The Arctic Ocean - The Final Frontier

As global warming continues to melt the ice pack in the Arctic Ocean, the possibilities of accurately mapping the ocean floor, opening commercial shipping routes such as the Northwest Passage into the Pacific Ocean, and, most importantly, extracting valuable resources such as oil and gas, have appeared on the near horizon. The Arctic Ocean is the least explored ocean but it is estimated that it may contain one quarter of the earth’s unexplored oil and gas fields. (National Geographic).

Naturally, this has triggered a frenzy of action and hubris by the nations that surround the ocean as they posture and position themselves to claim their share on behalf of their capitalist class who will be charged with developing the fields and reaping the profits. The reaction of the arctic nations – US, Canada, Denmark, Russia, Sweden, and Norway – is reminiscent of the nineteenth century scramble for, and partition of, Africa by the leading colonial powers of the day. It also confirms the socialist case regarding warfare – that it is the result of the competitive nature of the normal operation of the capitalist system where nations, acting on behalf of their capitalist class, seek economic advantages over other capitalist enterprises in the search for, and control of, natural resources, trade routes and alliances, and strategic positions. Will the scramble for the arctic lead to war? Not likely at present, but given the scarcity of oil and gas in the near future, all bets are off.

Each country is striving to locate, and lay claim to, its continental shelf, the submerged extension of its terrestrial land, as this is internationally recognized as part of the country and will determine what part of the pie each one is entitled to. Land claims will be settled by the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea, and countries will have until 2013 to submit data in support of those claims. To that end, Canada has invested $90 million since 2004, including deploying a world leading technology in the form of a robot submarine deployed at depths of 5,000 metres to amass its data. (Toronto Star, 13/Feb/2010). In addition, coastguard patrols have been stepped up and arctic military exercises have been undertaken.

Although Scandinavian countries are often held up as shining examples of how capitalism could work better, it turns out that they are just like all the others in the race for arctic wealth. Denmark has created an Arctic Command to coordinate military activity and assert its sovereignty in the area. Sweden has undertaken the largest military exercises since WWII, deploying some 12 000 troops, and warships and aircraft in the Arctic. Norway has purchased forty-eight new fighter jets suitable for arctic patrols and participated in NATO war games simulating exercises against an ‘imaginary’ country’s seizure of an oil rig (Russia protested the exercise). The United States arctic policy has shifted from scientific research to sovereignty and security. Recent war games with 9 000 troops were conducted in Alaska. Russia, with a vast coastline in the Arctic Ocean, stands to gain the most from economic development of the region, has not been slow to stake its claim. In 2007, it planted a Russian flag on the ocean floor beneath the North Pole.

In 2010, a Russian bomber flew towards Canadian air space prompting the expected military and diplomatic responses. Russia also announced plans to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the first parachute drop at the North Pole by dropping a squadron of paratroopers there. Russia has also had submarines firing long-range missiles and has stepped up air and naval patrols over the ocean. Premier Medvedev has stated that the Arctic must serve as Russia’s resource base of the future and he considers the North Pole to be the ideal site for launching ballistic missiles because submarines can approach undetected under the ice and because distances from the North Pole (presumably to their arctic competitors) would be shorter.

Already in dispute, apart from the extent of continental shelves, is the Lomonosov Ridge, a vast area encompassing the North Pole (and the Russian flag) that is claimed by Russia, Canada, and Denmark, who all believe their continental shelves are connected to the ridge. Also, Canada and the United States disagree as to whether The Northwest Passage is in inland waters, and therefore Canadian, or part of the high seas and therefore common property. (Toronto Star, 9/Aug/2009) Although a good part of the rhetoric and jingoism is designed for the home audience to sell their policies and military expenditures, there can be no doubt that each nation is out to grab as much of the pie as possible by whatever means may be necessary. All the ingredients are in place for potential future conflict – an area of untapped resources, groups of competing capitalists represented by their governments, areas of disputes, and military build-up. The competition is on! The irony is, a large part of the profits made will end up paying for the increased military spending to secure the profit-making system, and so on, in a never ending cycle of waste. That’s the natural way of capitalism.

