[Robair]

Melting Arctic ice risks Canada-US territorial dispute

$1:

Global warming is melting the Arctic ice so fast that a new sea route is opening up between the Atlantic and the Pacific -- and with it the risk of a territorial dispute between Canada and the United States.

Temperatures around the North Pole are rising twice as fast as in the rest of the planet, according to UN and Canadian government experts.

By 2050, they warn, ships will be able to sail around northern Canada for most of the summer.

This could reduce the sea trip from London to Tokyo to 16,000 kilometers (9,950 miles), against 21,000 kilometers (13,000 miles) via the Suez Canal or 23,000 kilometers (14,300 miles) going through the Panama Canal.

The search for a Northwest Passage to Asia inspired explorers from the 15th to the 17th centuries. Many died. But now greenhouse gases are opening up the passage for them.

"There are now more and more ice-free portions of Arctic maritime territory," said Frederic Lasserre, a geographer and specialist on the Arctic, at Laval University in Quebec.

If a ship has a reinforced hull, and the winds and currents are in the right direction, it is already "relatively easy" to take the route around the small islands and straights around Canada's Arctic territory, Lasserre added.

Arctic temperatures are expected to rise significantly by the end of the century, according to experts, which will melt even more glaciers.

"What we are seeing in the Arctic, and what we are seeing further south with the hurricanes, are the most pessimistic models of global warming," said Louis Fortier, an oceanographer who has just returned from an expedition to the region on the Canadian research vessel Amundsen.

Lasserre predicted that within 30 years it would probably be possible for ships not normally equipped for the Arctic to tackle the Northwest passage.

About 20-30 ships currently take it each summer now.

In a territorial dispute now linked to the global warming problem, Canada criticizes the United States, European Union and even Japan for not recognising its 1986 claim of sovereignty to waters around the Arctic archipelago. The United States insists that these are international waters.

An American ice-breaker went through the archipelago in 1985 causing a diplomatic dispute with Canada, which reaffirmed its claim to the territorial waters.

Canada, which is also arguing with Denmark over a small island off Greenland, based its territorial sovereignty on the ice that then linked all of the Arctic islands. But cracks are quickly forming in the claim.

If sovereignty of the Northwest passage ever came before a court, Canada could lose its ability to impose navigational rules in the region.

There are huge environmental issues at stake. Canada would be unable to deny passage to any vessel that meets international standards for environmental protection, crew training and safety procedures.

The United States argues that all waters between two open seas should be open to all shipping.

Lasserre emphasized how the maritime and continental plateau frontier between the United States and Canada has never been formally agreed -- and this will become another looming dispute.

The commercial stakes are also high as the Beaufort Sea, which touches the Yukon in Canada and the US state of Alaska, has huge reserves of oil and natural gas.

Experts have highlighted how access to these reserves will become a lot easier as global warming increases.

Lasserre said that there is more than oil to be found in the Arctic. "There is also gold, diamonds, copper and zinc. There is going to be a lot of traffic caused by the mining exploration," he said.

Maybe Canadas Coast Gaurd could use something like this?

I would like to hear northern sovereignty talked about in these election campaigns... ...I'm not holding my breath.

[Robair]

See the dotted lines connecting the main land to the north pole? Those would be the dotted lines in question. The USA says they don't exist.

[Tman1]

Well, in my opinion, it all comes down to the ability to hold this territory and if Canada can't....C'est la vie. Build some ships with authority and an itchy trigger finger may show other nations that that territory is ours...yes I'm dreaming but oh well. Some dreams come true.

[BartSimpson]

What's at issue is the UN Law of the Sea Treaty to which Canada is a signatory. It sets a twelve mile limit for navigation from shore and it has been exercised in the Gulf of Sidra (off of Libya), the Sea of Okhotsk (off of Russia), and etc. where countries have made claims that do not hold up against the treaty.

It is apparently possible to navigate the passage via Baffin Bay into the Arctic without approaching within 12 miles of Canadian soil, therefore under the treaty that Canada is a signatory to, these are international and navigable waters. Canada's signature on the treaty that sets these parameters legally speaks for Canada on this issue.

Personally, I feel Canada should withdraw from the treaty to assert her territorial integrity. Since Canada's merchant fleet is negligible this won't really affect Canadian flag shipping since the majority of that shipping is on the Great Lakes which are covered by a US-Canada treaty and not the UN treaty.

[Streaker]

The dream almost came true in the eighties, when Canada was planning to build a polar-8 class icebreaker. It wasn't nuclear-powered, but it would have been the world's largest - 39000 tons, bigger and more capable than the Yamal, slated to be built in Vancouver. The plan was scrapped due to budgetary constraints.

