eu4journalists

Future Energy

7. Epilogue: The Arctic

Beginning in March 2007, the fourth International Polar Year is a project launched to study the Arctic and Antarctic. Thus it was not surprising when, in August 2007, the Russian Federation launched the Arktika 2007 expedition to conduct the first ever descent to the ocean floor near the North Pole. The expedition collected flora and fauna along the way and mapped the Lomonosov Ridge, which Russia claims is an extension of its continental shelf.

The surprise came when the two Russian submersibles, Mir-I and Mir-II, planted a small, titanium flag at the outer edge of a large swath of underwater territory claimed by the Russian Federation, at the rough epicentre of an international dispute over who owns the Arctic. In the past, the question may have been, “Why would anyone want to?”

“The Arctic region is believed to be one of the most important remaining petroleum provinces,” said a 2005 Kirkenes Roundtable of Norwegian, Russian, American and EU officials. The Barents Sea, in particular, could be a “new European petroleum province.” Earlier, in November 2004, a report from the Arctic Council, composed of 300 scientists from countries on the Arctic border, said that the Arctic is warming at roughly twice the rate of the rest of the globe. It also meant that Arctic shipping lanes and offshore oil exploration would be increasingly viable as Arctic ice recedes as much as 50 percent by the end of the century.

While Russia denied planting its flag as a means of territorial acquisition, there was uproar from nations with competing claims to the Arctic. “This isn’t the 15th Century,” said the Foreign Minister of Canada. “You can’t go around the world and just plant flags and say, ‘We’re claiming this territory.’” Indeed, international law gives nations a claim to a rough 200 nautical miles off their coasts. Those portions of the Arctic outside this range are currently administered by the International Seabed Authority. Parts of the region are also claimed by the United States (via Alaska), Denmark (via Greenland) and Norway.

But the melting of the Arctic is not merely an opportunity for energy development. In September of 2007 the European Space Agency published a press release entitled, “Satellites witness lowest Arctic ice coverage in history.” The article stated that the reduction in ice cover, which has over the last decade averaged about 100,000 square kilometres per year, in 2007 accelerated to 1 million square kilometres, 10 times the normative average of the previous 30 years.

The EU’s Europa website features a Magazine on European Research, including a section on the Polar Regions, which tells the story of Arctic ice melt near the Pole and on Greenland. “The ‘disaster’ scenario in the Arctic is no longer science fiction. What was initially only a question of modelling has since been widely confirmed by field observation.” Says glaciologist Philippe Huybrechts of the Free University of Brussels. “Each year, Greenland is losing about 80 cubic kilometres of ice. If the ice sheet loses 20 percent of its volume, the process will become irreversible." To illustrate the importance of even limited ice melt, it’s relevant to point out that if Greenland alone were to lose all of its ice it would raise ocean levels 7.5 meters worldwide. Even incremental melting of the arctic region is important, as many cities and settlements are within a few feet of sea level.

Melting ice also has other consequences. Less ice means less albedo, or the reflecting of “solar radiation into space” which contributes “to the natural cooling of our planet,” whereas water absorbs sunlight, thus warming the planet. Fresh melt water might also potentially interfere with “thermohaline,” or “heat and salt,” circulation.

The salinity of water and its temperature have an effect on water density. As warm water from the equatorial regions flows towards the poles, there is increased evaporation and cooling, causing columns of cold, salty water to sink to the bottom of the ocean. This is the engine that drives the Gulf Stream and gives Europe its temperate climate. Without it, Northern Europe might increasingly resemble Siberia.

Indeed, the “Arctic Gold Rush” – as the quest for slices of the Arctic is called – epitomizes the European energy quandary – a situation where environmental, geopolitical and energy policies must be carefully integrated and managed. It is not an exaggeration to say that the energy and environmental policy decisions we make in the next decade will have enormous consequences for Europe and for the entire world. Indeed, Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director of the IEA, said in November 2007, “The next ten years will be crucial for all countries…because of the rapid expansion of energy-supply infrastructure. We need to act now to bring about a radical shift in investment in favour of cleaner, more efficient and more secure energy technologies.”