Potential Impacts of Arctic Development from an Environmental Viewpoint

Climate change has sparked substantial controversy in the news during the past few years. This controversy is becoming increasingly polarizing as the effects of climate change start to become more evident. Interestingly, as climate change has started to cause a melting and disintegration of the arctic ice, many countries have started to take initiative in developing the arctic circle. This is because of the vast amount of resources available in the arctic. According to Dr. Anke Roiger from the German Aerospace Center Institute of Atmospheric Physics, studies have shown that the arctic contains 30% of the world’s untapped gas reserves and 13% of the world’s untapped oil reserves [1]. However, this discussion of arctic development has led many concerned engineers and environmentalists to question what will happen to the arctic (and the world) as this development continues. Developing this area could potentially ruin the habitat of more than 400 different arctic species; according to Benjamin K. Sovacool, Director of the Danish Center for Energy Technology at Aarhus University, these changes to the arctic ecosystem would be permanent. This clearly opposes the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics which was created in 1934 to help “stand against unethical practices.” As engineers are implored to “adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations,” arctic development clearly violates the NSPE’s ideals [2]. Therefore, the arctic should not be developed as it could ruin the world’s environment on a large and irreversible scale.

As stated previously, many countries want access to the resources in the arctic and have begun to stake claims in the arctic circle, such nations include the United States. Due to the energy crisis and constant warfare in the Middle East, the US government has tried to look for new avenues in oil supply, hence turning to the arctic circle. But, studies have shown that resource drilling in the arctic has been anything but environmentally sound [3]. Arctic development could derail the entire arctic ecosystem of 400 diverse species as the arctic is characterized by a simplified food chain. This makes the arctic extremely vulnerable to change, as the death of any single species would have the potential to collapse the entire ecosystem [4]. Engineers should account for the environmental consequences of arctic development before it is too late and the arctic’s unique species go extinct. Furthermore, Thomas M. Tynan, a Canadian arctic policy expert, also brings up the argument that if an oil tanker can run aground in the relatively calm waters around Nova Scotia, the likelihood of oil spills in the treacherous arctic sea is highly probable [5]. Therefore, arctic development is too risky and unethical to implement as it could ruin the world’s environment. The decisions of a few unethical engineers could lead to a colossal mistake that would affect many. Additionally, the current pollution output from already developed areas is polluting the arctic circle, resulting in the “arctic haze,” which refers to the mass of pollutants from heavy metals, pesticides, and organic compounds in the arctic atmosphere. In a study by Arctic Climate Change, Economy, and Society (ACCESS), it was observed that pollution stemming from land as far as Eurasia affected the arctic atmosphere [1]. Roiger also states that plumes from ships and oil/gas refineries have also contributed to enhanced pollution in the arctic. Arctic haze has developed because the removal of pollutants is extremely slow in the arctic due to the cold atmosphere [4]. This haze can be attributed to global warming and the further melting of the arctic sea ice. This haze combined with NO₂ and SO₂ emissions from power generation, the burning of natural gas and diesel as fuel, and venting/flaring activities are all estimated to cause a net warming of the world by 2030 [1]. Alarmingly, if arctic development continues, the arctic could be completely ice free by 2040 [6]. This would not only be damaging towards the arctic environment, but towards the world environment as the rising of sea levels would impact coastal regions worldwide.

Arctic development will have disastrous consequences on the environment; therefore, engineers should not engage in its development . There are multiple renewable energy alternatives to arctic drilling and development including hydroelectric, solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal [7]. Furthermore, the resources gained from developing the arctic will not outweigh the environmental losses in the future. This makes the risk of developing the arctic even more unethical as there are other safer and equally effective solutions. In terms of cost and benefit, engineers should always put the welfare of the world and the environment over financial gain. If engineers are not careful today, the future of the environment that we all share will be ruined for tomorrow. We are already experiencing major consequences from our current careless pollution, so in order to prevent even more disastrous effects in the future, engineers should not attempt to develop the arctic circle, as its consequences would be far reaching and ubiquitously devastating.

References

1. Roiger, A., et al. QUANTIFYING EMERGING LOCAL ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS IN THE ARCTIC REGION: The ACCESS Aircraft Campaign Experiment." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 96, no. 3, 2015, pp. 441-460. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26219585

2. NSPE. “Code of Ethics.” Code of Ethics | National Society of Professional Engineers, NSPE, www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics

3. Sovacool, Benjamin K. “ERODING WILDERNESS: THE ECOLOGICAL, LEGAL, POLITICAL, AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT IN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE (ANWR).” Energy & Environment, vol. 17, no. 4, 2006, pp. 549–567. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44397262

4. Shaw, Glenn E. The Arctic Haze Phenomenon." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 76, no. 12, 1995, pp. 2403-2413. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26232617

5. Tynan, Thomas M. “Canadian-American Relations in the Arctic: The Effect of Environmental Influences upon Territorial Claims.” The Review of Politics, vol. 41, no. 3, 1979, pp. 402–427. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1407237

6. Fiscor, Steve. “Countries Boldly Stake Claims for Arctic Mineral Wealth.” From the Editor, E&MJ Magazine, 2007, www.womp-int.com/story/2007vol6/story001.htm

7. National Energy Policy: Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group.NationalEnergy Policy Development Group, Bush Administration, May 2001, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0428/ML042800056.pdf