Unfortunately, there is very little info about this ship on the net but I've read about it in some books. It was a very impressive and ambitious plan; next time I go to the library I'll pick up a book which has an artist's rendering of the ship and post it here.

[RUEZ]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

It is apparently possible to navigate the passage via Baffin Bay into the Arctic without approaching within 12 miles of Canadian soil, therefore under the treaty that Canada is a signatory to, these are international and navigable waters.

If this is true then what is keeping people from floating right on into Hudson's Bay?

[ridenrain]

Gee. whatever happened to that Polar-8 ice breaker...

In Vancouver, a promised project to build a Polar-8 ice breaker was recently cancelled in the name of restraint by a cabinet which had failed to reduce the deficit significantly since taking office in 1984.

That was Mulroney and that was one of the major things that fueled Western seperation.

Woops, took too long.

[Robair]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Gee. whatever happened to that Polar-8 ice breaker...

In Vancouver, a promised project to build a Polar-8 ice breaker was recently cancelled in the name of restraint by a cabinet which had failed to reduce the deficit significantly since taking office in 1984.

That was Mulroney and that was one of the major things that fueled Western seperation.

Woops, took too long.

Yea? Don't know much about that. Kinda sounds like another "Avro Arrow" nuked by another conservative government, eh?

Canadas' back yard extends all the way to the pole.

[BartSimpson]

RUEZ RUEZ:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

It is apparently possible to navigate the passage via Baffin Bay into the Arctic without approaching within 12 miles of Canadian soil, therefore under the treaty that Canada is a signatory to, these are international and navigable waters.

If this is true then what is keeping people from floating right on into Hudson's Bay?

There must be a passage of at least 24 nautical miles width to allow a ship to transit a strait in legally defined international waters. The several islands at the mouth of Hudson Bay make this impossible.

Under the treaty, then, all of Hudson Bay is Canadian waters.

Unless Quebec secedes. Then the twelve mile limit would come into effect around the circumference of the Bay assuming that Canada or Quebec allow a foreign ship to transit the straits at the mouth of the Bay. Quebec will likely pursue enforcing the treaty as it puts their ships 12 miles off of Canadian soil - close enough to piss you off and irritate you.

[Robair]

[bootlegga]

I'm not being facetious, but if the ice is melting, why build an icebreaker?

We'd be better off building our next class of warships with reinforced hulls like the Danish Thetis-class frigates. That way they could be used dual purpose and patrol Arctic waters year-round, as well as be used for 'regular' naval service, like maritime patrol and defence. As we are planning on replacing the Iroquois-class ships in the next decade or so, why not a bigger, badder, ice-strengthened version?

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I'm not being facetious, but if the ice is melting, why build an icebreaker?

We'd be better off building our next class of warships with reinforced hulls like the Danish Thetis-class frigates. That way they could be used dual purpose and patrol Arctic waters year-round, as well as be used for 'regular' naval service, like maritime patrol and defence. As we are planning on replacing the Iroquois-class ships in the next decade or so, why not a bigger, badder, ice-strengthened version?

Because it seems that certain folks up yonder are anti-military and their idea of a new, first-class Canadian warship would look like this:

[Scape]

Robair Robair:

Maybe Canadas Coast Gaurd could use something like this?

I would like to hear northern sovereignty talked about in these election campaigns... ...I'm not holding my breath.

[email protected]

Send it there. The debate is on the 16th I think. I too would be interested in hearing what the leaders have to say on this issue. I know only 1 of the 4 UK subs are able to take to sea at this point and we have hardly any AWAC long range aircraft for patrol either. We need to do something before the whole north becomes the next Hans Island.

[ridenrain]

Slightly off topic but..
I was reading that Brazil made and uses 4 German designed, diesel-electric submarines. They also run their own aircraft carrier, though I'm not sure why.

If we're going to talk about kicking ass, let's at least make an effort.


for reference
Brazil
Pop- 186,112,794
GDP-$1.492 trillion (2004 est.)
total: 8,511,965 sq km
land: 8,456,510 sq km
water: 55,455 sq km

Canada
Pop-32,805,041 (July 2005 est.)
GDP-$1.023 trillion (2004 est.)
total: 9,984,670 sq km
land: 9,093,507 sq km
water: 891,163 sq km

[dgthe3]

Why do we need a nuclear powered ice breaker? The point of nuclear powered ships is so that they can stay out at sea untill food runs out, and in the case of subs, so that they don't need to surface. They also save a bit of weight due to the reduction in the amount of fuel needed. But none of that is really needed in the case of an ice-breaker. The purpose of an ice breaker is to clear shipping lanes, i'm sure they will be able to hold enough fuel to get between point A and point B a couple of times. I'm all for nuclear energy but it is very expensive. And for no real gain i'm not sure about the point of pursuing it when conventional icebreakers can do just as good of a job,