US censors Arctic scientists' findings as it prepares for oil and gas auction

Source: independent uk

The United States has blocked the release of a landmark assessment of oil and gas activity in the Arctic as it prepares to sell off exploration licences for the frozen Chukchi Sea off Alaska, one of the last intact habitats of the polar bear.

Scientists at the release of the censored report in Norway said there was "huge frustration" that the US had derailed a science-based effort to manage the race for the vast energy reserves of the Arctic.

The long-awaited assessment was meant to bring together work by scientists in all eight Arctic nations to give an up-to-date picture of oil and gas exploitation in the high north. In addition to that it was supposed to give policy makers a clear set of recommendations on how to extract safely what are thought to be up to one quarter of the world's energy reserves.

Speaking yesterday from Tromso, one of the report's lead authors, who asked not to be named, said: "They have blocked it. We have no executive summary and no plain language conclusions."

...

A draft of the censored recommendations, seen by The Independent, called on governments to conduct proper research on environmental impacts before signing off new oil and gas projects in ecologically sensitive areas such as the Chukchi.

Read more: http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3359083.ece

In fact, it just seems like things will continue to get worse. Polar bears are doomed. We are, too, probably.

we are all using respirators to breath and the water is up to our knees.

from what I recall John Edwards said to millions watching on TV that he at least was the first candidate to put forth a Global Warming policy. He gets great marks from the environmentalists, but I guess that's why we don't see his name on yahoo news and newspaper sites like we do those other two running. There are so many issues that need talked about but when you're giving about 10-15 minutes you can only touch on each subject for seconds when you've got two other candidates mauling each other like lions.

for me, survival of a threatened species trumps most everything else . . . particularly when the yield of gas and oil will offer nothing but a very limited and temporary "solution" to the energy problem . . .

yup, especially when the threatened species is US (only we are too stupid to know it).

n/t

Love it.

:toast:

the solution is easy. Instead of spending money on killing machines and war. Spend it on developing new clean sources of energy and preserving our environment. We seem to be hell bent on destroying our environment and ourselves. We will succeed I am sure.

I think it all comes down to greed and a feeling of entitlement with people willing to plunder nature.

Or will any new experiment with high intelligence just end up the same?

Most of them anyway. Interesting that the "savage" native Americans planned their actions around seven generations ahead to be sure nothing they did would impede their progeny's survival.

NOT US!

the cyclical nature of ... Nature!

Thanks for the thread, sabra

typical actions of a lame duck with nothing to lose and not burdened by a moral conscience

We export all we product and import all we use. Here is a clip on the subject, it's difficult to find much reference on statistics!

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/04/06/130522.php

Senator demands detail on U.S. oil exports
Written by ANWR News
Published April 06, 2005

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, is demanding that the Commerce Department release detailed reports on which companies are exporting U.S. oil, how much and where it went.

Last year the nation exported 268 million barrels of oil. Shockingly, according to Dept. of Energy figures, that's about equal to the amount of oil we imported from Iraq in 2001, the year before our latest war with that country began. It's also about equal to the most optimistic guesses about production volume from ANWR, if drilling is allowed there.

In other words, if we simply held onto our own oil, the United States would have no oil interest in Iraq at all. And it would also negate any perceived need to disturb an irreplaceable wildlife refuge in the search for oil.

But the Commerce Department refused to provide the detail Wyden wants, saying it could only be released to a Congressional committee, not an individual representative. The agency also claims federal law forbids disclosure unless a finding is made that withholding the information contradicts national interests. That sounds like hogwash to me.

Wyden's request is of significant interest for two more reasons. First, it is likely that if oil drilling is approved in ANWR, much of that oil will be exported to Asia rather than sold in the U.S. Secondly, the more obvious reason is that every motorist and politician who can warm a chair is concerned about the nation's growing dependence on imported oil. It would seem to contradict our economic and political interests to worsen this imbalance by selling off our own supplies.

In a letter sent Monday to Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Wyden demanded release of the information, calling it "directly relevant to the coming Congressional debate on how to address our nation's dependence on imports of oil and other petroleum products."

I'd call that an understatement. But Wyden faces an uphill battle to get a committee to demand the numbers. Though Wyden is a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, it and all other Congressional committees are controlled by Republicans. And as we've seen, Republicans these days aren't very interested in facts, especially if those facts contradict their agenda.

It is an international group of scientists, why don't they just release the results? What right does the Bush administration of suppress or censor the report? I don't get it.

NO you can't play!

Sorry fellow Americans, flame me if you must, but the only word for this is SHAME.

When a people behaves badly, shame is the right response.

If we had some more of it (shame that is), maybe our nation wouldn't be acting like such a bunch of jackasses.

You remember those guys? They work in congress, and they are supposed to watch out for how the GOVERNMENT is interacting and (not fu@&ing with but actually) helping in the development of SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST! Not the interest of the Oil companies or the short term goals of the Halliburton bottom line or the right to life people who want to block stem cell research or the guys who think regulating ANYTHING is a BAD thing.

GOD GIVE ME STRENGTH. Pleeeease come and RAPTURE UP these MF SONS of Bit@&es before I really do lose my lady like temper and start to use foul language.

which we all know makes the people on the political/religious right wing cry. they are so PURE.

Sad what this admin will do to hide the truth or anything that would make them look "bad".

Lol- forget that I asked. We dont have the votes. "We" as in DLC traitors & Bluedogs, that is.

just like Iraq and that not too many pennies will end up in the US treasury. Ever wonder what is happening to the vast oil riches of Iraq. There appears to be a news blackout on that like so many other things.

The US House of Representatives held a hearing last week to investigate the timing of the Chukchi sell off.

"Oil and gas is a sensitive subject," said the unnamed author of the Arctic Council report, which has taken six years to compile. "And this could be linked to activities in the Chukchi Sea between the US and Russia where more research and assessment is needed."

A draft of the censored recommendations, seen by The Independent, called on governments to conduct proper research on environmental impacts before signing off new oil and gas projects in ecologically sensitive areas such as the Chukchi.

One of the lead scientists at the Arctic Council, who again asked to remain anonymous, said: "The key message was to be more careful. To check more before you drill for oil and gas in the Arctic."

Comparatively little is known about the polar bear population in the Chukchi because there hasn't been an intensive study since the mid-1990s. The US mineral management service said it would allow companies to "explore this intriguing frontier area" but critics, including Senator John Kerry, have demanded a three-year delay while the impact on polar bears can be examined.

"For a polar bear population already stressed due to massive climate change, these activities could be the last straw," said Kassie Siegel, the climate director at the US-based Centre for Biological Diversity.

She said the censoring of the Arctic report was typical of the actions of the White House. "It fits a pattern of downplaying, denying, and suppressing climate science at every turn. It's all part of the Bush-Cheney strategy of handing out as many fossil fuel entitlements as quickly as they can in their final months in office."

As climate change melts more of the north polar ice cap and global demand for oil and gas surges there has been a frantic scramble for the Arctic's vast energy wealth. The combination of increased access and prices has seen Russia, Norway, Denmark and Canada step up claims to sovereignty over the North Pole, while the US waits in the wings.

The Chukchi Sea is believed to hold 15 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The receding sea ice and record price for crude is tempting companies into Arctic oil and gas development further out to sea with potentially disastrous consequences. The agencies approving the Chukchi sale admit there is a 40 per cent chance of an oil spill, and that contact with spilt oil is almost certainly fatal for polar bears.

...