298
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Finger
Arctic‘s resources, so as to give it a chance
not
to reach this tipping point. And who exactly could do
that?
In this article I will identify four such actors, namely the ones that are traditionally – and
realistically – considered to be the actors that can (or should) address such challenges, namely
nation-states, corporations and especially Trans-National Corporations (TNCs), science and
indigenous peoples. Among these four, I will especially focus on nation-states and TNCs and, in
particular, on the relationship between them. The discussion of both these actors in respect to the
Arctic region also structures this chapter. But let me first discuss why the Arctic is so important for
humanity.
The Arctic as a Pointer to the Future of Industrial Civilization
Global warming, and especially its consequence in the form of Arctic sea ice melting, leads to a
―huge temptation‖. It is the temptation to exploit these submarine geological resources, in particular
oil and gas to the ―very end‖, something which will further accelerate climate change and further
endanger the Earth‘s global habitability (see: Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 2013). The relevant philosophical
and anthropological question is whether industrial civilization can resist this temptation. And which
actors, exactly, would take the lead? Governments? Firms? Science? Indigenous peoples?
Now, this temptation is actually not specific to the Arctic. Similar temptations exist, such as, for
example, the temptation to clear the Amazonian or the Congolese rainforests and, by doing so,
access fossil fuel resources or simply ―develop‖ land for biofuels and/or intensive agriculture. Other
temptations are a little bit more complicated, yet equally real. These are the ones that are made
possible by scientific and even more so technological advances, such as in the case of deep sea
drilling. The Arctic actually rather resembles this latter category, given that, even with receding ice,
significant technological means (and additional research) will have to be engaged in order to be able
to exploit the available resources.
Before discussing below who could resist the exploitation of Arctic resources, let us first clarify who
already exploits and in the future will exploit such natural resources. To be sure, natural resources
exploiters – that is explorers, drillers, extractors, transporters, refiners and commercializers – are not
individuals, nor are they Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), who are, at best suppliers.
Rather, they are big firms, so called Transnational Corporations (TNCs) with significant financial
clout and technical expertise. Increasingly, they are no longer firms anymore. Rather, they are
conglomerates of firms with often very complex organizational and legal structures. Generally, these
conglomerates are closely related to governments, especially those governments on whose territory
the resources lie. Some of these firms, and not the minor ones, are actually state-owned (so-called
State-Owned Enterprises or SOEs), such as in the case of Statoil of Norway or Gazprom of Russia.
They all compete for accessible natural resources that they can mine at the lowest possible cost and
sell at the highest possible price. There is nothing specific about the Arctic here. We are dealing in
the Arctic, as elsewhere, with global firms that will go to the Arctic if they can make more money
than from other extracting sites to which they have access.