Int’l cps- brag lab- wave 1 Theory
Download 1.09 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- The EU is increasing its exploration in the oceans – the race for the Artic proves
- The EU is ready to start exploration in the arctic – recent rejection of drilling ban proves
- Conservation efforts in the Arctic prove the EU is ready to expand their exploration circle of the Arctic
Exploration/ArcticThe EU is looking to lead new arctic exploration – all that’s needed is implementation measuresØsthagen 12, Andreas Østhagen, 9/13/12, Østhagen is currently working as a program coordinator/fellow at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies (IFS) in Oslo. He also serves as Director for Norway at The Arctic Institute, having participated since the beginning, “The EU and The Arctic: A Never Ending Story,” http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2012/09/091312-eu-and-arctic-never-ending-story.html, NN The European Commission’s new outline for an EU Arctic policy, released at the end of June, goes a long way in showing how the EU wishes to be perceived as a serious and balanced Arctic actor. Other parts of the EU-system, however, have taken a different approach throughout the summer months. Using the kind of simplified Arctic-rhetoric that has caused many problems for the EU in the past, some Members of the European Parliament have yet again called for an Arctic drilling moratorium and questioned the region’s governance structures. The ongoing oil and gas debate in the European Parliament highlights how the EU is not, at least yet, a coherent actor on this issue, and is still in the early stages of developing its own comprehensive Arctic Policy. In a summer when Shell started drilling in the Chukchi Sea, Greenpeace activists hijacked a rig in Russia, and a shifting oil rig in the Barents Sea caused alarm in Norway, Arctic oil and gas has most definitely been on the agenda, both in and outside of the Arctic [1]. Certain members of the European Parliament have consequently used the Commission’s proposal on new safety rules for offshore oil and gas as an opportunity to address issues concerning such activities. As before, however, some of the proposals in the Parliament highlight a greater desire to be seen doing something about the Arctic rather than actually understanding the matter at hand. An Improved Outline for an EU Arctic Policy After a long wait (the European Commission’s first and only Arctic communication came in 2008) and numerous delays (the follow-up was initially due in June 2011), the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and the European Commission jointly published its ‘Arctic Policy 2.0’ in late June this year. As already outlined in a previous article by Andreas Raspotnik and Kathrin Keil, the communication sets out multiple goals for EU-participation in the region, while also reinforcing its objective to take part in regional cooperation (read Arctic Council) [2]. The communication itself is a balanced and concrete statement, making headway towards a policy that comprises more than just overarching concepts and ideals. In many of the paragraphs, the Commission actually points to specific contributions that the EU is already making, or could possibly make in the future, as the Arctic continues to become a region of global interest. Especially interregional cooperation and research in the European parts of the Arctic stands out. It therefore makes a significant contribution to addressing the outspoken negativity towards the EU from some of the Arctic littoral states, although a lot of progress still remains to be done. As Raspotnik and Keil highlight, “the Communication clearly shows the EU’s unwillingness to step on the toes of any of the Arctic states by remaining largely unspecific, pushing back against the perception of the EU as a “super-regulator” and concentrating on environmental, climate change and research issues, supporting any effort to ensure the effective stewardship of the Arctic environment.” [3] In parallel to the publication of this Arctic policy statement, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers have been addressing the Commissioner for Energy Günther Oettinger’s proposal to create a mandatory, EU-wide set of rules for offshore oil and gas safety [4]. The Commission’s proposal, developed as a consequence of the 2010 Macondo accident, sets out a grandiose plan in the form of a regulation that would basically replace national legislation on the matter. Given that only a handful of EU-member states actually produce offshore oil and gas, EU-countries like the United Kingdom, Denmark and EEA-member Norway have been critical of the idea that EU-wide regulation is needed. Before Norway ‘decided’ that this proposal would not be relevant for its economic agreement with the EU, it had proposed that the regulation became a directive such that countries would have more leeway in interpretation, in accordance with national legislation [5]. The Commission has also included some brief paragraphs about the Arctic, although this is by no means the main focus of the proposal. Given the EU’s dependence on gas imports from the Arctic part of Russia and the probability that petroleum activities in other parts of the Arctic will increase, the Commission has stated that: The serious environmental concerns relating to the Arctic waters, a neighbouring marine environment of particular