Conclusions
1. 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. (Paragraph 12)
2. 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. 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. (Paragraph 17)
3. 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. That reinforces the case for
the moratorium on new Arctic oil and gas that we called for last
year. (Paragraph 25)
4. There is a growing
awareness of the benefits of more inclusive governance arrangements
for the Arctic. We welcome the Arctic Council opening its doors
to allow a wider group of countries to observe its work. It is
too early to see how effective the new Arctic Circle group might
be, but it appears to provide an opportunity for further dialogue
on Arctic matters and might complement the role of the Arctic
Council. (Paragraph 31)
5. The Government's
commitment to publish an Arctic Policy Framework is a welcome
development, but we are disappointed that it will not contain
any new policies to address the risks that we identified in our
2012 report, or be subject to a public consultation. (Paragraph
35)
| 
