Extreme extraction

A few weeks ago, during the latest round of international climate negotiations, the Polish delegation (who were hosting the meeting) claimed that climate change might actually be a good thing – particularly because it could melt much of the ice in the so-called northwestern passage between Canada and the Arctic. This, they argued, would make international shipping easier, but would also provide better access to much of the offshore oil that is thought to lie under the Arctic Ocean.

This is obviously a ridiculous position for a nation state to hold, especially one that was supposed to be hosting an international meeting on climate change at the time. However, while Poland's idea was seen as risible, the general idea that we should continue to dig up oil from anywhere that we possibly can holds firm among many people. A large number of countries and companies have no problem with the idea of extracting oil from ever more extreme places.

This is the mindset that has led to the tar sands developments in northern Alberta, Canada. Tar sands are difficult to get out of the ground, and still take a huge amount of processing even once they've been dug up – yet we seem happy to pay the price, as long as we get more oil. It is the mindset that has led companies from Russia and the UK to start drilling in waters in the Arctic Ocean. An oil spill in these regions would be disastrous to local wildlife and incredibly difficult to clean up, but this seems to be of no matter to these corporations – indeed, Russia went as far as arresting 30 people in international waters after they protested against one of the offshore drilling rigs. It seems the power of the state is just as strongly invested as the corporations in the continuation of the oil age.

This is because both the states and the companies desire the continuation of the status quo by any means necessary. They benefit from a society which is hooked on cheap fuel – cheap fuel which supports the production necessary for a consumer society, and helps maintain the dominant position of certain people and certain countries, and the subjection of others. There are a few clear winners from this state of affairs, but there are just as many losers around the world – and I don't just mean the people who will be most affected by the climatic changes caused by burning all those fossil fuels.

The Arctic, and other remote but oil-rich regions like the tar sands area around the Athabasca river in Canada, have people living in them. These people have led simple but dignified lives in these areas for centuries, if not millennia. The Inuit, for example, have built their lives in some of the most inhospitable terrain on earth by following nature's rhythms and catching fish and mammals. This way of life is threatened by oil drilling that will destroy the natural order of ecosystems in the area. Even those of us living more conventional lives lose out from this rush for oil – we pay more and more at the gas pump just to get to and from work, we breathe in more and more pollution from the air around us, and we see more and more government money go on supporting the oil industry rather than providing essential services to people who need them.

This is what NRGLab is struggling against, particularly with our work on alternative energy. We don't believe human civilization should be so reliant on such an outdated form of energy, one which causes such destruction to the environment, and requires such damage to human lifestyles and livelihoods the world over. And we'd love to hear from you if you agree with us, and if you think you have the necessary skills to help fight back.

climate negotiations, Polish delegation, oil spill, Arctic ocean, fossil fuels, oil drilling, NRGLab