The Green Cost of The New Great Game

In 2007, James Graff wrote a cover story for TIME that looked at the new “great game” developing in the arctic. Global warming is melting the arctic ice cap, opening a scramble for control of a short passage between Asia and Europe. But now a new study has underlined how the new great game may come with a high ecological cost.
Writing in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, a U.S. and Canadian research team found that increasing Arctic ship traffic will bring with it pollution that has the potential to accelerate climate change in the region. And it’s not a greenhouse gas problem—engine exhaust particles could increase local warming by up to 78 percent, the researchers say.
The reason is that the specialist ships needed to traverse the icy arctic waters release large amounts of diesel pollution that includes black carbon, or soot. Tiny particles of carbon absorb sunlight—both directly from the sun, and from the reflection off the surface of snow and ice. That means more warming, and more ice loss.
By looking at the effect of an increase in soot and other particles on a small (5-kilometer-by-5-kilometer) area, the researchers were able to predict that shipping will accelerate climate change in the entire arctic by anywhere from 17%-78%.
The study, titled “Arctic Shipping Emissions Inventories and Future Scenarios,” called on countries to agree on the incorporation of emissions control technologies on arctic vessels such as seawater scrubbers that absorb sulfur dioxide emitted during the burning of diesel fuel.

That may not be forthcoming, however. As Graff wrote back in 2007, the race to control the North has remnants of the fight for control of central Asia 150 years ago—it is difficult to get nations to consider international agreements of any sort once they get the scent of  wealth in their nostrils. As Graff wrote, “The current interest in the Arctic is a perfect storm seeded with political opportunism, national pride, military muscle flexing, high energy prices and the arcane exigencies of international law.”

As of now, it’s not even clear who holds the claim to the northern waters. Russia planted a flag on the ocean bed of the north pole in 2007, but the U.S, Canadians, Danes and Norwegians all have competing claims. A Northwest Passage and Northeast Passage through the Arctic Ocean would provide a distance savings of about 25 percent and 50 percent, respectively, with coincident time and fuel savings, according to a press release about the study provided by the University of Delaware. It’s not just shipping at stake—a much cited USGS report from 2000 estimated that the Arctic could contain 25% of the world’s undiscovered oil reserves. Such figures underpin the frenzy surrounding the new great game. Environmentalists can only hope the game’s greatest loser won’t be the environment.

Related Topics: Arctic, great game, norhern sea passage, northwest passage, polar ice cap, Climate Science, Conservation, Uncategorized
  • Latest on Ecocentric

    Alexander Demianchuk / Reuters

    Global Warming: An Exclusive Look at James Hansen’s Scary New Math

    A new analysis by the NASA climatologist for the first time ties specific weather events to human-induced climate change

    Victor Fraile / Getty Images

    By Sea, Land and Air: Hong Kong Inventor Leads Charge in War Against Pollution

    One Hong Kong engineer puts the city’s surf and turf to work toward a cleaner future

    Paul Souders

    Can Polar Bears Keep Their Heads Above Water in a Warming World?

    Polar bears are classified as marine mammals, like a seal or a walrus, which might come as a surprise given that they’re usually pictured on land. But polar bears spend a lot of their time in the waters of the Arctic, fishing or swimming among the sea ice. They may look awkward in the water, but no creature with paws is a better swimmer.

  • http://davidnutzuki.wordpress.com mememine69

    Are WE not the new neocons when we condemn our kids to a CO2 death, just to get them to turn the lights off more often?
    Climate change has done to us what Bush did to the neocon’s reputation.
    System Change, not Climate Change.
    Environmentalism is strong, successful and progressive. Just remove the CO2 mistake from the equation and let’s all just carry on. Why does it seem like we WANT this crisis to happen? I can’t do this anymore.
    I’m liberal. I’m progressive and a New Green Denier.
    I’m ahead of the curve because this can’t continue without alienating the rest of the voters who don’t believe this “promise of unstoppable warming” to happen to the planet Earth.

  • http://davidnutzuki.wordpress.com mememine69

    Climate Change has taught us this:
    WE now have about as much respect for scientists and journalists, as we do for politicians and abusive priests. Meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 24 years of climate crisis warnings. Nice! History is watching.
    Scientists not only polluted the planet with their chemicals, they also produced cruise missiles, cancer causing chemicals, land mine technology, nuclear weapons, germ warfare, strip mining technology, deep sea drilling technology and now climate change. Are WE not the new neocons when we condemn our kids to a CO2 death, just to get them to turn the lights off more often? Climate change has done to us what Bush did to the neocon’s reputation. System Change, not Climate Change. Environmentalism is strong, successful and progressive. Just remove the CO2 mistake from the equation and let’s all just carry on. Why does it seem like we WANT this crisis to happen? I can’t do this anymore.I’m liberal. I’m progressive and a New Green Denier.
    I’m ahead of the curve because this can’t continue without alienating the rest of the voters who don’t believe this “promise of unstoppable warming” to happen to the planet Earth.

blog comments powered by Disqus