Showing posts with label ecosystem. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ecosystem. Show all posts

Tackling the Problem of Plastic Waste on World Oceans Day

June 8 is World Oceans Day an opportunity to reflect on the importance of our oceans as well as solutions to the numerous threats they face. In 2017 the action focus is plastic pollution. Our oceans are indispensable to life of Earth and fate of humanity is intimately tied to their well-being. Our oceans are hotter and more acidic and they are increasingly unable to serve as carbon sinks. Coral reefs are dying and entire aquatic ecosystems are being destroyed. Norwegian billionaire and ocean advocate Kjell Inge Røkke aptly summarized situation when he said, "the oceans are also under greater pressure than ever before from overfishing, coastal pollution, habitat destruction, climate change and ocean acidification, and one of the most pressing challenges of all, plasticization of the ocean. The need for knowledge and solutions is pressing."

Many of these issues are intertwined. For example global warming appears to be contributing to an alarming decline in the amount of dissolved oxygen in the world's ocean. Low ocean oxygen is part of a feedback loop which sees microorganisms produce the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide. These effects could lead to ocean dead zones that are deadly for a number of marine organisms. It could even lead to a complete breakdown of aquatic food chains. These are some of the findings in a large research synthesis conducted by oceanographer Sunke Schmidtko and two colleagues from the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany. The research was published in the journal Nature.

Market growth

Plastic (celluloid) was invented by John Wesley Hyatt in 1869, however it was the invention and mass manufacturing of cheap oil based plastic in the 1960s that has led our current crisis. In 1965 we were producing about 15 million tons of plastic each year we now produce more than 300 million tons every year.

The plastic market has averaged 5 percent growth per year since 2000 primarily in packaging. Between 2000 and 2015, plastic used in packaging grew from 17 percent of market share to 25 percent. Plastic is now a $427 billion industry in the US alone. It employs nearly one million American workers and it is the third largest US manufacturing industry. Estimates indicate that if the trend continues by 2050 there will be more plastic in the ocean, by weight, than fish.

Existential threat

Yayat Supriatna, an urban planning scholar who has advised the Indonesian government said, "People don’t understand how dangerous plastic can be." Plastic is toxic and can be deadly. It is estimated that one million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals and sea turtles become entrapped in plastic or ingest it and die each year. Plastic is already killing millions of creatures and there is mounting evidence to suggest that plastic may be an existential threat to our species.

Plastic has become ubiquitous because it is cheap, lightweight, strong and durable. Its cheapness is due to the fact that we found a way to make it with oil. Its strength and durability are what makes it so dangerous. Plastic bottles in the ocean will not break down for 4 centuries and even then it lives eternally on as "poisonous confetti".

In 2016 a couple of sperm whales washed up on shores of Germany having starved to death due to a belly full of plastic. This is a redux of a whale found dead in the waters off the Greek isle of Mykonos in 2011. Whales are just one of many creatures that are threatened by plastic waste.

As quoted in a PRI investigative piece, oceanographer Curtis Ebbesmeyer, the man who coined the term "gyres" said, plastic pollution, "makes global warming look like child’s play". He suggests that plastic may even threaten the survival of some species including humans.

He explained the pervasive nature of the threat by saying, "We’re all infected with plastic...Molecules from some kid’s plastic bottle, dropped into the ocean in Asia, are winding up in the food Americans eat." This, Ebbesmeyer said could interfere with reproduction in a number of studies including humans.

There has been a marked decline in sperm counts which some have attributed to plastic pollution. This includes the carcinogenic synthetic estrogen imitators contained in Bisphenol A (BPA). Almost everybody has traces of BPA in their bodies. Research suggests that exposure to plastics can even impact the fertility of subsequent generations. Biological scientist, Frederick vom Saal, told Mother Jones magazine, "A poison kills you. A chemical like BPA reprograms your cells and ends up causing a disease in your grandchild that kills him."

Sizable problem

The scope of the problem is mind boggling. There are massive, swirling patches of plastic in our oceans. Some of the gyres hold around 400,000 plastic particles per square kilometre.

We continue to add 8 million tons of plastic to the oceans every year. There are 5.2 trillion bits of plastic in the sea. The problem is growing so fast that in the not too distant future plastic could soon cover half the planet’s surface. In some places there is six times more plastic in the water than plankton. The problem is growing so fast that in the not too distant future plastic could soon cover half the planet’s surface. In some places there is six times more plastic in the water than plankton.

Americans throw out more than 45,000 plastic bottles per minute or 2.5 million plastic bottles per hour. Globally people use roughly one million plastic bags per minute.

Plastic is now everywhere on the planet. Researchers from Australia’s University of Tasmania and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds found 18 tonnes of plastic garbage (239 items per square metre) scattered across a small South Pacific island 5,000 kilometers from the nearest human occupation.

The threats associated with plastics are significant. University of Tasmania researcher Jennifer Lavers said plastic in the oceans could be as great a threat as climate change. "You put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere or plastic in the oceans and both will stick around," she told New Scientist.

According to an aerial survey by inventor Boyan Slat the problem of plastic pollution in our oceans is worse than we thought. The survey of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, collected over 1,000 large pieces of garbage in under 2 hours.

Government action

France has announced that it is banning all plastic bags, plastic utensils, cups, and dishes by 2020. At the end of 2015, US President Barack Obama signed a bill requiring that American manufacturers end the use of microbeads in products by July 1, 2017 and end the sale of products containing microbeads in by July 1, 2018. In June 2016 Canada's federal government decision added plastic microbeads to the Schedule 1 list of toxic substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), enabling the government to regulate and ultimately ban the substance.

Oceans are not being protected as they should. Taking a page from the oil industry the US the plastics industry lobbyists have been successful petitioned government in an effort to minimize regulatory oversight.

The patchwork of laws and agreements, along with uneven enforcement are problematic. We also must deal with the difficult issue of waters outside national jurisdictions. We need more protections, more science and more transparency.

Business

The problem of plastic waste is a business problem that must be solved by business innovation. Western multinationals like Proctor & Gamble and Unilever, Nestle and Coca-Cola produce much of the world's plastic waste. However, thus far too little is being done to address the problem. "The corporations may offer a bit of charity here and there," Yayat says. "But they don’t really help. They’ll say the environment is the government’s responsibility."

There are powerful incentives driving corporate action. The sustainable plastic market was estimated to have reached $142.42 billion in 2015. In a Triple Pundit article about the new plastic economy Leon Kaye makes the point that the business community needs to drive a transition in the plastics industry.

