The World is Heating Up

Even with advanced technology at our fingertips, there is the potential for errors which could lead to oil spills. If a spill occurred in this region, the effects could be detrimental to the ocean. Oil and gas industries have plenty of experience and history of preventing oil spills, but they have “little experience in containing and cleaning up oil spills” (“Oil”). With the possibility of polluting the water, the plan for Arctic drilling loses the votes of all environmentalists, a group that is not to be trifled with. If authorization to drill in this region relied upon the approval of the environmentalists, it could be nearly impossible because of their strong lobbying power. The drilling is also viewed as a diversion to the country’s real dilemma, which is its disproportionately high rate of oil use. Americans guzzle up over twenty-five percent of the world’s total oil consumption. The United States should be working on making vehicles more fuel efficient so that a gallon of oil goes a long way rather than sucking the earth dry of all its oil. This fact, by itself, is seen as a more pertinent problem on which the country should focus instead of increasing available production. Another reason against the drilling in the Arctic region is that, even if the drilling is approved, there may not be as large yield as expected. All the statistics about how much

A problem that needs to be addressed is America’s ongoing political controversies since 1977 is the question of whether or not to drill for oil. Clearly, It seems that the situation is much more worrisome than most people would expect. The main and obvious argument against is the environmental impact that drilling in a fragile environment like the Arctic and how big of an impact an oil spill will be. Other impacts include conflict between countries and also key players and how they affect the potential drilling for oil. Decision It takes the focus off the real cause of the oil shortage the worlds excessive consumption.The drilling may not yield much of anything.It could take years or decades before any significant amount of oil is ready for use.The reserve can be saved as a last resort decades from now when we’ve exhausted other supplies. Critics argue that we shouldn’t drill in ANWR { Arctic National wildlife refuge) because it will take 10 years for the oil produced to become available. America’s struggling economy, dismal job growth, growing national debt, and increasing reliance on hostile countries for energy make this moment the ideal time to harness our abundant energy resources in ANWR. Even some temporary good effects, they will be more than offset by bad effects, some of which could be very bad indeed. We may be reaching the limits of a finite world. If our only problem was high oil prices, then low oil prices would seem to be a solution. Unfortunately, the problem

The Arctic is estimated to be the site that holds the world's largest remaining untapped gas reserves. A big key player in this is the large undeveloped oil reserves. These reserves, if broken into, have problems for the global climate, and for the vast Arctic environment. Certainly, drilling in these untouched Arctic lands would be a positive idea as it would greatly boost the economy and put the risk for running out of oil at a much slower rate. The whole Earth would be affected by choices like these though, as plants would not be able to sustain the imbalances, thus pushing the drive for global warming up. Drilling in the Arctic is not an effective way for harvesting energy as it destroys unique environments along with their inhabitants,

The polar ice caps are melting at a pace few nations can afford to ignore, which is yielding potentially profitable sources of energy, minerals, and shipping. But debate is building over whether the Arctic can be developed peaceably. In the 21st century, many experts believe that climate change, technological advances, and ever increasing global demand for resources unlock the economic potential of the Polar North. The melting of Arctic sea ice to record lows in recent years has motivated many nations, mainly those with Arctic Ocean coastlines, such as the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway, and Greenland to reassess their engagements and interests in the icy polar reaches. Canada’s

As the Russian Federation get the economic benefits form the melting of the ice in the Arctic with the open of the commercial shipping routes Northern Sea Route, Canada also get the economic benefits through the NWP. If comparing the distance that would be through from East Asia to Europe and the east coast of the United States and Canada using Panama Canal, NWP provides a significantly shorter route. More over, through the NWP the transit fees are not imposed. Canada is seeking to extend its limits of its shelf to underwater Lomonosov Ridge by filling a request with the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, while Russian Federation also prepare the same request that the first request by Russia has been rejected by CLCS due to the lack of evidence

As global warming has helped dissipate the glaciers and icebergs of the Arctic region, new areas are becoming accessible for commercial shipping, fishing and energy development. The Arctic Council (since 1996) has therefore taken up the challenge of mapping out sovereign bodies to legally allocate and utilize the Arctic region’s vast bounds of natural resources; to settle territorial disputes between the primary Arctic Nations. Today, countries such as the UK are discontented by the fact that the Arctic is not being treated as a country which should be divided among the international community.

