|
 Sierra's funding drive against the resumption in Arctic drilling
has taken in three times more money than usual campaigns by the
nation's oldest green group, said Brune, though he wouldn't reveal
specific amounts. And the group's petition opposing President Barack
Obama's decision in favor of Shell last month has collected more
signatures than any appeal in two years.
"Our members are outraged because they believe fighting climate
change is a moral challenge and they ask how the president can
reconcile this move with his goals on climate change," Brune said.
"All of it is getting a much higher response rate than we expected."
With its pristine landscapes, the Arctic has always captured the
imagination of environmentalists around the world. But Shell's
exploration plans were a reminder that the polar region is home to
what the U.S. government estimates is 20 percent of the world's
undiscovered oil and gas. (Graphic: Arctic oil and gas reserves:
http://reut.rs/1AJHotZ)
 For environmental groups from the Sierra Club to Greenpeace, that
combination makes Arctic drilling a powerful symbol for the broader
fight over climate change. Global activists are increasingly focused
on stopping major extraction projects, with the aim of keeping
carbon reserves buried to avoid emissions many scientists say would
result in runaway global warming.
The stakes are also high for Shell, which has already invested $7
billion in Arctic operations, though commercial oil production
remains 10 to 15 years away. Shell understands some people oppose
Arctic drilling, but global energy demand is expected to double by
2050, said spokesman Curtis Smith. "We'll need energy in all forms,
and Alaska's outer continental shelf resources could play a crucial
role in helping meet that challenge," he said.
GLOBAL BATTLE
But as Arctic drilling becomes a test of wills, environmental groups
say they have gained oxygen from their success in partially closing
other gateways to large carbon extraction.
Sierra has sued in recent years to drive some of the nation's
dirtiest coal plants into retirement, an effort aided by low natural
gas prices and Obama's climate rules. Pressure from groups such as
the grassroots network 350.org has been instrumental in delaying the
Obama administration's decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, meant
to expand the connection between Canada's oil sands and Gulf coast
refineries, for more than six years.
"People are becoming really savvy about what each of these battles
mean and the part we can play," said Emily Johnston, a small-home
builder in Seattle who was arrested in 2011 at the White House
protesting Keystone.
Johnston joined a multitude of groups and ordinary citizens that
swarmed Shell's Polar Pioneer rig last month when it arrived in
Seattle's port. Shell is deciding whether to send a second rig, the
Noble Discoverer to the port, en route to Alaska. If it does
kayakers will confront that one too. But this is not a local battle:
Arctic drilling resonates with the environmental movement far beyond
Seattle.
"We've seen expressions of support from Argentina to Amsterdam,"
said Travis Nichols, a spokesman on Arctic issues at Greenpeace,
which has collected nearly 280,000 signatures under a petition
against drilling in the region since March 1. Only 15,500 of those
came from the United States.
A petition at Avaaz.org, a global activist network that calls on
Seattle Mayor Ed Murray to stop Shell from using the city's port has
accumulated over 1.19 million signatures in 17 languages, including
French, Dutch and Arabic.
[to top of second column] |
Jamie Henn, a spokesman for 350.org, said its Facebook post on the
paddlers who confronted Shell's first rig on May 16 was its most
popular in two-and-a-half years, reaching more than 5.2 million
people across the world.
POSTER CHILD
Henn said that Shell's Arctic drilling quest will make it a "poster
child" for a campaign to encourage investors to divest holdings from
fossil fuel companies. If so, it would be a blow to Shell, which has
tried to burnish its image with environmentalists in recent years by
being a leader among oil and gas companies in recognizing the
climate risks of carbon emissions.
Anthony Leiserowitz, a climate communications expert at Yale
University, said Arctic drilling galvanizes a global audience
because - unlike local issues such as oil and gas extraction by
hydraulic fracturing, or fracking - the region has become synonymous
with the fate of the planet's climate.
"Fracking is for most people relatively invisible and hard to
imagine," Leiserowitz said. Drilling in the Arctic, on the other
hand, involves enormous rigs that can be targeted by activists for
spectacular photo ops that help with fundraising.
And its receding ice cap - which scientists say results from rising
temperatures and has repercussions for the earth's climate and sea
levels - puts the Arctic at the center of global consciousness on
climate issues.
That is one reason Obama's decision to grant Shell a permit has
generated a greater backlash against the president than his decision
to allow exploratory drilling off the U.S. East Coast.
With so much capital invested, few oil analysts expect Shell to give
up unless they encounter lengthy delays from regulators or investors
start to balk at the risks. The company hopes to produce at least 1
million barrels per day in the Chukchi in 10 or 15 years.
"For Shell to back down at this point, it's a defeat, it's
disgraceful, it's costly," said Fadel Gheit, an energy company
analyst at Oppenheimer & Co.
But Leiserowitz said greens, who have fought to keep wide swaths of
the Arctic off limits, are in the fight for the long term. "This has
legs," he said, about environmental groups organizing to stop Arctic
drilling. "It could easily just be getting going."
(Reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by Bruce Wallace and Tomasz
Janowski)
[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
