(These comments were submitted by Nils Andreassen, Managing Director at the Institute of the North.)

When I think of the U.S. being prepared for change in the Arctic, I think of strong economies, a healthy environment, vibrant communities and thriving cultures. In this way, Alaska – America’s Arctic – can be a model for sustainable development in a changing environment.

If we’re looking at an Alaskan approach to responding to change in the Arctic, resiliency and sustainable development are terms that must be defined by Alaskans. To do that, we have to have a seat at the table and a plan when we get there. The plan should take into account the national interest and reflect our position in the global economy; Alaska’s approach should be informed, intentional and responsive.

Governor Hickel always said that development must respond to people, people’s needs and the environment. I would suggest that this is a formula for resiliency in the Arctic and for responding to the increasing change – and corresponding activity – that we are currently seeing. Resiliency is a theme that is important to the current chairmanships of the Arctic Council. The Arctic Council is the appropriate framework for addressing many of these issues.

Is the U.S. ready for a century of change? Yes, if we have the appropriate data, clarity of purpose, and are strategic in our approach to incorporating local input in our decision-making process. A strategic approach starts with assessing our ability to respond to change and our obligation to do so on behalf of the people who call the Arctic home. Response should be evaluated – whether for community resupply, resource extraction, search and rescue, response to environmental disaster or security threats – on Alaska’s terms.

At the Institute of the North, we believe that sustainable development rests on infrastructure that facilitates economic development and supports community connectivity, cultural aspirations and social needs. Working with the Arctic Council, the PNWER Arctic Caucus, the Northern Waters Task Force, and a host of international partners, the Institute promotes cooperation and increased communication for the U.S. to understand and deal with the consequences and challenges posed by the changing Arctic environment.

The way forward for the United States must be principled and proactive. Governor Hickel stressed the need to understand the reality, the richness and responsibility of the North. I can see that need in today’s U.S. Arctic policy, where now more than ever we need to be investing our time, energy and resources. Change will be difficult as we adjust to new priorities, limitations in funding, and a rate of change that calls for rapid response.

If we’re going to move forward, we need an agenda for doing so. It’s not enough to show up at the table—you have to know what you’re going to say when you get there. We need an Alaskan approach to the U.S. response to change in the Arctic. That approach should include:

— A comprehensive approach to Arctic policy development

— Support for existing international frameworks of cooperation, including participation in the Arctic Council and ratification of UNCLOS

— Inter-modal and inter-sectoral infrastructure investment and connectivity

— Community coordination centers that build our response capacity

— Cross-border collaboration and sharing of research and best practices

— Indigenous, community, private sector, and academic consultation built into public decision-making

Change in the Arctic provides us with an opportunity to learn, share and grow as a state and as a nation. That learning and growth takes place in a global environment, shaped by broad narratives of resiliency and sustainable development. Having worked on Arctic issues for over 15 years, the Institute of the North understands that America is an Arctic nation because Alaska is an Arctic state; now more than ever before Alaskans have an obligation to find our voice in that narrative.

Is the U.S. ready for increasing change and activity in the Arctic? We might be – but only if we understand clearly the challenges and opportunities, and act together for the benefit of our peoples and communities.

Whether or not we are prepared to face this century of change in the Arctic depends really on whether we are prepared to take action when it comes to the possibilities that the changing ice presents. As always, with great change comes great opportunity, and as the Consumer Energy Alliance has proposed before on this blog, energy exploration on Alaska’s OCS presents one of the greatest opportunities we’ll have this century to create new American jobs, to lower energy prices for all American consumers and businesses and to generate a source of ongoing state and federal revenue for generations to come.

Energy exploration in Alaska’s OCS, in both the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, is expected to produce 25 billion barrels of oil over the next 40 years. This is the equivalent of 2010 imports from Iraq and Russia combined. That production will also spur nearly $200 billion in government revenue from royalties and taxes, and 55,000 new jobs per year for generations.

But in order to take advantage of this we have to get in front of a regulatory process that is duplicative, inefficient and uncoordinated. We need to ensure that there is ongoing inter-agency coordination and communication with the White House, and ensure timely action and resolution of regulatory disputes. As your question suggestions, this opportunity is on the world stage right now, and if we don’t act, there are surely those that will figure out ways to take advantage of this tremendous opportunity.

First, thanks to all who took the time to read or post as part of this discussion. Now, I’ll take my privilege as guest moderator to answer my own question. The U.S. is inadequately prepared to address the changes facing our substantial Arctic territory. Too few policy makers think of the U.S. as an Arctic nation. When they do, they are often blinded by the price tag of doing business.