Let’s imagine for a moment a different system. One where a world body, elected and democratic, using scientific and expert input and governed by decisions of people’s representatives, would manage resources for the benefit of all; where human knowledge and skills would be brought together in cooperation, not competition, to solve the problem of safe and environmentally responsible development, or, perhaps, it would be decided against doing anything at all in the Arctic and reorganizing society to cope with diminishing oil reserves and use alternative technologies and life styles; where making profit did not dominate all aspects of life, restricting what needs to be done for the benefit of all because a huge portion of the wealth created had to go into the pockets of the few who owned the means of producing and distributing wealth; where common ownership of those means is used to provide all the necessities – food, water, housing, health care, education, for every human being. If you can imagine that, then you can imagine socialism, the system that is the next big step forward for human progress. SPC

The Gulf Oil Spill

At the time of writing, the ruptured pipe has been capped, for now, after 85 days of spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Although estimates have varied wildly, BP originally claimed ‘almost nothing has escaped’ (Toronto Star, 13/06/2010), it is now estimated that the total is around seven hundred million litres, or seventeen times the Exxon Valdez spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska. It is the biggest oil disaster ever and could get worse as it is not clear how much stress the cap can take before blowing again, and relief wells needed to complete the job have yet to be finished.

In addition, Hugh Kaufman, of the Environmental Protection Agency, criticizes BP for its use of the dispersant, Corexit, and describes it as ‘the Agent Orange of the Gulf’ (Toronto Star, 17/07/2010). Seven million litres of the dispersant have transformed the oil into droplets that cannot be burned or skimmed, and thus will impact the environment for many years to come. The use of Corexit, Kaufman says, is short term gain for long term pain. Friends of the Earth’s count so far of the dead is 1 387 sea birds, 444 sea turtles, and 53 mammals.
The Exxon Valdez spill accounted for 36 000 dead birds, but the Gulf spill may have more economic impact given the amount of sea-based industry on that coast and longer lasting environmental effects because whereas Alaska has a rocky shoreline that does not absorb oil easily, the Gulf coast of sand and sediment will act like a sponge.

The spill is causing widespread failure in an already weak ecosystem. In this sense, the current spill could be more accurately compared to the 1979 Ixtoc spill of 450 million litres, 1 000 kilometres off the coast of Texas that took one month to reach the coast there.
British Petroleum Inc. is the world’s third largest energy company with 2009 revenues of $246 billion. In 2 000 it re-branded itself as the industry’s most sensitive company with an ad campaign of $200 million entitled ‘Beyond Petroleum’, sporting a new green logo similar to that of our Green Party. It committed to alternative energy systems and did succeed in reducing its CO2 emissions by ten per cent and becoming the third largest maker of solar panels. Yet its revenues continued to come ninety per cent from oil, and its record tells a very different story from its new brand.

In 2001, BP was forced to pay a $10 million penalty and spend $500 million in upgrades for violating federal clean air laws at eight US refineries; In 2005, a Texas refinery explosion killed fifteen workers and the company was penalized $87 million by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the biggest fine in the agency’s history; In 2006, BP’s Alaska operations were found to have leaked one million litres of crude oil from eroded pipelines and was forced to replace twenty-six kilometers of pipeline; In April 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded and sank killing eleven workers, due to the failure of a blow-out-protector to activate. BP’s initial response was to downplay the damage, to refuse to let scientists have access to the site to determine the flow from the well, and reporters from informing the public, and to blame the Swiss-based company from which BP leased the equipment. CEO Hayward said, “This was not our accident’ (Toronto Star, 13/06/2010). BP did act quickly to buy top Google and Yahoo! search results so that the first result for phrases such as ‘oil spill’ would yield ‘Learn more about how BP is helping’.

The above is not just a list of deadly accidents, but more a result of planned cost cutting. Former CEO John Browne (who became Lord Browne of Madingley) balked at the choice between economic growth and more careful environmental stewardship, contrary to its own advertising campaign. He stated, “If you say to people, ‘Do you want to develop the world and have a good living standard, or do you want a safer environment?’ people are terrified by the choice” (Toronto Star, 9/05/2010).

Under Browne’s term in office, an expense-paring regime figured prominently in maintenance reductions that allowed the Alaskan pipeline erosions and lax safety standards that contributed to the Texas explosion. His successor, Tony Hayward, continued with the cost cutting by slashing $4 billion from operating costs which, obviously, impacted safety even further. Internal documents show that BP itself had concerns before the blow-out occurred. In March, 2010, after several weeks of problems on the rig, BP was struggling with a loss of well control and in June 2009, company engineers had warned that the metal well casing might collapse under pressures at that depth, and concluded that the cement job to seal the pipe was unlikely to be successful. (Ina Urbina of the New York Times, reported in the Toronto Star, 30/05/2010). In other words, BP officials knew the casing violated its own safety standards. The blow-out preventer that was supposed to slice through the pipe and cut off the oil flow, failed. It had never been tested at that depth. In fact, BP’s performance has been so bad that confidence in the company has plunged and investment in the company is considered dead money as stocks have been stagnant since 2000 which compares badly with Conoco Phillips (up 145% in the same time), Chevron (78%), and Exxon Mobil (71%).

