House of Commons - Protecting the Arctic: The Government's response

Protecting the Arctic: The Government's response - Environmental Audit Committee Contents

2 Recent developments

Ice-cap melting

4. In our Protecting the Arctic report last year, we discussed concerns that the reducing trend in the summer minimum ice extent might mean that a tipping point[8] could soon be reached.[9] As ice melts the albedo (reflectivity) of the region decreases and the Arctic absorbs more heat, leading to further melting. We highlighted how a reduction in ice could be disastrous for some Arctic species, including migratory animals visiting the UK, and have implications for the UK's weather.[10] It might also lead to accelerated release of methane—a potent greenhouse gas—from permafrost, although we noted that much more research was needed because of the uncertainty and range of expert opinion in this area.[11]

5. In our separate inquiry on Progress on carbon budgets we are examining the latest scientific understanding of global climate change. We expect to report on that before the Government is required to respond to the Committee on Climate Change's emissions reduction progress report in October.[12] Evidence to that inquiry, however, suggests that global warming is continuing in response to the significant 'climate sensitivity' of still increasing levels of greenhouse gases. We can expect therefore a continuing melting of the Arctic ice-cap in the years ahead.

6. As we noted in our 2012 Arctic report, the summer extent of ice had been retreating year on year since the 1950s at a rate of 4% per decade, but since the early 2000s this rate had increased to 10-12%.[13] The six lowest September ice extents have occurred in the last six years, including September 2012 which was the lowest ice extent on record.[14] An intense storm acted to destroy some of the sea ice-pack in summer 2012, but conversely it also compressed the ice, leading to an overall thicker ice-pack at the end of that summer.[15] In evidence to this inquiry Professor Shepherd explained that winter 2012 measurements showed a smaller, thinner ice-pack than the previous year, leading to expectations of a "significant increase in the amount of sea ice melting" during 2013.[16] The latest satellite measurements of ice extent from the US National Snow and Ice data Centre indicate that the 2013 summer minimum ice extent could be similar to 2012's.[17]

7. We discussed in our 2012 report how there were different estimates of when the Arctic would be completely ice-free during summer, depending on which model was employed.[18] Professor Slingo from the Met Office, and others, told us that the Arctic was predicted to be ice-free in summer between 2025 and 2030. Others pointed to an extrapolation of data from the Pan-Arctic Ice-Ocean Modelling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) model that suggested that the Arctic could be ice-free as soon as 2015. The PIOMAS data indicated that "momentum" had developed in the change in the Arctic climate due to the impacts of a persistent warming trend that began over 30 years ago.[19]

8. Ice volume loss is a "critical aspect" to understanding changes in the extent of the Arctic ice.[20] Thinner ice is more susceptible to melting[21] and its seasonal extent becomes more volatile.[22] Recently measuring the thickness of the ice-cap has become easier through use of satellites. During last year's inquiry we heard that an extrapolation from the PIOMAS model data, based on thickness measurements taken by submarines and other data sources, had indicated a 75% reduction in the ice volume since 1979. Professor Slingo told us then that "there is a decline in ice ... but to say we have lost 75% of the volume is inconsistent with our assessments". She was looking forward to new measurements from the Cryosat-2 satellite, which she believed would give a better sense of the thickness of the ice.[23]

9. Since we reported in 2012, the first full set of results from Cryosat-2 has been published. This shows that between the periods 2003-2008 and 2010-2012 the summer ice volume declined by 4,291 km³ (36%) and the winter volume by 1,479 km³ (9%). The average annual volume loss was 500 km³ a year, but 800 km³ a year in the summer volume. The summer ice volume minimum measured by Cryosat-2 was greater than that calculated by PIOMAS, but the rate of decline in summer ice volumes exceeded that estimated by PIOMAS. The Cryosat-2 data showed less winter decline in the ice. The "most striking difference" from the earlier PIOMAS data was the "apparent disappearance of thick ice to the north of Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago".[24]

10. Professor Andrew Shepherd, who was leading the analysis of the Cryosat-2 data, told us that predictions of a complete loss of sea ice within the next few years were based on extrapolations of current observations and were "not a very sophisticated" method.[25] (A simple forward projection of summer volumes decreasing at 800 km³ a year would suggest that the Arctic would be ice-free during summer in 2021.[26]) Cryosat-2 data was showing seasonal variability, sometimes driven by weather. The satellite data showed that the ice was "noticeably thinner" in summer 2011 than in 2010 and, although there had been an increased growth in ice during the 2010-11 winter,[27] this had been subsequently offset by increased summer melting of the thinner ice.[28] Professor Shepherd acknowledged that some climate models might overstate the extent of the ice-pack because they omitted certain processes, which could lead to inaccurate predictions. He told us that around half of the models predict that the Arctic will be sea ice free by 2060, but that he expected ice-free conditions sooner than that, with a "more realistic prediction" being within the next "few decades".[29]

