Nuclear and Nimrods

To stand on the shore and look at the ocean, you would think that it simply goes on forever. And, as far as our eyes can see, it does. It is a blank canvas, an open stretch of nothing and everything that both begins and ends with where we stand right now. But, as rational and scientific human beings, we know that this is not the case: continents, islands and large sea ice floes are scattered throughout, although they are not visible from where we stand. But what if our perception was, to an extent, true? What if we could stand on the northern shore of Russia, look directly ahead, and know that it is a simple straight shot to North America? What if there was nothing that stood in our way? Some scientists predict that there will be NO sea ice remaining by the summer of 2030, making this a very real and very imminent possibility. 

And, so far, the Russians haven’t wasted any time capitalizing on this new development. With huge oil and gas resources waiting just off their shores, floating nuclear power plants have already been built to power the oil and gas expeditions. The lack of ice has opened up numerous possibilities for the Russians, not only in terms of drilling for oil but also for transporting it to “energy-hungry” economic superpowers such as China. 

The opening of the ice will make it easier for the Russians to transport fuel, but it is important to remember WHY this is possible. Global warming, and the effect that it has had on the Arctic environment, has ultimately led to this new economic opportunity. Ironically, a direct cause of global warming is the burning and usage of fossil fuels. If this plan goes ahead, the Russians will both make and break their fortune in one swift blow--they will be able to transport and drill for fuel, but, in doing so, they will be destroying the environment further. 

And while we’re worrying about the environment, lets not forget about the nuclear power stations needed to power these exploits. While Russian scientists say they can “guarantee the safety of [their] units one hundred per cent,” it is easy, and perhaps necessary, to be slightly skeptical of their claims. This is coming from the home of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, one of the worst nuclear power plant disasters in history, and one can only imagine the effects of a similar disaster on an already fragile and deteriorating Arctic environment.

Along with the potential danger to the marine life and their habitat, there is also the human aspect to consider. If a nuclear power plant was to explode (“unlikely," according to the Russians), wouldn’t it explode right above the oil and gas reserves that are being exploited? Wouldn’t this already disastrous explosion be magnified many times over just by the presence of such a flammable and dangerous substance? And what about the people who must be present to operate these machines? The risks associated with working in a nuclear power plant are already numerous--adding oil and gas to the mix would only amplify them!

In a world driven by money, money, and the potential for more money, I don’t find it surprising that the Russians are eager to capitalize on this opportunity. Luckily, they have met some resistance--although not in terms of environmental protection. Instead, the battle has begun over which country has legal rights to the oil and gas reserves! We can only hope that this conflict continues long enough for someone (anyone!) to stand up and question this endeavor, in an effort to protect and prolong the life of the Arctic habitat.

Pakistani Perplexity

For me, the debate is not SHOULD we help; that is a given. Instead, I wonder to what extent help should be given to countries in need. On one hand, I think it is important for countries to be able to support themselves based on the resources available to them. However, the ability of countries to do so usually depends on the competency of governments, as well as the amount and type of resources available to each country. A less developed country like Pakistan may already be experiencing economic disadvantages, and this unavoidable disaster has only added to its problems. 

However, it is important to note that the rest of the world is also experiencing economic crisis; people are (somewhat selfishly) holding onto money to fund their own families. We are all world citizens and members of the global community, and yet we feel as though we must take care of ourselves before we can take care of others. And to add to this conundrum, the global community is experiencing further economic uncertainty. We still do not know when the economic crises will be alleviated, and so society feels as though money needs to be conserved and saved for the future--no unnecessary expenses (although I’m sure that the Pakistani people would certainly disagree!).

Despite the many varying excuses for NOT giving, I feel like there are so many more important reasons to aid in Pakistan’s recovery. Regardless of race, language, and religion, these people are experiencing hardship which we cannot imagine, not even in our nightmares. We live in a beautiful, prosperous and generally forgiving country, but we need to learn how to be global citizens instead of just members of the local community. Global support will not only help to provide for Pakistan; it will also contribute to the wellbeing of the global community as a whole, socially, culturally and economically. If one country struggles, we all face the consequences as an interconnected and co-dependent community. And who are we to say that we cannot help another country because we are too busy helping ourselves? There is no reason why, in a few years, we could not be in Pakistan’s position, with a natural disaster threatening everything that we have built and worked towards. Our selfishness will not be able to save us then. Only by creating and nurturing friendly ties with our global community can we ensure our own survival through the good times as well as the bad. As the Beatles so famously said, “I get by with a little help from my friends.” 

After considering this, I truly think that we must learn to give up some of our own comfort and luxury to help Pakistan. I do not think that it is solely the job of the global community to restore Pakistan’s former standard of living; the local government must be responsible for some of the re-building. However, without input from Canadians and other world citizens with the monetary means to help, Pakistan (nor any other disaster-plagued country) will ever be able to recover.