Some of the responses to my question so far also show one of the problems facing the Arctic; it’s rarely viewed as a place itself, a place where people live. Too often people use it only as lens to focus on other issues such as climate change or oil and gas development. Regardless of whether we adopt a balanced energy plan in our country and begin to combat climate change worldwide – for the record I hope we do both - change is already happening in the Arctic and more is on the way. We should take several steps to better prepare ourselves for these challenges.

The Law of the Sea Treaty, signed in 1982 but never ratified, would give the U.S. a seat at the table as international policy develops on the oceans. Among other things, it would allow us to assert jurisdiction over an additional area of continental shelf of Alaska that’s twice the size of California and one that potentially contains substantial oil and gas reserves. It past time the Senate acted, and I will do all I can to rally my colleagues and get this important treaty ratified.

The U.S. has three icebreakers, but only one is currently operational. Both polar class vessels are nearly 40 years old and laid up awaiting repairs and funds to operate them. That leaves only the medium-duty Healy in business as an icebreaker designed to support scientific research. We aren’t the most powerful nation on earth, at least in the Arctic, if we don’t have the vessels to combat piracy, conduct search and rescue operations or oil spill response.

It’s not enough to just build vessels; we have to put them in Arctic. Right now, if the Coast Guard wants to respond to an incident in the Chukchi or Beaufort Seas in the summer time, they would dispatch a ship based in Dutch Harbor, some 800 miles away and several days’ sail away. As marine traffic increases, whether from fishing, cargo, oil and gas development or tourism, we need response vessels and planes in the theatre. Arctic construction is always a challenge and building a deepwater port there won’t be easy. That’s all the more reason we need to get started now.

The land north of the Brooks Range is called the Arctic Slope or North Slope for a reason. It gradually slopes downward in elevation, and that slope continues hundreds of miles into the ocean, likely making any deepwater port located by necessity in federal waters. Private interests as well as federal, state and local governments will have to work together to fund and operate this critical piece of Arctic infrastructure. Icebreakers and oil field service vessels need to be where the action is.

Here are three steps the United States should take today to address the rapid changes already underway in the Arctic:

1) Develop a comprehensive research and monitoring plan to guide decisions about America’s Arctic Ocean.

2) Set aside ecologically significant areas for protection.

3) Ensure that strong standards and capacity are in place to prevent and respond to oil spills in the Arctic.

Today, this extreme yet fragile region, including its rich human culture, is facing upheaval caused by a changing climate. The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the planet, putting one of the world’s last relatively untouched ecosystems under great stress. Rapid industrial development would add even more strain, bringing significant water, air, and noise pollution. The cumulative effects of oil and gas exploration and development, as well as maintenance and service activities, on this pristine ecosystem are unknown.

Science must guide our way if we are to avoid irreparable harm to this unique place. A long-term monitoring plan is critical for understanding the changes already underway and avoiding or mitigating future damage.

Protecting biologically sensitive areas from oil and gas drilling would provide a haven for migrating, feeding or reproduction of marine mammals and birds already struggling with retreating sea ice and other climate-induced habitat loss. Such areas would benefit not just wildlife, but the indigenous communities that have thrived along the Arctic coast for thousands of years—while practicing a traditional way of life dependent on the region’s natural bounty.

Then there’s the ever-present risk of an oil spill. A Deepwater Horizon type spill here would be devastating. There are no road systems, no major ports and no permanent Coast Guard presence to deal with a spill. Oil in sea ice is nearly impossible to remove with current techniques.

As Alaska and the world are racing forward to figure out how to deal with the challenges and opportunities of a more open Arctic, we must not leap without looking—or planning. The nation faces a historic choice: Allow unchecked development of the extreme, remote and fragile U.S. Arctic Ocean, or ensure that scientific research and adequate spill prevention and response, in consultation with indigenous communities, provide a path to a sustainable environment and way of life.

The world’s last wild ocean is on the brink of becoming industrialized, and yet the Arctic is totally unprepared to deal with this coming onslaught. The surge of new interest in the region has exposed the need for stronger international governance.

Take offshore oil drilling. Exxon just secured a $500 billion arrangement with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to explore for oil in Russia’s Arctic Ocean. This is likely the first of many new deals in the region, but no Arctic-specific international rules exist to regulate offshore oil development.

