From Foreign Affairs:
“Thanks to global warming, the Arctic icecap is rapidly melting, opening up access to massive natural resources and creating shipping shortcuts that could save billions of dollars a year. But there are currently no clear rules governing this economically and strategically vital region. Unless Washington leads the way toward a multilateral diplomatic solution, the Arctic could descend into armed conflict.”
How hot this is? Check it out:
“The shipping shortcuts of the Northern Sea Route (over Eurasia) and the Northwest Passage (over North America) would cut existing oceanic transit times by days, saving shipping companies — not to mention navies and smugglers — thousands of miles in travel. The Northern Sea Route would reduce the sailing distance between Rotterdam and Yokohama from 11,200 nautical miles — via the current route, through the Suez Canal — to only 6,500 nautical miles, a savings of more than 40 percent. Likewise, the Northwest Passage would trim a voyage from Seattle to Rotterdam by 2,000 nautical miles, making it nearly 25 percent shorter than the current route, via the Panama Canal. Taking into account canal fees, fuel costs, and other variables that determine freight rates, these shortcuts could cut the cost of a single voyage by a large container ship by as much as 20 percent — from approximately $17.5 million to $14 million — saving the shipping industry billions of dollars a year. The savings would be even greater for the megaships that are unable to fit through the Panama and Suez Canals and so currently sail around the Cape of Good Hope and Cape Horn.”
Do we take these numbers into account when computing global warming measures? That is, are we really heading into disaster or simply into a different world setup?
I also think it’s a bit funny that these issues all fall in the shoulders of the US. Why not Europe taking leadership over this? How about Japan? Is the factor here military force or economic power?
Can someone out there remind me again why we spend billions of dollars with the UN?
Via MR
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 10, 2008 at 2:29 am
Alexandre
The question is not if the world is warming, what matters is if this warming is part of a normal pattern where things would stabilize(cool down, warm up again, stabilize and then do the same dance over and over) or is there really a disturbance in the pattern which would lead to damage.
There is no proof that THIS CURRENT global warming is nothing less than a pattern that repeats itself.
Trying to tell that to those who use the issue to further their own agendas (enforce changes is lifestyle which would lead to changes in production, consumption and so on, to cope with the so called problem) is another matter.
March 10, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Me
Alexandre
To be honest this aspect of the issue (how human interferance is worsening or not the problem) is really too controversial to discuss.
I think the main point to be noted is that reverting global warming (whatever that actually means to the world) is impossible. We just can’t reduce emissions, at least not paying a huge price in life quality.
So all the focus should be on adapting and finding alternative ways to fight whatever consequences we face (rising waters, new deseases, etc). As this article shows, part of this analysis is to understand the pro facts about these changes.
March 12, 2008 at 3:19 am
Alexandre
“I think the main point to be noted is that reverting global warming (whatever that actually means to the world) is impossible. We just can’t reduce emissions, at least not paying a huge price in life quality.”
Life quality to you is life destruction to others who want to use this issue to press their own agenda and dictate on how others should live and the backbone ( the moral highground they say gives them legitimacy for this is that current global warming is not a pattern but a disfunction caused by human beings).
Hence however controversial this may seem it is of the upmost importance since the argument these people present and the remedies they perscribe allows them to dictate how you and I , your neighbor and my neighbor should live.
How to take advantage of current global warming ( such as the new paths in the artic) are to me important but secondary to educating people that these ecofreaks want to curb their freedom without providing evidence that their freedom should be curbed.
After all what is the use of new artic paths that could save millions if the people who decide which of these paths should be used, if any at all, are the same irrational idiots who believe something exists without proper proof?. Would they not ruin the opportunity of using a new enviromental reality to increase eficiency because eficiency ( let’s say they hate free trade) is not important and hence the benefits in new paths that would allow it would be blackballed , there is no honesty here, just a hollier than thou mentality.
Never compromise with fanatics. Never.
March 12, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Me
It is not a matter of compromising. It’s just the best way to avoid this political use of the issue, in my opinion at least.
September 26, 2008 at 4:36 am
O fim do mundo «
[...] de como você define o que seja o fim do mundo. Por exemplo, se você é o tipo de pessoa que acha que o aquecimento global não é um problema, ou está very heavy on drugs, então definir o que seja o fim do mundo é uma tarefa muito [...]