importance for the Community, require special attention to ensure the environmental protection of the Arctic in relation to any offshore activities, including exploration [6]. and The Commission shall promote high safety standards for offshore oil and gas operations at international level at appropriate global and regional fora, including those related to Arctic waters [7]. These points, in the context of a comprehensive and detailed proposal, are neither shocking nor particularly new to the EU-Arctic debate; rather, they reflect that the Commission acknowledges the debate concerning Arctic drilling, while also trying to strike a balance between preservation and exploitation. The proposal from the Commission seems to have triggered Arctic action amongst some Members of the European Parliament. Taking the proposals stated above, some MEPs in the environment committee suggested calling for a moratorium on Arctic drilling and developing stronger international governance regimes for the region. This was proposed during the summer months, as the committee started its work on the matter and produced amendments to the Commission’s original proposal. Another amendment put forward was that “Member states should not issue drilling licenses for these waters” [8]. Seeing that no EU member state has any jurisdiction over Arctic waters, this might be a tricky one to fulfil. Altogether, many of the amendments proposed by the environment committee seem to be aimed at ‘doing something’ about the Arctic, instead of considering the factual realities of the situation and devising appropriate solutions. As drilling commences in more southern Arctic waters, differentiation between the various parts of the Arctic might be of value to the European debate, especially since many EU member states receive much of their gas from the Arctic territories. Talking about what governance regimes are lacking, and how to amend it, might be another useful contribution. The final vote on these amendments is scheduled for the 19th of September in the environment committee, before the industry and energy committee adopts the final version and passes it over to the full plenary in Strasbourg. In the end, the Council of Ministers will throw in their recommendations, and it is then up to the Commission to draw up a revised version acceptable to all parties. The amendments concerning an Arctic moratorium will most likely shed away long before that stage. They do, however, highlight a lack of cohesion in the EU with regards to the Arctic, and that the EU still has a long way to go before a comprehensive Arctic policy is in place. The EU is increasing its exploration in the oceans – the race for the Artic provesGES 14, Global Economic Symposium, nearest date given is 2014, Global Economic Symposium is an online journal specializing in various economic and political systems around the globe, “Exploring Energy Resources in the Arctic Ocean,” http://www.global-economic-symposium.org/knowledgebase/the-global-environment/exploring-energy-resources-in-the-arctic-ocean, NN As temperatures rise with a changing climate, Arctic sea ice melts. As a consequence, the once ice-covered Arctic Ocean becomes increasingly accessible, with implications for various economic sectors. In particular, the oil and gas resources below the seafloor have whetted the appetite of the littoral states—Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States—as well as outsiders, such as China and the European Union, which are developing or rethinking their Arctic strategies. A race to claim large parts of the Arctic Ocean’s seafloor has begun. But the special conditions in the Arctic—low temperatures, ice and icebergs, lack of infrastructure and environmental risks—influence the extraction of resources, making it more expensive and risky. How will energy from the Arctic Ocean affect global markets for oil and natural gas? What role can energy from the Arctic play in the energy security of the littoral states and their potential buyers? Is it realistic to produce hydrocarbons without unforeseeable risks to Arctic ecosystems, which are already under great stress from climate change and receding sea ice? What rules are needed to prevent environmental catastrophes and how can they be enforced? In contrast with the Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement, there is, as yet, no comparable agreement on emergency prevention, preparedness and response. How can the effective treatment of catastrophes, such as oil spills in the Arctic, be secured? How should the responsibility, liability and burden of emergency preparedness programs be distributed, both among states and among stakeholders? Is the present framework of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea fit to deal with territorial claims from states littoral to the Arctic Ocean and how will it have to be reformed? The EU is ready to start exploration in the arctic – recent rejection of drilling ban provesNelsen 12, Arthur Nelsen, 10/10/12, Nelsen is a staff writer for EurActiv, a news source conerened primarily with European Union political developments, “Europe rejects ban on Arctic oil drilling,” http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/10/europe-rejects-ban-arctic-oil-drilling, NN The European parliament's industry committee has rejected attempts to introduce a moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling in the