Centuries ago, European settlers stumbled upon the New World, a pristine world teaming with wildlife and abundance. Immediately the race was on to exploit these resources which were thought to be limitless. We now know what happened to the great northern forests, the prairie, the buffalo and the Native Americans who depended on the environment for their sustenance and survival.

The goldmines and railroads of the Wild West.

Now the Arctic is poised on a similar precipice. Industrial nations race to the scene as melting sea ice opens up this vast pristine region. The goals are to reduce shipping time between Europe and Asia and thereby cut costs – and also to be the first to claim the abundance of resources that are suddenly becoming available.

The Arctic no longer belongs to the eight Arctic nations that surround it. Major economic players such as China and other industrial nations far removed, have a stake in what happens in the Arctic.

For example:

• Last year China sent an icebreaker for the first time from Shanghai to Iceland through the Northern Sea Route (across the top of Russia) and stated that increased cargo shipments between Europe and Asia will become reality in a matter of years.
• South Korea is eyeing vast shipments of coal through the Northern Sea Route to fuel its economy.
• The “flag ship states,” which make vast sums on registering ships (Liberia, Panama, and Vanuatu to name a few of these nations) have mounted a full court press to weaken proposed Arctic shipping laws because it might increase industry costs.
• The Chinese government predicts up to 15% of its total cargo will move through the Northern Sea Route by 2020.   That’s just seven years away.
• For Asian nations, shipping via the Arctic will result in a 30% cut in costs.
• Moreover, 30% of world’s untapped gas and 13% of undiscovered oil is believed to be in the Arctic.
• Greenland is also under potential siege because of its rare earth minerals potential.  Here, a British company has also proposed mining 15 million tons of iron ore– a project which would add 3,000 foreign miners to a mostly indigenous population of under 60,000 residents.
• Next month China will be requesting permanent observer status at the Arctic Council which would give it an official voice in shaping Arctic policy.

Arctic politics has also created some strange bedfellows. This past month Icelandic President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson announced formation of a new global forum, the Arctic Circle, to give countries outside the region a chance to shape Arctic development such as China, Singapore, India and South Korea. China and Iceland also recently signed a free trade agreement that will bring greater economic involvement and investment in the region.

I don’t mean to pick on a few nations – but the problem is that some of the nations who ardently want a greater stake in Arctic development are the nations that support weak environmental protections for the Arctic. Last month at the International Maritime Organization (IMO),  I witnessed this first hand as China, Singapore, Iceland, the flag ship states , and even the United States, one-by-one stood up to oppose measures that would require zero discharge of garbage and other substances into the pristine Arctic.

The pristine beauty of the Arctic wilderness.

If nations want to have a stake in the Arctic – let them first show that they support responsible rules on Arctic shipping and development: allow only first class ice-worthy vessels; require zero discharge of pollutants including garbage; and restrict the types of dangerous cargo that can enter Arctic waters.

Now is the time to stand up for strong Arctic environmental policies – before we are looking back on another Wild West.

When you throw a piece of trash from your car window, or get rid of your old computer in the woods anywhere in the United States, you’re violating littering or dumping laws, and chances are that you’d have to pay a fine if caught red-handed. But when it comes to the Arctic, our representatives think it’s okay to let ships dump their garbage into pristine Arctic waters.

Pacific Environment is in a pivotal position when it comes to shaping the Arctic’s future. We are one of a handful of groups which have a special consultative status at the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the United Nations’ body that is now writing the rules for Arctic shipping (known as the Polar Code). This is a big deal because with rapidly melting sea ice, decisions need to be made immediately about how ships can operate in what are now pristine waters. These rules will have a big impact on indigenous communities and their ability to maintain their subsistence lifestyle.

Last week Pacific Environment took a leadership role at the IMO meeting in London to support a strong Polar Code. Unfortunately, our own United States delegation, led by the U.S. Coast Guard and several other agencies, opposed measures to strengthen the Polar Code.

