Long Advs Two Version Toc

7/31/2019 Long Advs Two Version Toc

1/21


2/21

2

HS TOC

Fruity Pebbles (2/3)

Escalates to nuclear conflict with RussiaWallace & Staples 10 (Michael Wallace, Professor Emeritus of the University of British Columbia; StevenStaples, President of the Rideau Institute; Ridding the Arctic of Nuclear Weapons: a task long overdue,Canadian Pugwash Group, Rideau Institute, March 2010,http://www.arcticsecurity.org/docs/arctic-nuclear-report-web.pdf)

The fact is, the Arctic is becoming a zone of increased military competition . Russian President Medvedev has announced thecreation of a special military force to defend Arctic claims. Last year Russian General Vladimir Shamanovdeclared that Russian troops would step up training for Arctic combat, and that Russias submarine fleet would increase its operational radius.55Recently, two Russian attack submarines were spotted off the U.S. east coast for the first time in 15 years.56 In January 2009, on the eve of Obamas inauguration, President Bush issued a National Security Presidential Directive on Arctic Regional Policy. It affirmed as a priority the preservation of U.S.military vessel and aircraft mobility and transit throughout the Arctic, including the Northwest Passage, and foresaw greater capabilities to protect U.S. borders in t he Arctic.57 The Bush administrations disastrous eight years in office, particularly its decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty and deploymissile defence interceptors and a radar station in Eastern Europe, have greatly contributed t o the instability we are seeing today, even though the Obama administration has scaled back the planned deployments. The Arctic has figured in this renewed interest in Cold War weapons systems, particularly theupgrading of the Thule Ballistic Missile Early Warning System radar in Northern Greenland for ballistic missile defence. The Canadian government, as well, has put forward new military capabilities to protect Canadian sovereignty claims in the Arctic, including proposed ice-capable ships, a northern

military training base and a deep-water port. Earlier this year Denmark released an all-party defence position paper that suggests the country should create a dedicated Arctic military contingent that draws onarmy, navy and air force assets with shipbased helicopters able to drop troops anywhere.58 Danish fighter planes would be tasked to patrol Greenlandic airspace. Last year Norway chose to buy 48 LockheedMartin F-35 fighter jets, partly because of their suitability for Arctic patrols. In March, that country held a major Arctic military practice involving 7,000 soldiers from 13 countries in which a fictional countrycalled Northland seized offshore oil rigs.59 The manoeuvres prompted a protest from Russia which objected again in June after Sweden held its largest northern military exercise since the end of the Second

World War. About 12,000 troops, 50 aircraft and several warships were involved.60 Jayantha Dhanapala, President of Pugwash and former UN under-secretary for disarmament affairs, summarized the

situation bluntly: From those in the international peace and security sector, deep concerns are being expressed over the fact that two nuclear weapon states theUnited States and the Russian Federation, whichtogether own 95 per cent of the nuclear weapons in the world convergeon the Arctic and have competing claims. These claims, together with those of other allied NATO countries Canada, Denmark, Iceland, and Norway could, ifunresolved, lead to conflict escalating into thethreat or use of nuclear weapons .61 Many will no doubt argue that this is excessively alarmist, but nocircumstance in which nuclear powers find themselves in military confrontation can be taken lightly. The current geo-political threat level is nebulous and low for now, according to Rob Huebert of the University of Calgary, [the] issue is the uncertainty as Arctic states and non-Arctic states begin to recognize the geo-political/economic significance of the Arctic because of climate change. 62

Escalation occurs within minutes and wipes out the speciesHelfand and Pastore 9both have doctorates (MD)past presidents of national PSR, co-authored acompelling op-ed on nuclear weapons that recently appeared in the Providence Journal [John, Ira Physiciansfor Social Responsibility. US-Russia Nuclear War is Still a Threat www.projo.com, 3/31/9 //GBS-JV]

Since the end of the Cold War, many have acted as though the danger of nuclear war has ended. It has not . Thereremain in the world more than 20,000 nuclear weapons.Alarmingly, more than 2,000 of theseweapons in the U.S. andRussian arsenals remain on ready-alert status, commonly known as hair-trigger alert. Theycan be fired withinfive minutes and reach targets in the other country 30 minutes later. Just one ofthese weapons can destroy a city. A warinvolving a substantial numberwould cause devastation on a scale unprecedented in human history. A study conducted by Physicians for SocialResponsibility in 2002 showed that if only 500 of the Russian weapons on high alert exploded over our cities, 100 million Americans would die

in the first 30 minutes. An attack of this magnitude alsowould destroy the entire economic, communicationsand transportation infrastructure on which we all depend. Those who survived the initial attack would inhabit anightmare landscapewith huge swaths of the countryblanketed with radioactive fallout and epidemic diseases rampant.They would have no food, no fuel, no electricity, no medicine, and certainly no organized health care. In the following months it is likely the vast majority of

the U.S. population would die. Recent studies by the eminent climatologists Toon and Robockhave shown that such a warwould have a huge and immediate impact on climateworld wide. If all of the warheads in the U.S. and Russian strategic arsenals weredrawn into the conflict, the firestorms they causedwould loft 180 million tons of soot and debris into the upperatmosphere blot ting out the sun. Temperatures across the globewould fall an average of 18 degreesFahrenheit to levels not seen on earth since the depth ofthe last ice age , 18,000 years ago.Agriculture wouldstop, eco-systems would collapse, and many species, including perhaps our own, would become extinct.

JAMMBBAHHHHHH brilliant pebbles RIP
http://www.arcticsecurity.org/docs/arctic-nuclear-report-web.pdfhttp://www.arcticsecurity.org/docs/arctic-nuclear-report-web.pdfhttp://www.projo.com/http://www.arcticsecurity.org/docs/arctic-nuclear-report-web.pdfhttp://www.projo.com/


3/21

3

HS TOC

Fruity Pebbles (3/3)

Probability and Timeframe- Tensions nowMacalister 11 [Terry, Guardian UK, Jul 6, US and Russia stir up political tensions over Arctic, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/06/us-russia-political-tensions-arctic]

The message was clear: the US is putting itself at the centre of the debate about the future of the far north at a timewhen a newoil and mineral "cold rush" is under way as global warming makes extraction more easy . And being theUS, the soft diplomacy was backed up with a bit of symbolic hardware. A few weeks earlier two nuclear-powered submarines weresent to patrol 150 miles north of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Meanwhile Russia also on the eight-nation council was happy to push off the agenda any idea that

countries such as China could gain observer status. The US navy move comes as Russia is said to have increased missiletesting in the region and Norway has moved its main military base to the far north . Meanwhile China has started to

woo countries such as Greenland, which are rich in rare earth minerals needed for mobile phones and other hi-tech equipment. Thecompeting commercial interests in the Arctic are complicated by the lack of a comprehensive agreement on

who owns what. Many countries are in the process of submitting competing land claims to the UN as part of its Law of the Sea Convention a treatyas yet unsigned by the US. Canada and others were also disturbed when Artur Chilingarov, a veteran Russian polar explorer, placed a flag on the Arcticseabed in 2007. He told reporters his mission was to show the Arctic was Russian, adding: "We must prove the north pole is an extension of the Russian

landmass." Canada took exception to the Russian move, seeing it as provocative, but Moscow dismissed the furore, insisting itwas a theatrical gesture by a scientist hired by private companies to make the descent. Butit is telling that the following year Chilingarov also a member of the state parliament was awarded a new title, Hero of the Russian Federation. Concernsabout a new cold war if not just a cold rush have led academics such as Rob Huebert, a professor of political science at the Universityof Calgary, to warn in a recent paper prepared for the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute that "anarms race may be beginning". Huebert says he has heard the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin, talking of the need toestablish a "zone of peace" in the Arctic but sees contrary actions as well."Not withstanding the publicstatements of peace and co-operation in the Arctic issued by the Arctic states, The strategic value of the regionis growing.As this value grows, each state will attach a greater value to their own national interests in theregion. The Arctic states may be talking co-operation, but they are preparing for conflict ." MeanwhileAdmiral James Stavridis, Nato's supreme allied commander in Europe, in a foreword to a recent Whitehall Ppaper published by the Royal United Services

Institute for Defence and Security Studies in London, argued: "For now , the disputes in the north have been dealt with peacefully,but climate change could alter the equilibrium over the coming years in the race of temptation forexploitation of more readily accessible natural resources."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/05/oil-supplies-arctichttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/russiahttp://www.arctic-council.org/http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/canadahttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/02/russia.arctichttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/02/russia.arctichttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2011/jul/05/arctic-oil-exploitation-map-interactivehttp://poli.ucalgary.ca/profiles/robert-hueberthttp://poli.ucalgary.ca/profiles/robert-hueberthttp://poli.ucalgary.ca/profiles/robert-hueberthttp://poli.ucalgary.ca/profiles/robert-hueberthttp://www.cdfai.org/PDF/The%20Newly%20Emerging%20Arctic%20Security%20Environment.pdfhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-changehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-changehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/05/oil-supplies-arctichttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/russiahttp://www.arctic-council.org/http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/canadahttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/02/russia.arctichttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/02/russia.arctichttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2011/jul/05/arctic-oil-exploitation-map-interactivehttp://poli.ucalgary.ca/profiles/robert-hueberthttp://poli.ucalgary.ca/profiles/robert-hueberthttp://www.cdfai.org/PDF/The%20Newly%20Emerging%20Arctic%20Security%20Environment.pdfhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change