1). While the growth of the Arctic discourse is now around the world, only a few countries are eager to act upon these events. The group is known as the ‘Arctic Five’, and the countries include the US, Canada, Denmark, Russia, and Norway. However, instead of these particular countries spending their efforts on saving the Arctic from a land with no ice, their efforts are on making the Arctic the next region to extract oil and other precious materials. Instead, to prevent the possible catastrophe of the Arctic without ice, the money should be funded into programs to eliminate main triggers of the Arctic’s melt, like preventing the build-up of gases in the atmosphere and limiting greenhouse

The Arctic Council formed in 1996 is comprised of the eight Arctic states, permanent participants and observers and is the only major intergovernmental initiative for the Arctic involving all eight states (Bloom, 1999). The Arctic Ocean is a semi-enclosed sea surrounded by five coastal states: Canada, Greenland (Denmark), Norway, Russia and US. The other three states: Sweden, Finland and Iceland have land within the Arctic Circle. The Council has two objectives: addressing both environmental protection and sustainable development challenges (Koivrova and VanderZwaag, 2007). Ownership of the Arctic is determined by ownership of land in the region, by scientific data, by the international law of the sea (UNCLOS) and by the domestic law of the Arctic states (Byers, 2010). The US is the only state that has not ratified the UNCLOS. Under UNCLOS all states exercise an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) 370km from their coastline, giving them rights over the water and seabed resources up to that point (UNCLOS, 1982). Potential offshore oil and gas developments are within this limit. Land borders are not disputed, however adjacent states may disagree over their maritime borders. Canada and the US disagree over their maritime border in the potentially hydrocarbon-rich Beaufort Sea (Lloyd’s, 2012). Fig.18. shows the various under treaty agreed upon boundaries as well as each state’s

“National Security Consequences of United States Oil Dependence” is an article created by an Independent Task Force which emphasizes how in the future the United States can experience severe consequences from using an abundant amount of oil. "For the United States, with 4.6 percent of the world's population using 25 percent of the world's oil, the transition would be especially disruptive" (Task Force 212). The transition they describe is to an economy that relies less on petroleum. This dependence on oil could possibly result in the United States to suffer with economic, and social downfall as the entire country depends on the oil we obtain. One alternative to this oil dependency is to explore all American territory for oil, which involves

The change the Artic will have an impact on the earth. Temperatures in the Arctic are rising at twice the rate of the rest of the world on average, and melting glaciers and land-based ice sheets are contributing to rising sea levels. Rising ocean temperatures are affecting ocean ecosystems. In turn having an affect on the communities and economies that depend on them. The changing Arctic could lead to global changes in ocean-based food security that will place additional burdens on economies, societies, and institutions around the world.

Drilling in The Arctic Ocean is the ecosystem changing. The home to many animals is melting. The drilling has caused problems to the water. The ecosystem is sensitive and the rapid melting is changing the home to many. This affects animals and can cause them to be in danger. The ecosystem is gaining more people to go see and people want use their resources. There is a reserve for many animals on the land and the ocean. There is a federation trying to help these animals and provide them they’re natural habitat.

In some cases using what the arctic has to offer is good and could help the development of humans but on the other hand what about the environment. In this I will state the advantages and disadvantages of exploitation in the Arctic and how it could affect the world.

Altogether, the author effectively shows the damages that climate change causes on the Arctic Ocean. This includes changes in the water’s components, the loss of marine life, and rising oceans. The author is also able to show how imminent these problems are today, and that this is not just a topic for the future. This topic is important because the world’s emissions of greenhouse gases is hurting the ice caps exponentially, which will cause a ripple effect of harmful

The Arctic is global warming’s canary in the coal mine. It is a highly sensitive area which is profoundly affected by the changing climate. The average temperature in the Arctic is rising twice as fast as elsewhere in the world (nrdc.org). Because of this, the ice cap is getting thinner, melting away, and rupturing. Here is an example of this; the largest ice block in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, had been around for 3000 years before it started cracking in 2000 (nrdc.org) By 2002, the Ward Hunt has cracked completely through and had started breaking into smaller pieces. The melting ice caps are affecting the earth and its inhabitants in many ways. In this paper, the following concepts and subjects will be

In the last 100 years, Earth’s average temperature has risen by 1.4°F. The rising global temperatures have caused changes in weather and climate. Global warming refers to the ongoing rise in the average temperature near Earth’s surface. This is causing a climate change, which refers to any significant change (major change in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns) in the measures of climate lasting for an extended period of time (several decades or longer). Due to this, it is projected that the temperature will rise from 2 to 11.5°F in the next hundred years (US EPA, 2014). The “drivers,” which are the principal causes making this occur, are very controversial. It is debated whether a change in temperature is due to the work of