The Guardian view on Arctic drilling: bad now, worse for the future | Editorial
For the first time, Hillary Clinton has openly criticised President Obama in her bid to win the Democrat nomination. In a tweet last night , she condemned the president's decision to licence Arctic drilling that was he signed off earlier this week. "The Arctic is a unique treasure," she said. "Given what we know, it's not worth the risk of drilling." Her criticism has been echoed around the world. Lobbyists globally are trying to work out why the man who has so clearly identified climate change as a legacy issue, and who in the past year has done so much to promote the green agenda, has taken such a controversial, counterintuitive step.
Back in May, when his decision was first indicated, the president justified it by arguing that it would be impossible to abandon fossil fuels until the transition to clean energy sources was finally accomplished. He said it would be better if the US, with its high safety standards, exploited all its available reserves, rather than importing oil from what he implied was any old foreigner. A few days later, he too took to Twitter to justify his actions, pointing out that Shell, the Anglo-Dutch oil giant which has already spent more than $6bn on the project of winning permission to drill, had been sent back to the drawing board and forced to redesign safety aspects of its plan. Supporters pointed out that the permissions had originally been granted under President George W Bush, and halting them, for example by a moratorium on the entire coastal shelf, as another Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders demanded, or by buying out the permissions, would require formidable amounts of compensation and would be likely to face a legal challenge. And, they say, it is only a permit to explore, not yet a contract for commercial exploitation. If the anticipated reserves are present, those contracts would be a matter for the next administration.
Continue reading...