Global warming in the Arctic: A concern or opportunity?
Growing up in a small beach town on Lake Erie in the late 1970s and early 1980s, we participated in many winter activities on the frozen lake, including ice fishing, skating and exploring ice caves. Since then, mainly in the last 20 years, there has been less and less ice coverage on all the Great Lakes, resulting in few to no opportunities to safely navigate on the ice, and even a complete absence of ice.
New Englanders can relate to these types of environmental concerns since they are also reminded constantly of the effects of climate change on their own shorelines. Stronger storms, flooding, power outages, and even the loss of shoreline property, have become a reality for many New Englanders.
Global warming in the Arctic has been an accelerated trend in the last couple of decades, with an approximate reduction of Arctic ice the size of Lake Superior per year. This has opened up new sea routes, such as the Northern Sea Route, which were not possible just a few decades ago. A fleet of ice breakers from Russia continues to be the primary solution to open up the Arctic route for ship travel, and, in parallel, the opportunity to navigate routes north of Russia continues to expand each year, with an increase in the number of days per year that contain less compacted ice fields.
Arctic routes offer the potential for faster transport, reduced carbon emissions, and avoidance of bottlenecks and risks at core ports such as the Suez Canal. Countries such as China and Russia have invested heavily in the development of the Northern Sea Route, with China investing $90 billion in Arctic energy and mineral projects over the past decade. Trade between the two countries using the route was projected to surpass $200 billion in 2023.
The use of Arctic Sea routes presents both opportunity and concerns. It offers the potential for faster and more efficient global trade and transport. On the other hand, it poses significant environmental risks and challenges. Some countries and companies have pledged not to use the Arctic Sea routes to protect the environment, while others see it as an opportunity to take advantage of the situation. Two groups of companies stand out in the pledge: fashion related groups (Nike and H&M), and ocean carriers (Evergreen Line). Are the pledges of the companies sincere or an easy way to show moral superiority without any tangible responsible investments required?
There are also significant environmental and logistical challenges to consider, such as the impact of increased sea traffic, the threat of invasive species and the potential for ship breakdowns or oil spills in the Arctic region.
Geopolitical factors, including tensions, sanctions and perceptions of militarization along Russia’s northern coast, coupled with Russian policies and priorities (including the availability of sufficient icebreaker capacity), further diminish the attractiveness of the Northern Sea Route currently. An effective and predictable administrative and management system with acceptable fees (outside of Russian control) may facilitate the opening of the route to international trade.
Climate change already has a global effect. Warming oceans and reduced ice caps are an ongoing concern, but the ability to minimize the shipment of goods over long distances (reducing carbon footprint) should not be discarded. Anyone who lives near the Great Lakes, New England, or any body of water can relate to the importance of preserving the environment now and to ensuring future generations can experience the same connections and benefits of protecting Mother Nature.
Now is the time to act to ensure the Arctic Northern Sea Route is managed responsibly while reducing transit time, environmental impacts and improving global commerce.