When thinking of climate change policy in the Arctic, some may conjure up images of melting glaciers and starving polar bears. However, the warming of the Poles will have an effect on the geopolitics in the region and relations on a global scale.
For example, Canada now has the potential to explore new trading routes for longer periods of time. The Northwest Passage, which runs between Canada and Greenland, has opened up dramatically.
The old saying of Iceland is green and Greenland is icy is also changing. While a cooler Greenland may have driven out the Vikings, a warmer Greenland is resulting in another societal shift. A longer grass-growing season each year paves the way for extended agriculture, and commercial fisheries are expending a larger cod and halibut catch. The tourism industry is growing more robust with longer seasons and better hunting conditions.
More importantly, however, the discovery of oil off the coast of Greenland, and easier exploration due to climate change, eases an independence from Denmark.
Laurence Smith professor of geography and climate change at UCLA recently wrote a book on this topic, The World in 2050. In an interview with Foreign Policy, he explains that Greenland’s possible future independence, partially attributed to climate change, may even change the dynamic of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
RFF’s Alan Krupnick, research director, senior fellow, and director of Center for Energy Economics and Policy (CEEP), recently wrote that oil in the Arctic, while having a limited effect on consumer gas prices, can offer significant value for oil producers and the local economy in Alaska. Still, this poses environmental risks.
“The oil companies are convinced that they have the technology to prevent a spill, and that even if one occurs they have the technology to plug the leak and collect the oil. Shell recently released its response and prevention plans for exploratory drilling, which indeed go beyond the legal requirements. Yet the public has no real idea of the risks because, as in the Gulf, there are no strict legal requirements for fully assessing the risks, an approach that companies drilling in Norwegian waters, for instance, must follow,” said Krupnick in the commentary.
Also, Greenland and Canada, both situated near the melting ice sheets, will undoubtedly face rising sea levels. Will the increase in trade outweigh the costs rising sea levels will have on the countries? It’s too soon to tell, but it is something to keep in mind.
Some commentators have stressed that since the Arctic is international territory, there may be conflicts over who has access to such resources.
Sir Robert Swan addressed this at RFF last evening in a lecture that offered a shot of optimism in the often doom and gloom world of climate policy. In 2041, the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty is up for renewal and can be modified or amended. As it stands, the treaty prevents mineral resource activity and development in the region, except for scientific purposes. So will countries divvy up the Arctic to satisfy their energy needs? According to Swan, it is important to have a Plan B and increase dependence on renewables.
Still, even if renewables are highly relied upon by 2041, climate change impacts will most likely affect politics in northern countries, altering the dynamics of international trade and position in the region.
