Search

Although scientists disagree about the rate at which Arctic ice is melting, climate change will greatly alter the northern latitudes in coming decades if greenhouse gas emissions are not curtailed. Many of the expected changes will be negative; already, permafrost is melting in Siberia, and apartments and factories are sinking into quagmires. The melting of Arctic ice, however, will also open sea-lanes to shipping and allow access to enormous oil and gas reserves beneath the Arctic Ocean. The prospect of increased Arctic commerce brings with it competition among countries and companies for control of the area’s riches, and international competition always carries the possibility of conflict. Three authors, all experts in national security and the Arctic, explore the military, diplomatic, environmental, and economic outlook for the Arctic in 2030: from Russia, Yury Morozov (2012); from Canada, Rob Huebert (2012); and from the United States, George Backus. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The Bali Action Plan as adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2007, states that Annex I (developed) countries should reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, based on comparable efforts. Within this context, we have explored various comparable effort approaches (for example, equal marginal abatement costs for all countries) for reducing emissions by the year 2020 for individual countries and regions. In all calculations, the total reduction for Annex I countries as a group is assumed to be 30% below 1990 levels. In the analysis, we compare the reduction targets as calculated from the different approaches with the emission reductions as pledged by these countries as part of the Copenhagen Accord, as drafted under the UNFCCC in 2009. Our analysis indicates that the different elements in these calculations may cause a diversity in outcomes and that, therefore, individual countries may favour certain elements over others. These elements include (a) the choice of the approach itself (the same approach may produce very different outcomes for countries with diverging national circumstances, such as Canada and Russia); (b) the reference year (such as 1990 or 2006 emissions, is very important for countries with an increase in emissions since 1990 (e.g. the United States, Canada) or for those that have lower emission levels (e.g. Russia, the Ukraine)); and (c) rules on land use (these are important for countries with large forest areas). It should be noted that the stringency of the individual countries’ reductions as pledged, differs substantially from the stringency of the reduction targets calculated from the effort-sharing approaches. The current pledges by both the European Union and the United States, are lower than the reductions that would be obtained in the effort-sharing approaches for a 30% overall reduction in Annex I countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]