The Arctic Puzzle
Roger Howard, Author | September 7, 2009
The so-called Arctic 5 of Russia, US, Canada, Norway and Denmark are set for conflict over ownership of land around the North Pole increasingly revealed due to climate change. ++ “Countries are…deeply aware that an ice-free Arctic Ocean would have all sorts of important, even alarming, strategic repercussions” opening up new fronts for attack and more accessible resources. ++ Although each state contends each others claims “international tension involving Russia [in particular] could easily spill over into outright confrontation.”
Tags: | Arctic |
Wed, Sep 9th 2009, 20:40
Philip H Tuson, NYU MSGA, Bronze Contributor (14)
But as this article suggests, the costs of exploiting potential sources of energy resources are so huge that one could argue that the money might be better ivested domestically, or even better into a pooled investment fund internationally, to develop alternative technologies to deliver the energy needs of the world's population. We seem to have become obsessed with oil and gas and cannot deviate from this obessision with its extraction. If you look at Russia as an example, it has developed an economy that is so overwhelmingly dependent on gas exports, and at high prices, that this obsession is easier to understand. The alternative is virtual economic collapse. Governments will undoubtedly begin to pursue fear-mongering propoganda to justify any action taken on the defense and exploitation of these resources.
If conflict is the only inevitable outcome, as this article seems to suggest, then I have to disagree. The cost of conflict, when added to the cost of extraction, makes the exploitation of the Arctic basin even more improbable and potentially at the cost of bankrupting the country. Energy independence would be achieved at the potential cost of financial independence, which would then come with all manner of clauses and clawbacks to the lending countries. The very image of the Danish or Canadian navies advancing on Russian positions or incursions towards the Russian shorelines seems preposterous. If Russia were to act with hostility to grab a larger slice of the territories, then it too risks losing much as the competing powers could unite under an alliance to stave off the threat.
The countries that invest in alternative energies and do not need to get drawn into protracted disputes with the risk of war will be in an enviably stonger position. If no-one wants to buy Russian gas, as alternatives existed, then the need to excavate these resources also dimishes...
Philip Tuson
New York University