Alaska's Climate Change: An Inuit Conundrum

Global climate change has presented Alaska with a significant socio-economic and environmental dilemma, initiating discussions which propose furthering oil-fuelled economic growth to fund damage repairs to its coastal villages caused by rising sea levels. All at the expense of inducing further climate change…

Confused? Me too, but these situations are becoming all too common as contemporary society has found itself paying for the costs of unrelenting anthropogenic domination over natural Earth.

Some say it’s a case of “balancing two conflicting pressures” – climate change versus economic growth - however when analysed in detail, social forces must be taken into consideration in the battle determining Alaska’s future (Sackur, 2013).

Home to a long-established indigenous Inuit population, Kivalina is a commonly used example of an Alaskan village whose coastline is unprotected against rising sea levels and coastal erosion as a result of retreating Arctic sea ice. With an impending population-less future by 2025, Kivalina’s residents face evacuation and the destruction of their livelihoods – due to a crisis they argue they haven’t contributed to (Sackur, 2013).

Situation of Kivalina

 Kivalina,Alaska

Governor Walker argues that drilling for oil within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will boost Alaska’s revenues and pay for the damage incurred by rising sea levels and coastal erosion (McGrath, 2015). Whilst environmentalists are criticising Walker’s proposal as too one-dimensional to solve Alaska’s problems, I can’t help but feel that blind and backward are more apt descriptions of the idea and that a more considered approach should be adopted. The solution to Alaska’s issues aren’t black and white. It is easy to condemn anthropogenic activities and argue fuel extraction is completely against global sustainability efforts, but when human wellbeing is thrown into the mix, other options must be explored before potentially life changing decisions are made.

Flip the coin over, and natives of the area in which the drilling is proposed collectively object to development and argue the importance of protecting the Porcupine Caribou Herd which - totalling at a population of 169,000 - is a significant component of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and its natural dynamism. Not to mention, an ‘important subsistence resource’ for the Gwich’in people who live there. 

Porcupine Caribou Herd

Bearing that in mind, surely Alaska faces a lose-lose situation? What’s the best scenario? Increasing climate change and sea-levels? Allowing the destruction and evacuation of an Inuit village? Or threatening the survival of the Gwich’in people and disrupting the natural dynamics of an area?

I’m glad I don’t have to make the decision.