Canada and Russia see the necessity of Arctic conservation, and currently ban ships from dumping their garbage in Arctic waters. But this ban applies only to their territorial waters – and with Arctic shipping expected to grow exponentially – they sought the international force of law to require a zero discharge from ships anywhere in the Arctic. Given that Canada and Russia have banned Arctic garbage dumping for years with no adverse consequences for shipping, we believed the ban should have been greeted with positive support from all nations.

Showing a complete lack of concern for the Arctic environment, the U.S. delegation opposed the garbage dumping ban, along with other proposals to ban the use of heavy fuel oil in the Arctic. Heavy fuel oil is a critically important issue because one major oil spill similar to the Exxon-Valdez spill could cause species extinction as well as the loss of food security for indigenous peoples. The Arctic Council, a group of eight Arctic nations working to promote sound Arctic public policy, found that heavy fuel oil is one of biggest dangers with Arctic shipping.

Pacific Environment is working hard to actively involve other conservation groups, indigenous groups, and the general public to pressure the U.S. delegation, as well as other nations, to support rules that minimize the risks of Arctic shipping while protecting indigenous interests. With solid grassroots organizing and public pressure, we are optimistic about our chances to establish the highest environmental standards for the Arctic.  We will continue to keep you posted on our progress.

More about Canada’s stance on dumping waste in Arctic waters

Back in January, I was asked to present on the topic of food sovereignty and climate change for the International Funders for Indigenous Peoples conference. As I was mulling over what to say, it dawned on me that most issues and threats that indigenous communities are facing today are quite similar, regardless of where they live. Indigenous peoples all over the world have to deal with the fallout from climate change, land grabbing, pollution, and encroaching industrialization.

The regions where I work – Siberia, the Russian Far East, and the Russian Arctic – are areas where people live in very harsh climate conditions and their food systems are perfectly adapted to their environment. Native peoples in the North have access to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods. They obtain their food from nature by foraging, collecting roots and berries, catching fish, and harvesting animals.

Indigenous children take part in the process of fishing and drying large Salmon catches.

A couple of years ago I learned an important lesson about the connection between food and indigenous cultures when I was invited to have dinner with an Inupiat family in Nome, Alaska. That evening I tried my first walrus, whale, and caribou, and I listened to stories about the lives and history of the Inupiat people.

The Pacific Walrus is an important part of Inupiat diet and culture.

Most importantly, though, I was reminded that for many Native communities in the North food is not just energy in the form of calories, but an integral part of a system of beliefs that connects the individual to the community and to nature. There is a saying, “If you take away our food, you take away our soul.” If you take away walrus from Inupiat people, there will be no Inupiat people – physically, culturally, and spiritually.

The Pacific walrus, along with many other food sources, is threatened by increasing Arctic development and climate change, which is melting  Arctic ice and destroying walrus habitat. Sadly, the loss of traditional food sources is already a reality for indigenous communities in the Arctic. That’s why we work to raise awareness that the Arctic is not just a treasure trove of natural resources waiting to be exploited by corporations like Shell Oil. It’s a region where indigenous peoples have created thriving subsistence lifestyles that depend on intact local ecosystems and healthy wildlife.

I believe that indigenous communities deserve to thrive, not just barely survive as melting Arctic ice and resource extraction projects destroy their homes and local food systems. That’s why Pacific Environment works closely with Native communities in the Russian and Alaskan Arctic to protect Native food sources and cultural traditions from the threats of climate change and industrial development.

Rodion Sulyandziga was able to breathe a sigh of relief last week when Russia’s Ministry of Justice announced that the country’s leading indigenous organization would be allowed to operate again. For Rodion, an indigenous Udege from the Russian Far East, the Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, or RAIPON, represents a life’s work fighting for the rights of Russia’s indigenous communities.

RAIPON’s reinstatement is the result of a four-month struggle against Russia’s legal bureaucracy, in which Pacific Environment, and our supporters, played a key role. “On behalf of RAIPON,” says Rodion, “I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all those who have been with us during these difficult days and months, who have expressed solidarity, who did not keep silent, and who did not turn their backs. Thank you for your involvement and solidarity. This is a collective achievement.”

