Ice wars heating up the Arctic

man, those oil companies can't help but make money. even when their products are killing the planet, it just makes it easier for them to drill

the worst part ? if they can tap in fast enough, and bring prices down, we'll never kick the habit. instead of the old "tiger in your tank" they should go with a "polar bear in your tank" ad campaign.

with all this money at stake, and all the military hardware being sent into the region already, make no mistake, none of these gov'ts are serious about a green economy, they are all bought and paid for on the oil companies payroll.

makes me literally sick

link

(CNN) -- On a small, floating piece of ice in the Beaufort Sea, several hundred miles north of Alaska, a group of scientists are documenting what some dub an "Arctic meltdown."

According to climate scientists, the warming of the region is shrinking the polar ice cap at an alarming rate, reducing the permafrost layer and wreaking havoc on polar bears, arctic foxes and other indigenous wildlife in the region.

What is bad for the animals, though, has been good for commerce.

The recession of the sea ice and the reduction in permafrost -- combined with advances in technology -- have allowed access to oil, mineral and natural gas deposits that were previously trapped in the ice.

The abundance of these valuable resources and the opportunity to exploit them has created a gold rush-like scramble in the high north, with fierce competition to determine which countries have the right to access the riches of the Arctic.

This competition has brought in its wake a host of naval and military activities that the Arctic hasn't seen since the end of the Cold War.

Now, one of the coldest places on Earth is heating up as nuclear submarines, Aegis-class frigates, strategic bombers and a new generation of icebreakers are resuming operations there.

Just how much oil and natural gas is under the Arctic ice?
The Arctic is home to approximately 90 billion barrels of undiscovered but recoverable oil, according to a 2008 study by the U.S. Geological Survey. And preliminary estimates are that one-third of the world's natural gas may be harbored in the Arctic ice.

But that's not all that's up for grabs. The Arctic also contains rich mineral deposits. Canada, which was not historically a diamond-producing nation, is now the third-largest diamond producer in the world.

If the global warming trend continues as many scientists project it to, it is likely that more and more resources will be discovered as the ice melts further.

Who are the countries competing for resources?
The United States, Canada, Russia, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden and Finland all stake a claim to a portion of the Arctic. These countries make up the Arctic Council, a diplomatic forum designed to mediate disputes on Arctic issues

Lawson Brigham, a professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and an Arctic expert, says "cooperation in the Arctic has never been higher."

But like the oil trapped on the Arctic sea floor, much of the activity of the Arctic Council is happening below the surface.

In secret diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks, Danish Foreign Minister Per Stieg Moeller was quoted as saying to the United States, "If you stay out, the rest of us will have more to carve up the Arctic."

At the root of Moeller's statement is a dispute over control of territories that is pitting friend against foe and against friend. Canada and the U.S., strategic allies in NATO and Afghanistan, are in a diplomatic dispute over the Northwest Passage. Canada and Russia have recently signed development agreements together.

In the same way a compass goes awry approaching the North Pole, traditional strategic alliances are impacted at the top of the world.

Who owns the rights to the resources?
Right now, the most far-reaching legal document is the U.N. Convention on Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS. All of the Arctic states are using its language to assert their claims.

The Law of the Sea was initially designed to govern issues like fishing rights, granting nations an exclusive economic zone 200 miles off their coasts. But in the undefined, changing and overlapping territory of the Arctic, the Law of the Sea becomes an imperfect guide, and there are disputes over who owns what.

One example is the Lomonosov Ridge, which Canada, Denmark and Russia all claim is within their territory, based on their cartographic interpretations.

Also complicating matters is the fact that the U.S. has never ratified the Law of the Sea. That has given other Arctic Council nations more muscle to assert territorial rights.

So what's next?
With murky international agreements and an absence of clear legal authority, countries are preaching cooperation but preparing for conflict.

There has been a flurry of new military activity reminiscent of days past.