What are governments doing to protect the environment and ensure the safety of the workers? The answer is plenty, for the capitalist class, that is. The World Socialist Movement holds that the modern nation state, with clearly defined and defended borders, with a strong central government backed by well equipped armies and police forces, and a legal system that is their own creation, are crucial to the operation of the capitalist mode of production.
Government is the executive arm of the capitalist system and forms the basis of capitalism with the enactment of private property laws. It is its job to maintain and revise those laws to ensure the private ownership of the means creating and distributing wealth in the interests of the owning capitalist class. The government’s collaboration with the capitalist enterprises encompasses protection of the latter’s national and international rights to operate as freely as possible through diplomacy, bribes, and even war, if necessary, and create a not-so-level playing field of economic activity, tipped, naturally, in favour of their capitalists. Sure, they are elected every few years in a quasi-democratic exercise where the largest voting block is usually the ‘did not vote’ group, but we have no choice in that the major parties with the money, organization, and clout to get elected, all vie to run capitalism in the interests of the capitalists. The Gulf oil spill provides several insights into this process of governmental collaboration.
Thomas Walkom (Toronto Star, 29/05/2010) writes that the American regulation of the offshore oil industry has been revealed to be a sham. After all that has come out regarding BP’s record, they are still in charge and have used their authority to refuse access to scientists and reporters to the site to determine and report on the magnitude of the oil spill, as noted above.
Canada’s regulations for drilling in the harsher arctic conditions are even weaker. Paul Martin’s Liberal government relaxed the rules for arctic drilling and the current Harper Conservative government has eased the rules even further. The Newfoundland government strongly supports Chevron’s drilling in the stormy Orphan Basin, 450 kilometres into the North Atlantic where a spill would be impossible to contain. Tax revenues for the province and profits for the investors must take preference over any environmental considerations. Even the Nunavut government, dominated by the supposedly eco-friendly Inuit, supports seismic testing in the Eastern Arctic. The BP oil spill has revealed the immense clout of the large economic sectors and enterprises.
Obama’s moratorium on arctic oil exploration is due to be lifted next year. Despite the hopes of Marcie Keever, spokesperson for Friends of the Earth, that this latest oil spill will trigger a public demand for an end to the era where the oil industry writes its own regulations, and will spawn a sea change in the need to get off fossil fuels altogether, the US climate bill now passing through Congress gets weakened every day with amendments, and will do little to fulfill Keever’s hopes. Some Non-Governmental Organizations estimate that Nigeria has suffered oil spills equivalent to the Exxon Valdez every year since 1969 but a compliant and corrupt government has done nothing to solve the problem over four decades (Toronto Star, 06/06/2010)

At the present time, companies operating in US territory risk a maximum fine of $75 million for oil spills which would equal less than two days’ profit for BP. The oil industry is only following a pattern that is discernable in all major sectors of the economy – pharmaceutical, food, mining, tobacco, etc. Their financial clout is used to support donations to politicians’ election funds, to produce mass propaganda to sway public opinion, to fund thousands of lobbyists whose job it is to remind politicians of their loyalties, and to refute scientific evidence that is detrimental to their industry. The top civil service jobs, particularly in the industrial regulatory bodies, and those of top executives in an economic sector are frequently swapped back and forth, creating an old boys’ club whose members inhabit the same social circles creating a smooth ride around government rules and regulations.

Many left wing and one-issue groups complain that this state of affairs came about with globalization and ascendancy of greedy multi-national corporations. To socialists, this state of affairs is simply the normal operation of the capitalist system. It has been going on since philanthropists and governments tried to alleviate the appalling conditions in factories and mines in the early nineteenth century.

In 1865, Marx wrote, concerning the attempts of the factory acts of the time to introduce safety legislation to stem the large number of industrial deaths and accidents,

“The factory owners of the time formed a “trade union” to resist the factory legislation, the so-called ‘National Association for the Amendment of Factory Laws’, based in Manchester, which collected a sum of 50 000 pounds in March 1855…to meet the legal costs of members prosecuted by the factory inspectors and conduct their cases on behalf of the Association…The factory owners promptly formed their Association, its most prominent members including many who themselves were J.P.s, (Justices of the Peace) and in this capacity had actually to apply the act…The head of the Factory Inspectorate, Leonard Horner, was persecuted and slandered by the factory-owners in every conceivable way.” (Capital, Vol. III, pp184/185, Penguin classics edition).

Rather than this type of evasion of spending for safety and environmental concerns being a modern phenomenon of globalization, then, it is, and has always been, a feature of the operation of the capitalist mode of production. It will remain so until the profit system is replaced with a common ownership system of production for use, i.e. socialism. SPC