Last summer, one million square miles of Arctic Ocean melted. The Arctic icecap is half the size that it was 50 years ago. The Northwest Passage is now a reality, and territory and resource claims are starting to show up at the United Nations. While the UN has rejected all Arctic claims, things are heating up in the north in more ways than one. Russian iceabreakers, submarines, and bombers are lingering around. Canadian icebreakers have joined them. Ironically (and uncharacteristically), the US is on the sidelines of this new, emerging arms race for Arctic resources and shipping shortcuts. Guess how many US icebreakers are included in our $440 million annual defense budget? Uno. In Foreign Affairs this month, Scott Borgerson argues that if the US does not take a leadership role in the Arctic melt, armed conflict is on the horizon. Scary Shifting Baselines...
Actually, American media coverage of the �Northwest Passage� issue has been pretty abysmal.
Since 1905, according to the BBC, about 110 boats have been through the Northwest Passage (four of them in 2007). Thirty of the 110 were recreational boats.
The Northwest Passage was successfully navigated in 1906, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1944, 1957, 1969, 1977, 1984, 1988, and 2000 (and probably in other years as well).
"...if the US does not take a leadership role in the Arctic melt, armed conflict is on the horizon."
That comment can be read in so many ways. Judging by carbon dioxide releases, the US has had the leadership role for a long time. And US presence would decrease the risk of an armed conflict? Yes, definitely. See Iraq.
Europe will get more active, but the main interest isn't natural resources. The NW passage is a shortcut to Japan and China. It even avoids the tolls at Panama Canal, because there are no locks. Both EU and US have already claimed that the passage is international, not Canadian. Expect China and Japan to chime in.
I agree with you Lassi: Given Iraq and history, it is questionable to think that the US would automatically decrease the risk of armed conflict. Nonetheless, I found the article in Foreign Affairs an interesting one. Sounds like the Arctic will be an interesting place politically over the next decade - no doubt about that one.
I agree with the seriousness of what you've written here, Josh, however, in the interest of precise use of language, would it be possible when using the term "arctic ice cap" to specify either the permanent sea ice of the Arctic Ocean or the Greenland Ice Sheet? In this case I think you are referring to the permanent sea ice.
The Greenland Ice Sheet is more in keeping with the definition of an Ice Cap as a dome or sheet of geologic scale, covering extensive areas of land as we also find covering continental Antarctica and as we have had for the majority of the last almost 2 million years covering northern North America. These land-covering formations average well over a 2 kilometers in thickness. The permanent sea ice is not insignificant but is measured in meters. This doesn't lessens the importance of its recent decline in coverage and I don't wish to make it seem trivial but the arguments for taking action to counter human impacts on the envirionment need to be precise in order to be unassailable as well as persuasive in overcoming resistance to accepting scientific fact. Thanks.