I need short reply for these 2 posts.
I agree that the U.S should have a regulatory stake in oil and natural gas exploitation in the Arctic. The article notes how observers have stated that uncontrolled arctic development could damage the ecosystems and communities that are already under pressure. In addition to this, although the Arctic may contain an abundance in natural gas and oil, it would be risky and costly rather than trying to get these resources on land. Even if the U.S would consider building a deepwater port there is a lack of infrastructure. The Alaska coast has no deepwater ports that support heavy loaded ships which require water depths of minimum 30 feet. There should be regulations regarding how much oil and natural gas exploitation is done for the better of the ecosystems and communities that live there and for the better of our climate.
2) China stands to gain the greatest benefit from a newly opened polar freshwater shipping and trade route.
I strongly disagree with having a China open a polar freshwater shipping and trade route. Although it may create a faster and newer route for products to be shipped from one country to another, the consequences of that would be negative effects on our climate. The Arctic, in my opinion, shouldn’t be touched for economical purposes. The arctic is what keeps our climate stable by reflecting the solar rays back into space. If there is no ice, those solar rays will stay in the earth warming it up even more.
1) Although the oil and gas exploitation in the Arctic may bring about new resources and profits, I slightly disagree that the U.S. should have a regulatory stake. It would be counter productive if we were to fight climate change. The burning and drilling of oil in the Arctic would release more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, effectively cause the polar ice caps to completely disappear. Corporations are looking to exploit the effects of climate change by making more profits, instead of coming up with solutions to revert it. Not to mention this would put the entire ecosystem at risk, damaging our marine life. Scientists predict that at this rate, the Arctic could have ice-free Summers in a few decades (p. 793). By having regulatory stakes in the Arctic, the U.S. economy could prosper tremendously. However, there are also risks of oil spills, endangering the environment further, etc. This question could go both ways but I believe that we should work on preserving the environment first.
2) I agree that China would have the greatest benefit from a newly opened polar freshwater trading route. Many corporations and manufacturers are situated in China, and having new shipping routes through the Arctic would greatly reduce its costs. Instead of going around large continents, a direct and central shipping route would be open between Europe and Asia (p. 792).