"There is a large consensus that the plastics economy needs a fundamental rethink and redesign," said Rob Opsomer, the New Plastics Economy Lead with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, "and that the New Plastics Economy sets an economically and environmentally attractive direction to make that happen."

The single-use plastics industry contributes anywhere from $80 billion to $120 billion in material value losses annually. Further, as referenced above plastic polutes natural environment. This and other environmental problems associated with single-use plastic cost the global economy at least $40 billion a year.

Innovation

There are a number of innovations from the corporate sector that may help. In 2012 Italian company Bio-on unveiled a bioplastics polymer that is 100 percent biodegradable in water and soil. S.C. Johnson & Son Inc. launched an initiative to help build the infrastructure to eventually make Ziploc packaging bags widely recyclable via curbside recycling programs. Ford has replaced plastic car parts with parts made from carbon dioxide. Craft brewery is now making its six pack holders with an edible and biodegradable alternative made of barley and wheat remnants from the brewing process.

In April of this year, the BBC's Helen Briggs reported on a caterpillar that eats plastic.  Researchers at Cambridge University have discovered a plastic eating moth larvae (Galleria mellonella) that breaks down plastic's chemical bonds. It is hoped that researchers may be able to identify microbes in the caterpillar that could be used to dispose of plastic waste in an environmentally friendly fashion. The research was published in the journal, Current Biology.

Alternatives

We know that plastic is very useful, what we need is an alternative to oil based plastics that are not so environmentally harmful. This is especially important in light of the fact that only 14 percent of plastic is currently being recycled. So in addition to doing a much better job of recycling we need to make biodegradable plastics that do not use oil.

A Trucost sustainability focused life cycle report says that plastics cost $139 billion each year. However, it also suggests that plastic alternatives may be worse for the environment. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) funded report is titled, "Plastics and Sustainability: A Valuation of Environmental Benefits, Costs, and Opportunities for Continuous Improvement." The report drew on natural capital assessments and found the environmental cost of using plastics in consumer goods and packaging to be almost 4 times less than existing alternatives (glass, tin, aluminum and paper). In terms of dollar amounts, the report says that non-plastic alternatives comes with environmental costs of $533 billion annually compared to $139 billion with plastics.

However, there are other potentially viable alternatives. One renewable possibility includes hemp and other fast-growing plants containing cellulose. Companies including IBM, Ford and Dell are working to develop viable alternatives to plastics for use in products and packaging. IBM researchers said they have found a way to create cheaper, biodegradable plastic from plants. This follows a plastics recycling process IBM researchers announced last year.

We also need to be wary of false solutions. For example so called compostable plastics are not quite as helpful as it would seem. As explained by Danny Clark, "compostable plastics don’t breakdown and convert into compost or result in nutrient rich soil as the process and name would lead one to believe." Rather than put carbon into the soil, compostable plastics add CO2 (the most abundant greenhouse gas) to the atmosphere.

Circular economy

If it could be made to be viable the circular economy offers the most hope of reducing plastic waste.  The European Commission announced its Circular Economy Action Plan, which is working towards closing the loop on plastics. At a recent World Economic Forum (WEF)in Davos, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation launched the "New Plastics Economy initiative" with the report, "The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics."

As reported by Environmental Leader, this plastics initiative is designed to increase recycling and reuse as well as increase the use of bioplastics. This initiative enjoys the support of some major companies including Amcor, Unilever, Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical and Mars. The launch followed a report that pointed to $3.5 billion in potential environmental savings.

As reported by Thomas Schueneman, new prizes are inspiring innovation. On May 18th 2017, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation announced a $2 million plastics innovation prize in partnership with the Prince of Wales’s International Sustainability Unit. This initiative includes support from more than 40 organizations, including Core Partners Amcor, Coca-Cola, Danone, Mars, Novamont, PepsiCo, Unilever and Veolia. The two part $1 million Circular Design Challenge invites applicants to rethink how we can get products to people without generating plastic waste.

"Working towards circularity in the way we make, use, and distribute plastic packaging will revolutionize the scale of the human footprint on our planet," said Wendy Schmidt, who has already funded two major XPrize competitions focused on oceans. "The value of keeping materials in the economy is massive compared to the losses we suffer when plastic leaks into the very living systems we depend upon for our survival. The New Plastics Economy Prize is a call for creative design and technical innovation at a critical time."

People making a difference

Norwegian billionaire Kjell Inge Røkke has made a fortune from shipping and offshore drilling. He is building the largest and heaviest yacht in the world. What makes this ship exceptional is the fact that it can extract up to five tons of plastic from the ocean every day. Norway's World Wildlife Fund (WWF), will manage the ship which will also be a floating scientific lab for 60 scientists and 40 crew. The ship called Research Expedition Vessel (REV) is scheduled to be completed in 2020 has a number of ecological features that will minimize its footprint. This includes an energy recovery rudder system, medium speed engines, a direct drive diesel-electric propulsion system with battery package, an exhaust cleaning system, ballast water treatment system, low noise, WWF FSC certified woods, and lighting from LEDs.

Related
Plastic Waste in Our Oceans: Problems and Solutions
Green Plastics Report
Infographic - Plastic and the 5 Ocean Gyres 
Video: The Perils of Plastic Waste
The Mass Extinction of Our Oceans May have Already Begun
Chemical Regulation Including Plastics that is Good for Business and the Environment
Plastics and the Greener Cell Phones
PepsiCo Canada's 100% Recycled EcoGreen Bottle Breakthrough
Ford's Flower Powered Green Plastic Replacement
Best Green Automotive Innovations Include Replacements for Plastics
Recycling is a Business Imperative
Water Scarcity and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
Assessing the Value of Our Oceans

Liberals Give Canada's Oceans More Protections

On February 15, 2017, the Government of Canada announced a partnership with the Province of B.C. and coastal First Nations to protect coastal ecosystems and the communities that depend upon them. This follows a November 7, 2016, announcement in which Justin Trudeau pledged $1.5 billion national Oceans Protection Plan. The plan creates a marine safety system, it restores and protects marine ecosystems and it strengthens the partnerships with Indigenous communities. The government also pledged to invest in evidence-based oil spill response methods.

After a decade of neglect from federal Conservatives, the ruling Liberal Government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has embarked on an ambitious plan to support Canada's vast ocean coastlines.

The Liberal government has repeatedly stated that it intends to take a science-based approach to protecting our environment, fighting against climate change, and growing the economy. The Liberal website adds, "We will protect our freshwater and oceans." The government will safeguard Canada's $40 billion ocean-based industries with what it calls, "robust and credible environmental assessments".

