The formation of new oil and natural gas drilling sites have reached historic low points in 2020 in California. Although the pandemic surely played a part, a spokesperson said, “global commodity prices, our state’s economy and local judicial decisions in Kern County have all contributed to the decline.” The graph shows a steady decrease in oil and natural gas drilling. However, 68 percent of California’s oil and natural gas is imported from other countries. The article notes that these countries do not follow California’s environmental or safety standards, presenting a bigger threat to the environment.  

This obviously seems like a good development, and is hopefully a sign of a serious shift in the state’s energy future. However, it is concerning that such a large percentage of our oil exports come from foreign countries. Emissions are emissions, and environmental damage is environmental damage. Less domestic drilling means little if we are just importing that oil and natural gas. It highlights the need to find reliable, domestic sources of clean energy. Climate change is a global issue, and it’s important we use metrics to measure success and promote practices with that in mind. 

At the end of January, President Biden signed executive orders with a wide range of new directives with regards to climate change. Included was an order to electrify the government’s  650,000 strong fleet of vehicles, as well as to pause all federal oil leases. The administration has cast it as a move to create jobs as much as about climate. Furthermore, Biden said he would reserve 30 percent of federal land and water for conservation purposes and promote renewable energy. The article notes this will affect California’s handling of new environmental moves, and give support to the Democratic legislature in regards to a political approach to combating climate change. 

The US will have the most strength fighting this with both state governments and the federal government working in tandem to best reach their shared climate goals. Federalism demands such cooperation for our efforts to truly be the most successful. However, executive orders are generally thought of as not as powerful as law, because all it takes is the next executive order to overturn it. That means the next election could overturn such efforts, which is concerning given the magnitude of the problem, and the required magnitude of the efforts necessary to solve it.

A new bill going around the California state legislature would see the creation of wind turbines on the coast of California. Although California has led the way on many new environmental technologies and renewable energy, it currently has no offshore wind capacity. Environmentalist, labor, and industrial groups have come together to promote a bill that would require 3,000 megawatts of offshore wind by 2030. They aim to increase it to 10,000 megawatts by 2040. That would be double the current electrical generation of all wind farms in California. David Chiu, an assemblyman from San Francisco, leads the effort to pass the bill. He told constituents that the “wind off California’s coast has enormous potential to meet clean energy goals, combat climate change, and provide good paying jobs.” 

This seems like a promising development. Political attention and political capital is being paid to the creation of more alternative energy sources to get the state off gas and oil. However, I do think it is important to make sure that the state is promoting the most effective solution, rather than a random hodgepodge of different proposals. An organized plan for alternative energy is important to make sure that we are fighting climate change the best and fastest way, and so we are not spending exorbitant sums of money unnecessarily that could go to other social programs or stay in households. While I applaud the efforts of individual congresspeople to work for more renewable energy sources, it seems like it would be best if the government supported a comprehensive plan for renewable energy in the state.

This article explains how the changing of the administrations has impacted the future of California’s desert. As Trump’s term drew to a close, he removed protection from millions of acres to lands and allowed solar and wind farming construction on them. Conservations, expectedly, slammed the move, painting it as a final Trumpian effort to promote private industry over conservation efforts and wildlife. However, the answer for the Biden administration may not be that simple. President Biden has committed to fighting climate change, and a big part of that is going to be a transition to other energy sources such as solar and wind that will need new land to be built on. However, Biden has also endorsed plans to protect America’s lands and wildlife. This policy fight has left the Biden administration at a difficult juncture. 

This feels very relevant to the future of conservation and clean energy. Conservations and clean energy advocates have consistently sparred over land usage. Conservations don’t want to build on natural land, but it is necessary for large-scale clean energy to be successful. This is surely a preview of a battle that will continue to play out and grow as more investment is focused into clean energy development, and more land is developed, leaving conservation advocates even more adamant on defending the pockets of natural environment that are left. A frequent problem is that many species are specific to small areas, meaning that there are many areas where a species can be endangered by the construction of wind turbine farms or solar farms. 

Trump’s plan to divert water drew heavy fire from endangered species advocates. The plan helped his political constituents — farmers who disliked the water restrictions from Sacramento’s delta to the Central Valley, believing it to restrict their yields, profit, and business. Trump aimed to drastically increase the amount of water available to these farmers. However, federal regulators believed they were being sidelined by the Trump administration in the process. They warned this would hurt endangered species as their habitats would be degraded, but were ignored. It caused an internal uproar, and larger anger in state politics. However, the plan was finalized in late 2019 for new California water management.   

