first we take manhattan
And then we take Berl…er, Greenland at it transpires, and, as it melts, Santa’s headquarters, the North Pole, is increasingly becoming a major geopolitical flashpoint. Why exactly?
There are, in fact, several North Poles. The geographic North Pole is the precise point atop the Earth’s axis, a spot in the middle of the Arctic Ocean that is almost always covered in six to ten feet of drifting pack ice. Then there’s the magnetic North Pole, to which all compasses point. There’s also the geomagnetic North Pole in Northern Canada, that is used by physicists to conceptualise the effect of the Earth’s magnetic field. Finally, there’s North Pole, Alaska, a suburb of the city of Fairbanks.
For all intents and purposes it’s the first one that really matters, the geographic North Pole, and Frederick Cook claimed to have planted an American Flag there on 22nd April 1908. However, his success was immediately disputed by another US explorer, Robert Peary, who, after several failed attempts, too claimed the region for the US. Generally accepted at the time, this was disproven in the 1980s as he had fallen short by at least thirty miles. The first fully-verified expedition was led by Norwegian Roald Amundsen, who flew over the pole in 1926 in a hydrogen-powered airship, with the first fully-verified overland trip being completed only as recently as 1969 – a journey that would now be almost impossible as the once icy path to the pole is melting.
The northern-most latitudes are warming at twice the rate as the rest of the world, and there are now about a million fewer square miles of sea ice than there was in the 1990s. Temperatures can be fifty degrees Fahrenheit warmer and melting begets melting: when ice melts it darkens and consequently traps more heat and more ice melts. Ultimately, the end result is the release of catastrophic amounts of carbon dioxide currently buried in the permafrost.
Whilst Cook and Peary both supposedly planted the stars and stripes at the pole, Denmark, Russia, Canada, Norway and even the UK have claimed sovereignty too. In 2007, two Russian mini-submarines dived two miles down to plant a corrosion-proof titanium flag on the seabed in order to formally claim the territory. One reason there’s so much competition is that the melting ice could create new, much more direct shipping routes across the top of the world between Asia, Europe and North America. However, the biggest prize is below. The Arctic is believed to contain upwards of ninety billion barrels of oil and perhaps a fifth of the world’s natural gas lies beneath the ice sheet.
Who gets their hands on the riches is up for grabs. In 2008 the five main Arctic coastal nations – Russia, US, Canada, Norway and Denmark (via, you guessed it, Greenland) – agreed to settle their disputes using the international Law of the Sea which entitles an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles from their coastline, and the right to exploitation up to 350 miles if they can prove the continental shelf is an extension of their coast.
Notwithstanding historic saber-rattling, over 90% of Arctic mineral resources are within these agreed national boundaries and covered by the current treaties. Territorial actions have, in the past, been relatively harmonious, predominantly due to these nations being extremely reluctant to give outsiders (China) a chance to interfere. However, following the recent international actions of both Russia and the US, in direct contravention of international law, you’d be forgiven for thinking neither are particularly happy with their lot and all bets are off.
Right now, six months of continuous daylight, followed by six months of continuous darkness are the only entirely predictable things for this now highly visible world region.