Within hours of RAIPON’s suspension by Russian authorities in November 2012, Rodion and Pacific Environment strategized outreach to key stakeholders and decision makers. For example, Pacific Environment engaged a broad network of environmental and indigenous rights NGOs for a joint appeal to Senior Arctic Officials, which called on the Russian Government to reinstate RAIPON’s status within Russia so it could continue to fulfill its critical role as a permanent participant of the Arctic Council. We also mobilized over 1,500 of our supporters to write to President Putin and ask him to stop the silencing of indigenous voices in Russia.

RAIPON’s suspension belongs in the broader context of increasing government pressure on civil society organizations. And it was only the latest in a series of governmental measures designed to gain greater control over the vast, fossil fuel-rich territories of the Far North. These areas are mainly populated by indigenous peoples and federal and regional actions are increasingly targeting traditional forms of economic activity like subsistence hunting and fishing to weaken local cultures and traditions and undermine indigenous opposition to the government’s Arctic development plans.

RAIPON is not only the most influential organization defending Russia’s indigenous communities, but also the only organization advocating for indigenous rights at international organizations, including, besides the Arctic Council, the United Nations Environment Program and the Norwegian Barents Secretariat.

RAIPON vocally opposes the government’s grab for fossil fuels in the Far North, which is mainly populated by indigenous peoples.

Now that RAIPON is reinstated, Rodion and his team will continue their fight to protect Russia’s indigenous communities from irresponsible and illegal resource development and destructive corporate practices. And at Pacific Environment, we will continue collaborating with one of our most important allies in our battle to protect both the Alaskan and Russian Arctic from resource extraction projects, oil spills, and industrial pollution.

I was hopeful that some real progress would be made when the Department of the Interior suspended Shell’s drilling program in the Arctic because of the company’s chain of embarrassing failures and near-disasters in 2012. 

But last week, the government’s 60-day investigation of Shell’s Arctic drilling program mainly confirmed what we already knew: Shell is not prepared to operate safely in the Arctic’s icy waters. In addition, the review only offers a handful of recommendations that the company may choose to follow—or not.

What’s worse, the Department of the Interior said little about the role it played in putting indigenous communities and natural wildlife at risk by allowing Shell to rush into offshore drilling without adequate preparation for the region’s extreme conditions or inevitable human missteps.

Alaska Native communities depend on the Arctic coastal ecosystems to meet their subsistence needs, and a major oil spill would devastate marine mammals and threaten traditional ways of life.

Shell’s drilling rig, the Kulluk, stranded off the coast of Sitkalidak Island in the Gulf of Alaska.

Even Shell itself, supposedly the “best of the best,” indicated that it was not prepared to operate safely in the Arctic when it announced that it was abandoning its plans to drill for oil off the coast of Alaska in 2013.

Yes, Shell’s oil rigs will not be headed to the Arctic this summer. But the government’s disappointingly weak review of Shell’s Arctic drilling program clearly shows that we must keep up the pressure to prevent Big Oil from drilling for dirty fossil fuels in extreme and sensitive areas like America’s Arctic Ocean.

Climate change is melting the Arctic ice cap at an alarming rate. As the ice recedes, it gives way to new new sea routes—setting the stage for a dramatic increase in ship traffic that threatens the subsistence lifestyles of indigenous peoples and the health of the Arctic environment.

The melting Arctic ice cap gives way to new shipping routes.

Why should we care that more oil tankers, cargo containers, and other commercial vessels than ever before will be traveling through the Arctic? Because ship traffic is a serious threat to our global climate and the indigenous peoples and wildlife that call the region their home:

• Ships make noise that threatens whales and other marine mammals because it interferes with their migration routes, as well as reproduction and feeding behaviors.
• Ships emit carbon dioxide, a major climate change culprit, and are a significant source of other air pollutants.
• Ships strikes injure or kill whales and other marine mammals.
• Ships pose risks of oil spills that would kill marine life and are very difficult to clean up, especially in the harsh and unpredictable conditions of the Arctic.