4/21

4

HS TOC

Cocoa Puffs (1/6)

Natural outgassing means the ocean is already too warm to sustain frozen methane hydrates wide-scale melting is inevitable and underwayNissen 11 (John Nissen, Chairman, Arctic Methane Emergency Working Group, geoengineering expert; other contributors & members: PeterWadhams, Professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, Stephen Salter, Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design at Edinburgh University, Dr.Brian Orr, former Principal Scientific Officer, Department of the Environment, Peter Carter, Sam Carana, Anthony Cook, Gary Houser, Jon Hughes, andGraham Ennis; Arctic Methane Alert, December 2011,http://www.vmine.net/scienceinparliament/specials/12.pdf)

Until now, governments have been told that climate change is a long-term problem. They have been trying todo their best for their citizens by pursuing strategies for emissions reductions over decades , to prevent global warmingexceeding a safe limit. But the situation has dramatically changed. We now face a problem requiring emergencyaction, to stop the point of no return being reached. The loss of Arctic sea-ice in September is now consideredto be that point, as it will set off a chain reaction of events that cannot be halted . The very rapid rise in greenhouse gases,and the near collapse of the protective cooling of the Arctic sea ice, is unprecedented in the past 2.5 million years. The last time there wasexplosive growth of methane, of the amount we are liable to encounter as the sea ice retreats, was in thePETM around 55 million years ago the last major extinction event. Warnings about the catastrophic impacts of a methane releasefrom the Arctic have been circulating for many years. Former US Department Geologist John Atcheson wrote in 2004: A temperature increase ofmerely a few degrees would cause these gases to volatilize and burp into the atmosphere Once triggered thiscycle could result in runaway global warming, the likes of which even the most pessimistic doomsayers arenttalking about[1] NASA scientist Jay Zwally said in 2007 the rate of collapse indicated an ice-free summer by 2012. The Copenhagen Diagnosis(2009) states: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. The PIOMAS findings confirmthis acceleration and probability that collapse is now occurring at an exponential rather than linear rate,pointing to an Arctic ice-free during the summer being reached sooner (2013-18) rather than later (2100) (p5). Theinevitability of an ice-free Arctic releasing vast quantities of methane is widely recognised, as stated byNobel Laureate, Steven Chu [2]. Failure to make ready to counteract the Arctic methane threat would amount to a failureof duty of care that governments have for their citizens [3]: The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent orminimise the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientificcertainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures. It is against this background we urge you to read this report and consider itscontents. Dr. Igor Semiletov Dr. Igor Semiletov, crew leader of a recently returned Arctic methane research expedition, was interviewed on Oct 20 inVladivostok, Russia, by an associate of a U.S.-based documentary team. Here are some excerpts, released by kind permission of 590 Films(www.590films.org/methane.html) Note: Dr semiletov was speaking as an individual and not reporting official findings. Scale of emissions For sure there

was a sense of urgency in our preparation. It was caused by the new data, which had been gathered during the past two years andnot published yet. This data presents plenty of reason to have concern. In our article for Science magazine in 2010, we

estimated the scale of methane emission from this region to be 8 million tons ...... But the more recent datashows that the emissions from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) are much bigger. There are actually hugeplumes of bubbles emitting from the sea bottom. Using the equipment available on this voyage four geophysical methodsseismic profiling on different frequencies, hydro-acoustics on three frequencies, we measured these fountainsof bubbles and the methane concentration in the air ....That was highly precise measuring . We conducted 115stationary checkpoints and discovered fieldsof fantastic scale I thinkof a scale not seen before in the ocean. Somefountains of methane were a kilometre and more in diameter. Emissions into the atmosphere were also 100times higher than normal what would be considered sustainable levels. Such emissions would unavoidablycause impacts on climate change the only question concerns the scale, kinetics, and speed of the emissions .Unprecedented warming The international climate community is now beginning to seriously examine this mechanismof rapid methane emissions as a possible cause of fast climate changes on the Earth . I agree with the opinion ofmost climate experts working in the Arctic. We see reduction of ice cover. It is obvious not only from satellites,

but we also can see it directly while we are working there In 2007, we were on a fairly small ship Victor Buinitzki and reached 82degrees latitude, and the surface temperature was plus 3C (3C above freezing). This is unprecedented warming, and it is a fact. Thawfeedback Such warming will have an unavoidable impact on hydrates, and we know how. When ice has gone,there are stronger winds and waves and a deeper mixing of water which causes the comparatively warm upperlayer to mix with water at deeper levels . There are already studies which confirm that in some areas, bottom temperature in summer is 2 to 3degrees above zero celsius (freezing).This means that when we determine average temperature of the year, it is already somewhere close to zero degreescelsius (the freezing / thaw point). And in some regions for instance near the mouth of the great Siberian rivers like Lena, that warming can play a veryserious role. As this warming spreads to a larger area, the more that shelf-based permafrost will thaw. The impact from global warming on hydrates willcause more winds and warming of surface waters. This will also interact with deeper waters and lead to the increasing of summer temperature to positive(above freezing).

http://www.vmine.net/scienceinparliament/specials/12.pdfhttp://www.vmine.net/scienceinparliament/specials/12.pdf


5/21

5

HS TOC

Cocoa Puffs (2/6)

Only extraction solvesCohen 10 MBA, B.Sc., (Chem. Eng.) PR.Eng. Chief Executive Officer of Northern Orion Resources Senior VicePresident of Miramar Mining Corporation Chairman of Enterprise Energy Resources Ltd. (Dave, Associationfor the Study of Peak Oil & Gas USA (ASPO-USA), M.A. Theoretical Linguistics, Methane Hydrates, EnergyBulletin, 2-11-2010, http://www.energybulletin.net/node/51517)

Well, of course, this makes sense.We wouldn't want to inadvertently disturb a big patch of methane hydrates,which might lead to the release of a shitload of gas into the water column,which would eventuallylead to itsbubbling out of the sea and into the atmosphere. You see, if the methane in ocean floor hydrates gets loose, that'smuch, muchworse than if we successfully capture it, pipe it somewhere and burn it. In this latter case, we onlyget the carbon emissions from burning the "pure" natural gas (CH4), not the full-blown greenhouse effectsof unadulterated methane in the atmosphere, which converts to CO2 over time thereit's 25 times morepotent per molecule [as a greenhouse gas] than carbon dioxide on a 100-year basis. Methane hydrates are stable under lowtemperatures and high pressures. So, I guess you could say thatby capturing & burningthe natural gas in ocean floor hydrates,

we would be actually saving the planet from the future ruin we might incur if the deep oceans were to warmsufficientlydue to the burning of fossil fuels like natural gasto cause natural degassing.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/51517http://www.energybulletin.net/node/51517


6/21

6

HS TOC

Cocoa Puffs (3/6)

And, new extraction technology is safe beginning production as soon as possible is the only wayto avoid massive methane releaseRennie 11editor in chief of Scientific American, adjunct instructor in the graduate Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program recipient of the Sagan Award for Public Understanding of Science, bestowed by the Council ofScientific Society Presidents awarded Navigator Award for distinguished service in support of national science and technology policy (John Rennie, Energy from Methane Hydrates: Better to Burn Out than Fade Away, The Gleaming Retort, 6-1-2011,http://blogs.plos.org/retort/2011/06/01/energy-from-methane-hydrates-better-to-burn-out-than-fade-away/)

Estimates of how much methane is tied up in hydrates globally vary widely but are on the order of 1,000,000trillion cubic feet. Most of that is flatly unattainable, explains Ray Boswell, the methane hydrates technology manager for the U.S.Department of Energys National Energy Technology Laboratory. Nevertheless, in 2010, he and Timothy S. Collett, a research geologist for the U.S.Geological Survey, estimated that even if gas producers restricted themselves to the most workable, sandy formations,the amount of recoverable methane in hydrates could be around 10,000 trillion cubic feet. That quantitycompares favorably to the roughly 16,200 trillion cubic feet that the M.I.T. Energy Initiatives 2010 Future of Natural Gas reportlists as recoverable from all of the worlds remaining conventional sources . That much natural gas ought to beirresistible if it can be captured safely and economically. No one yet knows whether it really can but the signs are at least currentlypromising. Originally, people thought that gas companies might need to mine the hydrates by dredging the bottomof the ocean for them. That perception blunted interest in the hydrates as an energy source for years becausesuch an approach would havebeen costly and inefficient, and raised the specter ofdisrupted hydrateformations accidentally releasing great clouds of methanethe last thing that our greenhouse gas-beset planet would need rightnow. Fortunately, a vastly better way has come to light: preliminary studies suggest thatwells dug into very deepsandy hydrate formations can simply pump methane and water to the surface. The opportunities for methane