Their absence could be devastating. The Arctic is dominated by extreme cold, long periods of darkness, ice coverage, hurricane-force storms, and dense fog. Each one of these elements would make a spill response effort challenging—the ice alone could trap oil in the water for months at a time—but they are all compounded by remoteness.

We must put strong safety rules in place before an oil disaster strikes. But that’s not all. In order to effectively manage offshore oil development, fishing, shipping, and other emerging industrial activity in the region, we need the Arctic nations to agree on a stronger system of governance.

The Aspen Commission on Arctic Climate Change, on which I have the honor to serve, released a blueprint for what that structure might look like. We recommended, for instance, that the eight Arctic governments develop an Arctic Marine Conservation and Sustainable Development Plan that identifies and protects ecologically important hotspots of marine diversity and designates the high seas of the Central Arctic Ocean as a zone of international scientific cooperation.

We also encourage participants in the Arctic Council—the eight Arctic nations and indigenous communities—to develop and promote strict mandatory standards for industrial fishing, shipping, and offshore gas and oil drilling. But that is only the first step. The effects of all these activities must be assessed and managed in an integrated fashion and critical marine ecosystems must be protected before industrial activities become established.

In April, NRDC and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature released a report identifying for the first time the 13 most vulnerable areas in the Arctic that should be considered for protection as ice melts and industry moves in. This report would provide a good starting point for the council’s conservation planning.

Finally, we need to establish the high seas of the Central Arctic Ocean as a zone of international scientific cooperation. Extractive and polluting activities should be suspended for 10 years while we gain a better understanding of these remote and unique waters. All countries, for instance, should refrain from letting their vessels take fish in the high seas of the central Arctic Oceans where no cross-border regional fishing regulations exist.

Measures such as these will help ensure that industrial activities don’t exacerbate the impacts of climate change and don’t further disrupt the Arctic’s unique environment.

(These comments were co-written by both Jennifer Morgan and Kelly Levin, a Senior Associate in WRI’s Climate and Energy Program.)

With the climate problem growing more urgent every year, the U.S. is not well prepared for a changing Arctic, and its continued dependence on fossil fuels only makes the situation more serious. The recent climate science, as explored in WRI’s Climate Science 2009-2010: Major New Discoveries,shows that the Arctic is indeed changing rapidly, with implications for a very different world. For example:

· Multi-year winter sea ice area decreased by 42 percent between 2005 and 2008, and there was a remarkable thinning of about 0.6 meters in multi-year ice thickness over the same 4-year period. (Kwok et al., Journal of Geophysical Research 2009.) Average thickness of the seasonal ice in midwinter is about 2 meters.

· Research suggests that we could see a near sea-ice-free Arctic in September (i.e. the month of the year when sea ice cover is lowest) by 2037, much earlier than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested in its Fourth Assessment Report. (Wang and Overland,Geophysical Research Letters 2009.)

· While the loss of summer sea ice might happen gradually at first, there may be a threshold which, when overreached, risks an abrupt and profound shift to a completely ice-free Arctic. (Eisenman and Wettlaufer 2009.)

· There is a demonstrated link between Arctic sea ice reduction and warming Arctic near-surface air temperatures, creating a positive feedback with implications for Arctic communities and ecosystems. (Screen and Simmons, Nature 2010.) At the same time, Arctic ice dynamics may be altering dominant seasonal climate patterns in some regions. Melting of sea ice may lead to increased “winter weather” including more snow and colder temperatures in temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere. (Francis et al., Geophysical Research Letters 2009; Petoukhov and Semenov, Journal of Geophysical Research 2010.)

Such challenges to the Arctic, and their ricocheting impacts on the rest of the world, are massive and unprecedented. Rather than look toward the “opportunity” of more oil and gas drilling, policymakers should pay more attention to understanding and responding to the risk such impacts pose to society. They must urgently develop clean alternative energy sources to power our economies. That is where the real opportunities lie.

After all, our continued dependence on fossil fuels, with its resultant greenhouse gas emissions, contributes significantly to such dramatic changes in the Arctic and elsewhere. To continue emphasizing exploitation of these resources only risks further exacerbating the challenges highlighted above. The U.S. can best prepare for a changing Arctic by demonstrating leadership on this issue, in particular by proceeding with caution on oil and gas exploration and encouraging other nations to do the same – taking the climate science fully into account.

In response to Sen. Begich’s question, “Is the U.S. prepared to face this century of change in the Arctic?” I would have to answer with a resounding no. And the fact that Sen. Begich says that the impacts of climate change “make production of oil and gas from the Arctic practical and profitable” speaks to why.