Two U.S. nuclear-powered attack submarines, the SSN Connecticut and the SSN New Hampshire, recently finished conducting ice exercises in the Arctic. Secretary of the Navy Richard Mabus said the purpose of the recent naval exercises was "to do operational and war-fighting capabilities. Places are becoming open that have been ice-bound for literally millennia. You're going to see more and more of the world's attention pointed towards the Arctic."

Other Arctic nations are ramping up their military capabilities as well. Just this month, Russia announced that it is deploying two brigades to the Arctic, including a special forces unit. The Russian air force has recently resumed strategic bomber flights over the Pole. Canada, Denmark and Norway are also rapidly rebuilding their military presence.

But despite the buildup, almost all of the activity in the Arctic has been within the scope of normal military operations or research.

Have we seen this before?
There is a long precedent for countries using the Arctic to demonstrate military primacy.

On April 25, 1958, the world's first nuclear-powered submarine -- the USS Nautilus (SSN 571) -- began Operation Sunshine, the first undersea transpolar crossing.

Done on the heels of the Sputnik satellite launch, it was a demonstration that the U.S. could go places that its Cold War nemesis could not. For the next three decades, U.S. and Soviet submarines would continue to use the Arctic as a proving ground for military prowess.

With the end of the Cold War, that activity waned. But in 2007, a Russian expedition planted a flag on the bottom of the polar sea floor, almost 14,000 feet below the surface. This "neo-Sputnik" has brought renewed interest to the Arctic and launched a flurry of activity -- scientific, economic and military -- that is eerily parallel to the decades of tension between the superpowers.

The Cold War may be over, but the dethawing of military activity means that the frigid Arctic is once again becoming a hot spot.

And if it was your business would you just ignore it or would you try to do what businesses do and that is make more money.

It's not really the oil company's fault that their commodity is very much needed in the world you know. I'm sure if everything in the world ran off peanut butter you'd be calling peanut butter manufacturers evil and earth killers.

When oil companies continually pay off Govt. to stall alternative energy sources and inventions such as vehicles that run off water, it is their fault.

Consumers want to use alternative sources but are not getting access. Believe it or not, most people care about the planet. Oil companies and Govt. don't want to give up the golden goose. To them, the planet is nothing but a bank.

Not the oil companies fault? I have to say that this a first for that statement.

reply to post by jude11


Consumers don't want to rebuild our infrastructure at the cost of trillions of dollars to switch to alternative ways and they certainly don't want to pay 70,000 dollars for a car that runs on water.

Those numbers of course are not accurate but you get the point. Switching to an alternative form of energy will be a very long process and everyone admits this. Oil company's are already entrenched in the system so they don't need to bribe people.

Lobbying and donating money, as all corporations do, is as far as they need to go.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by jude11

 

Consumers don't want to rebuild our infrastructure at the cost of trillions of dollars to switch to alternative ways and they certainly don't want to pay 70,000 dollars for a car that runs on water.

Those numbers of course are not accurate but you get the point. Switching to an alternative form of energy will be a very long process and everyone admits this. Oil company's are already entrenched in the system so they don't need to bribe people.

Lobbying and donating money, as all corporations do, is as far as they need to go.

...

reply to post by RoyalBlue


So anybody with a different opinion is a troll huh?

How brilliant of you.

reply to post by kro32


No, just so many posts I've seen by you lately have been so anti-environment, so pro-corporation, I can clearly see what your agenda is...

reply to post by RoyalBlue


I have no agenda whatsoever but I do like to bring up the other side of the argument to get a thourough debate on an issue. There are always two sides to every issue and many times people, myself included, forget about certain things that may change the aspect of the argument.

Such as this topic. I think it's a horrible mistake to allow them to drill in the antarctic because it's an accident waiting to happen. I do not however find anything wrong with the oil companies wanting to do it because that is the business they are in.

reply to post by RoyalBlue


Blue....... Just ignore him. This is an excellent post and dosen't need our quibbling.

reply to post by kro32


Only when the last tree has died

and the last river been poisoned

and the last fish been caught

will we realise we cannot eat money!

