An ice-breaking vessel hat threaded its way trough the mouth of the Columbia last Fridayis on the front line of a developing environmental war over the rush to drill for oil in the thawing high Arctic.

Arrival of the MSV Fennica in the river and at Vigor Industrial Shipyard in Portland is a potent symbol of how interconnected the Pacific Northwest is with Alaska and hydrocarbon development there. Alaska’s now-depleting North Slope has fueled oil refineries in our region. There are strong historical ties between Alaska and many industrial-support firms in our corner of the Lower 48.

Not counting long-term impacts on the climate and oceans, these relationships have been economically beneficial to companies, workers and state tax coffers. Vigor alone says it employs about 2,500 in Oregon, Washington and Alaska.

Climate-change activists vocally argue it is time to take climate impacts into account, while they and others also worry about the potential for spills and other direct damage from Royal Dutch Shell’s plan to explore for oil and gas in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea.

U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., agrees: “If we are going to address global warming, we have got to leave 80 percent of the fossil fuel reserves that we have identified in the world in the ground. We should not be opening up new areas to drilling like the Arctic.”

Former Vice President Al Gore says it is insane to permit Arctic oil development.

A story by Oregon Public Broadcasting suggests protests against the ice-breaker will have little actual effect on Shell’s plans. The company claims to be all set to commence drilling, with or without the Fennica. This may simply be gamesmanship: its dilling permits include strict safety provisions and it’s hard to see how it can do without the emergency well-capping equipment the Fennica deploys.

Partly due to America’s politically divided government, partly because of the role of corporate money in politics and partly because we simply still need and use a lot of oil, U.S. policies concerning fossil-fuel development increasingly resemble the national equivalent of multiple-personality disorder. Even President Obama, who identifies climate change as the single greatest threat to the country, stands by as we initiate new hydrocarbon exploration on federal lands.

The president is the one person in a position to make a meaningful difference in Arctic drilling. As with any decision nowadays, a move to block Shell’s project would unleash a vast ration of adverse reactions. But there is every legitimate reason to believe U.S. interests are intensely threatened by hewing to status-quo energy policies. Responsible leaders will act on this knowledge.

“Drilling in the Arctic is the height of irresponsibility,” Merkley correctly observes. We who live within sight of the slowly rising ocean ought to pay heed.