On the 18th September 2013, 28 Greenpeace activists and 2 journalists embarked on a protest against drilling for oil in the Arctic. Representing 18 nationalities, the Arctic 30 travelled to the Barents Sea to scale Russian oil giant Gazprom’s most recent drilling platform – a risky addition to their oil-thirsty industry.
This isn’t the first time Greenpeace has actively protested against drilling in the Arctic. In August 2012, Greenpeace climbed the same platform. In this instance, 6 activists climbed the rig where they hung from portable ledges and claimed to have interrupted operations, though this particular act didn’t seem to draw too much attention. Unfortunately, the September protest led to Russia taking offence to the action, initially charging the crew with piracy but then dropping the charges to hooliganism, which carries a maximum sentence of seven years, within private waters. Greenpeace argues that they were in international waters.
Russian security personnel boarded the activists’ Dutch-owned ship, Arctic Sunrise without any evident warning, wearing balaclavas and pointing guns and knives at the crew. This overreaction to the peaceful protest has had even Russian President Putin questioning the way the Arctic 30 have been treated. Letters home from the activists have reported freezing cells, poor diets and very little time allowed outside.
But it isn’t only about the wellbeing of those that oppose exploration for oil. The Arctic itself is an extremely fragile environment that is already feeling the effects of a warming planet. Global climate change is happening and the number one cause is our fossil-fuel consumption. This exploitation of our planet’s resources has led to further emissions of carbon dioxide more than our planet is able to cope with. We are suffocating the systems that maintain the conditions millions of species depend on for survival.
Arctic sea-ice has shown large reductions over the past few years, disappearing more each summer and returning smaller and thinner each winter. This has been noted as a business opportunity by oil companies like Gazprom, some having already staked claim on newly accessible, known oil fields. These companies are searching for longevity and economic success amongst growing competition for shrinking resources that are nothing but bad for the future of this planet.
A major concern, highlighted by the Arctic 30, is that in the event of an oil spill the rigs are extremely remote and may not be easily accessible by any help sent. This would prolong the stopping of the spill and contaminate a once pristine environment with decades’ worth of damage. BP’s deep-water oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is an example of such long-term damage; two years after the spill, beaches are still covered in oil and traces of oil components continue to be found within the Gulf’s food chain. If it took BP eight attempts to staunch the escaping oil from a relatively less risky location, how many attempts would it take Gazprom and how many spills can we afford in the Arctic?
From an environmentalist’s perspective, perhaps it is Gazprom (and other potential Arctic exploiters) that should be charged with hooliganism rather than the 30 activists, now locked up in St Petersburg awaiting trial. Surely it is worth the future of our planet to give up drilling and harming a planet already headed for irreversible change, to begin looking for alternative energy sources before it’s too late?
Written: 16.11.2013