The Liberal plan includes a pledge to protect 10 percent of Canada’s marine and coastal areas by 2020. They will also invest $8 million per year in community consultation and science. The Liberal have also reinstated 40 million worth of funding for ocean science programs that were cut by the Conservatives. This money will be used to monitor fish, contaminants, and pollution. It will also support responsible and sustainable aquaculture industries.

The Liberal government has been criticized for trying to have it both ways. They want to be champions of the environment and climate action while at the same time ramping up fossil fuel production and building pipelines. They appear to present two diametrically opposed visions for the country. The schism is so pronounced that some of their big green announcements could be characterized as pyrrhic victories.

However, Canadian climate and energy policy is vastly more responsible than their Conservative predecessors. Investments in renewable energy have benefited from the change of government. Under the Liberals Canada played a leadership role at COP21 and they also secured a historic pan-Canadian climate deal.

Related
Assessing the Value of Our Oceans
The Cost of Ocean Acidification
The Mass Extinction of Our Oceans May have Already Begun
The State of Our Oceans: We are Headed Towards a Marine Mass Extinction
Seven Ways to Save the Seas
Report on the UN's World Water Day Panel Discussion

The State of Arctic Warming and Melting Ice in 2016 (Videos)

The trend of warmer Arctic temperatures and melting Arctic ice appears to be worsening. Less ice means more global warming. Last year was the warmest year on record replacing 2015. We saw a number of extreme weather events in 2016 and ongoing evidence of the global warming trend, particularly in the Arctic.

A WMO report presented at COP22 at the end of 2016 indicates that in recent years parts of Arctic Russia, temperatures were 6°C to 7°C above the long-term average. Many other Arctic and sub-Arctic regions in Russia, Alaska and northwest Canada were at least 3°C above average. The global average temperature increase is around 1.5°C above average.

The report also revealed a cascade of related phenomena including sea level rise associated with rapidly melting polar ice. Over the past five years, Arctic sea ice is 28 percent below the average of the previous 29 years. The impact from this melting trend is not only rising sea levels it is also decreasing global cooling from the ice associated with the albedo effect (light or radiation that is reflected by a surface). Simply put, less ice means more warming.

Arctic ice reached its equal second-lowest extent in the satellite record in September 2016 and in the fall of 2016 the Arctic was very hot and the extent of sea ice covering the polar ocean was at a record low. The ice was also slower to freeze in the fall of 2016 and it is much thinner than normal.

While the winter, spring, and summer were abnormally warm in the Arctic, the departure from the mean increased in October, November, and December.

In November, Arctic ice normally increases, however, over a period of five days it saw 19,000 square miles of ice cover melt away. NOAA said this was very unusual and almost without precedent. In November Arctic temperatures were 18 degrees warmer than normal. The abnormally warm Arctic was partly responsible for second-warmest November global temperatures on record.

Richard James, a meteorologist who is also the author of a blog on Alaska weather, analyzed 19 weather stations surrounding the Arctic Ocean and found that the average temperature was about 2 C (4F) above the record set in 1998. Since November, temperatures have risen even higher. "It is amazing to see that the warmth has become even more pronounced since the end of October," James wrote on his blog. Towards the end of last year, Arctic temperatures were about 20°C (36 F) higher than normal above 80 degrees North Latitude despite the onset of the polar night.

"Despite onset of #PolarNight, temperatures near #NorthPole increasing. Extraordinary situation right now in #Arctic, w/record low #seaice," Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA posted to Twitter.

As reported by NASA, a large hot cyclone that crossed the Arctic in December 2015 thinned and shrunk the sea ice cover during a time of the year when the ice should have been growing thicker and stronger.



This phenomenon repeated in December 2016. As reported by the Washington Post, Arctic expert, James Overland with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration {NOAA), said that the jet stream transported warmth northward into the Arctic. This is highly abnormal in terms of both persistence and magnitude.

As reported in Slate, much warmer than usual temperatures have dominated the Arctic at the end of 2015 and into 2016. "[T]he northernmost permanent settlement, Norway’s Svalbard archipelago, has averaged 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) above normal this winter, with temperatures rising above the freezing mark on nearly two dozen days since Dec. 1. That kind of extremely unusual weather has prompted a record-setting low maximum in Arctic sea ice, especially in the Barents Sea area north of Europe."

Writing on his blog, former NASA scientist Roy Spencer said that February 2016 featured “whopping” temperature anomalies especially in the Arctic.

In a Huffington Postarticle, Michael Mann said that February stands out for its record-setting heat particularly in the NortherHemispherere.

"For the first time on record, we crossed the 2 degrees C ‘dangerous’ level of warming (for the Northern Hemisphere, the best-measured part of the globe)...It is unlikely we will see this anomalous warmth sustained for the remainder of the year, but it is a reminder of how perilously close we are now to permanent dangerous levels of warmth. It is yet another warning of the urgency of reducing global carbon emissions."

According to Mashable , February’s warmth was especially pronounced in the north. The Arctic saw record low sea ice and temperatures that were about 6 degrees C (almost 11 degrees F) above normal.

Mark Serreze, who heads the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., agreed that something odd is going on. Both air and water temperatures unusually warm. "There are some areas in the Arctic Ocean that are as much as 25 degrees Fahrenheit above average now," Serreze said in December. "It’s pretty crazy...The sea ice is at a record low right now, for this time of year, that’s one thing," Serreze said. "And why it’s so low — again, there’s so much heat in the upper ocean in these ice-free areas, the ice just can’t form right now. The ocean’s just got to get rid of this heat somehow, and it’s having a hard time doing so."

Another Washington Post article said, "it’s premature to say if these events are becoming more frequent, the intensity of the warm air reaching the Arctic is almost certainly increasing. "

“[T]he warmest midwinter temperatures at the North Pole have been increasing at a rate that is twice as large as that for mean midwinter temperatures at the pole,” a Nature study published in mid-December 2016 said. “It is argued that this enhanced trend is consistent with the loss of winter sea ice from the Nordic Seas that moves the reservoir of warm air over this region northwards".

The trend is unmistakable. A study by National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and NASA researchers revealed that the length of the melt season for Arctic sea ice is growing by several days each decade, and an earlier start to the melt season is allowing the Arctic Ocean to absorb enough additional solar radiation in some places to melt as much as four feet of the Arctic ice cap's thickness.



A Yale 360 article by Peter Wadhams indicates that melting sea ice is "triggering a cascade of effects that will amplify global warming and could destabilize the global climate system." Wadhams continued, "The planet is swiftly heading toward a largely ice-free Arctic in the warmer months, possibly as early as 2020."