leakage are minimal because the hydrates are so deeply sealed beneath other sediments andbecause theyspontaneously refreeze as soon as the pumping stops. The potential for an uncontrollable wellhead blowoutlike the one that destroyed the Deepwater Horizon and polluted the Gulf Coast thus appears to beimpossible. Researchers are also looking into another way of tapping the hydrates that involves injecting carbondioxide into them. The carbon dioxide can displace the trapped methane in the hydrates and release it forcollection. An additional advantage of this approach would be that it would sequester the CO2 beneath theseafloor, which could only help further in attempts to curtail climate change from industrial emissions . (Seemy articlefor moredetailsonboth thesepumping approaches.) But ofcourse, inthe real world, a capability to usemethanehydrates as asource of natural gaswont matter unlessit can do so cost-competitively.And right now, gascompanies and politicians aremost keenlyexcited about therelatively new prospect ofusing horizontal drilling andcontroversial frackingtechniquesto capture then atural gasinside oil shaleformations. TheUEnergyInformation Administrationnotes that adding theidentified shalegas resources to otherg asresources increases total worldtechnically recoverablegas resources byover40 percent to 22,600 trillion cubicfeet. It maybe toughfor methaneh ydrates, as a newand unorthodox gasresource that maynot beable to reach asignificant commercial scalefor 10 to 15 moreyears, to makemuch headway against thcompetition. Thenagain, maybenot. Certain factors mightbemore advantageousto methanehydrate developmentthanone would think. Thefirst is that nations like Japan, which now havehuge and expensiveindustrial energycosts, haveextraordinary incentivesto usethe methanehydrates off their coasts. Japan has already announcedthat it hopesto begin somelevel of methaneproductionfrom its NankaiTroughhydrates by 2018.So whetheror not methanehydrates seem to makemuch economicsensehere inthe U.S., for example, othercountries willbe pushing thetechnologyahead regardless. Energy companies mayalso seereasons to develop methanehydrates based on synergieswith their otherinterests. In myinterviewwith TimothyCollett of the U.S. Geological Survey,he pointed out that conventional

natural gascomesout of the groundcarrying a lot of CO2. (For example,the natural gas emergingfrom Alaskas North Slope wellsis about 10 percent CO2 [pdf].) By law,natural gas producers mustremovethat CO2 before theycan store or transport their product butthey cannot release it into theair. Yetif CO2 sequestration intohydrates proves feasible, Collett says, gas companies could use waste CO2 from their conventional gas wells todrive further methane production from the hydrates. He also pointed out that oil companies working Alaskas NorthSlope might find that developing methane hydrates could help them to maintain oil production. As oilfields

there run dry, the companies now keep wells alive by pumping gas down into the reservoirs to maintainpressure. The methane from hydrates could become a handy local source of gas for recharging the wells:instead of distributing the methane as fuel, the companies could use it to keep their production of more

valuable oil going. (That incentive would surely be a mixed blessing in the eyes of climate hawks looking to move the global economy away from production and use of oil and coal. Still, perhaps it is still of value as a lesser-of-two-evils transitional step toward an energy infrastructure in which natural gas can more easily substitute for oil.) It is also not yet a foregone conclusion that natural gas production from oil shales has a clear way forward. Though I am personallypessimistic about the odds of environmental or public health concerns standing in the way of the moneyed energy interests in this case, the huge and unsettled controversies about whether fracking is safe might yet trip up oil shale development. If so,

the environmental desirability to find good, affordable sources of natural gas will still exist, which could help sustain interest in methane hydrates. Expanded natural gas development is not ideal from a climate change perspective . Burningnatural gas for energyis more appealing than using oil or coal because it produces less CO2 and otherparticulatesbut on a rapidly growing global industrial scale, it still will contribute a lot. The best result for theenvironment would be for natural gas to grow as a transitional energy source while solar, wind and other greenalternatives become still less expensive and more practical . (And making that transition may be a challenge in itself once natural gas is still more entrenched.) Whether methanehydrates can or will play a part in that strategy remains to be seen . But methane hydrates are not just a resource. They remain, more darkly, one of the veiled menaces whose existence shouldurge action on the climate. The deep hydrate formations that developers might tap seem reasonably secure against big unwanted releases of methanebut the more shallow deposits on parts of the seafloor and under the Siberian and North American

permafrosts are not.If global temperatures continue to rise, and if the oceans (which absorb most of the trapped

greenhouse-effect heat) rise in temperature by a few degrees Celsius, then those more exposed methane hydrateswill begin to decompose on their own. How much methane they could abruptly burp into the atmosphere is uncertain, and may depend on the precise circumstances. But any additionalatmospheric methane will be unwanted and could greatly accelerate greenhouse effects for a fewdecades, further complicating any efforts to adapt to the new climate. Maybe Neil Youngs lyric Its better to burnout than fade away captures the odd paradox of methane hydrates best. Better to burn some of their methanein the short run, and suffer a CO2-driven aggravation of greenhouse problems en route to a more sustainableenergy solution, than to continue with the energy status quo and wait for melting hydrates to worsen theclimate problem for us.

http://blogs.plos.org/retort/2011/06/01/energy-from-methane-hydrates-better-to-burn-out-than-fade-away/http://blogs.plos.org/retort/2011/06/01/energy-from-methane-hydrates-better-to-burn-out-than-fade-away/


7/21

7

HS TOC

Cocoa Puffs (4/6)

Methane release causes extinction outweighs nuclear warRyskin 3Ph.D. Chemical Engineering California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA Engineer-Physicist St. Petersburg Polytechnic Institute, St.Petersburg, Russia Fluid dynamics; statistical physics; geophysics Associate Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering (Gregory, Department ofChemical Engineering, Northwestern University, Methane-driven oceanic eruptions and mass extinctions, Geology, 31(9), September2003, http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/methaneGeology.pdf)

METASTABILITY ANDERUPTIONA liquidsubject to gravityand completely or partially saturatedwith dissolvedgasis, thermodynamically, ina metastablestate. Consider for clarity the case whenthe concentration ofthedissolved gasis only slightlybelowsaturation throughout, and thus increases downward in accordance with Henryslaw. Thenlocally there is notendency for the dissolvedgas to exsolve(to

form bubbles),in spite ofthe fact that nucleiare abundant in seawater. (Exsolutionwouldlead to a slight increase in free energy:below saturation, thechemical potential of thegasspecies islower in solution than inthe free gasphase.) At thesame time, thefreeenergy ofthe system as awholewould begreatly reduced ifmost ofthe dissolvedgas wereto somehow escape from solution andcollect abovethe liquid.(Thisfree energy reduction is due to the fast decreaseof thechemical potential of gaswith a drop in pressure.) Thus,the system is ina metastable state, albeit an unusualone.Strictly speaking,this state is not an equilibrium oneeven locally: theincrease of the solute concentration with depth causes a diffusion fluxdirected upward, which, givensufficient time,could bring the system into theabove state of minimu

freeenergy. However,the continuous supply ofmethane bythe rising bubblesfrom theseafloor ensuresthat the concentration profile willremainnonuniform, slowlyapproaching thesaturation one.Even ifthat supply wereto cease, the diffusion time scales are so long that this path towardtheglobal energyminimumcan be ignored.A very fasttransitionfrom this metastable state can be triggered by disturbances that displace fluid a finite distance in the

vertical direction. Such disturbances may result from an earthquake, a seafloor volcano, convectioncurrents due to geothermal heating, or an internal gravity wave. Consider a parcel of fluidthat is displacedupward, and is now subject to lowerhydrostaticpressure, to which corresponds a lower solubility value.As a result, thefluid in theparcel isnow supersaturated with the dissolvedg as,which must beginto exsolve,forming tiny gasbubbles.(If the fluid inits original position wasonly partially saturated, exsolution willbeginafter the parcel hasrisenthrough somesignificant distance, so in this casethe initial disturbance must besufficiently large.) Thevolumeof the ascending parcel offluidincreases due to theformation ofbubbles, making it

morebuoyant andaccelerating its rise; this leads to further reduction inthe ambientpressure, further exsolution ofgas, and further increasein the volumeof the parcel. Thisself-accelerating motion entrains the surrounding fluid; exsolution ofthe gas inthe latter reinforces themotion. Theresult is a violenteruption (Kling etal., 1987; Zhang,1996).From the initialeruption site, hydrodynamic disturbances propagate in all directions (via turbulent entrainment and/orinternal gravity waves), triggering eruptions at other sites. Similarly to transitions from other metastable states (e.g., boiling of asuperheated liquid), the eruption should spread quickly throughout the region of the ocean where the water columnis saturated, or partially saturated, with gas. In spite of the low solubility of methane in seawater, the totalpossible increase in the buoyancy of the parcel can be large . Consider a parcel that started its rise at 4 km depth, wheresolubility of methaneis ;4.3 31023. Then, ifthe parcel hada volume of18 cm3 (1mol ofwater) and was saturated with methane,itcontained 4.3 31023mol of dissolvedmethane.By the timethis parcel has risen to thesurface, essentially all themethane in theparcel has exsolved(solubility is;2 3 1025at the surface). At the surface conditions (T 258C, P 5 1 bar), 1 molof any gas occupies 25 3103cm3, so the total volumeof methanein the parcel is ;108cm3, andthe volume ofthe parcel, which now contains a mist ofwater droplets ingaseou

methane,is 126 cm3. That is, the volumeof theparcel has increased bya factor of seven.Concurrent exsolution of other dissolvedgases(e.g., carbon dioxide CO2, hydrogensulfide H2S)willadd to the effect.A rather similar process is responsible for the most

