In this essay, Tom Kizzia says, "Few Americans are as bound to the natural world as the whale hunters of the Arctic, or as keenly affected by the warming atmosphere... yet few Americans are so immediately dependent on the continued expansion of the fossil-fuel economy that science says is causing the change."
Is there an moral question to address here? Isn't this just the natural cycle of evolution (one species overpowers the next)? How do we reconcile the dependence on oil with the vast changes in the Arctic way of life that Kizzia raises? Also, feel free to bring up any other points you found interesting.
Write your response in a comment to this page.
James W.
Through Tom Kizzia’s paper “The New Harpoon,” he describes the changing way of life of the north slope of Alaska. How changing climate is affecting the Inupiaq way of life, and the struggle that community went through, on allowing oil drilling out in the arctic ocean. The leaders of these communities act as the voice for the Inupiaq. These leaders should of asked themselves the moral question. Can I really say I have the best interests of my community in mind, when I am also the head of a business, whose success will come from acting against that interest? This seams to me as a perfect example of a conflict of interest. Prominent whaling captains become leaders in business, including the ASRC. They are in these positions because of the respect given to them by the community, to protect their interests and their way of live. While on the other hand they are the head of a business, whose success might move them to decision in exactly the opposite direction.
The conflict that is faced by the community is somewhat a damned if you do, damned if you don’t. As the ice recedes, and as they become accustomed to a better quality of life, they need the money brought in by the oil companies to continue their way of life. As they said, it takes a lot of money to keep the communities on the North Slope running. Money from oil will make it easier to continue living the way the Inupiaq have been living for generations. The risk that comes with this, is the possibility of the same oil spilling into the ocean; effectively destroying the hunting grounds they need so badly. They argue that inevitability a spill will happen; that the normal recovery effort wont be a possibility in the arctic ocean. Meaning any spill that may happen will last for a long time, and have a particularly long lasting effect on the region. The problem these communities had to solve was which was worse, or perhaps, which one was more pressing. Being so set on preventing the oil companies from their drilling to protect their heritage and way of life, may also inevitably bring its destruction. In the end, Shell oil made the decision for them by deciding not to begin work there.
Ryan Hoskins-Chaddon
You’ve noticed something powerful in the opening of your paper. I think you’re right; there is an unreasonably large conflict of interest with the whaling captains in influential position in ASRC. The reason why they are in those positions, namely their sense of duty and loyalty, is precisely why they shouldn’t hold them. They will eventually hold their loyalty to the company over a smaller community’s interests if it benefits that company and other communities fiscally. And that’s the real problem, people in their situation begin to only see the dollar benefit even when they have the best of intentions. However, I do think, as much as I can without living there, that the positions are well deserved.
As for whether their dependence on oil is or is not a good thing, I can’t really say. I can say that if they really want to preserve their way of life then they need to find ways of being less and less dependent on the industry. Otherwise they’ll be changing it at a very fast pace determined by ASRC. The solution could be as ideally simple as changing the direction of the ASRC to support more sustainable energy sources which would bring in companies to provide it. That’ll require land which can be taxed and that’s really what the area wants from what I understand. Their solution can also be realized by drilling much further away or by drilling on land, though then they’ll soon face the same sort of predicament that they are in now.
Great post, It got me thinking about a few facets of the essay that I may have overlooked. Thanks.
Ryan Hoskins-Chaddon
The ever-changing lifestyle of the peoples of the north slope in Alaska has never been an easy one. Dependence on subsistence hunting and harsh weather is enough to send anybody running, but they take pride in their life and customs. Something has began to change, however, and has been changing since 1848 when the first oil-boom occurred. This wasn’t the oil boom that we think of today, it was a rush of “yankee†whalers destroying the sperm whale and bowhead whale populations that the inupiaq people needed. Hunger swept in and many people died as a result of hunger (pg 80).
The Inupiaq has always had a strained relationship with industry. Tom Kizzia’s essay seeks to express the struggle that they have been steadfastly trying to both embrace and keep at bay. Modern innovations in energy and technology have undoubtedly assisted them, especially in giving them options that increased the efficiency of the necessities of their way of life. Oil heaters to warm their houses, metal boats and ATVs to more quickly and safely reach their destination, and electricity to power their electronics. Such changes, however, come with a price.