Wadhams is a scientist who specializes in Arctic sea ice, he is professor emeritus of ocean physics at Cambridge University.  Wadhams says that over his 46-year career as a scientist he has observed the thickness and extent of Arctic sea ice shrink by 50 percent since the early 1970s. Even steeper declines (75 percent) in volume have been observed. Wadhams explains that there are global feedback effects associated with the arctic ice "death spiral":

"The great white cap that once covered the top of the world is now turning blue [changing the region's albedo causing only 10 percent of solar radiation to be reflected back into space compared to 50 percent when the surface is covered with ice.]— a change that represents humanity’s most dramatic step in reshaping the face of our planet. And with the steady disappearance of the polar ice cover, we are losing a vast air conditioning system that has helped regulate and stabilize earth’s climate system for thousands of years."

Arctic waters have been generally below zero for tens of thousands of years in the summer. With much less ice in the warmest months, Arctic ocean temperatures have risen as much as 7 F in some places. Now rather than cooling the Earth the Arctic is contributing to global heating.

According to one recent study, a warm Arctic is responsible for 25 percent of global warming.  Together these impacts are driving global warming. As explained by Wadhams, "overall ice/snow albedo effect in the Arctic could add as much as 50 percent to the direct global heating effect of CO2."

There are a number of complex feedback loops at play. Lower levels of sea ice increase ocean temperatures and warmer sea melt even more ice. declining sea ice creates another feedback loop. Less sea ice cover east of the Nordic Sea helps create a passageway for warm air. Other feedback loops affecting the Arctic include more waves that further dismantles ice, warmer terrestrial temperatures that increase the albedo effect on land and water runoff from the warming land or melting ice. Other feedback loops include water vapor, the slowing of the global ocean conveyor belt and major shifts in the northern hemisphere’s jet stream.

Wadhams says the most dangerous feedback loop is methane trapped in ice on the floor of the Arctic Ocean. Methane traps heat in the atmosphere 23 times more efficiently per molecule than carbon dioxide. More than five years ago Russian scientists had already documented methane seeping from Arctic ice.

"These changes represent a spiritual impoverishment of the earth, as well as a catastrophe for humanity" Wadhams said. This is a wake-up call Wadhams concluded, "the time for action has long since passed."

Maybe part of the problem is that people just don't relate to the Arctic on a personal level.  With that in mind here is a historic performance in the middle of the Arctic Ocean by acclaimed Italian composer and pianist Ludovico Einaudi. Described by Paul Hawkins as, "without question, the best video ever made on climate change."

"I've been about to see the purity and fragileness of this area with my own eyes and perform a song that I composed on the best stage in the world," Einaudi said. "It is important that we understand the importance of the Arctic, [and] stop its process and protect it." Einaudi is one of eight million people from across the world demanding protection for the Arctic.


Related
Rising CO2 Emissions and Ongoing Heat Records Especially in the Arctic
Arctic Sea Ice is Disappearing
Arctic Warming Feedback Loops: Algae Blooms and Thawing Permafrost

Rising CO2 Emissions and Ongoing Heat Records Especially in the Arctic

We may have signed a global climate agreement at COP21 in Paris but global levels of atmospheric emissions keep climbing along with temperature records.

The NOAA reports that we have passed 405 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere this year. According to NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the global average temperature was 1.13 degrees C, or slightly more than 2 degrees F, warmer in January 2016 than the long-term average (1951-1980) for this month. This beats the previous record for the warmest recorded January that was set in 2007.

While the so called super El Niño played a role the temperatures are also being driven upward by growing levels of CO2. Month after month the overall trend continues and this cannot be explained by El Niño.

While we must always make the distinction between climate and weather, January 2016 contributes to an ongoing decades long warming trend. One of the more troubling aspects of January's weather is the particularly warm temperatures in the north (above 60 degrees latitude). This includes the Canadian Arctic, Greenland and Siberia. This is part of what is called the Arctic Oscillation or differences in air pressure over the Arctic and lower latitudes. The phenomenon allows Arctic air to flow south while warmer air is pumped north. The Arctic is warming two or three times faster than the rest of the globe.

As reported by Discover, the president of the Sami Parliament of Norway said:
"Indigenous peoples are running out of time and are having fewer opportunities to adapt to changes."
There are many impacts associated with a warming Arctic that extend beyond the catastrophic impacts being felt by the regions indigenous populations. This includes changes in global weather patterns due to the disruption of the the jet stream which will also cause more extreme weather events like the polar vortex. Melting sea ice can also disrupt ocean circulation and currents. Greenhouse gases have caused the earth to warm and Arctic ice to retreat, this in turn is the cause of what is known as the albeido effect where more of the sun's energy is absorbed by the earth and less is reflected back into space. Simply put, less ice means more warming.

Sea ice coverage has declined by 40 percent since the late 70s and as of 2007 that trend appears to be accelerating. According to a report titled "Arctic Matters: The Global Connection to Changes in the Arctic" by the National Research Council of the National Academies, Arctic sea ice extent is the lowest it has been in over three decades. The expectation is that we will soon see ice free summers in the Arctic. This means that in the coming decades the Arctic will be navigable by ship traffic.

Melting arctic ice will also increase erosion and the rate at which methane seeps from the permafrost. Together the impacts of Arctic warming are directly related to everything from accelerated warming to the resultant food scarcity.

Warming temperatures are directly related to increasing levels of atmospheric carbon and other greenhouse gases. We have never seen such a rapid buildup of greenhouse gases than the one augured by the industrial revolution and our wanton burning of fossil fuels.

During the Pliocene 2.6 – 5.3 million years ago, there was between 350 and 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2. At that time global average temperatures were 2-3 degrees Celsius hotter than 1880s levels and sea levels were about 80 feet higher than current levels.

Arctic monitoring stations first reported atmospheric levels of CO2 at 400 ppm in June 2012 and other monitoring stations recorded this level of atmospheric carbon in April 2013.

The Mauna Loa Observatory has recently reported that CO2 levels have hit a new record global high of 405.66 ppm. Last year we saw the fastest growth of CO2 ever recorded. We can expect that by the time atmospheric carbon levels reach their annual maximum in May we will see levels of around 407 ppm. We have not seen these levels of atmospheric carbon since the Middle Miocene climate epoch, 15 to 17 million years ago. During this period temperatures were between 3 to 5 degrees Celsius hotter than they were in 1880 and sea levels were about 120 to 190 feet higher.