violent, explosive volcanic eruptions(calledPlinian), such as eruptions ofMount VesuviusinA.D. 79 or Mount St. Helensin 1980.Theseeruptions aredriven byexsolution ofg ases(primarily water vapor) dissolvedin theliquidmagma. In Lake Nyos (Cameroon), CO2 ofmagmaticorigin enters the water columnfrom thebottom, at a depth of ;200 m.In 1986, the lake erupted, creating a gas-water fountain ;120 m inheight (Zhang,1996), and releasing a lethal cloud ofCO2. A water surge washedup the shore to a heightof ;25 m. Theeruption continuedfor several hours (Kling et al., 1987).OCEANIC ERUPTION AS A CAUSEOF MASS EXTINCTIONThe consequencesof a methane-driven oceanic eruption for marine and terrestrial life are likely to be catastrophic. Figurativelyspeaking, the erupting region boils over, ejecting a large amount of methane and other gases (e.g., CO2,H2S) into the atmosphere, and flooding large areas of land. Whereas pure methane is lighter than air, methaneloaded with water droplets is much heavier, and thus spreads over the land, mixing with air in the process (andlosing water as rain). The air-methane mixture is explosive at methane concentrations between 5% and 15%; assuch mixtures form in different locations near the ground and are ignited by lightning, explosions 2 andconflagrations destroy most of the terrestrial life, and also produce great amounts of smoke and of carbondioxide. Firestorms carry smoke and dust into the upper atmosphere, where theymayremain for several

years(Turco et al., 1991); the resulting darkness and global coolingmayprovide an additional kill mechanism.Conversely, carbon dioxide and the remaining methane create the greenhouse effect, which may lead to global

warming. The outcome of the competition between the cooling and the warming tendencies is difficult to predict (Turco et al., 1991; Pierrehumbert,2002). Upon release of a significant portion of the dissolved methane, the ocean settles down, and the entiresequence of events (i.e., development of anoxia, accumulation of dissolved methane, the metastable state,eruption) begins anew. No external cause is required to bring about a methane-driven eruptionitsmechanism is self-contained , and implies that eruptions are likely to occur repeatedly at the same location. Becausemethane is isotopically light, its fast release must result in a negative carbon isotope excursion in the geological record. Knowing the magnitude of the excursion, one can estimate the amount of methane that could have produced it. Such calculations (prompted by the methane-hydrate-dissociation model,but equally applicable here) have been performed for several global events in the geological record; the results range from ;1018 to 1019 g of released methane (e.g., Katz et al., 1999; Kennedy et al., 2001; de Wit et al., 2002). These are very large amounts: the total carbon content of todays terrestrialbiomass is ;2 3 1018 g. Nevertheless, relatively small regions of the deep ocean could contain such amounts of dissolved methane; e.g., the Black Sea alone (volume ;0.4 3 1023 of the ocean total; maximum depth only 2.2 km) could hold, at saturation, ;0.5 3 1018 g. A similar region of the deep ocean could

contain much more (the amount grows quadratically with depth3). Released in a geological instant (weeks, perhaps), 1018 to 1019 g ofmethane coulddestroythe terrestrial life almost entirely. Combustion and explosion of 0.75 3 1019 g of methanewould liberateenergyequivalent to 108 Mt of TNT,; 10,000 times greater than the worlds stockpile of nuclear weapons,implicated in the nuclear winter scenario(Turco et al., 1991).

http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/methaneGeology.pdfhttp://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/methaneGeology.pdf


8/21

8

HS TOC

Cocoa Puffs (5/6)

Any risk of methane release controls your impact calculus its the most probable and onlyempirical extinction event, and accesses an invisible thresholdDorritie 7 (Dan Dorritie, paleontologist, studies mass extinction events, M.A. Geology, University of CaliforniaDavis, Preface,Killer in our Midst,2007, http://www.killerinourmidst.com/)

Deep beneath the surface of the sea, buried in the oxygen-depleted muds that have accumulated over the ages on the underwater margins of the continents,lies a vast store of natural gas that probably well exceeds, in its carbon equivalence, the entire supply of all other oil, gas, and coal on the planet. Most of thisimmense store of natural gas, largely comprised of methane, lies trapped in icy cages called hydrates. Below these hydrates is a huge quantity of methane asfree gas bubbles, blocked from release by the hydrate, and temperature and pressure conditions above. Still more methane, as hydrate, is found in thepermanently frozen (permafrost) regions that surround the poles. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, the gas which is

currently warming our globe, even though methane remains in the atmosphere for a much shorter time. If released abruptly, seafloormethane has the potential to deliver a stunning jolt of heat to the planet's already increasing temperatures.Even if released more gradually, seafloor methane will inevitably compound the problem of global warming.But abruptly or gradually, as we warm the planet by our dumping of carbon dioixde into the atmosphere, theseafloor will also warm, and its methane will inevitably be released . This book is about the release of that methane, and, inparticular, about the possibility of methane catastrophe. Methane catastrophes have occurred several timesin Earth'shistory, and when they have occurred, they have sometimes caused abruptchanges in the history of life, and atleast one significant extinction. That extinction , at the end ofthe Permian Period 250 million years ago, is thegreatest in the historyof life. More than 90% ofthe then-existing species perished, and the course of life on Earth wasaltered forever. If a methane catastrophe were to happen in the near future, it is likely that not only would aconsiderable percentage ofexisting plants and animals be killed off, but a large percentage of the humanpopulation as well, as a result of the climate change and significantly more hostile environmental conditions.

Yet we may well be heading toward such a catastrophe, produced by our warming of the planet. Just how rapidly seafloormethane will be released depends on numerous factors that are quite difficult to assess. It is possible thatseafloor methane will be released so slowly that it will only have a relatively minor warming effect on Earth'sclimate. On the other hand, because the coming methane release will be the result of our warming of the planet via the burning of fossil and otheracrbon fuels, it could happen much more quickly. Indeed, it seems that we are currently pumping the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into theatmosphere at a much faster -- perhaps tens to hundreds of times faster -- rate than has ever before naturally occurred in the last half billion years or so ofthe Earth's history. The catastrophic warming we are causing is -- to the best of our knowledge -- unprecedented since the early days of our planet, billions

of years ago. Such warming could well lead to methane catastrophe. The onset of a methane catastrophe would be abrupt because itcouldbe initiated by a major submarine landslide, which can happen in a matter ofdays or even hours , or bythe venting of vast quantities of seafloor methane over a period of decades. These events can take place in what

is essentially a geological eyeblink. Additional slumping and/or venting can continue for centuries to millennia.

The amount ofmethane that can be released is indeed massive. Estimates of the amount of seafloor methane generally range fromabout 5000 billion metric tons to around 20,000 billion metric tons (a metric ton is equal to 1.1 imperial tons, the standard ton used in the United States),

though theyusually range around 10,000 billion metric tons. This amount of methane contains about 7500 billion metric tons of carbonvastly more than all the estimated carbon in all fossil fuels: petroleum, coal, and natural gas. There is a simple way to put 10,000 billionmetric tons of methane into perspective: it contains about ten times the amount of carbon (largely in the formof carbon dioxide) as does the entire atmosphere. Moreover, though methane entering the atmosphere is quickly oxidized, it is oxidizedto carbon dioxide, so the problem of its warming ability will remain with us for thousands of years into the future.A methane catastrophe,therefore, is an abrupt surge of greenhouse gas that could rival or exceed the carbon dioxide

warming of the planet. It could potentially overwhelm the natural heat regulatory system of the Earth,which operates in a much more gradual way, and on a much more protracted time scale. The quantity ofmethane that could be released is so massive there would be no remedial action that people would be able totake to mitigate it except in the most superficial way. Once a methane catastrophe were to begin, there would

be major consequences for the planet and its inhabitants, human and other, and we would be able to do littleexcept wait it out. Methane, in a very real sense, is the joker in the deck of global warming. As with the current increase in atmospheric carbondioxide, a large methane release will undoubtedly contribute to an increase in acid rain, and, through its impact on global warming, a further rise of sealevel, increased desertification, increased heavy precipitation, and extreme weather events. The slowing of ocean circulation or its actual stagnation becauseof greater planetary warmth are also possibilities. Such a slowing would paradoxically produce a decreased transport of warm water to the coasts ofnortheastern North America and northernmost Europe, making for much colder winters. In addition, the destabilization of methane within seafloor

sediments can send 20 meter (60 foot) high tsunamis crashing into nearby coastlines.A methane catastrophe can have other majorconsequences in addition to sudden global warming. It can accelerate the slow but deadly acidification of thesurface ocean (down to about 100 meters, or about 300 feet), which is now occurring as a result of the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphereand ocean. The methane can combine with dissolved oceanic oxygen, depleting the deeper part of the ocean (that is,the ocean below about 100 meters) of oxygen, and killing off the

http://www.killerinourmidst.com/http://www.killerinourmidst.com/


9/21

9

HS TOC

Cocoa Puffs (6/6)

oxygen-using (aerobic) organisms at those depths. As acidification penetrates the deep ocean, even organismsthat do not use oxygen (anaerobes) will be affected. Then there are the worst case scenarios. With the warming of the world ocean, itschemical balance and biological composition will change. The ocean will become stratified, with mixing between its surface and the deep ocean becoming