With their, and our, dependence on oil, the climate is changing all over the world but is far more obvious in it’s degree and effect in the arctic of the north slope. Point Hope, the village that Kizzia’s essay surrounds, and the rest of the arctic are already seeing a three degree average temperature increase which is twice that of the locales below the arctic circle (pg 80). It’s doesn’t look like the oil production there doesn’t seem to be effected by it, though. Many oil companies are still trying to drill in the areas that the inupiaq call home which brings dangers to their life that can’t be ignored.
Not including the many effects of climate change, offshore oil drills can do irreparable harm to Point Hope’s way of life. The noise alone can easily deter the whales that the people depend on from going anywhere near the diminishing hunting grounds. Add it to the risk of an oil spill and Point hope just can’t survive without the necessary infrastructure that larger communities like Anchorage and Fairbanks have. Still, though, ASRC, a prominent business that started out in support services for oil fields, supports the oil companies, Shell in this specific case, in their attempts to drill (pg. 83).
The people of Point Hope have been put in a difficult place. They can support the oil, and reasonably so, because their entire community is reliant on the industry now and risk losing their way of life from moving whale migrations, oil spills, and other troubles that come with the industrialization of an area. On the other hand, they can oppose it and likely find themselves forced out because oil is not there to keep them warm and running, especially now that the permafrost is melting and animals are more and more scarce every year.
The writing in this essay, in my opinion, was very jumpy. Kizzia didn’t seem to know if he wanted to be writing in the past or the present. I think his essay could have been stronger and his point of Point Hope’s damaging history with changing industry more easily discernible if he had started with Oomittuk’s hunt, went to the beginning of the oil industry in the north slope and proceeded to the current day’s issues.
James W.
You provide us with two main decisions that the Inupiaq people have. Either working with the oil industry and losing their whale hunting grounds; or going against the oil industry and losing the money that provides them with the daily quality of life they have grown used to. However, I think there is a third option, much less exciting, and just as likely to doom their way of life. It is possible that the Inupiaq people refuse to work with the oil industry, and also let go of their modern way of life. Their people have lived in the arctic for more than 200 years without many of the things modern living is dependent on. By pairing down their lives, and moving back to a more historic way of living, I believe that they could survive without terrible change.
This would bring a different type of degradation to their society tho. One where the younger generation would not stay in the community. Throughout the world the younger generations of people living in “difficult” situations move away from home to more urbanized technological places. It has been happening to Midwest farming communities. or Amish communities in the north east for quite some time. This would most likely would cause the community to die, but in a much slower, less dramatic fashion.
Scott Chaddon Jr
“The Inupiat, [Jacob Adams] argued, did not want to go back to hauling lake ice for drinking water, cutting up walrus for dog food, waking up in houses at 25 below zero: ‘We’ve created, in the past 40 years, an infrastructure that our children are enjoying now. So will our grandchildren.’ (p.85)â€
The moral question is, should the government and companies, who dealt with and negotiated with the Inupiats, who helped increase their reliance on the American economy in exchange for oil, should they support these tribes once the oil is gone or when it becomes worthless? It seems to me, that this comparable to a divorce settlement. It’s not unheard of in the U.S. for one ex-spouse to demand that the other pay money to help ‘uphold a standard of life of which I’ve grown accustomed.’ If that is allowed for individuals, it should be so for other contractual agreements and reliance.
The only other thing to do would be to leave them abandoned and forgotten. They would hopefully adapt to the changing environments. They have a good chance, considering how much of their culture still survives. Their survival would not be guaranteed, however, and their people could very possibly end up victims of the natural order.
Those of us who have almost no connection to the natural world don’t often give a thought to these outlying villages. They aren’t apart of our lives. Their culture isn’t ours. I can only imagine what it must be like watching the world of your ancestors literally melting away, all while trying to keep the village as a single mind (paaqlaktautainniq), while those you deal with are bringing conflict and ideas of the self over others.
I think the greatest danger to their culture is the luxury that has been brought them, as well as the cost of that luxury. Once a luxury becomes commonplace and expected, it becomes almost needed. Similar to how we view the internet. It was a luxury, and now is practically a necessity for western living. The oil for them is like our internet. While they haven’t lost much of their culture because of it, the eventual loss will most likely cause many an issue in their communities. At the same time, however, I’m sure that they will adapt, in one way or another. After all, we’re human. Adaptation is our superpower.
Manny C
This was the most enjoyable response to read yet. Comparing the Inupiat and oil industry to the contractual guidelines of a divorce made great sense. It would be a shame for these companies to leave them out in the cold when so much of their modern culture has come to rely upon it. I also agree with danger of luxury you expressed, and how that luxury can quickly become a need. While the internet has not always been a need, I believe the world would recall how to carry on without it if necessary. I believe the same would be true of the Inupiat if the oil industry faded away.