The trend is troubling as we may be on the cusp of tipping points. From the release of methane stored in the Arctic permafrost to the failure of traditional carbon sinks there are a host of concerns associated with these levels of emissions. For example it is known that the oceans which have long been a sink for carbon can no longer absorb as much CO2 as they used to.

The inter-relatedness of all these climate phenomenon  (global average temperature, the Arctic, sea ice and global emissions) weave a troubling tale of a climate that is rapidly spiraling out of control.

Related
Arctic Sea Ice is Disappearing
Arctic Warming Feedback Loops: Algae Blooms and Thawing Permafrost
2015 was the Hottest Year on Record and 2016 will be Hotter
Record Heat Dominates Christmas Weather
October 2015 Breaks More Heat Records and Corroborates Accelerated Warming
GHGs are Warming the Planet and Contributing to Disasters
September Heat Records Offer More Evidence for Accelerated Warming
2015 - The Hottest Summer in the Hottest Year on Record
Global Temperature Data Underscores the Urgency of Climate Action
El Niño and Global Warming are Locked in a Feedback Loop
At Least 30 Years of Above Average Temperatures
Heat Records Tell the Story of Climate Change
India's Heat Wave Offers a Glimpse into the Future
How Much Heat is Required to Spur Global Action?
Record Breaking Heat Suggests Accelerated Warming

The Arctic is still not Safe from Drilling

Although the Obama administration has effectively shut down Arctic drilling the region is far from being protected from the dangers of  fossil fuel extraction. The President has imposed stringent lease conditions on Arctic oil extraction but other Northern nations do not have such restrictive national laws. Countries  including Russia and Norway continue to set their sights on Arctic oil.

Arctic drilling is a source of concern for many reasons including the risks of a spill.  According to Greenpeace there is a 75 percent chance of a serious spill. This would prove catastrophic in this fragile and remote ecosystem.

There is also the overarching issue of emissions contributions at a time when we already have more known oil reserves that can be safely burned. According to the US Geological Society the Arctic holds up to 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil reserves. Ironically, global warming caused largely by fossil fuels makes Arctic drilling even more attractive as there is now less ice to contend with.

Shell withdrew from the Arctic because the project became non-viable due to low oil prices. Citing "current market conditions" the Department of Interior has canceled two future auctions of Arctic offshore oil leases in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. They have also denied requests from Shell and other oil companies to secure more time on their existing leases. They have also indicated that existing leases will not be renewed after their expiration in 2020.

The Obama administration appears to have brought Arctic drilling to an end for the remainder of the President's term. Further, all the leading Democratic contenders for president have indicated that they are against Arctic drilling. However, this does not preclude a return of oil companies to the American Arctic at some future date. If a Republican were to take control of the white house we would almost certainly see such a return.  Republicans in Congress, including Alaska's Lisa Murkowski have already made it clear that they want to extend the life of drilling leases.

While US companies may lead the race to extract Arctic oil, other countries are also looking to exploit the regions fossil fuel reserves. Russia's Arctic drilling operations have been delayed by sanctions over the Ukraine, however early in 2015 cooperation between Russian and Norwegian oil companies suggested that Arctic drilling would proceed despite the sanctions.

For example, the Norwegian company Statoil has increasingly close relations with the Russian oil company Rosneft and together they are planning to drill four wells in Russia. Rosneft has a stake in a license in the Barents Sea operated by Statoil. Russia's second biggest oil producer Lukoil is also working with Norwegian and Swedish firms.

It is only due to tensions over the ownership of the remote Arctic Svalbard islands that we are not seeing even more Arctic drilling cooperation between Norway and Russia.

Related
What Activists can Learn from Shell's Arctic Retreat
Obama Administration Cuts Shell's Arctic Drilling in Half
The Unacceptable Risks of Arctic Drilling
Video - The Arctic is Under Threat from Shell and Gazprom
The Race to Exploit the Arctic's Resources Ignores the Costs
Oil Spills in Arctic Waters (White Paper) 
Shell Pauses its Arctic Drilling for 2013
Video of the Oil Rig Belonging to Shell that Ran aground in Alaska
Shell Oil Rig Runs Aground in Alaska Raising Safety Concerns
Shell's Game with the Future of the Arctic
Lawsuit Protecting the Arctic from Oil and Gas

The Cost of Oil: BP Reaches $20 Billion Settlement with the Federal Government

In the largest single entity settlement in the Department of Justice's history, BP will have to pay $20.8 for its role in the infamous Gulf of Mexico oil spill in April, 2010. Since the disastrous explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform BP has been engaged in protracted negotiations with the federal government. Now the Department of Justice have finalized the settlement with BP. The settlement comes after years of legal wrangling. In July, the Supreme Court denied the company’s appeal to block benefits for those not directly affected by the spill.

As reported by The Hill, the fine breaks down as follows
  • $5.5 billion to settle civil claims under the Clean Water Act
  • $7.1 billion for environmental restoration work
  • $700 million to compensate for still-unknown damages to natural resources in the region
  • $4.9 million to Gulf Coast states affected by the spill
  • $1 billion to local communities. Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas will split that portion of the settlement.
  • BP has also already spent more than $1 billion on environmental restoration work in the area
Almost $9 billion of the settlement money will be used by for a Gulf restoration fund. This money will be invested in coastal and habitat repair, water quality improvement in wetlands and recreational projects in the region.

Biologists have observed that the 3.19 million gallons of oil that pored into the Gulf is having long term effects that continue to this day.

"This is still the largest environmental penalty under the Clean Water Act and Oil Pollution Act, ever," Attorney General Loretta Lynch said. "BP is receiving the punishment it deserves while also providing critical compensation to the damage to the Gulf region."

The punishment will serve as a deterrent that will hopefully prevent similar disasters in the future.

"The steep penalty should inspire BP and its peers to take every measure necessary to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again," Lynch said.

The $20.8 billion fine is separate from the class-action settlement with businesses and individuals affected by the spill.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy noted that the settlement includes $700 million to address any potential environmental damages that officials have yet to discover.

"Justice is not about dumping a pile of money and walking away," McCarthy said. "It is about investing in sustainable ways that empower and strengthen the Gulf communities over the long term."

The settlement still needs to be approved by a federal court.