Arctic, overruling a contrary vote by its environment committee last month. The key vote in the industry committee yesterday (9 October) instead proposed a new directive to ensure that companies have "adequate financial security" to cover the liabilities that could be incurred by any accidents. Drilling companies would also have to submit to national authorities a safety hazard and emergency response report at least 24 weeks before the planned start of operations. A plenary vote in December will now consider one surviving amendment from the environment committee vote, which would impel member states to refrain from licencing drills unless an effective accident response can be guaranteed. The European Commission had initially proposed a binding EU-wide regulation, but the industry committee's vote instead plumped for a directive, which member states can choose how to enforce according to their regional standards. "Questions have been raised about the significant revocation and amendments of existing equivalent national legislation and guidance [a regulation] might entail," said the parliamentary rapporteur, Ivo Belet (European People's Party). "Such redrafting would divert scarce resources from the safety assessments and inspections on the field," he added. British oil industry representatives used similar arguments, according to minutes of a stakeholder peer review meeting at the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. "Implementing the Regulation would tie-up considerable resources in both industry and regulators … taking them away from the 'front line' where the hazards are," representatives of Oil and Gas UK said. After that meeting, the head of the European Commission's coal and oil unit, Jan Panek, invited the Oil and Gas UK representatives to a separate bilateral meeting on the legal instrument and requirements in the regulation, which took place in April 2012. Tip of the iceberg Environmentalists suspect that this was the tip of a lobby iceberg. "This vote had the fingerprints of oil lobby all over it," Greenpeace spokesman Joris den Blanken told EurActiv. Amid intense industry lobbying, EurActiv has learned that the oil giant Chevron offered MEPs on the committee a free trip to its offshore Alba platform on 12-14 July, involving two nights stay in an Aberdeen hotel, helicopter trips to the platform, and several briefings. But a Chevron representative informed EurActiv that the trip had not in fact gone ahead, due to "organisational reasons" on which she declined to elaborate. Ivo Belet's office said that he had "had the intention" of going on the package, but instead visited a platform in the Netherlands on a paid-for trip to GDF Suez's K12B gas-producing platform which utilises carbon capture and storage techniques. In March 2011, another shadow rapporteur on the committee, Vicky Ford (European Conservatives and Reformists), who tabled more than half of the 642 amendments on the report, visited a rig off the coast of Aberdeen paid for by the oil company ConocoPhillips. Such trips are considered necessary and educational for legislators, and may not be luxurious, but environmentalists are wary of undue influence when MEPs adopt positions close to the industry's interests. A spokesperson at Ford's office said that she had registered her trip on her European Parliament online declaration of interests but it was not mentioned there at the time of writing. Camel operations in the Sahara Oil producing countries such as Norway also pushed hard for the proposed regulation to be transmuted into a directive, because of the "massive administrative burden" and "complicated legal questions" it could raise, according to a Norwegian position paper, seen by EurActiv. Norway's deputy oil and energy minister, Per Rune Henriksen, went further, arguing that for the EU to claim jurisdiction over the Arctic by banning drills there "would almost be like us commenting on a camel operations in the Sahara." The EU sees itself as an actor in the Arctic because three EU countries have territory in the Arctic – Denmark, Finland and Sweden – while Iceland is an EU candidate. The EU has in return applied for an enhanced observer seat on the Arctic Council, partly because climate change is a transboundary issue, affecting European weather patterns and fish stocks alike. Gustaf Lind, the Arctic Council's current chair, told EurActiv that "of course, as we have EU members, we can all say that we're positive, very positive [towards the EU's application] but we try to avoid reviewing specific applications in the media." Arctic resource race The EU's application comes as the continent's ice has melted to its lowest level ever, carving the pristine region open for a resource race. The US Geological Survey says that the region could be home to 13% of the world's undiscovered oil reserves and 30% of its undiscovered gases, and gold and diamond mining companies also view its prospects with relish. Arctic nations often bemoan a perceived southern hypocrisy that would prevent them from enjoying the same economic benefits from fossil fuel production that others have done. Oil extracted from the Arctic emits no more greenhouse gas than that produced anywhere else but the region's remote and hostile terrain could make rescue operations treacherous in the event of an accident. Arctic futures Gunnar Wiegand, a director at the EU's External Affairs Action Service, told an Arctic Futures Symposium in Brussels on 4 October that he hoped EU legislation could inspire Arctic nations to firmer environmental legislation. "The acquis [accumulated legislation] in the Arctic Council doesn't go as far as any of the environmental legislation of the EU," he said. Maria Damanaki, the EU's maritime commissioner, told the same conference that as the continent's ice thawed, new opportunities could arise. "Offshore drilling in the Arctic now becomes a viable option for big oil companies," she said. "Arctic reserves could hold enough oil and gas to meet global demand for several years. This is a need the world economy has." "Though we may be greening the world economy, oil and gas remain vital for us and will do for some years," she added. Scientists are more concerned that the Arctic ice melt could raise sea levels, accelerate global warming by reducing the region's ice reflectivity of solar heat, and change Gulf Stream currents. If the Arctic's summer ice melts completely, some scientists fear that methane hydrates currently frozen on the seabed could be released, causing a runaway and unstoppable greenhouse effect. Conservation efforts in the Arctic prove the EU is ready to expand their exploration circle of the ArcticHance 14, Jeremy Hance, 3/13/14, Hance is a staff writer for Mangabay environmental protection website, “Europe votes for an Arctic Sanctuary,” http://news.mongabay.com/2014/0313-hance-arctic-sanctuary-eu.html, NN Yesterday, the European Parliament passed a resolution supporting the creation of an Arctic Sanctuary covering the vast high Arctic around the North Pole, giving official status to an idea that has been pushed by activists for years. Still, the sanctuary has a long road to go before becoming a reality: as Arctic sea ice rapidly declines due to climate change, there has been rising interest from governments and industries to exploit the once inaccessible wilderness for fish and fossil fuels. The proposed sanctuary, lying outside of Exclusive Economic Zones, would cover "one of the largest and least exploited areas on Earth: a 2.8 million square kilometer zone of the global commons," writes Neil Hamilton, Senior Political Advisor Polar with Greenpeace Norway, in a blog. "That would be the biggest conservation zone in existence, protecting fish stocks, ice-dependent species, and a huge variety of cold water species." Greenpeace has been campaigning for a global Arctic Sanctuary for several years, including gathering some 5 million signatures from around the world. In addition to supporting an Arctic Sanctuary, the European Parliament's resolution would ban fisheries in the high Arctic seas "until the establishment of appropriate regulatory mechanisms and protection." Similarly, the resolution calls for "strict precautionary regulatory standards" when it comes to fossil fuel exploration and extraction in the region, but leaves the door open for the ongoing energy race at the top of the world. Last December, Russian company Gazprom become the first energy company to begin pumping oil out of the Arctic seabed. In response to this the European Parliament expresses "strong concern regarding the rush for oil exploration and drilling in the Arctic without adequate standards being enforced." Finally, the resolution notes that the consequences of a rapidly-changing Arctic will ripple through Europe: "climate changes in the Arctic will have a major impact on coastal regions globally, including coastal regions in the European Union, and on climate-dependent sectors in Europe such as agriculture and fisheries, energy, reindeer herding, hunting, tourism and transport." The Arctic is warming faster than anywhere in the world due to climate change. In fact, according to a recent paper in Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society the region is warming eight times faster than the rest of the planet, leading to vast ecological upheaval. Still, according to Greenpeace, the establishment of an Arctic Sanctuary is likely to be opposed by a number of Arctic nations, such as Canada, Russia, Denmark, and Norway. At least one Arctic country, Finland, officially approves the idea, however. "[The resolution] is a direct challenge to the small group of countries who are rushing to open up the fragile Arctic for oil drilling and industrial fishing. The status quo is starting to crack, and this now demands a real response from those who see the melting Arctic simply as a new source of profit," said Greenpeace activist Sini Saarela of Finland. Saarela was one of the "Arctic 30," a group of activists and journalists who were arrested by Russian military while protesting oil exploitation in the region. After being detained for two months, the activists were granted amnesty by Russian President, Vladimir Putin. Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2014 2014 -> For want of a nail 2014 -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 2014 -> Ihbb asian Championships 2014 middle school bowl Round 4 First Quarter 2014 -> Ihbb european Championships 2014 Bowl Round 4 First Quarter 2014 -> International History Bee and Bowl 2013-14 Asian Division Question Set Bowl Round Six 2014 -> United states patent and trademark office 2014 -> Coffs harbour eisteddfod vocal syllabus 2014 -> Listen News Programs Schedule pledge now 2014 -> Slow club announce third album complete surrender Download 1.09 Mb. Share with your friends:
|