First of all, the fact that there is less sea ice in the Arctic Ocean this year does not mean that the Arctic has suddenly turned into Florida. There are still ice floes as big as apartment buildings, which can move at a rate of 40 miles per hour throughout the calendar year. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center: “The last time that scientists can say confidently that the Arctic was free of summertime ice was 125,000 years ago.” And we still lack the technology and resources to deal with this sea ice and the other environmental challenges the Arctic throws at us.

There is nothing “practical or profitable” about drilling for oil in a region where there is no proven method to clean up an oil spill. The last public spill drill in the Arctic, which occurred in 2000, showed that even the smallest amount of ice can render containment booms and other conventional oil spill cleanup methods useless. And Sen. Begich himself, has taken the lead on arguing for more resources for the Coast Guard in the Arctic. Currently, the federal government has one light icebreaker in operation – the Coast Guard estimates that it will need “at least three heavy and three medium icebreakers to meet minimum mission requirements,” according to a recent article in the Navy Times. Even with the requisite icebreakers, the Coast Guard’s nearest base is 1,000 miles away. “We don’t have any command and control, or anybody permanently up [on Alaska’s northern slope]…We don’t even have a hangar where we could put a couple of helicopters or an aircraft,” Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Bob Papp said in the same Navy Times article.

The Obama administration has made recent decisions to allow Royal Dutch Shell to move forward with drilling in America’s Arctic Ocean as soon as next summer, despite the fact that Shell’s oil spill response plans are woefully inadequate and full of inaccuracies. If Sen. Begich and President Obama are ready to own the next major oil spill, then they should continue to give the green light to oil development in one of our nation’s greatest natural treasures. Otherwise, if we hope to continue to call ourselves a nation that truly values our Arctic resources, we must ensure that there are the resources and technology to clean up an oil spill – as well as the necessary information about the Arctic’s remote, fragile marine environment – before we make any more decisions about drilling in our one and only Arctic.

At least one change in the Arctic is helping rural Alaskans cope with their financial challenges by providing long-term stably-priced electricity--wind power. That was underlined by a piece of good news from the Land of the Midnight Sun last week, as the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) signed off on the proposed 17.6-megawatt (MW) Fire Island Wind Project, which will generate enough electricity to power the equivalent of 6,000 Alaskan homes.

According to Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI), the project developer, the 11-turbine wind farm will generate 51,000 MWh of electricity annually. The electricity will be sold to Chugach Electric Association for a 25-year, flat rate price of 9.7 cents per kilowatt-hour.

The story of utility-scale Alaska wind power dates back to 1997, when the Kotzebue Electric Association, which serves a community of 3,000 on Baldwin Peninsula in northern Alaska, installed three 50-kilowatt wind turbines in an effort to save money on costly diesel fuel. Although Kotzebue is not a particularly windy location, the project was successful enough that the utility has continued to add more turbines over time.

Since then, the Kotzebue facility has been joined by others in Nome, St. Paul, and notably, Kodiak, where three 1.5-MW wind turbines were installed in 2009 and have been very successful in displacing diesel fuel and saving money for the Kodiak Electric Association.

Now for the first time, we are beginning to see larger wind installations proposed for connection with Alaska's main utility system, rather than isolated local utility grids. In July, the Golden Valley Electric Association approved the 24-MW Eva Creek project, which will be the state's largest wind farm when it is completed. That was followed in short order by the Fire Island approval.

As the power purchase agreement for the Fire Island project indicates, one of wind's main attractions to utilities in Alaska and elsewhere is its ability to offer a guaranteed flat rate price over the long term. Since wind uses zero fuel, it insulates consumers from volatility in fuel and energy costs.

The Fire Island wind project is one of a number that are moving forward all across the country as the 2012 expiration date for a federal wind tax incentive nears. Those wind farms are putting thousands of construction workers on the job and also keeping wind turbine factories busy in areas like the growing wind manufacturing hub in the Southeastern U.S. In recognition of that fact, the WINDPOWER 2012 Conference & Exhibition is slated for Atlanta next June.

The key to the future is resilience and adaptability. Those qualities have enabled mankind to progress through the ages. Maintaining them going forward is essential to our continued wellbeing.

We know temperatures in the Arctic have risen in recent years and ice has declined. We do not know what has caused the change in the climate or whether it will continue. Research suggests, however, increasing temperatures and melting ice are related to ocean cycles. In 2007, NASA scientists provided data suggesting that Arctic Ocean currents were largely responsible for the climate shifts in recent years.