Related
BP's Legal Wrangling Five Years After the Gulf Oil Spill
The Toll on Wildlife from the Gulf of Mexico BP Oil Spill
BP's Gulf Oil Spill: Summary of Research Evidence Five Years Later
The BP Oil Spill in the Gulf Five Years Later
Supreme Court Gives BP a Lump of Coal for Christmas
Transocean to Pay $1.4 billion for its Role in the Gulf Oil Spill
The Costs of Oil: BP Liable for up to 90 Billion
Judge Declares BP is Grossly Negligent but are Fines Enough?
Infographic - BP Oil Spill 4 Years Later
Video - The Ongoing Impacts of the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico
The Cost of Oil: BP Barred from Doing Business with the US
The Costs of Oil: BP Liable for Tens of Billions
BP's Corporate Irresponsibility
Responsibility for the Costs of the Gulf Oil Spill
The Costs of Offshore Drilling
Managing the Massive Gulf Oil Spill
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels

Obama Administration Cuts Shell's Arctic Drilling in Half

Shell may be drilling the Chukchi Sea off the coast of Alaska this summer but they will only be able to do half of the drilling they had planned. On Tuesday June 30, the Obama administration announced that it has limited shell's drilling plans in the Arctic citing wildlife protections. The federal government has effectively prevented them from simultaneously boring two wells.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service indicated that they want to reduce the noise from the drilling and they are using a 2013 regulation that prohibits drilling less than 15 miles between wells. Shell's plan was to bore two holes 9 miles apart.

Federal regulations demand that Shell have two rigs in the region in case an emergency forces the company to bore a relief well. However, they had planned to put the second rig to work simultaneously drilling a second exploratory well nearby.

This means that while Shell has moved two drilling rigs into the Burger prospect, only one exploratory well can be drilled at a time. Shell will spend $1 billion on the exploratory drilling in the Burger prospect this year bringing their total spend on drilling in the Arctic Ocean to more than $7 billion.

While this will reduce the amount of drilling that will take place in Chukchi Sea this summer, it will likely lengthen the amount of time Shell will be in the Arctic by a number of years. Shell's two rigs Transocean Polar Pioneer and the Noble Discoverer have a very limited drilling window that runs during the ice-out period between July 15th and September 28th.

Before it can begin drilling in the Arctic Shell still needs one more drilling permit from the Interior Department's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.

The last time Shell tried to drill in the Arctic it did not go well. They lost control of their rig and it ran aground. It was later revealed that they had inadequate safety equipment.

Related
The Unacceptable Risks of Arctic Drilling 
Video - The Arctic is Under Threat from Shell and Gazprom
The Race to Exploit the Arctic's Resources Ignores the Costs
Oil Spills in Arctic Waters (White Paper) 
Shell Pauses its Arctic Drilling for 2013
Video of the Oil Rig Belonging to Shell that Ran aground in Alaska
Shell Oil Rig Runs Aground in Alaska Raising Safety Concerns
Shell's Game with the Future of the Arctic

BP's Legal Wrangling Five Years After the Gulf Oil Spill

BP has a lengthy criminal rap sheet that culminated in the Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. Despite BP's long criminal history they are anything but repentant. Rather than accept the penalties levied against them for the 2010 spill they are doing everything in their power to minimize their legal and financial responsibilities.

US District Court judge Carl Barbier found that BP was guilty of "gross negligence" and "willful misconduct." Although the trial concluded earlier this year, the final settlement has yet to be announced.

All throughout the legal proceedings BP has waged a massive and misleading advertising campaign which gives the impression that all is well in the Gulf. However this contention is squarely refuted by the science.

The statutory penalty in the Clean Water Act for BP's actions its actions is $4,300 per gallon, or over $18 billion. Thus far BP has agreed to pay $4.5 billion in related criminal and civil penalties and faces additional fines, as well as to thousands of claims by individuals and companies. It’s also agreed to resolve most private-party lawsuits as part of an uncapped settlement BP values at about $9.2 billion

Whatever the fines, they will be a fraction of the actual costs to the economy, wildlife and the Gulf ecosystem.

After months of negotiations the EPA gave BP the right to bid for US contracts and oil leases on March 2014. However, BPs misinformation and refusal to take full responsibility for the Gulf oil spill casts aspersions on the EPA decision.

As reported by Bloomberg, the EPA imposed the contract suspension in 2012 after determining that BP hadn’t fully corrected deficiencies that led to the Gulf oil spill. BP sued the EPA in federal court in Houston seeking to lift the suspension and then dropped the lawsuit after a deal was reached.

As explained by Tyson Slocum, director of the Public Citizen’s Energy Program in Washington, the EPA decision was premature. This "lets a corporate felon and repeat offender off the hook for its crimes against people and the environment," Slocum said in a statement. BP "was on criminal probation at the time of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, and it has failed to prove that it is a responsible contractor."

The government suspended BP’s rights to seek federal contracts after the company pleaded guilty to 11 counts of felony seaman’s manslaughter, two pollution violations and one count of lying to Congress in connection with the spill.

In addition to the spill, the EPA cited the 2005 explosion at a BP-owned Texas City, Texas, refinery and two oil spills in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, as grounds for the 2012 debarment. At the time of the April 2010 spill, BP was on probation after pleading guilty in 2007 to a felony air-pollution charge and paying a $50 million fine for the explosion in Texas City that killed 15 workers.

Related
The Toll on Wildlife from the Gulf of Mexico BP Oil Spill
Research Summary of BP's Gulf Oil Spill
Supreme Court Gives BP a Lump of Coal for Christmas
Transocean to Pay $1.4 billion for its Role in the Gulf Oil Spill
The Costs of Oil: BP Liable for up to 90 Billion
Judge Declares BP is Grossly Negligent but are Fines Enough?

The Toll on Wildlife from the Gulf of Mexico BP Oil Spill

A number of wildlife species have been devastated by the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This includes seabirds, turtles, fish, and vegetation.

Between 800,000 and one million sea birds have died from oil exposure in the Gulf of Mexico since 2010. Entire seabird populations have suffered from major die-offs. Oil related deaths include 12 percent of brown pelicans (over 200,000 have been exposed to oil),  almost one third (32 percent) of northern gulf laughing birds and 13 percent of royal turns. A total of 20,000 Kemp's turtles and 60,000 Ridley turtles died in 2010.

Five times the normal rate of lung disease have been observed in bottlenose dolphins and a total of 1000 dolphins have been found stranded between 2010 and 2015.

Under the water a number of species were impacted including oysters and sea grass which provide food and habitat for a wide range of aquatic life. There has been an 85 percent reduction in the diversity of northern gulf seaweed habitats. Species that depend on this seaweed include shrimps, lobsters and crabs.

In the two years following the disaster there was a 50 percent drop in oysters and 10 square miles of sea grass were adversely impacted.