Kimberly Ulery
I agree with much of what was said in this statement. Good questions were brought up, like whether or not the government should continue to support a community that relies on them and their money, when all said revenue is gone. The money brought in is certainly a luxury and doesn’t come without a cost; so should the government be responsible for paying their keep when/if they’ve destroyed land and culture, traditions? It’s going to be an interesting battle when the oil runs out.
Manny C
The moral question that needs to be addressed is how far the Inupiat will allow their lands to be used for oil exploration in return for the financial security they have come to rely on? The increase of oil production benefits the budget of these small far-north communities, but at the expense of waning sea ice and diminishing vital resources. With biologists still studying the effects of climate change, there is no certainty that the Inupiat way of life will soon be obsolete. If this were the case, I think there would be a more collective and urgent voice in coming to terms with the modern changes, focusing on adapting their way of life. But as activist Caroline Cannon states in Kizzia’s essay,
“It feels as if the government and industry want us to forget who we are…as if they hope we will either give up or die fighting. We are not giving up. (Kizzia, 82)
In a culture and land so immediately effected by man and nature, both necessitate respect in order for both to survive. This balance can be seen by Kizzia’s observation of whaling captains on the North Slope:
“In general the captains embraced the opportunities of the oil age — as long as the oil was drilled on land, away from the marine hunting grounds.” (Kizzia, 82)
If the Inupiat can find common ground with the oil industry, set clear boundaries, minimize environmental impact, and put the needs of the villages first, I believe their will to adapt and survive will be capable of handling the imminent changes of life up North.
Scott Chaddon Jr
Your moral question definitely is thought-provoking. On one hand, they could deny the oil companies any further territory and lose their local funding for modern luxuries, on the other, they could give the oil companies full reign and gain the funding to have their communities become fully ‘modernized.’ It’s obvious that the people spoken to in the article don’t want to go fully one way or the other, but also staying in the middle doesn’t quite work either as they are being forced to lean one way or the other as Alaskan oil resources are depleted.
I feel either way they would be alright, though if they had to choose an extreme, I feel it would be better for them to go back to their traditional living, as the oil would eventually run out and the companies would leave them abandoned.
Ruby
Your moral question is very relevant and makes clear sense with the essay.
I can’t help but question the seemingly happy medium you’re trying to reach. I found much of the climate change effects on the animals to be a global problem rather than simply an Arctic land problem. Sharing the land for oil industrialization isn’t leading the way for climate change, the carbon emission(from fossil fuels) as described in the Paris conference discussed on page 79 seem to be leading to loss in natural subsistence prospects. How I see it is that perhaps the demand for oil needs to be lowered and then the environmental resources could be protected both from direct drilling and the natural wildlife.
Thanks for your response, it was very thought-provoking with excellent quotations to refer to in the text.
Chelsea Barnett
“The Inupiat…did not want to go back to hauling lake ice for drinking water, cutting up walrus for dog food, waking up in houses at 25 below zero†‘We’ve created… an infrastructure that our children are enjoying now. So will our grandchildren.†(pg. 85)
This quote from the essay really stood out to me because I think that it shows the long-term impacts that the oil industry has had on people living in Arctic Alaska and how quickly the oil industry has changed life for people. I also like this quote because it shows the dependence and daily-life impacts that the oil industry has had in this region of Alaska. I think that this quote is important because it highlights the feeling that not everything the oil industry is has done is bad and that there are some positive aspects of the impacts of the oil industry that improve people’s lives. I am studying Natural Resource Management and that has given me the perspective to understand that humans are a part of the Arctic ecosystem and that their quality of life is an important aspect to consider.
I think that the moral question is at what point do the consequences of oil exploitation outweigh the benefits that people get to enjoy, and who will be responsible for the negative environmental impacts in this area as well as how will those negative impacts be reconciled? As Kizzia points out, people living in the Arctic are those who are most dependent on oil as well as most affected by climate change. These people are getting immediate benefits but wil also be the ones to suffer the long term negative environmental impacts. It is very easy to accept the short term economic benefits of oil without recognizing the seriousness or intensity of the long-term impacts. This makes this moral question so difficult because we don’t have a completely clear picture of what the consequences for oil exploitation will be.
