Greenland Melting Faster

A new study (subscription required) in Science shows that the ice sheets of Greenland are melting at a fast and accelerating rate. This is yet another example of how the latest science is showing that the effects of climate change are moving faster than even the worst-case scenarios of the IPCC's 2007 consensus report.

The report, based on satellite observations, states that the Greenland ice sheet lost approximately 1500 gigatons of ice mass from 2000-2008. This is about 0.46 millimeters per year of global sea level rise. And, the rate of loss is increasing. Since 2006, high summer melt rates have increased Greenland ice sheet mass loss to 273 gigatons per year (0.75 millimeters per year of equivalent sea level rise).

Importantly, this article appears to resolve much of the uncertainty about how much the ice sheet is melting. The article used two independent methods, one based on observations and the other on remote gravity measurements made by satellites. By getting these two approaches to agree, we can get a clearer, more precise view of what is actually happening. I have said before that policymakers are asking for better science. Unfortunately, its not pretty.

Whether we can keep the Greenland ice sheet intact will be an important factor in keeping Bangladesh, the Maldives, or New York above rising sea levels. The water contained in these ice sheets could account for 7 meters of sea level rise.

The Glaciers of Greenland

Earlier this week, the Guardian printed a long, in-depth report by Patrick Barkham from Greenland. The arctic is the front-line of climate change: what happens there in the next decade will point the direction that the world is heading. Barkham's article makes clear that we're heading in a dangerous direction.

When it released its most recent report in 2007, the IPPC did not include predictions about the fate of the ice sheets, because they were too little understood, and too complex. That was a mistake, but researchers are working to learn more. We need to understand how this complex system works, so that we can best predict the consequences of warming in the arctic.

The glaciers of Greenland are not a direct security challenge: there will be no military engagements over newly openned land in Greenland. However, they are a harbinger of the security challenges which we will face. If the Greenland ice sheet does melt entirely, that will raise global sea levels by 7 meters. At this point, nobody's predicting that the entire sheet (2 miles thick at points) will melt, but as noted in the article, its only the first meter that counts. That first meter will put the homes and places of work of 10% of the world's population at risk. Our major cities -- London, New York, Shanghai, Mumbai -- will require massive flood protection systems to keep the tides back. Some will be overwhelmed. This is a threat to our security, and it must be addressed.

South Korea to Rotterdam (Via Russia?)

The New York Times' DotEarth blog reports that the first trip to make the northeast passage from Asia to Europe, via Russia, has embarked from Vladivosktok. They expect to make it through a passage opened by retreating ice, as August progresses.

Something that is very important to take a look at: what kind of fuel will the ship be using for the passage? This is important because of the 'black carbon' emissions (essentially unburned fuel) that comes from burning the low-grade bunker fuel that is typically used by freighters. Black Carbon is a major cause of ice melt, and if other ships start making this journey, they could dramatically hasten the melting of arctic ice. When ice comes into contact with black carbon, it becomes much more likely for it to melt: instead of reflecting the heat from the sun, as it would when white, it will absorb more of the heat, and melt faster. This is a dangerous feedback loop.

One of the things that the Arctic Council is looking at is a ban on the usage of bunker fuels in the High North. I wonder what kind of fuel the Beluga Fraternity is burning for this trip?

Russia's Adaptation to Climate Change

Russia's adapting to climate change by taking advantage of the warming of the Arctic. In the past few months, a few reports came out discussing a possible cold war over resources in the arctic which this blog discussed. One of the key factors is the relationship of the Arctic to Russia's national identity. The Times back in March quoted the Russian Envoy to NATO when referring to Russia's presence in the Arctic said,

“This topic will not be included in the agenda of co-operation between Russia and Nato ... there is nothing for them to do there," (hyperlink mine).

So Russia views its Arctic claims as non-NATO related even though it's trying to claim vast amounts of territory that Norway contests. The article then quotes Artur Chilingarov, the Russian government's representative to the Arctic who stated,

"Look at the map. Who is there near by? All our northern regions are in or come out into the Arctic. All that is in our northern, Arctic regions. It is our Russia."

'It's our Russia.' Chilingarov's claim is not based on economic considerations but on a perception of Russian identity. An excellent report released this month from The Arctic Climate Change and Security Policy Conference last December indicates:

Russia’s activities could be disruptive to the region if its recent focus on politics and territorial claims retains priority over increased attention to science and international cooperation. The driving factors may be Russian prestige, identity, and image, which converge on borders and territorial claims. For Russia, sovereignty in the Arctic is a “hard” security issue. Russian military interests center on the Kola Peninsula, home to the Russian nuclear submarine fleet, and on rebuilding the Northern fleet." (italics mine)

A melting arctic would allow easier access to resources but it would also provide an opportunity for Russia to regain its status as a great power. To that end, Russia's already manipulated its control over Europe's energy supplies and seeks to do so for the future.

Ironically, Russia's way of adapting to climate change is not to modernize its economy toward renewables and efficiency but to increase its dominance in fossil fuel exports by expanding its supplies in the Arctic. This 'adaptation' explains Russia's reluctance to seriously cut emissions and explains why it benefiting from climate change could come at a cost to the international community. The World Wildlife Fund's report on the climate change policies of the G8 countries has this to say about Russia:

No comprehensive national plan; ratified Kyoto Protocol very late and only under pressure; not very active in the preparatory negotiations, and often an obstacle at the last minute

On the other hand, rising temperatures would wreck much of Russia's infrastructure built on melting permafrost. Securing the Arctic won't adapt to that consequence.

