A German shipping company, the Beluga Group of Bremen, has just reported that two of its commercial vessels, which had left South Korea in late July, have successfully navigated the northeast Arctic Passage. After stopping briefly at a Siberian port to unload some of their cargo, the two ships sailed off along the Arctic coast of Russia with their load of construction materials on their way to their final destination, the Dutch port of Rotterdam. Mariners have been seeking a direct navigation passage between Asia and Europe for centuries. Many adventurous sailors have died while trying to negotiate their way through sheets of ice and icebergs in the frozen waters of the Arctic.
Global warming has now caused the ice to retreat enough to open a corridor, allowing the two German vessels to sail through escorted for added safety by Russian nuclear icebreakers.
Although ice floes and the short summer season make it a limited option, the advantages for shipping companies of using the Northeast Passage are evident. By avoiding the long southern detour and the crossing of the Suez Canal, this Arctic route shortens the distance between Asia and Europe by some 4,500 miles. The head of the Beluga group reported that it translates into a saving in fuel of over $90,000 per ship.
While ship owners may see potential in this new trade corridor, environmentalists on the other hand are appalled and point to the rapid melting of Arctic ice and the general rise in sea temperatures as further proof of the disastrous impact of global warming.
Few people these days deny the reality of global warming. The fierce rains that recently affected Istanbul were seen by many as an example of the severe weather events that greenhouses gases are triggering around the globe.
The World Bank, which has often been at the receiving end of environmentalists' ire in past years, has joined the growing chorus of voices calling for immediate action. In its World Development Report 2010, the Bank warns that even a two degree Celsius warming above preindustrial temperatures -- considered the minimum the world is likely to experience given the damage already caused -- could seriously set back global development efforts and cause “permanent reductions in GDP of 4 to 5 percent for Africa and South Asia.” Seventy five to 80 percent of the cost of global warming damage -- dealing with malnutrition, taking measures against floods, droughts and rising sea levels -- will be born by the developing world.
In December, the world's nations will meet in Copenhagen to forge a deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012, but reaching an agreement will not be easy.
Developing and developed nations are expected once again to argue who should bear most of the cost of curbing emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change. The US and China are currently the world's biggest emitters. Although US President Barack Obama, unlike his predecessor George W. Bush, is convinced of the need for environmental action, the US Senate appears to be dragging its feet on environmental legislation.
At the Copenhagen meeting, seen as a last opportunity for the world to avert major disaster, rich and poorer nations will have to define how to share the cost of cleaning up the mess and curbing emissions. They have to do so in a way that will still allow developing countries to tackle poverty and catch up with the West economically without causing the planet further damage.
“Developing countries are disproportionately affected by climate change -- a crisis that is not of their making and for which they are the least prepared,” World Bank President Robert Zoellick stated, thus underlining the responsibility of rich nations. An equitable deal in Copenhagen is “vitally important,” Zoellick said, but the current wrangling suggests that reaching this goal will not be plain sailing.