increasingly restricted. If the deep ocean becomes fully anoxic (devoid of oxygen), it will also become toxic, as theremaining anaerobic organisms pump out the deadly gas hydrogen sulfide. In sufficient quantities, that gascould escape oceanic confinement to poison the atmosphere and, combining with the iron in the blood's

hemoglobin, kill terrestrial organisms, including us. But the composition ofthe atmospherecould also changein asecond way, becausethe amount offree oxygendepends ontwo things:the actual production of oxygen(by the ocean's photosyntheticplankton andterrestriagreenplants) and thedeliveryof larg eamounts of carbon (aspart of a "rain" of organicdebris from organismscloser to the surface) to theocean's bottom. Thiscarbon, ifnot removed from the globalcarbon cycleby sinking and eventualburial in theocean floor, willcombine with oxygenand lowerits concentration inthe atmosphere.Onceoceanic anoxia kills off aerobicmarineorganisms(those which requireoxygento live), thenatural regulatory system for carbon willbe sent into a tailspin. Theamount oforganic debris produced insurface waters willlikely be reduced, theamountthat rapidly descends to the ocean floor willbe reduced, andthe proportion that getsdecomposedon the wayto the bottom willbesignificantly reduced. Exactly howthis willplay out is unclear, becausecertainof thesechanges willoperate tslow theremovalof carbon from the global carbon cycle(which willact to decrease theamount of oxygenin the atmosphere), whileothers willenhance it (increasing atmosphericoxygen). Whena similar disruption ofthe marine ecosystem occurred at the endof thePermian, a quarter ofa billion years ago,atmosphericoxygen dropped to a fraction (about2/5ths) of its previouslevel.But increasedoxygen couldbe

just as bad: oxygenions (sometimesreferred to as free radicals) can inflict geneticdamage to DNA, causing mutations andcancer.We are certainly on the verge of releasing a huge amount ofpermafrostand seafloor methane within a very short time; we may also be on the brink of methane catastrophe. By ourown actions -- by our continuing and increasing use of carbon fuels -- we are slowly but inexorably creating theconditions during which a such a methane release, catastrophic or more gradual, could occur.We probablyhave time to prevent a catastrophe, but there is a certain non-negligible possibility that we have already crossed-- or will shortly cross -- an invisible threshold that will render a methane catastrophe inevitable andunstoppable. Major anthropogenic global warming by carbon dioxide and possible methane catastrophe

will be events more cataclysmic than any that can befall Earth, except for an impact with a giantasteroid or comet, or a stellar explosion in our neighborhood of the Milky Way. These other events, however,are quite rare and unlikely in our immediate future. Major anthropogenic global warming by carbon dioxide

and possible methane catastrophe, by contrast, are highly likely and much more immediate. More importantly,unlike those other possible cataclysms, both are preventable -- probably -- if we take them seriously, begin tounderstand them, and -- most difficult of all -- begin to take steps to avert them . It has become fashionable todismiss predictions of catastrophe, partly because they have become so common. Many of us have become

jaded, what with one such prediction after another. We used to hear a good deal about nuclear holocaust, ornuclear winter, but as those threats seem to have faded in the public consciousness, there are others whichhave replaced it. We now hear of doomsday asteroids, the ozone hole, SARS (severe acute respiratorysyndrome), bird flu, global warming, and the obliteration of species. The number of threats seems to beincreasing.And, actually, that number is increasing. Prior to this epoch in human history, people simply did nothave the ability to impact our planet in potentially catastrophic ways. Unfortunately, we now do have thatability. The ozone hole is a simple example. Never before was humanity on the verge of destroying this gaseous umbrella which protects us (and all other organisms that live at or near the surface of the Earth) from deadly ultraviolet light.Humanity simply didn't have that kind of power. But the advent of chloro-flouro-carbon (CFC) refrigerants gave us that ability, and the ozone layer sustained significant damage before the problem began to be addressed. Luckily, this is a problem for

which there is a ready solution, and by banning the production of these ozone-harming chemicals, we have begun to bring the problem under control. The problem of carbon dioxide emissions, consequent global warming, andthe

prospect of a major seafloor methane release, however,will not be addressed so easily. We currently have no technology to trap and hold largequantities of carbon dioxide, and we are not likely to have such a technology for many decades in the future -- if indeed we ever will. Some of the excess carbon dioxide we produce is in fact currently slipping beyond our potential grasp, entering theoceans at the astounding rate of about a million metric tons (a metric ton = 1.1 standard ton) per hour, and increasing the acidity of seawater. There is, in addition, great resistance in a world economy driven and dominated by fossil fuels to shifting thenergy base of that economy. Enormous corporate profits and personal fortunes, and the success of political efforts on their behalf, are also at stake. Slowing the stampede to catastrophically higher global temperatures and ocean destruction will

require substantial international effort. Evenso, should we today stop spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, globaltemperatures will continue to increase for some time into the future. Despite our aversion to warnings ofimminent catastrophe, our problem may be that we are not alarmed enough . Because ofthe delayed consequencesofour dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, themajor effects of global warming wonlybe starting just as theworld supply ofoil is wellon its wayto depletion (about 2050).But already startling environmentalchanges -- the early, "minor" effects of globalwarming -- are occurring onEarth: With theexception of1996, the years from 1995 to 2004constitute9 of the 10 warmest years since systematicrecord keeping beganin 1861.The year 2005wasthe warmestyear since records havebeenkepThenext warmest years, inorder, are, 1998, 2002,2003,and 2004.Globally, glaciers haveretreated, on average,almost some15% since 1850.Glacial retreat hasbeen recorded inTibet, Alaska, Peru, theAlps, Kenya, Antarctica. Alaskan temperatures haverisenabout 2.8C(5F) in the past few decades. In the past severaldecades, about 40%of Arctic Ocean seaice hasdisappeared. (Someresearchers now believhowever,that at least part ofthis sea ice loss may bedue to changing windpatterns overthe North Pole, but thesewindchanges, themselves,maybe due to a warming climate.) Between1965 and 1995, the amount ofmelt water from theArctic regiongoing into theNorth Atlanticwasabout 20,000cubic kilometers (about 4800cubicmiles), theequivalentof the fresh water in all ofthe Great Lakes combined(Superior, Huron,Erie, and Ontario) with the exception of LakeMichigan. Preliminary calculations indicate that an additional 18,000 cubickilometers (4300cubic miles) or so couldshut down ocean circulation in theNorth Atlantic. That shutdowncould occur in twodecades or less, thoughmost scientists believeit willtake much longer.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,comprisedof thousands oclimate scientists worldwide, puts the likelyslowing at about 25% by2100. Trade winds across theequatorial Pacific haveslowedbecauseof higherhumidity, andare projectedto do so evenmore as timepasses. Theincreasein humidity isthe result of increased evaporation, traceable to globalwarming.This slowing of Pacific winds willalso slow the ocean surface currents that thewinds push along.Somescientisfear that at somepoint "the switch willbetripped" and nutrient-rich bottom water willno longer riseto the surface in theeastern Pacific (a "permanent El Nio" situation which did exist about three millionyears ago). Thesewaters feed theplankton which feed theanchovies in oneof the world's greatest fisheries. Much ofthe anchovy harvest isdried, groundup, and added to chicken feed, ofwhich it isa majorproteinconstituent. If the switch does trip, good-byeto inexpensivechicken. Upper ocean temperatureshave risenbetween0.5 and 1.0C (0.9 to 1.8F) since 1960. Deeperwater hasalso warmed, butnot by as much. Thetotal amount ofenergy that hasgone into theoceans as a consequenceofg lobalwarming, however,is staggering:enough to runthe state ofCalifornia for 200,000 years. In addition to significaretreats ofthe glaciers on Greenland's margins,as of 2005Greenland's massiveicesheet is melting at more than twicethe rate it was inthe previous threeyears. Glaciologistsreport that portions of thesheet which weresolid ice just a few years agoare now riddled with meltwater caverns. Thedeep waters of theSouthern Ocean (that which encircles Antarctica) havebecome significantly colder and less salty thantheywere just ten years ago. Thisis presumablydue to themelting of SouthernOcean sea ice and parts ofthe Antarcticicecap. Deep ocean waters havebeenpreviously presumedto befairly isolated from climate warming but thedata obtainedfrom depthsof four to fivekilometers (more than two to three miles) now suggestsotherwise.Such changescould significantly impact globalocean circulation. TheSoutheOcean, which mayabsorb morecarbon dioxide than anyother regionof the globalocean, as ofmore than twenty-fiveyears agoceasedto absorb additional carbon dioxide. In fact, its ability to absorb carbon dioxide seemsto be declining -- evenas atmosphericlevels ofthat gas arereaching everhigher levels-- most likelydue to increasedwindspeed overthat part ofthe global ocean. Thehigherwind speedin turnhas beenattributedto both global warming and thedestruction of theAntarctic ozonelayer. Because oceans eventuallyabsorb most of thecarbon dioxide that goesinto the atmosphere, the declining ability of theSouthernOcean to absorb carbon dioxide isa particularly ominous development. Hugeexpanses of floating ice aroundAntarctica havecollapsed into fragments injust weeks,after existing for tens ofthousands ofyears. In addition, the ice that currently covers WestAntarctica, knownas theWest Antarctic Ice Sheet(WAIS), which wasquiterecently (as of 2001)judgedby the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) as unlikelyto collapse before the endof this century, or evenfor the next millennium,may now bestarting to disintegrate, according to thehead ofthe British Antarctic Survey.If thicesheet does collapse, globalsea levelwill rise byabout 5 meters(16 feet). Whileglobal daytimetemperatures, onaverage,increased onlyabout 0.33C (0.6F) between1979 and2003,nighttimetemperatures haverisen more than1C (1.8F). Theseenvironmental changeshavehad significant biological effects: In the eastern North Atlantic, warm-water phytoplankton (marineorganismsthat photosynthesize,produce oxygen,and constitutethe bottom of thefood chain) hasmovednorth 1000km (600 miles) overthe past 40 years. In 2004,almost a quarter ofa million breeding pairs of seabirds in islands north ofScotland failedto produce morethan a few dozen offspring.Their reproductivefailure is most likely due to theNorth Atlantic phytoplankton changes,and the consequentbreakdown of themarine food chainManyof the affected birds migrateback and forth betweenthe Scottish islands andareas aroundthe Southern Ocean (offAntarctica) overthe courseof the year. Starvedinthe north, theywill nevermake it back to thesouth. Similar changeshavebeen observedoff the West Coast of theUnitedStates in2005.Krill, small (about 5cm/2 inchesinlength), shrimplike creatures which are a mainfood source for seals,whales,and penguinsin the Southern Ocean, havedeclined in places to just 20%of their previousnumberin just 30years. Grass nowsurvivesthe winterin places on the AntarcticPeninsula, the warmest part ofthat frigidcontinent. Whengrasslast was ableto survive Antarctic winters is unknown.In the 17 year period from 1987to 2003,the number and sizeof major wildfires in thewestern U. S. hasincreaseddramatically. Comparedto the 17year period stretching from 1970 to 1986,the number ofmajor wildfires has increased fourfold, andthe area burnedby major fires has increased sixfold. All of the presumedcausesfor this increase -- the earlier melting ofsnow, increased summertemperatures, an extendedfire season, and an increase inthe area of high-altitude forests which isvulnerable to such fires -- can be