11. Such a timescale was consistent with Prof Slingo's assessment. In June 2013 she told us that the "best evidence coming out now from the [UN Framework Convention on Climate Change] Fifth Assessment Report and using all the streams of evidence" did not change her prediction during our inquiry last year that the most likely date for an ice free Arctic in summer was "around 2030".[30] Cryosat-2 data was being used to improve climate models,[31] and she believed that "significant progress" could be made in the next two or three years on forecasting changes to the Arctic. The Met Office was making "very significant advances" in its seasonal forecasting model, which was enabling observations to be compared to natural processes built into climate models.[32]

12. Data from the Cryosat-2 satellite mission show an alarming rate of decline in the volume of Arctic sea ice in summer. Taking account of that new data, the Met Office continues to forecast ice-free summers in the Arctic by 2025-2030. The Government should build into its Arctic Policy Framework (paragraphs 32-35) a regular review and updating of its projections of ice-cap melting, taking account of evolving scientific understanding of climate change in the Arctic.

Arctic oil and gas

13. In our 2012 report we noted that climate change was opening up the possibility that countries would exploit potentially significant oil and gas reserves in the Arctic. The pristine Arctic is a harsh operating environment and response techniques to deal with an oil spill are unproven. We highlighted an inconsistency between exploiting those reserves and tackling climate change: there were already more than enough proven oil reserves that, if burnt without their emissions being abated, would push global warming beyond 2°C. We recommended that the Government set out how future Arctic oil and gas extraction could be reconciled with commitments to limit temperature rises to that level.[33]

14. The Government's response was that the UK was dependent on a well-functioning oil and gas market, even during the transition to a green economy, and that Arctic oil and gas could contribute to the UK's energy security. In its response to our 2012 report, citing data from the International Energy Agency's 2011 World Energy Outlook, the Government stated:

The Government's response also acknowledged that there was "currently no international mechanism to agree limits on production", with the existing global process to secure a deal on climate change focusing on reducing emissions rather than limiting production.[35]

15. In this inquiry, Greenpeace argued that the Government was guilty of "some quite artful cherry-picking of figures from the IEA World Energy Outlook" and that the Government's justification was not supported by the 2012 version of the Outlook,[36] which we note was published more than a month before the Government responded to our 2012 report.[37] The 2012 version, the most recent available, notes that "no more than one-third of proven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050 if the world is to achieve the 2°C goal, unless carbon capture and storage technology is widely deployed".[38] Even more restrictive estimates have been made by others.[39] The IEA did "not expect the Arctic offshore to make a large contribution to global oil supply" in the period to 2035, in view of the "technical and environmental challenges and high cost of operating in extreme weather conditions, including the problems of dealing with ice floes and shipping in water that remains frozen for much of the year".[40] The implication of that assessment is that, if in time the Arctic did produce a "large contribution" to global oil capacity, other reserves would have to remain untapped.

16. Mark Simmonds MP, Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office told us that he did not believe that limiting oil and gas exploration and production would ensure that global warming was held to 2°C because other things, such as emissions from permafrost melting, would come into play. The Government, he told us, was mindful not to be seen as imposing from "the outside" on the sovereignty of Arctic states and considered that a balance had to be struck between efforts to limit global warming to 2°C and the need for economic growth. He saw, for example, fossil fuel exploration as helping to "eradicate poverty" in African countries. Rather than a limit on oil and gas production, he supported the existing international focus on curbing emissions.[41]

17. The Government has failed to provide a coherent argument to support its view that exploring for oil and gas in the Arctic is compatible with avoiding dangerous climate change. We disagree with the Minister's view that there is a choice between economic growth and using production limits to tackle climate change. As we pointed out in our 2012 Green Economy report, moving away from fossil fuels could create substantial employment, stimulate exports, encourage inward investment, help secure energy supplies and protect the UK from potentially volatile fossil fuel prices.[42] The fact that the world already has more proven oil and gas reserves than can be burnt without producing dangerous climate change, together with the lack of proven oil spill response techniques, make exploring for new reserves in the pristine and harsh environment of the Arctic needlessly risky. We recommend that the Government review its position on Arctic oil and gas extraction, setting out a more convincing and coherent position in its Policy Framework document, consistent with the latest climate change and energy projections, including the International Energy Agency's latest World Energy Outlook. In our separate green finance inquiry we are exploring the risks posed by finance continuing to flow towards fossil fuels that cannot be burnt without producing dangerous climate change, and the efficiency of financial markets in matching finance to the required investment in renewable energy.[43]

18. In our 2012 report we highlighted the importance of ensuring that the safest available technology is used when drilling in the Arctic. In that inquiry we took evidence from Shell and Cairn Energy, who were undertaking exploration operations in the Arctic. In our report we called for a moratorium on further oil and gas drilling in the Arctic until the appropriate precautions were in place to ensure that it could be conducted in the safest possible way.[44] The Government told us that it would not support a moratorium because it believed that existing steps being taken by Arctic states, combined with effective and ambitious global action to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, were "more likely to be effective in protecting the Arctic environment".[45]