The importance of the gulf oil spill on fish species is important because two thirds of fish species that live in the area of the spill are found only in the gulf. As few as 50 Brydes whales are thought to be left in the gulf and the calves of this species are particularly vulnerable to the dispersant used to break-up the spill. Dispersants are also thought to have adverse health impacts on Sperm Whales and other species

To this day fish species continue to suffer from disruptions to their growth, development and reproduction. Some fish species were found to be covered in lesions due to the spill.

Heart defects and other morphological abnormalities have been found Atlantic bluefin, yellowfin tunas and an amberjack species. Swordfish, marlin, mackerel and other Gulf species may also suffer from similar impacts.

It will take years if not decades to understand the full scope on the impacts.

Related
BP's Legal Wrangling Five Years After the Gulf Oil Spill
Research Summary of BP's Gulf Oil Spill
Supreme Court Gives BP a Lump of Coal for Christmas
Transocean to Pay $1.4 billion for its Role in the Gulf Oil Spill
The Costs of Oil: BP Liable for up to 90 Billion
Judge Declares BP is Grossly Negligent but are Fines Enough?

Research Summary of BP's Gulf Oil Spill

A number of studies indicate that the environmental impacts of the BP's 2010 oil spill in the gulf is anything but over. Huge amounts of oil are still on the ocean floor and this is finding its way into the food chain. Other studies show fish that spawn in these oil contaminated waters in the Gulf are suffering from a wide range of lethal deformities.

A study published earlier this year suggested that the oil that lingers in the Gulf of Mexico continues to pose a threat to local ecosystems. The study by Florida researchers indicates that About 3,243 sq miles (8,400 square km) of the sea floor is still covered with oil from the disaster.

"This is going to affect the Gulf for years to come," Jeff Chanton, the study's lead researcher and a professor of chemical oceanography at Florida State University, said in a statement.

This study corroborates an October study which found that as much as 30 percent of the spilled oil remains on the ocean floor.

"Fish will likely ingest contaminants because worms ingest the sediment, and fish eat the worms. It's a conduit for contamination into the food web."

CBS news quoted the study’s lead researcher, Jeff Chanton, as saying: ‘This is going to affect the Gulf for years to come.

‘Fish will likely ingest contaminants because worms ingest the sediment, and fish eat the worms. It's a conduit for contamination into the food web.’

Dolphins and turtles in the Gulf are dying in record numbers. Bottlenose dolphins have been dying at more than twice the normal rate over the past five years and the nesting habits of the endangered Kemp's Ridley sea turtle changed dramatically around the time of the spill. Commercial fisheries have also seen a reduced yield.

The BP oil spill was an unprecedented disaster and after five years 2 percent of samples of water and seafloor sediment continue to exceed federal toxicity levels. According to research from the Associated Press the overall health of the Gulf of Mexico has declined 11 percent since April 2010.

The research suggests that lingering impacts of the BP oil spill in the Gulf are being felt by tuna and other species that spawned in oiled offshore habitats in the northern Gulf of Mexico. A Stanford NOAA study revealed that the spill is causing severe defects in the developing hearts of Atlantic bluefin, yellowfin tunas and an amberjack species. The study shows that crude oil exposures is slowing the heartbeat or causing an uncoordinated rhythm in these fish, which can ultimately lead to heart failure.

"We know from the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Prince William Sound that recently spawned fish are especially vulnerable to crude oil toxicity," said Nat Scholz, Ph.D., leader of the ecotoxicology program at NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle. “"That spill taught us to pay close attention to the formation and function of the heart."

"This fits the pattern," said Dr. John Incardona, NOAA research toxicologist and the study’s lead author. "The tunas and the amberjack exposed to Deepwater Horizon crude oil were impacted in much the same way that herring were deformed by the Alaska North Slope crude oil spilled in Prince William Sound during the Exxon Valdez accident."

"The timing and location of the spill raised immediate concerns for bluefin tuna," said Barbara Block, Ph.D., a study coauthor and professor of biology at Stanford University. "This spill occurred in prime bluefin spawning habitats, and the new evidence indicates a compromising effect of oil on the physiology and morphology of bluefin embryos and larvae."

The culprit in the heart defect appears to be oil-derived polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). PAHs can persist for many years in marine habitats and cause a variety of adverse environmental effects. Other observed morphological abnormalities on oil-exposed larva were also revealed in the study. This includes poor growth of fins and eyes.

"We now have a better understanding why crude oil is toxic, and it doesn’t bode well for bluefin or yellowfin embryos floating in oiled habitats.” said Block. “At the level of a single heart muscle cell, we’ve found that petroleum acts like a pharmacological drug by blocking key processes that are critical for cardiac cell excitability."

The authors further suggest that other species like cardiac-related impacts on swordfish, marlin, mackerel and other Gulf species may also be impacted cardiac abnormalities if they spawned in proximity to oil.

Experts say it could take "decades" for the ecosystem to recover.

Related
BP's Legal Wrangling Five Years After the Gulf Oil Spill
The Toll on Wildlife from the Gulf of Mexico BP Oil Spill
Supreme Court Gives BP a Lump of Coal for Christmas
Transocean to Pay $1.4 billion for its Role in the Gulf Oil Spill
The Costs of Oil: BP Liable for up to 90 Billion
Judge Declares BP is Grossly Negligent but are Fines Enough?

The BP Oil Spill in the Gulf Five Years Later

Exactly five years ago (April 20, 2010), BP's Deepwater Horizon oil well exploded in the Gulf of Mexico killing 11 people and injuring 17 more. The explosion unleashed one of the worst environmental disasters in human history. For 87 days (April 20 and July 15, 2010) the oil spewed from the well and by the time it was finally contained at least 3.2 million barrels (134 million gallons) of crude oil had contaminated the Gulf of Mexico and 1,100 miles of coastline.

The worst marine disaster ever damaged bird sanctuaries, marine and wildlife habitats. It also soiled beaches, killed wildlife and devastated local economies. The ecologically vital marsh lands of the gulf coast have not recovered and wildlife is still suffering.

The Gulf may look clean but it is not. Even after a five year $28 billion clean-up operation the repercussions from the spill continue to this day. While much of the oil has evaporated or dissolved, up to 10 million gallons of oil remain on the sea floor. About 3,243 sq miles of the sea floor is still covered with oil from the disaster. Oil can also be found in marshes along the coast and deposits still wash up on shore.

The unprecedented spill took place 5000 feet below the surface of the ocean, 40 miles off the Louisiana coast. It had immediate economic impacts on the fishing industry and tourism. It also took a devastating toll on wildlife. Untold thousands of birds, turtles fish and shrimp were killed in the aftermath and a range of species are being impacted to this day. Dolphins and turtles are dying in record numbers and fisheries are still being affected.

