UK government response to Arctic queries
The Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) would not provide a representative for interview for our February programme, but they did agree to answer a few questions in writing. These responses were received on 18th February.
In short, the government says that meeting predicted oil demand is more important than climate security; and that current policies are sufficient. Both these positions are untenable. As to why the government has been working to water down EU legislation to make Arctic drilling safer, the government avoids the question.
—
1) Bearing in mind that studies suggest we can only release 1/5 of the carbon held in fossil fuel companies’ reserves (Nature, 2009;Unburnable Carbon, 2011) if we are to have an 80% chance of staying within 2C, wouldn’t it be prudent to identify and seek to minimise the use of the riskiest and most environmentally and socially damaging of the fuels within those reserves?
Under IEA projections new production capacity will be needed to meet future demand. Where that oil will be produced is a matter for the commercial judgement of those involved, in the light of relevant regulatory and economic conditions. It is quite feasible that future non-Arctic oil sources would have higher greenhouse gas emissions associated with their production.
Regulating hydrocarbon activity in the Arctic is a matter for the Arctic states to determine in the light of local conditions. These states have robust rules to protect the environment and regulate drilling which reflect their experience of Arctic conditions.
The IEA’s 2012 World Energy Outlook states that Arctic resources could play an important role post 2035 – while technological advances and/or higher oil prices could result in production taking off before 2035.
2) Since the IEA WEO 2012 describes the door to 2C as “closing” and notes that “successive editions of this report have shown that the climate goal of limiting warming to 2C is becoming more difficult and more costly with each year that passes” surely the government should be less complacent in relation to the implications for global climate change of opening up new reserves of fossil fuels such as the Arctic, and instead fully explore every opportunity to limit production?
Our approach is to seek agreements on limiting emissions through the UNFCCC process. This ensures that the costs of climate change action are paid by those benefitting from the use of fossil fuels and has broad support internationally.
Seeking an international limit to hydrocarbon production would pose a number of major difficulties, not least in reaching agreement on the distribution of production quotas. Such an approach would place a major burden on countries relying on oil and gas sales and such a restriction is unlikely to be acceptable to them. The approach could also distort the operation of the international energy market by reducing competition and potentially harm future security of energy supply.
3) Since the government “fully support the use of the highest environmental and drilling standards in the Arctic”, surely you would agree that it would be prudent to wait until these standards are ready to be applied and enforced before pressing ahead with high-risk drilling operations?
Throughout the global oil industry, comprehensive oil spill response plans are a part of project development. These are prepared by companies and approved by national regulators prior to the commencement of drilling. It will be for the national regulatory concerned to assess whether international standards are being met and that the proposed response offers adequate protections against an accident. Drilling standards also need to reflect local conditions, which vary even within the Arctic.
All Arctic coastal states already have sophisticated regulatory systems covering both environmental protection and oil and gas production activities. Each of the countries has produced a strategy on how they will approach the full range of Arctic issues that outline the need for environmental protection.
We welcome co-operation between Arctic States and industry on this issue including the work by the Arctic Council to develop binding rules on Oil Spill Preparedness and Response and best practice guidelines on marine oil spill prevention and hope to see the setting of the highest standards.
4) If the government “fully support the use of the highest environmental and drilling standards in the Arctic” why has it been secretly arguing against better safety regulation for Arctic drilling in Europe?
The UK already has a robust regime in place to regulate offshore oil and gas. Environmental safety is paramount and offshore operations are only permitted in the UK where there is a thorough and comprehensive oil spill response plan in place.
Negotiations are continuing with the EU on the proposed Directive to regulate offshore oil and gas activities and the UK is working to ensure that the highest levels of safety and environmental protection are upheld in an effective manner.
5) What was the UK position on the European proposal to ban Arctic drilling?
There has been no official European proposal to ban drilling in the Arctic. As the Government’s response to the EAC report makes clear, the Government does not support calls for a moratorium on oil and gas drilling in the Arctic.
A moratorium is unlikely to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions significantly, since the lost production would be replaced – presumably at a higher cost – from elsewhere in the world. It is quite feasible that such non-Arctic oil sources would have higher greenhouse gas emissions associated with their production.
Regulating hydrocarbon activity in the Arctic is a matter for the Arctic states to determine in the light of local conditions. These states have robust rules to protect the environment and regulate drilling which reflect their experience of Arctic conditions.
6) Since the Arctic plays such an important role in determining the pace of global warming and climate change, and evidence is emerging of the link between a changing Arctic and climate change that is dangerous and disruptive for the UK, do you not agree that there needs to be a stronger voice for the latest environmental science in determining the UK’s Arctic policy?
The Government’s Arctic policy is based on respect. Respect for the sovereign rights of Arctic States over their territory; respect for the rights and interests of indigenous peoples who live in the Arctic; and respect for the environment. Anyapproach to the Arctic that does not respect all three of these elements will be counter-productive to the UK’s influence and ultimately our interests. The Government believes that it has adopted the right approach towards the Arctic, both in its policies and in its response to the Committee’s report.
The Government recognises that the Arctic is changing and the need to keep its policy current. That is why we will involve stakeholders, including environmental NGOs, scientists and industry, in development of the Government’s Arctic Policy Framework.
Leave a Comment