Ship traffic along the Northern Sea Route (or Northeast Passage), which runs from Europe across northern Russia and then through the Bering Strait has already increased because it reduces the time (and with it the expense) for a ship to travel from Europe to Asia or vice versa from 14 days to 7½.

Over the next seven years, ship traffic is projected to grow by leaps and bounds. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, three billion tons of cargo moved from Europe through the Bering Strait last year. That number is estimated to rise to 25 billion tons by 2017 and 50 billion tons by 2020.

The Northern Sea Route is just the tip of the iceberg, though. Another major sea route, the Northwest Passage, which runs across northern Canada and through the Bering Strait to Asia, is also opening up as the Arctic ice cap shrinks.

The Northeast Passage (or Northern Sea Route) and the Northwest Passage.

Right now there is only weak and outdated regulation of ship traffic in international waters that does not address the rapidly changing seascape in the Arctic. That’s why Pacific Environment advocates at the highest international levels for strict environmental regulations. For example, we are one of only a handful of environmental organizations accredited to participate in shipping negotiations at the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The IMO is a United Nations agency that is currently developing rules to improve shipping safety and environmental protection in both Arctic and Antarctic waters through a Polar Code.

In addition to participating directly in meetings and the drafting of the Polar Code, we are spearheading efforts to coordinate with other groups so that the environmental community is able to advocate for strong environmental protections with one unified voice. We are also actively working with our indigenous partners to make sure they know about key decisions and processes at the IMO to ensure that Polar Code regulations protect indigenous cultural and subsistence traditions.

As climate change opens up the Arctic to increased ship traffic, we will continue our fight to ensure that its waters, wildlife, and indigenous peoples enjoy the greatest possible protections.  I’ll be sure to keep you updated on our progress.

Do you know what China, Australia, and the Arctic have in common?

Arctic wildlife, Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, and the colorful Danxia Mountains in China’s Gansu province.

Apart from stunning scenery, it turns out that each is home to one of the 3 biggest threats to our global climate. Here governments and fossil fuel companies are pushing massive, carbon-intensive coal, oil, and gas projects that would cause climate disaster if allowed to move forward.

In China, the country’s northwestern provinces are planning to increase coal mining—moving the country further along on its path to double carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from coal burning by 2020. Australia is in the midst of a “coal export rush” that would eclipse its domestic consumption three times over by 2025. And in the Arctic, oil companies are preparing to extract newly accessible offshore oil and gas resources as sea ice continues to melt and recede.

Coal, the dirtiest of all fossil fuels, is set to surpass oil as the world’s top energy source within the next 10 years.

Point of No Return, a new report by Ecofys that was commissioned by Greenpeace, ranks these projects as the top 3 among the 14 worst energy projects planned in the coming decades. Each by itself would cause the release of more CO₂ emissions than any other energy project in the world today. Together, they would cause climate change to spiral out of control by putting the world on a catastrophic track toward 5^o to 6^oC long-term warming. This may not sound like much, but to avoid climate disaster, scientists and 200 nations agree that the increase in average global temperature must remain below 2^oC.

Between now and 2050, we have a “carbon budget” of roughly 565 gigatons of carbon dioxide—the maximum amount of emissions that would allow us to stay below the critical threshold of a two degrees Celsius increase in average global temperature.

A 2012 report commissioned by 20 governments estimates that climate change is already claiming 5 million lives a year (through air pollution, hunger, and disease as a result of climate change and carbon-based economies). That’s the damage at a time when the average global temperature has increased by “only” 0.8^oC since the onset of the Industrial Revolution over 250 years ago.

Can you imagine what a global temperature increase by 5^o or 6^oC would look like? I can’t. But to give you an idea, here’s what’s predicted to happen if the temperature rises between 3^o to 4^oC: about 40% of the world’s species could become extinct; sea levels could rise up to 10 feet, swallowing lower lying islands and threatening coastal communities; important ecosystems like the Amazon rainforest and the Boreal forests would die back; and people would face increased risk of drought, water shortages, crop failure, poverty, disease, and civic unrest.

