306
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Finger
own population, it has nevertheless given out a significant amount of concessions, thus partnering in
all oil, gas, and minerals with extractive TNCs from all over the world.
Let me mention, finally, that the Arctic is also particularly illustrative for the
secretive
relations that
emerge in the age of diminishing returns between nation-states and TNCs. Even though we are
dealing in the Arctic with civilized and modern countries (e.g., the USA, Canada, Iceland, etc.), the
relationship between TNCs and these states is, in the Arctic, particularly opaque, prefiguring
probably yet another characteristic of future business-government relations.
In conclusion, it is fair to say that, in the era of diminishing returns, both nation-states and TNCs
have a common interest to join hands and exploit the(ir) natural resources. This is valid for Arctic
oil, gas and mineral resources, but it is also valid beyond the Arctic, as well as for all other types of
resources (e.g., forests, fisheries, agriculture, bio-fuels, etc.). And this statement may well be valid
even beyond extractive industries. In other words, in the age of diminishing returns, neither nation-
states nor TNCs will stop natural resources exploitation, be it in the Arctic, or elsewhere. Quite on
the contrary: they will jointly push for such exploitation wherever they can.
The Role of Science
If nation-states (and TNCs for that matter) will not slow down, much less stop, natural resources
exploitation in the Arctic (and elsewhere), can and will science? Science (and its applications in the
form of technology) is considered by many to be the answer to the global ecological (and other)
crises, including the answer to climate change (e.g., fuel efficient technologies, carbon-capture and
storage, green buildings, renewable energies, alternative fuels, and many others more). So, what role
is science (and technology) playing in the Arctic exactly, and how does this inform us about its
(their) possible contribution to maintaining the habitability of the anthropogenic biosphere.
Until the beginning of the Cold War science in the Arctic was basically naturalistic. It helped map
the Arctic and, by doing so, explore and colonize it (to an extent) (Bravo & Sörlin, 2002). But it was
during the period of the Cold War that science started to play a much more active role: the harsh
conditions led to substantial scientific and technological progress, for example in the case of
(nuclear) icebreakers, but also in all kinds of weaponry, communications technologies, and many
others examples. But this was also the time when environmental research was started in the Arctic,
notably in the areas of climatology, oceanography and Arctic biology and marine studies (Carey,
2007; Conkling, et al., 2011; Launius, et al., 2010).
This type of environmental research took another significant step forward after the Cold War, i.e.,
during the era of globalization. This is particularly the case of oceanographic, climate change and
glaciological research, which has contributed to better understanding the rapid changes that are
occurring in the Arctic and has sounded some alarms as to the dangers of this accelerating
evolution.
3
Yet, this type of science has not helped stem these changes; rather it documents the
trends and their complex dynamics. While this type of mostly environmental science continues in
the era of diminishing returns, a new type of scientific activity has recently been added. This is