Nowhere are these complexities playing out in more detail than the Arctic.
{mosads}The U.S. is an Arctic nation and our security posture is affected by changes in weather patterns. These changes are shrinking the Arctic ice cap, allowing increased Arctic commercial development, and impacting existing commercial and military operations. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) noted a few months ago, that this year’s Iditarod (probably the most well-known of Alaska’s sports activities), for lack of natural snow, had to consider bringing the white stuff to Anchorage in railcars for the start of the 1,100-mile race.
As climate change warms and opens the Arctic Ocean at an increasing rate, the United States must boost its national security presence in the region with additional icebreakers, more patrol vessels, and increased onshore commercial and military facilities. We must make these very necessary investments in Arctic sovereignty to secure existing commercial activity and protect the regional population’s food and energy security needs. We must not complicate our security challenges by increasing offshore drilling development without the necessary security and response assets in place.
As we saw in the Middle East and in the Gulf, drill rigs, support facilities, and transport infrastructure are inherently vulnerable to both manmade threats and nature. That is doubly true in the extremely harsh and remote offshore Arctic. Efforts to drill in this environment have already placed demands on our security and reaction forces. Recently the Coast Guard had to divert resources from our already thinly-stretched southern border area, just to support preliminary Arctic exploration.
Full scale development, before necessary security and incident-response resources are in place, is extremely risky. The current Coast Guard Commandant, Admiral Zukunft, warned that, “We had 47,000 responders that were marshalled to the Gulf of Mexico [for Deepwater Horizon] …. Try to put 100 people in Barrow, Alaska, and after the first 50 show up, the other 50 will be fending off polar bears” Arctic drilling without sufficient assets to deal with environmental and other threats is a national security problem.
The U.S. must continue to produce oil and gas as we transition to more sustainable economic energy alternatives. But we must carefully evaluate the sites where we will drill. The risks inherent in developing the Arctic outer continental shelf are immense and we must act prudently. The lack of supporting infrastructure, the fiercely unforgiving seas, the lack of assets available to respond to environmental threats, and the insufficient security posture weigh heavily against explosive offshore development.
The outgoing administration recently reversed a plan to open the Arctic Ocean to increased oil and gas leasing; other countries are also revisiting their development plans in the Arctic. Canada recently dropped plans to lease in its Beaufort Sea; the Russians announced a 10-year moratorium; and while Norway is pushing its leasing northward, it is avoiding seas covered by winter ice.
These are good decisions. However, we must do more to ensure our own Arctic security by preventing an imprudent rush to exploit Arctic offshore resources. And the time to act is growing short.
John Castellaw is a retired Marine lieutenant general who writes and works from his family farm in Tennessee. He is a member of E2 (Environmental Entrepreneurs).
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.