With the discovery of vast oil and gas reserves, the Arctic Ocean has become one of the disputed territories. Countries especially the five nations that border the ocean namely, Russia, Norway, the United States, Denmark and Canada are claiming their share and have got into a cold war with each other. The ocean is worth the war of the words as per one estimate it may have some 400 billion barrels of oil lying underneath it.

B(ig)attle of the two

Who really owns the Arctic...?... Is the big question. Ongoing is a war between two economies U.S. and Russia. They say ‘History repeats itself’ and somehow that is just what exactly we are witnessing. Where the cold war (1985-1991), lead to the dissolve of the Soviet Union, this one might lead to the injudicious exploitation of Arctic Ocean. Global warming is leading to the melting of polar ice cap. Reports say that since 1979, the ice cap has reduced by 20 percent and the average temperatures their have risen twice as fast as compared to other parts of the world. However, for these two nations the melting of the ice cap is a boon and they are hardly concerned about the aftermaths.

Russia now withstands a direct conflict with U.S.A, where the former wishes to regain supremacy and the latter to continue to it. The result is inevitable and can be put forward best in the words of Bernard Baruch, ‘we are in midst of a cold war that is getting warmer.’

What can be gained?

Vast resources of rich minerals, reserves of valuable oil, natural gas, deposits of precious metals like diamonds, silver, copper, zinc and uranium can make anyone forget the environmental disaster the exploitation can bring. Not to forget, opening of shorter shipping routes that will let the trade flourish. Needless to say, that the development of Arctic Ocean will also be a boon for the sea food industry with new species to be butchered and tasted, vast new fishing grounds and political, economical gain to some countries.

The Loss

There is much at stake then to be won, foremost being the human life itself. Exploitation of Arctic is only possible where the ice melts during summers making the region inaccessible for most of the year. Dangerous ice caps, the melting glaciers, extreme cold temperature risks human life above all. The exploitation can create a serious mess which can further induce an environmental cataclysm. We are already witnessing extinction of rare species; the development of the area can make many other such species vulnerable to extinction. In short, the interference in the natural world of Arctic will be another blunder of mankind that will lead to lasting negative consequences which will be disastrous for sure.

The aftermaths that are inevitable

Global warming is already eating up Arctic. If it continues, we are in line for a disaster. The melting ice will cause the water levels to rise, gradually submerging coastal areas. As per a report, if global warming continues at the same pace Arctic wouldn’t be left with any ice by 2050. Moreover, if the development also goes side by side, I am sure the Arctic would suffer from the same in another 25 years.

Animal species like Polar bears who are already suffering the pangs of development will surely be enlisted in extinct species. During the exploration, no doubts many of the scientists will undergo strenuous physical stress, causing many to loose their lives. In short, people are likely to breakdown under such environmental conditions.

An expected solution

People like Kelly Falkner, a professor of oceanography from Oregon State University who is now on a temporary assignment with the National Science Foundation, think that the nations will soon end their disputes and follow the same process that was followed two generations back while dealing with Antarctica. Thus, Arctic will be dedicated to science, research and technology without any individual claims of the cold empire.

Expert views

• Joel Darmstadter from Resources for the Future over the issue says, ‘Let’s ask ourselves how much oil and gas is likely to be found [and] what difference it will make in the energy situation. If the answer is ‘relatively little,’ then I think one is in a strong position to argue [whether it’s] really worth taking a risk. On the other hand, if there’s a high probability of finding a lot of oil that would weaken the position of the ecologists and conservationists.’

• Carl Pope who holds the position of an executive director of the Sierra Club, reviews that the conditions of the area makes it unable to be accessed. He also said, ‘If the price is very, very high, I imagine somebody will find a way to produce that oil.’ He also pointed out that the continent is ‘a very fragile ecosystem, and we haven’t demonstrated a great capacity to operate there without doing a lot of damage. The fact is that when it’s 20 degrees below zero [Fahrenheit, or -29 degrees Celsius], it’s very difficult to operate complex industrial facilities.’

Whatever, the question continues to haunt many, not only the nations but also the conservationists, the scientists, the researchers and the environmentalists. Is Arctic the new name for the existing conflict or will the nations put their individual interests aside to give entertain the prospects of a better and healthier future? Will scientists to prove their hegemony over the world of God, take resource to Arctic? Only time can tell us that!

Source: Nationalgeographic