The Vanishing North

The Economist magazine ran an editorial and special report in last weeks magazing on the disappearing ice in the Arctic. According to the piece:

"As our special report shows in detail, the Arctic is warming roughly twice as fast as the rest of the planet. Since the 1950s the lower atmosphere has warmed by a global average of 0.7 degrees Celsius; Greenland’s air has warmed by 1.5 degrees. The main reason appears to be a catalytic warming effect, triggered by global warming. When snow or ice melt, they are replaced by darker melt-water pools, land or sea. As a result, the Arctic surface absorbs more solar heat. This causes local warming, therefore more melting, which causes more warming, and so on. This positive feedback shows how even a small change to the Earth’s systems can trigger much greater ones."

A short video illustrates the point. The piece goes on to point out that the disappearance of the ice opens up major oil and gas extraction opportunities, apparently oblivious to the irony of this proposition. It does finally correctly identify the key to solving the problem. which is to price CO2:

"The worry that needs to be taken most seriously is climate change itself. The impact of the melting Arctic may have a calamitous effect on the planet. It is likely to disrupt oceanic circulation—the mixing of warm tropical and cold polar waters, of which the Gulf Stream is a part—and thawing permafrost will lead to the emission of masses of carbon dioxide and methane, and thus further warming. It is also raising sea levels. The Greenland ice sheet has recently shed around 200 gigatonnes of ice a year, a fourfold increase on a decade ago. If the warming continues, it could eventually disintegrate, raising the sea level by seven metres. Many of the world’s biggest cities would be inundated long before that happened. Some scientists argue that the perils are so immediate that mankind should consider geoengineering the atmosphere to avert them..... They may turn out to be right, but there could be enormous risks involved. A slower but safer approach would be to price greenhouse-gas emissions, preferably through a carbon tax, which would encourage the adoption of cleaner technologies..... That shift would be costly, but the costs of inaction are likely to be larger."

But bizzarely finishes with the complacent view that the loss of the arctic woudl be a pity!

"In the end, the world is likely to get a grip on global warming. The survival instinct demands it. But it is likely to lose a lot of the unique Arctic first. That would be a terrible pity."