U.S. Arctic Policy

Warming in the Arctic continues to get a lot of press, so Sophia has put together a quick analysis of the new U.S. policy for the Arctic (released January 9, 2009).

The National Security/ Homeland Security Presidential Directive on Arctic Region Policy perceives “the effects of climate change and increasing human activity in the Arctic region” as one of the main developments that needs to be taken into account. The Directive proposes research and study as an important means of dealing with changing climate conditions:

“Such efforts shall include inventories and assessments of villages, indigenous communities, subsistence opportunities, public facilities, infrastructure, oil and gas development projects, alternative energy development opportunities, forestry, cultural and other sites, living marine resources, and other elements of the Arctic's socioeconomic composition.”

Not only are energy resources and human development important that need to be dealt with properly in the context of climate change, but there is a growing array of military leaders, Arctic experts and lawmakers who say that the United States is losing its ability to patrol and safeguard Arctic waters, and that the thawing region has triggered a burst of shipping and oil and gas exploration by foreign nations, such as Russia and Canada.

Canada and US relations have been further intensified due to the recent occurrence of the Northwest Passage becoming navigable. A dispute resulting in an ‘Agreement to Disagree’ states that the US considers this Northern Sea Route open for international navigation, while Canada asserts the Northwest Passage as its territorial waters.

Rear Adm. Dave A. Gove, the oceanographer/navigator of the Navy said even the Chinese "have also expressed an interest because of the natural resources that are available." Gove also thinks that the melting and breaking of ice has potential to leave the US more vulnerable to terrorism and access to the country. He emphasizes the need for a strong American military presence in the region, meaning improvement is needed.

Up to now, the Obama administration said little about its polar policy, although Secretary Clinton did breifly address the issue under questioning during her confirmation hearing.

Russian Bombers Near the Canadian Arctic

Earlier this week, we'd commented about the implied Russian threat to 'monitor' militarization in the Arctic. Today, there is a report from the Canadian Ministry of Defense that a Russian 'Bear' bomber approached Canada's Arctic airspace during last week's visit to Ottowa by President Obama.

Its interesting that Russian General Makarov commented that they were "Looking at how far the region will be militarized." What he didn't note is that, to a large extent, it is Russian actions that are driving the militarization of the Arctic. Flights of "Bear" bombers testing NATO defenses is a recollection of the Cold War, and is a way for the Russian military to project power.

Russian armed forces are monitoring ‘Arctic militarisation’

The chief of Russia’s General Staff has said that Russia will offer an adequate response to military developments in the Arctic region, in the latest sign that the rapid melting of Arctic sea ice is opening the region for potential territorial disputes.

General Nikolai Makarov commented: ‘Overall, we are looking at how far the region will be militarised. Depending on that, we’ll then decide what to do.'

Earlier, in a conference in Iceland, NATO’s Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer called attention to the rising strategic importance of the Arctic region. The United States also launched a policy directive in the last days of the Bush administration that called for the US to assert its interests in the region.

The Arctic seabed is widely expected to hold large untapped energy resources; the US Geological Survey recently estimated that the Arctic may hold 30 % of the world’s undiscovered gas and 13 % of undiscovered oil. The melting of sea ice is opening these previously inaccessible resources for commercial exploitation.

"The Battle for the Arctic" on CBC

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) last night broadcast a new documentary called "The Battle for the Arctic." Unfortunately, it is only available to watch in Canada. However, you can watch a trailer here. The New York Times has a good 5 minute video synopsis as well.

There are two things that are driving the rush to exploit the Arctic. The obvious one is the acceleration of summertime melting. This means that areas previously covered by ice year round are now able to be exploited for material gain. The second driver of exploitation in the Arctic is the UN's Law of the Sea treaty, which could extend the sovereign reach of a nation out beyond the current 200 mile exclusive economic zone, if that country can prove scientifically that their continental shelf extends further. However, they've only got 10 years to prove that. Russia's ten years expires at the end of this year. Canada has until 2013. The United States has not ratified the treaty, so they're left out for now.

The gist of the CBC documentary seems to be that the Canadians are far behind the Russians and the Americans in the far north. Although I can't speak for the Russians, the United States has not yet made the investments necessary for a true arctic naval presence. Although USNavy submarines have had a 50-year presence under the arctic, we don't have the icebreakers needed for a surface presence.

The Russians, however, seem to be the most active in the arctic. The flag planting was the most visible, but they appear to be trying to figure out how to use their existing naval resources in the arctic. This announcement from the Russian Navy says that they may be looking at their nuclear submarine fleet as undersea oil drilling rigs.

NATO conference on Security in the Arctic

NATO is set to hold a seminar on January 29-30 on "Security Prospects in the High North." There has been significant talk recently about the shifting strategic priorities in the Arctic, given that more and more of the Arctic is open sea in the summer. If the Arctic is open to shipping lanes and to resource exploitation, then there will inevitibly be an increased military presence.

It seems that most of the attention has focused on disputes over soverignty, with the Canadians saying the Northwest passage is theirs, while America asserts the rights of international navigation through the passage, and the Russians appear to claim sovereignty for as much as they can get their hands (or a flag) on.

NATO, at least, will offer a venue for the Canadian and American dispute to be settled.

Not sure that Rekjavik in January is the optimum time to visit, but this promises to be an interesting discussion for NATO.