I think that climate change is a very hard issue to address because we cannot ignore the economic needs of people and because climate change can seem to be a very abstract concept. Climate change happens slowly over time making it hard to see and can lead to us realizing it’s a problem after it is too far gone to fix anything. Climate change can be compared to a fence. If every day you drive by the same fence and every day it is painted slightly darker, you will not realize that the color of the fence is changing over the years. Even though the fence started out a baby blue and is now a dark navy it may seem to you that the color of the fence is just the color that its always been. Without stepping out and looking at the larger picture, climate change can seem normal when it is really not.
Ruby
I thought it was interesting how much of this essay was detailing the effects of climate change on the natural wildlife. There are details about 131, mostly young, walrus carcasses found trampled on a beach in Barrow. Due to early melting of ice the females have been forced to bring their young onto the shores where they are frightened easily leading to deaths in such numbers. Killer whales, which are usually deterred by ice, are finding it easier to reach young bowheads with the melting ice. Guillemot population declining from stranded polar bears ravaging their nesting ground and early migration of the arctic cod usually used to feed their young. What is most interesting about these points is that population decrease of these animals seems to occur most rapidly from the changes in climate and instead of taking steps to manage climate change steps to manage the population through hunting limitations are being set; “A compromise was reached, eventually allowing Alaska’s villages a maximum of 67 whale strikes a year.” It seems to me that this is only a temporary solution because as the effects of climate change damage more of the natural wildlife’s natural balances the animal numbers will decrease causing an increase in the limitations set on Alaska Native’s hunting. Which is counter productive.
“The Inupiat,[John Adams argued], did not want to go back to hauling lake ice for drinking water, cutting up walrus for dog food, waking up in houses at 25 below zero: ‘We’ve created, in the past 40 years, an infrastructure that our children are enjoying now. So will our grandchildren.” To me, I see an overindulgence of westernization. There is a fight to preserve the way of life created using fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are nonrenewable resources, whereas the culture of the Inupiat have proven prosperous for many years. Their culture has a deep and rich history that, if fought for, can stand across future generations. The moral question from this essay is whether these indigenous peoples will sacrifice their culture, land, and the wildlife along with it for the conveniences of fossil fuel funding? I personally find no reconciliation between the dependence on oil and the changing way of life in the Arctic. Since the dependence is not only with the peoples of the Arctic it will be hard to make any major changes in the way of life in the Arctic. The way I see it is that the native people could give up the luxuries provided through the oil companies through the native councils and corporations and still the natural wildlife would suffer due to the uses and dependencies of the rest of the globe. I think an important aspect of this essay was mention of the Paris conference under the Obama administration to hold the average global increase in temperature to less than two degrees Celsius. I think this shows that this isn’t just an Arctic problem, though it is affected at a faster rate warming twice the rate of the lower latitudes. As a whole we need to take responsibility for our carbon footprint and find reliable renewable resources since the oil will not always be there but nature, our environment, always will be. It is important to do what we can for its preservation; for the people of the Arctic if that means losing the amenities from the oil industries then perhaps they should consider that, they has prospered this long through their cultural heritage ways the work is well worth it and perhaps more meaningful to us a whole.
Chelsea Barnett
I used the same quote as you did and I think that the quote definitely communicates the dependence people have on the oil industry. I think that your moral question is very thought provoking but it should also be taken into account the needs of people and where the balance is between maintaining subsistence hunting and the benefits of the oil industry.
I agree with you also that this is a larger issue than just in the Arctic and that it is not completely up to indigenous people of the Arctic to make these big differences. The reality is that when indigenous groups and big oil companies face off, most of the time oil companies end up on top. I think that it is the responsibility of the government to help protect indigenous culture and way of life as well as protecting the environment from unreconcilable exploitation.
Kimberly Ulery
Depending on the land, but also depending on the money is seen when reading The New Harpoon. “”Point Hope’s village corporation, Tikigaq, was in on the deal. It brought in a professional facilitator for a “visioning” session with leader of the tribe and the city, and all agreed that without money from offshore oil, their community had no clear path forward.(Pg 86)” Altogether though, I don’t believe this is necessarily wrong. While Point Hope and other communities in the north want to continue their way of lifestyle, living off of the land, to this day it’s just becoming unpractical. This day and age relies on food coming in from outside sources, and many of the ways of life that provided food throughout the winters, have gotten lost. I have not seen a household in my entire life, living exclusively off of the land. To this day, money and commerce are what run our lives, and this is true for the north slope as well. However, this does not mean that a large part of their life and livelihood does not still depend on the land. “Villages in Alaska’s Arctic consume nearly 450 pounds of wild game and fish per person each year, according to a recent study. ‘Without the animals, we wouldn’t be who we are,” Oomittuk said.(Pg 79)”
Many of the whaling captains are also ASRC’s top officials. This is not coincidental, and I believe it falls this way because they can see both sides of the spectrum very well, with the money that needs to come in, as well as the culture that needs to be preserved. It can come across as controversial, and possibly a conflict of interest, having ASRC’s top officials be whaling captains, but I do believe it helps to preserve the importance of whaling to the villages whom rely on it.