Historical documents, including whaling journals, detail periods of Arctic ice melt and a navigable Northwest Passage as far back as the early 1800s. These records are consistent with cycles every 60-70 years. History also shows that indigenous people in the Arctic adjusted to these previous melts, and we should be able to do so now.

Much has made of the ice melt in recent years without acknowledgment that the data set only starts at 1979 for satellites and 1972 for routine monitoring. No one knows what the Arctic climate will be 20 or 30 years from now or when one cycle ends another one will begin. In situations with great uncertainty, the worse course of action involves making rigid plans, which lock participating parties into commitments that reduce flexibility and commit too many resources to a single strategy.

As Sen. Begich notes, these changes in climate pose challenges as well as opportunities.

When Thomas Jefferson dispatched Lewis and Clark to chart the West and find the Pacific, land beyond the Missouri river was unknown. They had to collect information as they went along, assess it and adapt. That strategy would serve the people of Alaska well in planning for the future.

In the near term, the people of Alaska should take advantage of economic opportunities that now present themselves. They should also be allowed to develop Alaska’s natural resources which can provide the wealth necessary to help its citizens adapt through education and training, to invest in infrastructure, and develop new industries. Native Alaskans want to enjoy the economic benefits and standard of living of those in the lower 48 and they should be allowed to do so.

Last month, U.S. scientists confirmed that the Arctic has lost the second highest annual amount of ice since monitoring began. Of the remaining ice, much more is thinner, single-year ice resulting from melting and refreezing during the year. Older, thicker multi-year ice has declined by 60% over the past 30 years.

If Arctic summer sea ice continues to melt at its current rate, we will be presented with significant opportunities to harvest more oil and gas from new sources in the Arctic. Indeed, 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil might be under Arctic ice, as might 30% of undiscovered natural gas. So, Arctic nations are lining up to get at those reserves. So the formula looks simple: less ice = more oil and more gas. And, as those resources are harvested and consumed, we expect the resulting rise in CO2, methane and other climate-forcing emissions will mean even less sea ice.

So what does it matter if Arctic ice disappears? We will have more years of electricity generation and gasoline from the fossil fuels found in the Arctic, and there will likely be faster, trans-Arctic shipping routes in the summer months. For many, the site of floundering polar bears or walruses may be sad, but doesn’t amount to a reason for limiting activities to keep the ice around.

Perhaps, however, the idea of the low-lying Pacific islands disappearing or of most of Southern Florida ceasing to exist might matter. While Arctic ice is already floating and won’t raise sea levels, the Arctic warming that is causing that ice to disappear is also melting the Greenland Ice Sheet and that will have calamitous results for many coastal cultures, including our own.

Perhaps, too, the fact that newly open waters, free of sea ice, will capture more solar radiation might matter to many inland dwellers. According to James Overland, research oceanographer with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “We’re actually increasing the amount of heat coming into the planet.” While more research is needed, Overland says that data suggests this heating-up could shift global weather patterns and bring more frequent droughts to the U.S. and create super-charged storms.

However, before the research results are in, we’ll already have more first-hand knowledge about what a warming Arctic means. We’ll find out if permafrost will continue to thaw, releasing more methane, further exacerbating warming. We may even experience climate responses that we haven’t yet considered.

What we do know, is that human decisions haven’t been able to keep the summer sea ice intact, and that we need to reduce climate pollutants, quickly. Unfortunately, we will have to work with the world we have, not the one we wish we were leaving for our children and grandchildren.

Playing the Arctic hand we’ve dealt ourselves means having federal governments, industries and local communities take a hard line on the practices that will be allowed in the northernmost five percent of our planet. Only the safest, zero-emitting, zero-discharging practices for oil and gas drilling and production can be allowed and if such practices do not exist, there must be a moratorium until technology catches up with the world hunger for hydrocarbons. Ships traveling across the Arctic must have lowest emissions possible of all pollutants, particularly including black carbon from diesel engine smoke, since the resultant soot settling on the remaining ice will only serve to hasten its melting.

Now, CATF and our partners, many of whom have been engaged in Arctic work for decades, are launching a zero emissions Arctic campaign, to significantly reduce CO2 and other emissions from Arctic oil and gas production activities and intra-Arctic shipping. We will be working with the Arctic Council and its member countries to push for both domestic regulation and circumpolar agreements to advance the adoption of best zero-emissions practices. Because only a clear focus and robust, enforceable limits on climate-forcing agents will have a chance of protecting the Arctic of the 21^st century.