I thought some of the language surrounding science was very interesting. Those who were against the move to divert water claimed they were “standing up for science”. I think it’s important to realize that (while the two should obviously be connected) political preferences and science are separate. One can understand the damage of diverting water (as informed by science), and still support the move because they think the gain to farmers is worth the damage to one species of fish. One can understand the science of climate change, and still support low regulation on emissions in developing countries so those countries can quickly grow their economy, saving lives and promoting a better quality of life. It seems dangerous to label one side as scientific and the other side as misinformed on the basis of “you disagree with me and science is involved.” Sides certainly can be (and often are) misinformed, but that doesn’t seem like it ought to be the first response. But politics aside, the actions taken by the Trump administration on this particular matter are illegal. It violates the Environmental Protections Act of 1975, given that this water plan would be an action taken by the federal government that would be damaging to endangered species, it would be an unlawful act. This is the very issue that our class was spoken to about by the knowledgeable agent at the marine biology institute about the delta smelt.

Akwiri, Joseph. “Kenya’s First Crude Oil Export Sparks Demands over Revenue Sharing.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 26 September 2020 www.reuters.com/article/us-kenya-oil/kenyas-first-crude-oil-export-sparks-demands-over-revenue-sharing-idUSKCN1VG1FQ

Kenya began exporting crude oil after the discovery of oil deposits in the impoverished region of Turkana. Although it will be some time before large scale commercial production happens, the export marks the start of a new era for the residents of Turkana, and to some degree, the whole of Kenya. The President signed a law to regulate oil production and provide a framework for how the revenue will be split between the local communities, the Kenyan federal government, and the companies drilling this oil. International corporations that are based in other countries are the ones producing this oil, but say that this will create many jobs across Kenya going forward. The region is incredibly poor, and local leaders made powerful speeches to ask the government to follow its promises about payment.  

This story is one that is being told across the developing world. Many pre-industrialized countries are sitting on large amounts of natural resources that are incredibly economically profitable. Africa, for example, is incredibly rich in minerals. But with billions of dollars worth of resources in developing countries, it remains to be seen how much of this profit will go to the local communities. It’s important that these gains are shared in ways that can help the people whose lands these resources are found on. It shows how the use of the environment can be a catalyst for economic growth, which is especially beneficial for impoverished regions. But it also raises the question: how do we weigh environmental protection with developing countries’ ability to grow their economy? Would it be right for the international community to place a moratorium on fossil fuel extraction at the expense of developing nation’s economies? Rising emissions are inherent in the “T-shirt phase” of economic development, which is key for these countries to become industrialized and reap the associated benefits. While I think the demonization of fossil fuels is largely justified given the trends we’ve seen with climate change, it’s important to see the nuance. These resources can really grow the economy, which for citizens of developing countries means much more than the abstract yearly figure I associate with economic performance. I think that protecting the environment is really important, but so is ameliorating the extreme poverty that 36% of the world lives in. Luckily, it’s not an either-or choice. It’s just about finding the right policy balance.

Canada, Parks. “Parks Canada to Create Expert Panel to Advise on a Long-Term Framework for How Visitors Will Get around the Bow Valley and Experience Banff National Park.” Canada.ca, Government of Canada, 3 November 2020, www.canada.ca/en/parks-canada/news/2020/11/parks-canada-to-create-expert-panel-to-advise-on-a-long-term-framework-for-how-visitors-will-get-around-the-bow-valley-and-experience-banff-nationa.html. 

The Canadian agency responsible for national parks, “Parks Canada,” has announced the creation of a new board of experts to develop a sustainable future for Banff. The agency announced on its website that the move was to promote ecological integrity and continue Banff’s tradition of environmental stewardship. The panel’s main focus will be on developing infrastructure to maximize ease of movement around the park with minimal disruption for the ecosystem. It says this will greatly increase the quality of the visitor experience, and a “long term framework” will provide Canadians with opportunities to access the valley. They will work with indigenous peoples and the public to guide their deliberations. 

The article is an example of how government agencies can work towards environmental goals in a way that is sustainable for both the environment and visitors. The value in such an approach is obvious. The more interesting take away from the article is the employment of some misdirectional language. The article was posted by Parks Canada on their website, and they make it seem like the board is being assembled to further ecological integrity. But when you look past the language, it’s clear that the board is being assembled to increase the amount of visitors to the park. The panel is supposed to develop new technologies and transportation modes that give people multiple easy ways to move around the park, hence increasing the capacity of the park and improving the visiting experience. Now, this isn’t inherently a bad thing, but it’s certainly not a move to further preservation efforts. It makes me nervous to think that policies that could hurt the environment could be disguised in some linguistic Trojan Horse. Especially with environmental matters, we need to be critical.

“Contrary to Greek Commitment, Turkey Restarts Offshore Oil Exploration.” World Oil – Upstream News, www.worldoil.com/news/2020/8/7/contrary-to-greek-commitment-turkey-restarts-offshore-oil-exploration. 