Justin Baugh
I think that what you are saying is very true and very important to remember when talking about nature versus modernization of the world. We need to preserve the past but we also have become accustomed to the way of life that we have been living for the past couple of years.
Justin Baugh
In this article, it talks about how global warming is hurting the subsistence way of life that most native villages still have. We still have to think about how the advancement that the oil drilling in the Arctic has provided. This article is trying to make you feel sad and guilty about causing the destruction to the way of life of the native and the destruction of their land that they have lived off of for centuries. With the invention of fossil fuels and the emissions that fuels put off. We are facing a moral question, for the ASRC chair members, whether to preserve the way of life of traditional native life or keep pursuing modern advancement. But we cannot reconcile the dependence on oil in the Arctic, we can though try and find new resources to replace the depenndancy
Moira O'Bryant
This was a really interesting essay for me to read. I am new to Alaska and, admittedly, ignorant when it comes to most of the topics addressed in this weeks reading. Growing up in San Francisco, these have never been issues that I’ve had to consider. In my bubble of the world, the main concern of climate change was preserving cute polar bears. Hunting was thought to be cruel, and hunting whales was a special kind of evil. Moving here has caused me to reconsider many of my former beliefs.
It seems to me that the dilemma is not so much a moral issue, but a willingness to adapt. The villages in the North Slope recognize that the oil industry has provided them the privileges of a modern and technologically advanced life style. Although the demands of this new infrastructure may create unwanted cultural change, it is not the only force behind it. Climate change is forcing a new way of life for people all around the world. Unfortunately, we must all adapt and sometimes that means old traditions must die out.
Jasmine Reich
I am from Barrow, and currently live in Barrow, so this essay was extremely interesting Because it does not seem to be exaggerated or falsified. Oil has benefitted the economy of the north slope, and Alaska in general, tremendously, but Alaska Natives are also extremely dependent on the land and the food it provides, as Kizzia stated. A paragraph that stood out to me because it ‘hit the nail on the head’ was when Kizzia said, “Few Americans are as bound to the natural world as the whale hunters of the arctic, or as keenly affected by the warming atmosphere. Yet few Americans are so immediately dependent on the continued expansion of the fossil fuel economy that science says is causing the change…Point Hope today is a grid of small but comfortable homes laid out around a new school and a diesel-fired power plant–everything provided by a regional municipality with 8,000 permanent residents and an annual budget of $400 million. Oil drilling in the arctic has paid for nearly all of it…”
There is a moral question to address here. It sounds like a lot of the Alaska Native Federations, such as ASRC, started negotiating with oil companies rather than fighting them, but what was the real reason? Did they realize how much money they, and their communities, would see coming in if they negotiated, or did they really feel like they couldn’t win so they sought to negotiate with them and find a peaceful way to preserve their lands. However, when Oomittuk shares the stories of his childhood and the numbers of people who died of starvation, how could this group of people, who have already been through so much trauma at the hands of others, want to risk going back to these conditions? This could be a generation of Alaska Native Leaders securing the well-being of the generations to come after their people as a whole have been through so much already. Right now, the generation of ASRC Shareholders that I grew up with, has received ASRC dividends their entire life. It would be a hard adjustment if local Alaska Native Leaders were to quit negotiating with Shell and other oil companies and prohibit drilling. But I think importance now should be placed on preserving the untouched Alaska land that these companies, AND the US Government, want to explore, such as ANWR Coastal Plains. I understand and respect the decision of Alaska Federations thus far; I believe they were simply looking after their people. But it’s essential to the land and the people who live off of it to preserve the rest of it.
Marissa King
We reconcile the dependence on oil by changing to the way of life. The ice cap has been shrinking drastically over the years because temperatures have risen due to global warming. Climate change is due mostly to the burning of fossil fuels which melts the Arctic ice.This makes it easier for oil companies to produce more oil for us but this warms the climate even more causing a positive feedback cycle. I agree though that climate change is hard to address because we wouldn’t be able to live without these main things.