Climate change causes extreme weather patterns that are wreaking havoc around the world.

Yet governments and fossil fuel corporations are forging ahead with their wrong-headed plans—willfully ignoring the potentially devastating climate fallout.

That’s why Pacific Environment collaborates with local grassroots leaders on the ground to pressure politicians, officials, and CEOs to halt dirty fossil fuel projects and invest in clean energy solutions before it’s too late for climate action.

Here’s How We Fight the World’s 3 Biggest Climate Change Threats

In China, coal is king and there is little awareness of the harm it inflicts on local communities and the global environment.  To break the coal industry’s stranglehold, we are launching a grassroots campaign to educate the public and mobilize our growing network of local environmental activists to address the terrible impacts of coal on people’s health and local air and water supplies.

In Australia, we collaborate with the grassroots “Lock the Gate” movement, which is working to keep the rapidly expanding fossil fuel  industry off people’s land and out of their communities. We are also leading the charge against tax-payer-backed financing for dirty fossil fuel projects provided by Export-Import Bank, a U.S. federal agency promoting American exports. This includes proposed Ex-Im Bank financing for a huge coal export terminal and a lawsuit challenging a $3 billion loan Ex-Im Bank approved for a liquefied natural gas facility. Both projects threaten the world-famous Great Barrier Reef and already endangered wildlife.

In the Arctic, we continue to oppose Shell Oil’s Arctic drill program—a fight we helped start together with our Alaska Native partners in 2006. We are currently pressuring the Department of the Interior to conduct a thorough and transparent review of Shell’s Arctic drill program. The long line of failures, mishaps, and permit violations during the 2012 drilling season clearly demonstrates that Shell is not prepared to drill safely in the Arctic.

The battle against new dirty energy projects is the most important fight of our time. We have reached a tipping point where the right decisions must be made, and be made quickly, to save our planet from the devastating consequences of catastrophic climate change.  The time to act is now!

As a 19-year old, Kevin Harun adored actress Mary Tyler Moore; he was convinced that it would be a great adventure to track her down in Minnesota. When he told his grandmother, she thought he might as well be heading to Timbuktu—or Alaska. And when she said, “I dare you,” he promptly took off, carrying a cardboard sign with “Alaska Please” on one side and a Canadian maple leaf on the other.

Thanks, Mary, for sending Kevin our way!

Hitchhiking across the U.S. from Pennsylvania and up the Alcan Highway, Kevin fell in love again; this time with the rugged Alaskan landscape and its people. He immediately decided that this wild country was where he was going to build his life—a life devoted to preserving its precious beauty.

Kevin thinks of the Arctic as the beating heart of this planet. Where others see only ice and snow, he sees a pump that circulates water around the globe and regulates our climate. Kevin believes that the moment we started seeing the Amazon rainforest as the earth’s lungs, people woke up and began to fight its destruction. Talking about the Arctic as a living organ could be key to its preservation; and Kevin is committed to telling this story to help people understand that the Arctic is just as critical to the health of our planet as the Amazon rainforest.

After he decided to stay in Alaska, Kevin lucked into a job which took him to remote and indigenous villages all over the place that are otherwise hard to get to. Meeting people he never would have met any other way. Knocking on the doors of strangers, he asked to see what they stored in their refrigerator. Most people would consider this an intimidating assignment, but Kevin relished the challenge of these interactions. After checking the fridge (and maybe having a cup of tea with the resident), he headed to the local grocery store to record the local prices for refrigerator staples. Why? To compare the cost of living across the state.

Last summer Kevin visited Alaska’s Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, home to 200 wildlife species living within an area of only 150 square miles.

Kevin joined Pacific Environment decades after the life-changing hitchhike that inspired him to build a successful and multifaceted career in one of the world’s last great wild places.  He spent several years working to elect democrats to Alaska’s legislature and the U.S. Senate, was appointed to build and direct Anchorage’s Sustainability Department, and steered the Alaska Conservation Foundation’s Forestry, Oceans, and Arctic programs. Before that he served as executive director of the Alaska Center for the Environment.

