are urgent Arctic issues that must be front-and-center on the president's agenda.
So far, Obama's Arctic achievements have been lackluster, at best. The administration has agreed to prohibit commercial fishing in the high Arctic Ocean (where there is no realistic threat of such), and has temporarily withdrawn three limited areas from Outer Continental Shelf oil leasing. But none of these protections are permanent. He has approved Shell's Chukchi Sea drilling project, without adequate safeguards. And on climate change, the administration has been good, but not nearly aggressive enough to turn the tide on climate change. Clearly, we need to see more from him on his historic upcoming visit.
The Arctic is one of the most extraordinary, unique and threatened regions in the global biosphere. It is suffering effects of climate change more severely than elsewhere, with dramatic ecological and cultural consequences. Arctic sea ice has declined precipitously, permafrost and the Greenland ice cap are rapidly melting, forests are burning, oceans are becoming more acidic, ecosystems and species are declining, and coastal villages are moving to higher ground.
But rather than intensifying efforts to protect the struggling region, governments and industry are instead rushing to exploit the increasingly ice-free Arctic for oil and gas, minerals, shipping, fishing, tourism and military interests. Combined with the effects of climate change, such industrialization will accelerate environmental decline. We need a new approach to the Arctic, and fast.
This year and next will be pivotal for the future of the Arctic. The U.S. is chair of the eight-nation Arctic Council; Obama is considering legacy conservation actions in his final year; Arctic nations are making long-term decisions regarding resource development; and there is a real opportunity to reach agreement at the U.N. Climate Change Summit in Paris this December to significantly reduce global carbon emissions.
This may be our last best chance to secure permanent protections for the Arctic, but this will only happen with bold political leadership. The president's visit to Alaska will be a great opportunity to announce additional conservation measures for the Arctic, but will he do so?
Most scientists conclude that, in order to stabilize global climate, 80 percent of the world's remaining hydrocarbon reserves need to stay right where they are -- in the ground and seabed. There is no better place to start backing away from our hydrocarbon addiction than here, in the Arctic.
Arctic governance today is a "tragedy of the commons," with each of the eight Arctic nations, including the U.S., advancing its own parochial interests mostly outside of the Arctic Council. All seem to be in something of a panic to develop Arctic resources as fast as possible, offering the conventional hollow promise of "responsible development."
Politicians pretend this Arctic resource rush is meant to help Arctic peoples, but in reality it is more about corporate profits and extracting resources for economies to the south. Each Arctic nation has adopted its own Arctic Policy, but all are focused on short-term commercial exploitation and strategic dominance rather than long-term environmental protection and sustainability.
This is a no-win race over the cliff to a bleak future for the Arctic.
As the U.S. is now chair of the Arctic Council, the Obama administration has a historic opportunity to create a new Arctic paradigm to protect this extraordinary place for all people, for all time. First, we need to lead by example:
• The U.S. should be the first Arctic nation to "just say no" to more Arctic offshore oil. But as the Obama administration seems unwilling to do such, it needs to at very least impose the highest possible safety standards for offshore drilling, which stunningly, it has yet to do. The administration remains unwilling to release documents confirming Shell's compliance with new drilling safety requirements, and that is not a good sign.
• Obama should establish an Arctic Regional Citizens Advisory Council (Arctic RCAC) to give coastal stakeholders a direct say in safe management of offshore oil and shipping, and he should champion establishment of such councils in other Arctic nations.
• The U.S. should establish more rigorous Arctic shipping safety standards, including routing agreements, continuous vessel tracking and rescue tugs along shipping routes.
• President Obama should use his executive authority to establish permanently protected Marine National Monuments in Alaska's Aleutian Islands, Bering Strait and Arctic Ocean. It is not enough for the administration to simply extend the limited, pre-existing offshore drilling withdrawals for Alaska's Bristol Bay, Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea: these withdrawals could be eliminated by Congress or the next president (imagine what President Trump would do with these Obama withdrawals); they leave most Arctic offshore areas open to drilling; and they don't address the many other risks to the Arctic marine environment. We need permanent Arctic marine protections.
• The U.S. must commit to deeper and faster cuts in our domestic carbon emissions, and make good on that commitment.
On this foundation, the U.S. should negotiate a comprehensive Arctic treaty with other Arctic and non-Arctic nations, similar to the Antarctic Treaty, to protect and sustain the region as a common heritage of all humankind.
The Arctic treaty should enact the highest possible environmental protections across Arctic waters and lands of all Arctic nations; prohibit all extended continental shelf claims; establish a circumpolar network of protected areas including at least 50 percent of all lands and offshore waters, protecting all international waters around the North Pole; and make the Arctic a nuclear weapons free zone. And the treaty should refocus Arctic economic development away from finite extractive resources, to long-term sustainability.
Most importantly, the U.S. needs to make every effort possible to reach a legally binding deal in Paris this December to immediately and significantly reduce global carbon emissions. Just since the U.N. Climate Treaty was agreed in 1992, global carbon emissions have almost doubled. Paris may be our last best hope for turning the tide on climate change. This will at least slow, and perhaps someday begin to reverse, the melt of Arctic ice.
Society has a historic choice to make with the Arctic. Should we continue our industrial expansion into one of the last wild areas of the world, further degrading its environment? Or, should we choose to protect and sustain this magnificent place? We can't have both.
Our choices now will tell us a lot about what the Arctic's long-term future will be. Let's hope we choose wisely.
Rick Steiner is an independent marine conservation biologist with Oasis Earth in Anchorage, and was a University of Alaska marine professor from 1980-2010 stationed in Kotzebue, Cordova and Anchorage.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.