Northern Sea Route Through Arctic Becomes a Reality 373
Hugh Pickens writes "Andrew Revkin writes in the NY Times that since 1553, when Sir Hugh Willoughby led an expedition north in search of a sea passage over Russia to the Far East, mariners have dreamed of a Northern Sea Route through Russia's Arctic ocean that could cut thousands of miles compared with alternate routes. A voyage between Hamburg and Yokohama is only 6,600 nm. via the Northern Sea Route — less than 60% of the 11,400 nm. Suez route. Now in part because of warming and the retreat and thinning of Arctic sea ice in summer, this northern sea route is becoming a reality with the 12,700-ton 'Beluga Fraternity,' designed for a mix of ice and open seas, poised to make what appears to be the first such trip. The German ship picked up equipment in Ulsan, South Korea, on July 23 and arrived in Vladivostok on the 25th with a final destination at the docks in Novyy Port, a Siberian outpost. After that, if conditions permit, it will head to Antwerp or Rotterdam, marking what company officials say would be the first time a vessel has crossed from Asia to Europe through the Arctic on a commercial passage."
Ice melting or technological advance ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The perfect way to minimize our carbon footprin (Score:1, Interesting)
Not to mention eliminating the fees to use the Suez Canal, and the ransoms paid to Somali Pirates.
What can't GW do? GW FTW.
Beluga Fraternity? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not the boat design, except indirectly (Score:5, Interesting)
Think of the Darien Gap. It has been navigated by vehicles, rather special purpose ones. If you read that it was now being served by a regular truck route, you might suspect things had changed a bit.
Hardly news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Soviet's have regularly sailed through the Northern Sea Route [wikipedia.org] in summer since, at least, the middle of the last century. There is some great prose [konetsky.spb.ru] written with such sailing as a backdrop, in fact (in Russian, not sure about translations).
The sailing was not easy and the airplanes were occasionally required to investigate movement of ice-fields. At the beginning and the end of the season, the ships were organized in convoys, that were headed by icebreakers [wikipedia.org]. (USSR even had a few nuclear-powered ones, first one built in 1959). But in the middle of the summer a regular ship could make the trip on its own...
Maybe, there is less ice there now, but it is not like the trip has only just become possible.
Re:Just remember who's Artic it is (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:but but but.. (Score:1, Interesting)
YES! And then when things don't work out they way they planned, they will find something else to blame it on and tax out of existence...
We can't go to space because the rockets leave things in the atmosphere... and planes are also worse, because their pollution is right where it's worst now...
If it's as bad as they say, why not go nuclear? At least here in the US the NEWEST ones are 50+ years old, and with every other advance you can't say that they are no more safe than a 50 year old design...
How often do we need to learn that our new attempts to fix things don't work many times because we didn't take enough into account?
Maybe... maybe we should all work, but instead of getting paid MONEY, we should be paid in carbon emissions...Want to buy some bread? that will be 20 CEs. a gallon of gas could be 50 CEs...
SURELY there can be no possible downside to a system like that...
Re:And they said that GW would be a bad thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to burst your bubble, but "our habitat", of large mammals in general becomes actually much better (esp. much larger, but also easier to farm) at a higher global temperature. Lush forests in greenland house a hell of a lot more creatures, and humans, than ice valleys and gletsjers.
There are probably disasters that global warming causes, if it indeed happens in any significant way (ie. not like it's currently happening), but there are many good things too. The last "globally warmed" climate saw a rich civilization in Greenland, with huge orchards and wineries, lush forests, rich wildlife, etc. The same goes for a sizeable part of Siberia. With but a few degrees temperature gain, life there (and it's a fucking huge place) will become much, much easier.
The same goes for quite a few spots on the southern hemisphere. There is also the little tidbit that global warming stops desertification, and makes e.g. the sahara [guardian.co.uk] lose ground. The advantages of that can hardly be overstated.
But, of course, coastal cities might be in for a world of hurt (although given that holland has an average elevation of -2 meter, whereas the worst US coastal city has an average elevation of +3 meter, and something like New York has over 5, the absolute worst case sea level rise of 95 centimeters by 2100 [howstuffworks.com] should not be a problem for any US coastal city, or for Holland for that matter. A more problematic city is Venice, but whether or not the sea level rises, we will have to move Venice or give it to the sea in less than 150 years anyway).
We are warmblooded mammals. The reason we beat the dinosaurs was the fact that dinosaurs don't do well at all in colder climates. Mammals on the other hand, can live in temperatures as low as -40 degrees celcius on average. At current global temperature, most reptiles are limited to tropical climates. The larger reptiles are even limited to warmer-than-their-surroundings rivers in very warm climates. Not that a 6 degree rise will allow crocodiles to live in Europe, but they might colonize the mediterranean coast and a few other rivers than the nile.
Re:but but but.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And they said that GW would be a bad thing (Score:3, Interesting)
We lose more of our habitat (Score:2, Interesting)
as we go north.
Being warm-blooded, we don't need heat. In fact we get problems getting rid of it (sweating wastes valuable water and minerals).
And we can't farm desserts nor steep hillsides and the only way to get food out of a mountainside is to grow goats on it. And they're partial to water too...
Pests love CO2 too. For corn, the natural poison they produce in their leaves is reduced under high CO2 loads. The beetle eating their leaves loves this idea.
Cassava produces toxins under high CO2 loads. African staple diet is Cassava. People are already dying from the toxins there.
"It's been 1 hour, 3 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"
Oh dear...
Re:And they said that GW would be a bad thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure Greenland and Siberia might become great agricultural centers. Go tell that to the midwest farmers. Furthermore, there ARE negative changes that will happen. Part of Siberia might become open for farming, but a good chunk of it will turn into a permanent bog. Diseases and vermin will reach parts that have been safe from them so far. West Nile is one, and the boring beetle is another.
The point is not that global climate change is going to destroy us. The point is that it is change that will cost us an enormous amount of money, suffering, and a complete overhaul of global political situations. It's unlikely that it will kill us. But it will completely change how we live. Are you prepared for that?
Re:And they said that GW would be a bad thing (Score:3, Interesting)
All those rich people living in the current beach front property will lose their places and be forced to buy new places!
There actually are a lot of very interesting transformations that a warming earth could bring us, many of which are arguably positive (making much more of Canada, Russia and Scandinavia accessible to large-scale habitation; increased access to existing tundra for growing; etc.) However, this isn't actually one of the likely outcomes. Unless the IPCCC's initial estimates for sea level rise are radically off, 10-50cm of sea level rise isn't going to be forcing any but the most absurdly exposed to move inland. Even my grandfather who can jump off of his deck into the ocean (well, when he was a younger man) won't have anything to worry about unless the Greenland melt forces an acceleration of the warming, which the jury is soundly out on.
So no, beaches will get smaller (until erosion makes them larger) and ocean-facing flood-prone areas will become more so. Also, property values won't change much. I live in New England, and a good spot on the non-polluted parts of the New England coastline are already very expensive. Warming them up won't change that.