Throughout his career Kevin worked to protect the Alaskan wilderness, Alaska Native peoples, and local cultures and traditions. He describes himself as “a connector” of people, perspectives, and ideas—able to work closely with those who have values and political opinions different than his own.

We are thrilled to have Kevin on our small, but powerful team. Stay tuned for his updates on our Arctic work.

Shell ended its 2012 Arctic drilling season with a bang. On New Year’s Eve, one of its drill rigs—the Kulluk— ran aground near Kodiak Island, Alaska, in a severe winter storm while carrying 143,000 gallons of diesel fuel and 12,000 gallons of other petroleum products.

Shell’s drill rig, the Kulluk, ran aground near Kodiak Island on New Year’s Eve.
Photo credit: Jonathan Klingenberg/U.S. Coast Guard

Tow vessels were moving the Kulluk, which has no propulsion system of its own, to Seattle for the winter. First, the tow vessel’s engines failed. Then the tow line failed. Then multiple efforts to reestablish the tow line failed. Finally, the drill rig was left to run aground.

Shell’s last mishap of 2012 is only the latest in a long line of failures that clearly demonstrate Shell’s incompetence and inability to drill safely in the Arctic. Shell’s other fiascoes during the 2012 drilling season include:

• The oil giant’s other drill rig, the Noble Discoverer, slipped an anchor and nearly ran aground in Dutch Harbor, Alaska, while on its way to the drill site in the Chukchi Sea in July. In November, its engine caught fire. In December, the Coast Guard detained the rig, which was built in 1966, for safety and pollution discrepancies.
• Shell’s oil spill response barge, the Arctic Challenger, failed to meet U.S. Coast Guard safety standards and cannot be certified as seaworthy until the company addresses some 400 technical problems. The 36-year old barge was meant to be positioned between the two Arctic drill rigs in case of a spill, but instead was forced to remain in Bellingham, Washington. While at port in Washington, the barge had four illegal fluid spills and the oil spill containment dome failed miserably during pre-deployment testing in relatively benign weather conditions.
• Shell backtracked on its statement that it would be able to clean up 95 percent of a major oil spill, saying instead that it would only “encounter” that much.
• The oil giant campaigned for special treatment by the Environmental Protection Agency, which granted Shell permission to violate the Clean Air Act and exceed air pollution limits in the Arctic for one year.
• Finally, Shell had to abandon its preliminary drilling activities in the Chukchi Sea within 24 hours when a 30-mile long ice sheet moved into the area.

The recent grounding of the Kulluk, and all the failures that have preceded it, are clear evidence that the challenges faced by Arctic drilling are too severe to allow for safe offshore oil and gas drilling.

How many accidents need to occur before everyone realizes that drilling can’t be done safely in the Arctic? The risks are simply too great to allow Shell to continue to gamble with the health of communities and the environment.

Speak out against Arctic Drilling

Today is a good day: Shell announced that it is cancelling its 2012 Arctic drilling program! 

From asking to exceed air pollution limits to a damaged oil spill containment dome, Shell showed that it is not prepared to drill in the Arctic safely.

Let’s savor the moment. This is a huge day for millions of people around the world who took action to protect the Arctic from Big Oil.

But let’s be clear. The fight is far from over. We still have a lot of work to do to protect the Arctic’s oil and gas resources from industrial exploitation.

After investing more than $4,500,000,000 and seven years, Shell shows no signs of abandoning its long-term plans to drill for oil off the Alaskan coast. In fact, Shell has declared that it will continue drilling shallow “top holes” until the arrival of winter sea ice. “Top holes” are the initial stages of oil wells and Shell is racing to drill as many of these as possible in hopes that it will be able to drill deeper in search of oil next year.

Today, we savor this victory. Tomorrow, we’ll get back to work.

Thank you for taking action and supporting us!