Who owns what? To what end?
Thirty years ahead of schedule, an ancient discovery resurfaces !!! As bizarre as the above sentence may sound, it is true. The ancient sea route connecting Asia and Europe directly across the Arctic could very soon be open for ship navigation. The ice has melted (predicted to happen thirty years later) which would allow the ships to transport goods faster and cheaper between the two continents. (The article).
As I read through the article, first thought in my mind was: Oh shit !! It was probably a hangover of watching "An inconvenient truth" multiple times. In my brain, the whole chunk of ice at the arctic circle was the "lifeline" of the world. And after the shocking news, I thought the article would immediately cry about the impact on the environment and some analysis over how our current thinking on the pace of global warming could change due to this.
The article subsequently mentions the above, but the first half (and interesting half) of the article tells on who is doing what to capture the route to earn revenues from it. It just doesn't make any sense. After all what we have learned, after all what we have discussed, the fight is over the rights and not over banning the damn route from further ecological disturbances. What if a ship carrying oil spills (or worse blasts), what if human activity increases in that zone, etc?
And these are all the "developed" nations of the world fighting. I constantly fail to understand the true meaning of development. Developed countries are supposed to guide the world towards a better existence. Yet, it seems development is the cause for doom anyways. The EU, (Germany for sure) trying to push solar energy in a big way for environmental reasons, is saying that the route should be international water. Probably there is no legitimate way for them to capture it. Hence it doesn't want other countries to control it either. This would eventually translate into higher profits for the EU exports. Profits seems to weigh more than existence (remember al gore's famous balance scene). Why don't they push for strict no use policy in such ecologically fragile environment?
Maybe I am just paranoid about this, based on my small knowledge about environmental issues!! But even if there is a slightest chance of accelerating the irrevocable damage, is the risk worth taking?
As I read through the article, first thought in my mind was: Oh shit !! It was probably a hangover of watching "An inconvenient truth" multiple times. In my brain, the whole chunk of ice at the arctic circle was the "lifeline" of the world. And after the shocking news, I thought the article would immediately cry about the impact on the environment and some analysis over how our current thinking on the pace of global warming could change due to this.
The article subsequently mentions the above, but the first half (and interesting half) of the article tells on who is doing what to capture the route to earn revenues from it. It just doesn't make any sense. After all what we have learned, after all what we have discussed, the fight is over the rights and not over banning the damn route from further ecological disturbances. What if a ship carrying oil spills (or worse blasts), what if human activity increases in that zone, etc?
And these are all the "developed" nations of the world fighting. I constantly fail to understand the true meaning of development. Developed countries are supposed to guide the world towards a better existence. Yet, it seems development is the cause for doom anyways. The EU, (Germany for sure) trying to push solar energy in a big way for environmental reasons, is saying that the route should be international water. Probably there is no legitimate way for them to capture it. Hence it doesn't want other countries to control it either. This would eventually translate into higher profits for the EU exports. Profits seems to weigh more than existence (remember al gore's famous balance scene). Why don't they push for strict no use policy in such ecologically fragile environment?
Maybe I am just paranoid about this, based on my small knowledge about environmental issues!! But even if there is a slightest chance of accelerating the irrevocable damage, is the risk worth taking?
Comments