I'll be honest, I stopped caring about these kinds of things not that long ago.
I just realized that no matter what we do (please, prove me wrong on this) we get very very little from the government. They will not change their ways unless something drastic happens (and by this I mean very very drastic) and that won't happene, so we're stuck until they mess up, or someone good gets into power (wasn't obama supposed to be good....) I feel horrible that I have to take this stance. But now, I simply don't care. I'll read this stuff and go, "Oh, that's interesting. Really sucks, but hey, we can't stop it."

I'll still keep listening and watching though, and when something good starts to happen, I'll care again. But as it is, its just a waste of my time to do anything more then listen, watch, and wait. Believe me though, if a revolution happens, I'll make sure I'm on the forefront. Even if it means risking my life, anything to make the world better!


TL;DR stopped caring, will listen and watch, waiting for the right time to act.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by jude11

 

Consumers don't want to rebuild our infrastructure at the cost of trillions of dollars to switch to alternative ways and they certainly don't want to pay 70,000 dollars for a car that runs on water.

Those numbers of course are not accurate but you get the point. Switching to an alternative form of energy will be a very long process and everyone admits this. Oil company's are already entrenched in the system so they don't need to bribe people.

Lobbying and donating money, as all corporations do, is as far as they need to go.

Wow, are you blind?

Take a step back and consider why it is so 'hard' to convert to alternative energy?

It's a bit like why it is so hard to get back into a pub after the bouncer has thrown you out. BECAUSE SOMEONE IS STANDING IN YOUR WAY AND STOPPING YOU.

reply to post by LightAssassin


Very well then back up your statement that alternative is cheaper than current usages and I will admit your correct which I have no problem doing.

Here I will start us off:

www.unenergy.org...

I have worked with Green technologies for some time in the IT market.. sadly government in the UK including councils are all talk (no matter what is now said about it, i have first hand experience of this)

i know when i was doing alot of stuff that involved local paper i was contacted by a few people from canada who were have the same struggle as me, its all a front by governments to look like they care.

I love the way people are always so certain that we (as humans) are far more advanced than we actually are...

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by LightAssassin

 

Very well then back up your statement that alternative is cheaper than current usages and I will admit your correct which I have no problem doing.

Here I will start us off:

www.unenergy.org...

You're missing the point. Why is it so expensive? Because, just like everything else, it has an inflated value put on it due to the 'demand/availability' of Alternative energy.

See what i dont get is... there are loads of people on here, they all use pc's, you have the option to use much more cost effective and greener It solutions but you dont, but you complain about the oil companies etc. and how they kill the earth....

this site can be sooo hypocritical sometimes

reply to post by LightAssassin


Did you read the link I gave. Look at start-up costs, research and maintenance all of which are higher and have nothing to do with availability. It would simply be too expensive to switch over to a new energy source for the public to get behind it in force and that has nothing to do with the oil companies holding it back.

Switching over automobiles to run on water will first of entail a complete switch over of factories to produce these cars and who's gonna pay for that? You are on the sticker price and how about setting up refueling places all across the country to replace gas stations, who's gonna pay for that?

And this list would go on and on and on. It's just not gonna happen overnight or in ten years even.

reply to post by kro32


yes, precisely, where there is a will, theres a way.

Currently, no will, no will to invest money so in the future it is a cheap alternative.

I'm kind of going the long way about it, but do you understand what I am saying?

I agree that the future will be alternative energy but for now we will have to rely on what we currently use.

I will also agree that there is not the work being done do get us ready for when we do eventually have to start switching over and without that work/research it will be quite costly later. If we started developing the marketable technology's now that can be mass produced in the future the transition would be quite a bit easier but our government is dragging their heels.

I still don't like the idea of anyone touching the arctic especially people that can cause such disasters but I have no problem with oil companies themselves. Somebody will always be getting rich and wield tremendous influence no matter what is powering the country.