traced to globalwarming.Thesmall increasein globalnighttimetemperatures indicatedabove(1C/1.8F),is sufficient to havereduced thebiomass (thetotal massof roots, stems, leaves,and grain) of rice, humankind's most important crop, by 10%.Riceis the primary foodstuff for more than halfof the population oftheworld.With the warming, therelease of methane has begun to follow: The Western Siberian Peat Bog, comprising an area of a million square kilometers

(about 385,000 square miles, roughly the combined size of France and Germany), has begun to melt. This area is underlain by permafrost (permanently frozen ground that hasexisted since the Ice Age) perhaps a kilometer (about 3000 feet) deep.The permafrost contains an enormous amount of methane hydrate, possibly asmuch as a quarter of the total inventory of continental methane. As this permafrost warms and melts -- anirreversible process -- methane is released. This melting may add a quantity of methane to the atmosphereroughly equivalent to that released by all other natural and agricultural sources, increasing global warming by10 to 25%. Already, methane emissions from certain areas of Siberian permafrost is proceeding much morerapidly than previously estimated. These extensive areas , characterized by Ice Age deposits of wind-blown dust (called loess) with high carbon and very high ice (50 to 90%)contents,are bubbling out methane at a rate five times higher than earlier presumed . Overall, these "yedoma" regions arecontributing an additional 10 to 63% the total rate of methane release from the wetlands of the north. These are only the early effects, ripplesfrom the storm which is to come. Remedial action is still possible, but the likelihood of catastrophe becomesmore certain with each passing year.



10/21


11/21

11

HS TOC

Apple Jacks (2/9)

Next is the Bering Strait

Trends in the Bering Strait mean its the focal point of international trade and shipping territorial disputes lead to conflict escalation. New communication infrastructure key to checkconflict. Continued unilateral Canadian belligerence skews multilateral cooperationKraska 9 a professor of international law in Center for Naval Warfare Studies at U.S. Naval War College and a guest investigator at Marine PolicyCenter, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. A former Oceans Policy Adviser for Director of Strategic Plans & Policy, Joint Chiefs of Staff, he wasprincipal drafter of national security provisions of U.S. Arctic Region Policy signed by in, (James, January 2009, International Security and InternationalLaw in the Northwest Passage, www-prod.law.vanderbilt.edu/publications/...of.../download.aspx?id)

Seventy percent of the globe is covered by the single, interconnected world ocean.1Eighty percent of the worlds population lives within 200 miles of acoastline.2 Ninety percent of international trade travels by sea.3Much of the commerce, many of the people andresources, and much of the conflict on the planet occurs in the coastal zone.4Consequently, the diplomatic and legalframework for ocean governance is of direct concern to the maintenance of a stable world system . Thesefigures are especially compelling for the states of North America, which are connected to the world primarily by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Theharsh climate of the High North and the ice cap over the Arctic Ocean has deterred most transcontinentaltraffic from using the northern waters as an approach into the shores of Canada and the United States.5 Whilethree vast oceansthe Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctichave shielded North America in the past, in recent decades globalization has brought increasing

numbers and diversity of shipping into Atlantic and Pacific ports.6Climate change may transform the Arctic Ocean into yet a

third waterway for transcontinental traffic into North America.The result is that the northern tier will becomeopen to the benefits and exposed to the potential costs ofworldwide commerce. The greatest impact to date ofthe prospect of increased shipping in the North American Arctic has been the disruption of Canadas sense ofsecurity. Over the past thirty years, the annual average sea-ice extent has decreased about eight percent , or nearlyone million square kilometersan area larger than all of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark combined. The extent of sea ice has declined more dramatically in

summer than the annual average, with the loss amounting to 1520 percent of late-summer ice coverage. Moreover, a consensus is building thatthe melting trend is accelerating, as Arctic temperatures have increased over the last few decades. Winter temperatures in Alaska andWestern Canada, for example, are 34C higher over the past fifty years, and there is an expectation that larger increases will be projected.7 The fiveGlobal Climate Models (GCMs) utilized in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) project a decline in winter maximum extent iceover the next 100 years.8Scientists believe these changes are one major reason for dramatic environmental events, such as therecent detachment of a sixty-six-square-kilometer giant ice shelf from Ellesmere Island, which is located about 800 kilometers from the North Pole.9Coupled with other environmental stress, such as illegal fishing, overfishing, and pollution, there is concern

that the trends in Arctic climate change may overwhelm the adaptive capacity of some Arctic ecosystems andreduce or even eliminate populations of living resources. 10 The security implications of these changes could beenormous. TheNew York Times suggests thatArctic waters are an emerging arena of international competitionin a High North version of the Great Game.11New Arctic maritime claims, maritimeboundarydisputes, and international competition over the resources of the Arctic Ocean exacerbate the uneaseprecipitated by the prospect of increased international shipping.12 These trends led Scott Borgerson to warn in

Foreign Affairs last year of an impending Arctic meltdown generating conflict in the region.13 Meanwhile, theEuropean Commission suggests that changes in the Arctic physical environment are altering the geostrategic dynamics ofthe region and will affect global security.14 Climate change is transforming the security dynamic in the Arctic, but does the future hold astable and cooperative Arctic order or a competitive and volatile Arctic anarchy? The United States has been the voice of reason, and

Washington has the power to shape the future.Ye t those concerned about the potential for Arctic conflict suggest that climatechange threatens to upend international stability or even drag nations into war . We have, after all, been here before. Theseventeenth century faced upheaval and adversity on a monumental scale: in China, the Ming dynasty suffered a violent collapse; the Ottoman Empire was

engaged in a bitter struggle with the Holy League; and the Dutch Revolt pried the Low Countries from the Spanish Empire. 15 The Thirty Years Wardismembered Central Europe, ending in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and ushering into existence the modern nation-state.16 More warfareafflicted the globe during the seventeenth century Great Crisis than during any time until the 1940s.17 Newclimate data archives have begun to confirm what Voltaire explained to his mistress Madame du Chatelet in the 1740s: Theperiod of usurpations almost from one end of the world to the other . . . were the result of government,religion and le climat.18 The planet had cooled in the Little Ice Age, which froze Chesapeake Bay; chilled Alexandria, Egypt; and killed ricecrops in Japan and wheat in Portugal.19 These climate changes caused widespread famine that descended into anarchy,triggering riots and chaos throughout the world.20 The United States is more circumspect about the prospectsof impending Arctic warfare. The Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Sea Power, which was signed by the service chiefs of the Navy, MarineCorps, and Coast Guard in 2007, suggests, Climate change is gradually opening up the



12/21

12

HS TOC

Apple Jacks (3/9)

waters of the Arctic, not only to new resource development, but also to new shipping routes that may reshapethe global transport system.While these developments offer opportunities for growth, they are potentialsources of competition and conflict for access and natural resources.21 In 2008, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that the