19. Since we reported there have been a number of developments in Shell's Arctic drilling programme. At the start of summer 2012 Shell had planned to "confirm a major discovery of oil in commercially-viable quantities" in the Arctic that year.[46] It had secured approval from US regulators for its Oil Spill Response Plans in February and March 2012.[47] However, the US Department of the Interior stated that the company "was not allowed to drill into hydrocarbon-bearing zones" because it failed to get approval from regulators for its specialised Arctic Containment System, which was "required to be on site in the event of a loss of well control".[48] Shell told us that it was developing the Arctic Containment System on a voluntary basis to exceed regulatory requirements and that it was "not required oil spill response equipment". The company and US regulators had "agreed that drilling operations [in 2012] would be limited to top holes" because the Containment System "was not completed before the 2012 drilling season". Shell told us that the Containment System has now been certified by the US Coast Guard.[49]

20. The US Coast Guard is undertaking an inquiry into the grounding of the Kulluk rig.[50] The US Department of the Interior also announced a review of Shell's Arctic plans in January 2013, after the Kulluk grounding, and issued its report in March. That report stated that:

Shell entered the [2012] drilling season not fully prepared in terms of fabricating and testing certain critical systems and establishing the scope of its operational plans.

…

21. The Department of the Interior's report required Shell to "develop and submit a comprehensive and integrated operational plan describing in detail its future drilling programme" and "commission a full third-party audit of its management systems". The report also "defines important principles for government oversight" of offshore Arctic drilling activity that "must be carried forward and further developed", including "the importance of continued close coordination among government agencies in the permitting and oversight process", and the "need to continue to develop and refine standards and practices that are specific to the unique and challenging conditions associated with offshore oil and gas exploration on the Alaskan Offshore Continental Shelf".[52] Shell told us that although it did not believe that it was required legally to act on the recommendations, it "will incorporate improvements as appropriate". There were "ongoing discussions" between Shell and the US Environmental Protection Agency "regarding certain aspects of its 2012 programme".[53]

22. In February 2013 Shell announced that it would not drill in the Arctic in 2013.[54] We invited Shell to give oral evidence to this inquiry. They told us that they had been "advised not to engage in discussion of issues which are in the middle of legal review in the US"—the Coast Guard review of the Kulluk grounding was "unlikely" to be concluded before we published our report, and discussions were still continuing with the Interior Department concerning its March report.[55] The Under-Secretary of State told us that Shell neither requested, nor were offered, any help or support from the UK Government during the US reviews.[56] We will take oral evidence from Shell once US Coast Guard's investigation has been concluded.

23. Elsewhere, there might be signs that some Arctic states are seeking to limit oil and gas extraction activities. In its 'coalition agreement' the new Greenlandic Government announced recently that it would grant new hydrocarbons exploration licenses "reluctantly" and made a commitment for enhanced scrutiny of existing operations—a parliamentary body will be established to scrutinise 'commodities' operations and 'environmental safety and security plans' will be made publicly available. Existing exploration plans and licenses would, however, be honoured.[57] In Norway, whether to keep a ban on oil and gas activities in the Lofoten Islands was a key issue in the run up to the forthcoming general election.[58] Total has decided that drilling for oil in the Arctic is too risky and will only explore for gas. It has concluded that an oil spill would "do too much damage to the image of the company".[59]

24. The Under-Secretary of State told us that a moratorium on further drilling in the Arctic was unlikely to reduce global emissions. The safety of Shell's offshore Alaska operations was "not a matter for the UK Government" but for US regulators and Shell. He believed, through discussion with Arctic states and oil companies, that safety concerns were taken "extremely seriously" and that Arctic states had "very high environmental and regulatory assessments" to limit damage to the environment as well as to put in place "mitigations".[60]

25. Continuing regulatory investigations in the US of Shell's operations in the Arctic make it difficult at this stage to establish whether those operations constitute a particular environmental risk, beyond the generic risks of operating in the region which we highlighted in our 2012 report. There remain important questions about Shell's 2012 operations, which we will put to the company once the continuing US investigations are complete. This case nevertheless shows that oil companies and regulators are not yet in a position to demonstrate that they can ensure that oil and gas operations will be undertaken in the safest possible way in the Arctic.[61] That reinforces the case for the moratorium on new Arctic oil and gas that we called for last year. In the light of the environmental safety issues being examined by the US authorities, the Government should reconsider whether a moratorium on new Arctic oil and gas exploration is the most effective way of protecting the Arctic.

8 A point at which rapid changes take place out of proportion to the amount of climate change driving them. Back

9 Protecting the Arctic, op cit, paragraphs 22 & 23. Back

10 ibid, paragraphs 12,13 & 15. Back

11 Oral evidence on 12 June 2013, HC (2013-14) 60-ii, Q 66 Back

12 http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/progress-on-carbon-budgets/ Back

13 Protecting the Arctic, op cit, paragraph 21. Back

14 US National Snow & Ice Data Center: http://nsidc.org/news/press/2012_seaiceminimum.html Back

15 Oral evidence on 12 June 2013, HC (2013-14) 60-ii,Q 34 [Professor Shepherd] Back

16 ibid Back

17 http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ Back

18 Protecting the Arctic, op cit, paragraphs 25-27. Back

19 US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Arctic Report Card: Update for 2012, December 2012, [http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/exec_summary.html]. Back