Turkey has recently sent drilling rigs to explore oil reserves in Mediterranean waters right off the coast of the smaller Greek island of Kastellorizo, fueling tensions between the two NATO members. The Turkish government has thrown away Greece’s claim to the waters, which is backed by the United Nations Law of the Sea. Turkey declared that its exclusive economic zone will not be limited to only a couple of miles off the coast. They followed the statement by claiming these waters fall under their “rightful” jurisdiction, and said they will begin surveying the seabed for energy reserves. Greece responded to Ankara’s rhetoric by threatening war, a worrying development for the future of the region. Although German Chancellor Angela Merkel attempted to mediate, Turkey has resumed its surveying activities. 

Yet another example of how the environment can alter international relations, the conflict between Turkey and Greece is a worrying development for the future of Eurasia. And as resources continue to decline, the races to utilize them will only grow in intensity. Wealth is alluring to national leaders, and can that lead to serious international conflict. Jurisdictional problems complicate matters, and with limited enforcement power and clear guidelines from the UN, it can turn ugly. The ease with which Turkey has declared the United Nations Law of the Seas null is a scary prospect for the future resource conflicts that are inevitable. It turns the situation into one that is either determined by cooperation or power and force. For example, the control of a water supply essential to the food of a billion people as water declines between India and Pakistan is shaping a growing conflict in Jammu and Kashmir. As resources continue to decline and countries become more desperate to hold them, it’s more important than ever to develop clear guidelines that would resolve such issues. The way countries across the globe choose to utilize these resources will ultimately affect the environment. Drilling in the Mediteranean could cause oil spills, and will further the supply of oil, contribute to cheap prices, distract from investment in green technology, and lead to more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Turrentine, Jeff. “Jair Bolsonaro to a Horrified World Community: ‘The Amazon Is Brazil’s, Not Yours.’” NRDC, 2 Oct. 2020, www.nrdc.org/onearth/jair-bolsonaro-horrified-world-community-amazon-brazils-not-yours 

Brazilian President Jair Boslnaro’s pro-deforestation position has contributed to the proliferation of fires in the Amazon. One of his platforms in his campaign for the presidency was to continue to increase the deforestation of the Amazon for economic growth. The policy position has defined his response to the burning of the world’s largest rainforest. He refused to take G7 money offered to fight the fires and largely ignored them as hundreds of thousands of acres burned. The large fires that sparked an international outcry in 2019, and still continue to ravage parts of the rainforest, were sparked by cattle ranchers who deliberately set smaller fires to expand the grazing area for their cattle. It is suspected that these ranchers felt emboldened by the rhetoric of their president, and his continued inaction.  

This is yet another example of the power a politician can have in shaping environmental policy, no matter how unqualified that politician is or nonsensical that view may be. The Amazon is incredibly important not only for its biodiversity, or the indigenous tribes that inhabit it, but the global ecosystem. It raises the question: what commitment does a sovereign country have to the global environment? One would certainly argue that a moral commitment to reasonably protect the environment exists, but the question remains about what legal framework can enforce such a commitment. Going forward, we are sure to see the exploitation of resources and the natural world for economic gain in public land use and general policy. It’s important to be thinking about potential solutions to avoid environmental damage such as this. Possible solutions could include developing more robust UN law regarding environmental stewardship, more intergovernmental agreements such as the Paris Climate Accords, or establishing a separate IGO for the environment. 

Horton, Chris. “Beijing Zeroes In on Energy Potential of South China Sea.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 28 September 2020 www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/business/energy-environment/beijing-zeroes-in-on-energy-potential-of-south-china-sea.html. 

China’s expansionist policy into the South China Sea has not only been driven by strategic purposes, but the energy potential of the area. Researchers revealed that the South China Sea has tons of oil and natural gas under its waters, and recent moves by Beijing reveal China is interested in utilizing them. A drilling rig was sent into Vietnamese waters to explore and possibly drill for these gas reserves, which sparked condemnation from those who claim the resources fall under Vietnamese jurisdiction. Given the high rates of air pollution, China wants to increase its percentage of gas usage — gas that the South China Sea could supply. Investment in new technology to dig and drill in deep waters has also been increasing, which has accelerated the Chinese government’s path to exploiting these resources on a large scale across the sea.  

The article serves as a reminder of the resource wars that will surely be exacerbated in the remainder of the century. As resources become more scarce, competition for natural materials, whether that’s oil or water, will surely increase. For the remainder of the century, geopolitics will influence the environment, and the environment will influence geopolitics. For example, China expanding into the South China Sea for strategic military purposes (geopolitics) will allow them to drill this oil and construct artificial islands, both of which will alter the environment. The inverse relationship holds true too. The discovery of new resources can lead to competition between sovereign states competing to take advantage of those shared resources. And many other environmental matters will affect geopolitics. Aridification will make more and more areas unfarmable, which for developing countries will mean uninhabitable, causing mass migration. Climate change won’t destroy everything in some fiery ball, but it will be one of the (if not the) greatest geopolitical crises of this century.