Dancing with the Devil that Brung Ya
Dear Adaptation Mavens,
I see the writing on the wall and I know that climate change is something I need be thinking about as I do my job to protect high elevation meadow species. My pikas are depressed, my lovely alpine flowers are blooming before the butterflies arrive, and the dramatic visual backdrop of immense glaciers has become a psychedelic nightmare of huge lakes of meltwater held back by nothing more than a bunch of rocks. I’ve got the information I need to make adaptation decisions but not the funds to put them into practice. I’m thinking about selling some oil and gas leases I own at lower elevations to get some money for me to do the work I need to do. Is this a good idea?
Sincerely,
Banking on a Deal that Indubitably Diminishes Effective Adaptation
Dear BAD IDEA,
First the Mavens want to commend you on not using a lack of information or data as an excuse for not knowing what to do, or not wanting to do anything. But funding, ah funding. People rarely think they have enough even without the problem of climate change.
Yes, you could make a lot of money selling oil and gas leases, and could use this money for your conservation work. You wouldn’t be alone in trying. The island nation of Palau recently contracted with a drilling company to explore for oil and gas in its waters as a way of potentially paying for adaptation needs. At first you might think, “what a fantastic a way for a country with limited resources to get funds to help deal with the effects of climate change!” But if the company finds oil and gas, it will most likely want to drill for it and then sell it to be burned to generate energy. This means more greenhouse gas emissions, which means more of the climate change problems Palau is already trying to deal to--more intense storms, more sea level rise, the whole gamut. Selling fossil fuels may give you money for adaptation, but it also means that adaptation will be more expensive and probably less effective. You would essentially be spending much of your new-found wealth to solve problems created by the process of getting that wealth.
(Photo Credit: NOAA Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment Biogeography Branch)
Of course if Palau may have a plan for dealing with climate change that doesn’t involve staying put. If it turns out they have heaps of oil and gas, and can sell those resources for $5 billion, they could build a self-sufficient artificial floating island for all 20,000 of Palau’s residents to move onto. The world’s largest cruise ship holds about 5000 people and cost $1.4 billion, so $5 billion might be enough. And think of the tourist revenue from a floating island paradise!
(Photo Credit: Royal Caribbean)
Let’s go back to your situation. Adding to the problem of climate change, which is what selling those fossil fuel resources of yours would do, could create more of a problem for your goal of protecting the flora, fauna and functionality of a high alpine ecosystem than money could solve. More warming means more upslope migration, more heat stress, maybe changes in precipitation, depending on where you are. So you could think about your own version of an escape pod, maybe a few hot air balloons and a levitating alpine island? Or you could look at your problem from a whole different perspective.
(Photo Credit: Livin’ Crazy)
Ecuador, for example, is working to get $3.6 billion in exchange for NOT drilling in the Amazon. It’s estimated that the region in question could produce $7billion in oil revenue but the government has agreed to leave it in the ground for a little more than half that. This would mean no environmental and cultural damage from oil drilling operations, no emissions from transporting and burning all that fossil fuel, and less climate change and all the effects that go along with it. Given that people are willing to pay money to plant trees or protect forests for uncertain carbon sequestration benefits, perhaps you could find people willing to pay you for the much more certain sequestration of carbon in your fossil fuel reservoirs, particularly if you link it to protecting your lovely meadows.
You could also think about how you’re using the funds you already have. Are you spending time and money on activities that increase your meadow’s vulnerability to climate change (for instance, emitting lots of greenhouse gases), or that are themselves highly vulnerable to climate change? What can you do to make those actions less vulnerable and be part of your vision to meet your goals given the reality of climate change? The Micronesian State of Kosrae did this sort of analysis on a major road project they were considering, and realized that building the road as planned (it was designed for historic rainfall rates rather than the higher current or future levels) would give them a road that was hugely expensive to maintain as well as being unusable much of the time. The government chose to seek additional funds, presumably not from oil and gas leases, and spend a bit more money up front rather than a much larger amount over time.
All of this may not bring in as much outside money as selling your oil and gas leases, but at least it won’t cost you more in the long run or doom your efforts to failure. Have a nice day, and thanks for your question!
The Adaptation Mavens