Arctic region holds 13% of the undiscovered oil and 30% of the undiscovered natural gas in the worldfigures thatdo not include potentially vast reserves of methane gas hydrates.22Areas of the Beaufort Sea and north of Siberia as well as the waters and seabed of theSverdrup Basin were identified as probable areas of interest.23 However, most of the Arctic energy resources are located within coastal states recognized200-mile exclusive economic zones, which are not subject to any controversy or likely to incite conflict.24 The talk of a war over resources is inaccuratethough it is red meat for Canadian and Russian nationalists; it is the prospect for new resources that is driving thecompetition.25A.Factors Driving Tension There are at least five broad factors contributing to rising tension in the Arctic, and all are related to therich natural resources in the region. The foremost Arctic resource is waterthe immense spatial resource of the ArcticOceanas a domain of movement for international shipping. Ninety percent of international trade travels bysea, and if the Arctic ice melts, intercontinental tanker and cargo traffic between Europe and Asia will becomemuch more economical.26 Second, high commodity prices and scarce supplies of oil, gas, and minerals meandemand for commodities is tighteven in a depressed global economy.27 If prosperity returns, commodity prices couldskyrocket to feed the global economy. Third, we are experiencing a renaissance in technology for operating in the extreme Arcticenvironment. New technologies make drilling in the extreme conditions of the Arctic Ocean feasible, and new ice-

breaker designs make it easier to travel through the ice pack.28 Fourth, climate change is melting the ice, and theArctic could be ice-free during the summer within a few years.29 While this trend increases access to the seas, the melting

permafrost threatens to disrupt road and rail infrastructure on land. Finally,with increased activity and greaternumbers of ships come potential new threats to homeland security. The attacks of 9/11 altered the perceptionof port, vessel, and waterway security, galvanizing public attention toward potential maritime vulnerabilities inAlaska.30 Norway, with an economy based on oil and fishing, wants to fence off as much of the water in theBarents Sea and surrounding Svalbard as possible in order to ensure a steady flow of new oil and other resources in thecoming years.31 Oslo seeks international recognition for Norwegian control of the resource-rich waters off Svalbard; responsibility for governing thefrozen island outpost was granted to the nation under a 1920 treaty.32 Russia has resisted the move; Norway and Russia are also at oddsover control of portions of the Barents Sea.33 Like Norway, Greenland needs to develop natural resources if it ever hopes to declareindependence and give up government subsidies from Copenhagen.34 There are other Arctic issues that sometimes are mistakenly conflated with issuesrelated to the Northwest Passage. These include continental shelf claims by Russia and other countries; the related debate over the legal status of the NorthPole; and maritime boundary issues such as the disagreement between Canada and the United States in the Beaufort Sea and the disagreement betweenCanada and Denmark with regard to Hans Island, which is situated in the center of the Nares Strait between Ellesmere Island (the most northerly part ofNunavut, Canada) and Greenland. While each of these and other issues may be affected by ice changes occurring in the Arctic, they encompass separate and

distinct problems and are subject to different international rules. Morris Maduro, a professor of international law at the University of Alberta, recentlywarned in theEdmonton Journalthat mixing Arctic issues has tended to generate confusion and impede cooperation.35 For that reason, this Articlefocuses primarily on the legal status of the Northwest Passage, its associated diplomatic and security issues, and its effect on the global oceans order. The

United States, which has been labeled the reluctant Arctic power36but is catching up to the other Arctic nations, released a presidential-level ArcticRegion Policy in January 2009.37 The Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Thad Allen, is fond of saying that when it comes to climate change andthe causes of global warming, he is an agnostic: All I know is there is more water up here than ever. And I have to provide marine safety and marine

security to that water.38 The milieu of Arctic politics and competing maritime claims, new Arctic securityconsiderations, and the promise of Arctic economic development has disturbed the historically placid Arcticpolitics. The epicenter of this trend is a new cold war developing between Russia and Canada. Disputes overcompeting claims to the continental shelf of the North Pole have unnecessarilyignited a contest of words and

wills featuring Moscow and Ottawa as the principle antagonists.39 B.Russia: Responsible or Revanchist?Russia viewsArctic development as a means to attain greater recognition and as a resource basin to fuel renewed economicgrowth powered by Arctic-region natural resources. The Arctic currently produces twenty percent of Russias GDP.40 The new

Russian national security strategy warns that,within a decade, nations could be at war over resources in the ArcticOcean.41 In language reminiscent of the hand-wringing over bipolar measurements concerning the U.S.Soviet coalition of forces in the 1970s,Moscows new strategy states thatArctic resources will become the critical point for the world military

balance .42Wrapping 170 degrees around the Arctic Circle, the high latitude nation dominates the geographyof the polar north.43 Russia thinks like the North and drinks like the North.44 The country has embarked on a project toensure it is regarded as the first Arctic superpower. In 2001, Russia was the first nation to stake a claim to the oil and mineralresources of the seabed in the Arctic Ocean by filing a claim for exclusive resource rights under the Law of the Sea Convention.45 Canadaand Denmark (Greenland) have filed claims as well.46 The cheeky 2007 submarine expedition to plant a Russian titanium flag on the seabed of the NorthPole presaged Moscows entry to a geostrategic opera in the High North.47 Meanwhile, long-range Tupolev-95 Bear and Tupolev-160 Blackjackstrategic bomber flights over the Arctic have been renewed after a fifteen-



13/21

13

HS TOC

Apple Jacks (4/9)

year suspension, raising hackles in Canada and Norway.48 Flush with petrodollars, Moscow is developing the Arcticas a cash cow to provide a future stream of oil, gas, and mineral wealth.49 Is the warning contained in the new Russianstrategy a prescient sign of the future or more bluster from the Kremlins public diplomacy machine to restore national pride? C. Canada: Progressive orParanoid?Canada is taking Russia at its word, firing back diplomatic missives in response to each intemperate move by Moscow. At the same time, shoring

up its own excessive assertions of sovereignty over large parts of the Arctic Ocean has become a national preoccupation. Canada plans to build upto eight ice-strengthened patrol vessels to enforce strict laws in the famed Northwest Passage , a network of Arctic

Ocean waterwayssome of which are 100 miles widethat connects the North Atlantic in the east to the Beaufort Sea in the west.50Although Canadaclaims these areas as internal watersthe equivalent of the Great Salt Lake in Utahunder the Law of the Sea Convention, the waters of the Passage areactually composed of a combination of territorial seas, the Canadian exclusive economic zone, and an international strait open to the international

community.51 Canada was the first Arctic nation to assert controversial claims over large areas of the Arctic Ocean beyond its land territory.52 Even asother Arctic nations scramble to assert sovereign rights in the resources of the seabed, Canadas internal waters claims over vast stretches of the sea still

constitute the most excessive maritime claims of any Arctic nation.53 Ottawas extensive claims are built on a northern mythos and profound disquiet overa new sense of national vulnerability that first emerged in the late 1960s. 54 The result was the adoption of strict laws for marine environmental protectionthat purportedly apply outside the legitimate borders of the country.55 In the 1980s, straight baselines were drawn to enclose the islands and waters of theNorth American Arctic in a continent-wide gambit to lay claim to essentially the entire panoply of littoral and coastal regions of the Arctic Ocean in the

western hemisphere.56 Canada and Denmark (in its capacity as proprietor of Greenland) dispute Hans Island, an insignificant speck of ground betweenthe two nations.57 Canada also claims authority over part of the Beaufort Sea off the coast of Alaska and rejects Russias seabed claims in the ArcticOcean.58 Critiquing Canadas straight baseline claims, the European Commission stated: The Member States acknowledge that elements other thanpurely geographical ones may be relevant for purposes of drawing baselines in particular circumstances but are not satisfied that the present baselines arejustified in general. Moreover, the Member States cannot recognize the validity of a historic title as justification for the baselines drawn in accordance with

the order.59Alert, Canada's northernmost base, located on Ellesmere Island, is actually closer to Moscow than to Ottawa.60 This remote outpost fordefending Canada's sovereignty had a population of only five inhabitants in the 2006 census.61 The prospect of increasing numbers of oiltankers, cargo vessels, cruise ships, oceanographic research ships, and fishing fleets entering the areacompelled the five Arctic nationsRussia, Canada, the United States, Denmark, and Norwayto focus seriously on the Arctic inrecent years. The five-year international Arctic marine shipping assessment found that 6,000 vessels operate in the Arctic Oceanevery year.62As a result of increased traffic, Canada's claim over the waters throughout the Northwest Passage as internal waters appearslikely to weaken in the future. The United States and Canada are among the closest allies in the world; their economies, people, and destiniesare intertwined.63 They share a fundamental interest in North American security. In a joint media appearance with Canadian Foreign MinisterCannon, Secretary of State Clinton stated: Obviously, there are questions of sovereignty and jurisdiction that have to be acknowledged and respected, but

what we dont want is for the Arctic to become a free-for-all.If there is going to be greater maritimepassageways through the Arctic, if there is going to be more exploration for natural resources, if there are going to be moresecurity issues, I thinkits in the Canadian and the United States interests to try to get ahead of those , and try to

make sure we know what were going to do to resolve them before countries that are not bordering the arcticare making claims, are behaving in ways that will cause us difficulties.64 Neither country is secure if the other is vulnerable,which is why the two neighbors have integrated continental defense under the bilateral North American Air Defense(NORAD) military command for decades.65 Membership in NATO provides an additional opportunity for the two democracies to champion stabilityand freedom, with both nations sharing the burden of combat in Afghanistan.66 Canadian exceptionalism in the Arctic Ocean has

weakened the ties between the two countries and provided an unflattering glimpse into how governments inOttawaboth on the left and the right have used the Arctic to score political points at home and reject multilateralismabroad.67At times, all nations are inclined to feel defensive within the international community, andgoing it alone feeds a certainhypersensitive sovereignty impulse that can appeal to fears, pride, and independence. In a world fraught withconventional and irregular military risks, political and cultural divisions, and the global economy collapsing inslow motion, the U nited S tates, Canada, and the strong network of free, democratic, and capitalist allies, friends, and partners form thefulcrum of stability that holds the world together. Ottawa and Washington are principle defenders of astable state world system. Both nations are rich and prosper from the enjoyment of peace, liberty, andequality that is only possible with a safe and stable planet. The foundation for ocean governance is the UN Convention on the Law ofthe Sea, which is the constitution for the worlds oceans.68 Conflict avoidance, international peace and security, and global stability are directly connectedto the Law of the Sea. In the United States, the sovereignty impulse has led us astray, convincing a handful of powerful senators to reject the Law of the Sea

Convention.69 They believe that going it alone protects U.S. sovereignty and promotes American interests.70 But as one of the prime beneficiaries of astable, fair, and widely accepted global order, the United States has abandoned self-interest in favor of placating a false sense of independence by not

working multilaterally to join the Law of the Sea Convention. Likewise,Canada is under the unilateralist spell of oceans sovereignty,going it alone in the Arctic Ocean in a vain attempt to grasp a future of stability and security amidst a rapidlychanging geophysical Arctic climate and unsettling and dynamic Arctic politics. Canada has resurrected sovereignty patrols, loudlytrumpeted plans to construct ice-strengthened patrol vessels to enforce unilateral rules in the Northwest Passage, and retreated behind the mythos of

Canadian Arctic sovereignty.71 The storyline is recycled by the



14/21

14

HS TOC

Apple Jacks (5/9)

governmentmediaacademic complex to obtain the approvalor at least the acquiescenceof the international community, especially the United States.The often repeated assertion of Canadian sovereignty has acquired an elusive definition; in the media, it has become a rhetorical vessel containing varying

elements of control, authority, and perception.72 There is a sense that Canada would like to exercise sovereignty over the waters and have them recognizedas internal waters, but Ottawa has never determined how to do this or precisely what theory might be most effective in obtaining the support of the

international community.73 Relying on cultural and policy arguments augmented by a series of claims and legislative acts over a period of time, Canadianstypically view all these efforts as having coalesced into a convincing package of evidence to support claims of sovereignty.74 Outside of government, someof the rhetoric from Canada is particularly undisciplined, with nongovernmental organizations and mediamaking seemingly self-evident assertions that the waters are under Canadian contro l, oversight, jurisdiction, orsovereignty. Some believe that an increased level of sovereignty-affirming activities by the Canadian government will secure Canadian claims.Paradoxically, rather than supporting multilateral efforts to protect arctic ecology, Canadian environmental groups are among the most strident insupporting unilateral assertions of Canadian sovereignty over the passage in order to avert what they see as an impending ecological catastrophe caused by

increased shipping.75 . . . . The 1967 and 1968 Canadian straight baselines in the arctic, both in the East and West, project at numerous points tens ofmiles into the high seas, violating virtually every rule governing lawfully drawn baselines. The effect is to enclose the entire Canadian [A]rctic as internalwaters. Even if one accepts the series of straight baselines, the international community would still enjoy the right of innocent passage through those newlyenclosed internal waters. This is because the Law of the Sea Convention provides that where the establishment of straight baselines has the effect ofenclosing as internal waters areas that had not previously been considered as such, a right of innocent passage still exists in those waters. Some suggest thatstraight baselines made by a nation before 1982 have special status and should be considered permissible. This approach is unconvincing; otherwise, theentire range of excessive maritime claims predating the 1982 Convention similarly would be permissible, thus creating a global crazy quilt of conflicting

maritime claims and defeating the purpose of the Convention as one gigantic package deal.76 The problem is that the ice keeps meltingand no other nation has accepted Canadas excessive claims of sovereignty.77 The reason for this lack of acceptance is thatCanadas Arctic claims are inconsistent with the Law of the Sea Convention, to which Canada became a party in 2003. 78 Canadian scholars have circulatedwell practiced (if not slightly tortured) theories purportedly grounded in the international law of the sea in order to manufacture a rationale that would

support Canadas claims to sovereignty over an ocean.79 III. THE NORTHWEST PASSAGE In particular, the loss of sea ice in the HighNorth has renewed discussions over the legal status of the Arctic and subarctic transcontinental maritime routes connecting the

Atlantic with the Pacific. The routes, which shorten transit from Europe to Asia by 4,000 miles, connect theNorth Atlantic and the Labrador Sea to the Beaufort and East Siberian Seas.80 The merchant shippingindustryis also interested in using the shorter routes through the Northern Sea Route and Northwest Passage, and perhaps atranspolar route straight across the pole.81 The United States and Russia are poised to manage all traffic through theBering Strait (also called the Bering Gate), a narrow choke point only fifty-two miles wide that is the gateway connecting the Pacific Ocean to the ArcticOcean.82 The two nations should use their position astride the strait to ensure that other Arctic states adopt only internationally accepted vessel safety,security, and traffic management regulations. Compared to the current routes via the Panama Canal and Suez Canal, a transit from the Pacific tothe Atlantic through the Northwest Passage could save two weeks of travel .83 The savings in transit time will be especiallybeneficial to European and Asian nations: EU Member States have the worlds largest merchant fleet and many of those ships use transoceanic routes. Themelting of sea ice is progressively opening opportunities to navigate on routes through Arctic waters . This couldconsiderably shorten trips from Europe to the Pacific, save energy, reduce emissions, promote trade and diminish pressure on the main trans-continentalnavigation channels. But serious obstacles remain, including drift ice, lack of infrastructure , environmental risks anduncertainties about future trade patterns . Hence the development of Arctic commercial navigation will requiretime and effort.84 This time savings translates into lower fuel costs, saved ship steaming time, and a reduction in labor costs for the commercialshipping industry. Although transport by ship is the most environmentally sensitive method of moving heavy cargo, bunker fuel is extremely dirty, so lesstravel time means fewer air emissions .85 For the armed forces, utilizing the route could facilitate improved crisisresponse and accelerate time-phased force deployment schedules to move forces from one theater to another .Canada has succumbed to the sovereignty impulse because the nation fears that without ownership over the Arctic Ocean and unilateral control over theNorthwest Passage, the safety, security, and environmental protection of the Arctic Archipelagoand the entire nationwill be threatened by the outside

world. Much like 9/11 absorbed the psychological final measure of the American sense of self-protection and innocence regarding terrorism,thedisappearing ice cap threatens to impose the ugly reality of the world on the idyllic doorstep of Canada . Poorlymaintained ThirdWorld merchant ships and their multinational crews from distant and unsavory lands willdiscover the new superhighway between Asian manufacturers and European markets. The result: the

challenging, ice-infested waters will cause oil spills, and the multiplying number of ships will bring illegalmigrants or, even worse, terrorists. In this regard, ensuring safety, security, and environmental protection in the

Arctic and the Northwest Passage is a shared concern that provides an opportunity for greater cooperation notonlybetween Canada and the U nited S tates but also among all maritime states and future users of the

waterway.Although it is common (albeit unhelpful) to cast the issue of the Northwest Passage as a bilateraldisagreement between the United States and Canada, it is not.86 The issue is a multilateral matter involving theinterests and equities of nations from Asia and Europe. Consequently, Canada can best secure its interests in sovereignty, safety,security, and environmental protection by proactively engaging to develop an Arctic legal regime under the framework of Law of the Sea Convention. Thiswill mean abandoning some of the more audacious and unsupported claims of sovereignty and complying with the rules contained in the treaty. On theother hand, if it acts now, Ottawa will be able to lead the design and implementation of the new Arctic framework before the ships arrive. Canada shouldmove quickly. Surface vessels belonging to Canada, the United States, Norway, Netherlands, Japan,



15/21

15

HS TOC

Apple Jacks (6/9)

Bahamas, and Liberia have fully transited the Northwest Passage nearly seventy times.87 Submarines of the United States, the United Kingdom, andpresumably Russia have utilized the Arctic Ocean as a transit corridor for decades.88 Both the United States and Canada haveessential national interests in developing a widely accepted respected legal regime for the Arctic Ocean andNorthwest Passage before climate change alters shipping patterns. If the shipping arrives before the two North

American partners can workwith the international communityto adopt an Arctic regime, both Washington and Ottawawill experience reduced negotiating leverage and the result will be less control over the Arctic . Hardline foot-

dragging in Canada is squandering time and the diplomatic capital needed to negotiate such an agreement, making bothnations less secure over the long run . Canada exercises complete sovereignty over the islands of the North American Arctic.89Although there is not much open to question on the issue of Canadas sovereignty over the islands of the Canadian Arctic, it is worth addressing

Long Advs Two Version Toc

Documents

Transcript of Long Advs Two Version Toc