The head of the NOAA during the spill Jane Lubchenco aptly summarized events when she said, "The spill was — and continues to be — a disaster. The bottom line is that oil is nasty stuff. Yes, the Gulf is resilient, but it was hit pretty darn hard."

Related
BP's Legal Wrangling Five Years After the Gulf Oil Spill
The Toll on Wildlife from the Gulf of Mexico BP Oil Spill
BP's Gulf Oil Spill: Summary of Research Evidence Five Years Later
Supreme Court Gives BP a Lump of Coal for Christmas
Transocean to Pay $1.4 billion for its Role in the Gulf Oil Spill
The Costs of Oil: BP Liable for up to 90 Billion
Judge Declares BP is Grossly Negligent but are Fines Enough?

BP Issues Climate Warning and Calls for Carbon Pricing

One of the world's largest oil companies has stated that we have to price carbon to curtail carbon emissions.

The science is clear and there have been a vast number of warnings coming from a wide variety of sources including, AGU, IEA, IPCC, PwC, World Bank, and the World Meteorological Organization stating that our current trajectory is catastrophic. Now even those responsible for the problem are coming forward with warnings of their own.

In a February 2015 report titled, "Energy Outlook 2035," BP says that to keep carbon dioxide emissions within upper threshold limits the world must take coordinated action. 

BP's warning foreshadows demands that will be made for global emissions reductions at the forthcoming COP 21 climate talks at the end of the year in Paris. The UN and many other scientific bodies have repeatedly said that we must keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial times to avert the worst impacts of climate change.

Many people think that the only way we can curtail climate change is through some forms of carbon pricing scheme and it would appear that BP agrees. BP has warned that atmospheric levels of CO2 from burning fossil fuels are unsustainable in the absence of global pollution regulations. The BP report predicts that CO2 emissions will increase by 1pc per year, or 25pc in total, through to 2035.

"The most likely path for carbon emissions, despite current government policies and intentions, does not appear sustainable. The projections highlight the scale of the challenge facing policy makers at this year’s UN-led discussions in Paris. No single change or policy is likely to be sufficient on its own," said BP chief executive, Bob Dudley. "This underpins the importance of policy-makers taking steps that lead to a global price for carbon, which provides the right incentives for everyone to play their part."

The author of the report, BP’s new chief economist Spencer Dale also acknowledged the volatile nature of oil prices from here on in.

"After three years of high and deceptively steady oil prices, the fall of recent months is a stark reminder that the norm in energy markets is one of continuous change," said Mr Dale.

Related
BP's Legal Wrangling Five Years After the Gulf Oil Spill
The Toll on Wildlife from the Gulf of Mexico BP Oil Spill
BP's Gulf Oil Spill: Summary of Research Evidence Five Years Later
The BP Oil Spill in the Gulf Five Years Later
Supreme Court Gives BP a Lump of Coal for Christmas
Transocean to Pay $1.4 billion for its Role in the Gulf Oil Spill
The Costs of Oil: BP Liable for up to 90 Billion
Judge Declares BP is Grossly Negligent but are Fines Enough?

After a Failed Cover-up Shell Sub-Contractor Pleads Guilty

On December 11, Noble Drilling, Shell’s sub-contractor pleaded guilty to eight felony charges relating to environmental and safety violations on board the vessels Noble Discoverer and Kulluk in the Alaskan Arctic in 2012.

In addition to the offenses which include unsafe operating procedures Noble Inc. also tried to cover-up their illegal actions. According to the court ruling, Noble, “actively took steps to conceal its use of illegal [systems]”, and “knowingly made false entries” concealing problems from the authorities. Noble also admitted to illegally discharging bilge water from the Discoverer.

Noble will pay a $12.2m fine and the company has been placed on probation for four years and must upgrade all of its plans to meet safety and environmental protection requirements.

This news comes as Shell prepares to drill in the Arctic's Chukchi Sea next summer.

Shell has scrapped the Kulluk but the replacement called the Polar Pioneer may be worse as it is owned by Transocean, the same company that was behind the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The US Supreme Court recently denied BP's request to reduce its liability for the disaster.

Related
Shell Pauses its Arctic Drilling for 2013
Shell's Game with the Arctic
Shell Oil Rig Runs Aground in Alaska Raising More Safety Concerns
Video - An Oil Rig Belonging to Shell is Grounded in Alaska 
Shell's Game with the Future of the Arctic
Another Offshore Oil Leak this Time from Shell
Lawsuit Protecting the Arctic from Arctic Drilling

Supreme Court Gives BP a Lump of Coal for Christmas

The US Supreme Court has rejected BP's bid to decrease the settlement it agreed to pay to businesses and individuals. British Petroleum (BP) is well known for having produced the biggest offshore oil spill in history.

In 2010 BP's Deepwater Horizon exploded killing 11 people and spewing almost 5 million barrels of crude into the Gulf of Mexico. The environmental effects of this spill are being felt to this day.

A study published in October showed how there is a 1,235 square mile ring of coagulated oil residue on the ocean floor.

Another study published in March found that the BP oil spill has caused morphological abnormalities including heart deformities potentially leading to heart failure in several large predatory fish including Atlantic Bluefin tuna, Yellowfin tuna and Amberjacks.

Gulf area business suffered across the board but BP only wants to pay those who can prove that there is a direct link between the oil spill and their losses. On Monday December 8th, the Supreme Court refused to hear BP's argument. So far BP has paid out 2.3 billion of an estimated 9.7 billion to plantiffs. The ruling means that BP will have to pay an additional 7.4 billion to plantiffs.

This is but the latest attempt of BP to shirk its multi-billion dollar responsibility. Just a month earlier BP tried to get the courts to reduce their fines for "gross negligence" under the Clean Water Act from 18 billion to just over 12 billion.

While BP was seeking a multi-billion dollar gift this Christmas, all they got from the courts was a lump of coal.

Related Articles
The Costs of Oil: BP Liable for up to 90 Billion
Transocean to Pay $1.4 billion for its Role in the Gulf Oil Spill of 2010
Judge Declares BP is Grossly Negligent but are Fines Enough?
Infographic - BP Oil Spill 4 Years Later
Video - The Ongoing Impacts of the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico
The Cost of Oil: BP Barred from Doing Business with the US
The Costs of Oil: BP Liable for Tens of Billions
BP's Corporate Irresponsibility
Responsibility for the Costs of the Gulf Oil Spill
The Costs of Offshore Drilling
Managing the Massive Gulf Oil Spill
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy