Bring Arctic oil to the climate-change table

This week, President Obama became the first sitting president to visit the American Arctic. Over three days, he will tour Alaska on a campaign to promote aggressive climate action and raise awareness of the devastating effects environmental shifts have had at the top of the world. 

As his first major visit to the state, Obama’s schedule is crowded. Starting Monday, he met with tribal leaders in Anchorage, hiked to the receding Exit Glacier in Kenai Fjords National Park, and traveled to two rural Alaska communities to see firsthand the overwhelming impacts of coastal erosion.  

{mosads}Back-dropped against heavy criticism that the federal government has excluded Alaskans in Arctic policy making, Obama’s visit is a strong message on the importance of inclusivity in the climate change conversation. And yet, despite his efforts to engage a wide variety of local representatives, one key stakeholder remains absent in the official agenda: oil.   

Offering the petroleum industry an invitation to discuss climate change mitigation and adaptation in a region that is melting because of their business model is counterintuitive and controversial. But it is essential.   

Aptly put by John P. Holdren, senior adviser to Obama on science and technology and part of the president’s delegation to Alaska this week, “We might wish for an instantaneous transformation that was drastically less reliant on oil and gas and coal, or at least that used technologies for oil and gas and coal that reduced greatly the emissions associated with that, but we don’t live in a magical world.”  

A long-term, enthusiastic vision for a world based primarily on renewable resources is important in the fight against climate change. But so too is the acknowledgement that de-carbonizing the global economy will not happen over night. Even with the stark drop in oil prices and the potential for a global climate deal, oil will continue to play a major role in both international energy supplies and domestic economies in the short and medium-term.   

Alaska is no exception to this reality. As America’s third largest oil-producing state, it extracts just under 400,000 barrels of crude oil each day – a number that could significantly increase in the decades to come as Shell begins its exploratory drilling offshore in the Chukchi Sea. Locally, the oil and gas industry accounts for one-third of all Alaskan jobs and generates over 85 percent of the state’s revenue. That revenue supports education programs, social services, and a significant annual dividend to every eligible state resident upon which many Alaskan families have come to rely.  

In many ways inviting, or demanding, Arctic oil producers to be a part of building a sustainable future is just as important as including Native leaders and fisherman whose lives petroleum production activities intimately influence. Oil’s role in Alaska is not merely economic – it has provided a strong societal safety net for America’s northernmost citizens for the past half-century. And it should continue to support Alaskans as they simultaneously transform the state into one that is drastically less reliant on oil and adapt to a rapidly warming environment.  

By bringing oil companies operating in Alaska to the climate change table, President Obama and Alaskan stakeholders can compel them to prioritize investment in infrastructure and construction projects that support resilient communities and sustainable development. For example, Arctic oil producers could be required to provide financial resources and technical expertise to initiatives like the Remote Community Renewable Energy Partnership, a joint research project between the Departments of Interior and Energy to integrate wind power into Alaska’s diesel microgrids.     

Beyond supporting mitigation through renewable energy innovations, oil companies could partner with the state and national government to offer assistance to communities in need of climate change-induced relocation. Currently, 31 Alaskan villages face an imminent threat of destruction from erosion and flooding. At least 12 have decided to relocate, in part or entirely, to safer ground to avoid total collapse. Moving an entire community to a safer location mere miles away can cost anywhere from $80 to upwards of $250 million – a task that could be partially supported by industry revenue and development investment.  

The transition to a sustainable future will not be instantaneous. The steps in between today and tomorrow, including those of renewable Arctic energy grids and community relocation, will inevitably happen in an economic structure still heavily dependent on petroleum revenues.  

In his weekly address on the eve of his Alaska trip, Obama recognized, “that there are Americans who are concerned about oil companies drilling in environmentally sensitive waters,” and added, “I share people’s concerns about off-shore drilling.” 

But to truly address climate change adaptation and mitigation in the northern-most reaches of the United States, Obama must demand those causing it to be part of building its solution.

Hermann is U.S. director of the Arctic Institute.