Yes, animals will die, trees and insects will suffer, and our entire ecology may collapse - but the good news is industry will blossom. Maybe we can find even more energy as a result, and further compound our problems... oops, meant to say improve our situation. There's always a silver lining, huh.

"Somehow picking on one issue, ease of access for shipping and energy exploration, seems an awfully narrow and unsophisticated view of who will win and who will lose from global warming."

Well said. This narrow view is a symptom of specialisation - something I wrote about yesterday. These people are completely out of touch with the intricacies of nature, but it's their job to report on subjects they have no experience with. From their offices, where the air-conditioning keeps a constant 18.5'C temperature and stable humidity, it's really hard to relate.

Underlying problem resulting in "specialization" (per Craig's comment) are editors pressuring writers to take a positive angle on a story ('our readers don't want gloom and doom') that really has no positive angle. The other driver of this mindlessness is that so many journalists have 'communications' degrees and little experience with the world. All style and no substance.

OK, let's get a grip here. Articles like this are very useful for those of us who wish to save the planet in a state close to what we are currently used to. You see, the writers were tasked to do one thing: find economic positives in the current global warming crisis. Russia will indeed prosper from it. Shipping and access to even more carbon intensive resources will be huge money makers in the current world market. They will more than offset any problems (in the short term) that Russia experiences in the south.

Soooo..... change the world market such that activities like these are not economically viable. Simple. Do the same for Canada's absurd oil sands. Until this happens, articles like this will serve to point out that business as usual will continue to be very profitable, and also point out that we Treehuggers are not getting the job done.

No go out and buy a green nega-product. That is, but NOTHING such that China does not need to ship those products through Russia's new northwest passage to the US east coast. (Yes, all your "green" gizmos are made in China)

At what point do we, as "environmentally aware" people say, "okay, though situation X is the result of massive environmental damage and change, here is what we can do that is environmentally positive and responsible?"

I think we are (sometimes) fearful of offering such suggestions; that planning ahead and proposing construction of a LEED certified city (or something of that nature) in a formerly arctic area would somehow negate our argument for action now.

If we are, in fact, faced with the prospect of inevitable global warming; should we not jump ahead of "industry" to propose alternate means of using such newly opened areas? Though we may continue to advocate for prevention and conservation now, would it not be prudent to plan ahead for the (unfortunately probable) possibility that our voices will not be heeded till too late?

If we do not, and the only plan for a warmer world comes from industry, then industry will be the benefactor; this, to the continued detriment of society and nature.

Oh boy. Of what use will a booming industry be if the entire planet is crumbling?

Well this is the Economist, after all.

Really, one of the scariest consequences of the melting permafrost is the massive amounts of CO2 outgassing that occurs as an entire continent of previously frozen biomass thaws and rapidly decomposes.

The amount of C02 is staggering. And it is a little discouraging, because once it thaws it starts a "run-away" chain reaction as the decomposition creates warmth.

With regard to the Global Warming problem, this is without a doubt the biggest most damaging event occuring, with C02 and methane production ramping up at a truly unimmaginable rate.

This has been written about rather extensively but must have missed the Economist radar.

"This has been written about rather extensively but must have missed the Economist radar."

It's funny how that happens. In regards to thawing permafrost, those that are interested can find some interesting resources/links from this article.

I only have a liberal arts degree, so i'll do my best. Plothole pointers and pundits, i'm sure you'll do yours.

If the economist was truly in the business of portending the economic trends that will shape the future, then they fall short by my estimation.

Let's call the industry in their story, "Industry" in my analogy, and the newly accessible energy sources "ATM" in my little ditty.

here's my analogy:
industry is building a sweet atm. this atm is bigger and better and more technologically advanced than any atm. ever. it has double helix retinal infrared scanning, emits a pleasant lavander smell, and even offers complimentary sanitizing hand wipes. Man, what a sweet atm. Only problem is, this atm was built at such an astronomical cost, that the industry that built it used up all the money IN THE WHOLE WORLD to build it. so who's going to make a withdrawal? what's left?

get it?

I think the article makes perfect sense. From an ECONOMIC standpoint global warming could be good for Russia. I think it’s “awfully narrow and unsophisticated view” to simply state that global warming is inherently bad for all countries. Don’t misunderstand me, if it’s true that humans have significantly accelerated global warming than we should do everything in our power to change that pattern. But, having said that, I can think of a plethora of places on earth where life would be a lot better for the people that live there if the temperature was warmer.

I think Fever's argument sums up the Economist's stance on the issue, but what seems to be escaping this "global warming could be good" camp is that while there are a supposed "plethora of places on earth where life would be a lot better for the people that live there if the temperature was warmer," it would be temporary, it would lead to flooding that would displace the majority of humans who live near the equator, it would be disastrous to biodiversity, and in the long run (short run geologically speaking), every living thing on earth will be negatively affected by such GLOBAL- not localized- warming.

No offense, but i am shocked by such myopia. That's what i was driving at with the atm analogy i posted- i feel like many people have an incredibly stunted ability to see human impact past their own sphere of occupation.

The Economist has a real financial motive to publish- however skewed- such propoganda. Ordinary citizens have an obligation to do otherwise- if they have any shred of regard for the life and future of the biosphere at large.

Just curious where you get your facts to back-up your statements? Below are some examples followed by a re-tort with equally unsubstantiated claims:

“it would lead to flooding that would displace the majority of humans who live near the equator”
And create more opportunities for human life at places away from the equator.

“it would be disastrous to biodiversity”
More biodiversity exists in warmer rather than colder climates.

“many people have an incredibly stunted ability to see human impact past their own sphere of occupation.”
What human impact, Global Warming is still arguably a natural phenomenon that humans have done little to escalate.

“The Economist has a real financial motive to publish- however skewed- such propoganda.”
No they don’t

“it would lead to flooding that would displace the majority of humans who live near the equator”
And create more opportunities for human life at places away from the equator.

Except that animals and plant need a lot of time to adapt and migrate, and that there are many many inter-relations and equilibriums between different species that won't all adapt and migrate at the same time, causing massive problems.

“it would be disastrous to biodiversity”
More biodiversity exists in warmer rather than colder climates.

See above. It's not as simple as "warm = good".

“many people have an incredibly stunted ability to see human impact past their own sphere of occupation.”
What human impact, Global Warming is still arguably a natural phenomenon that humans have done little to escalate.

That's not what most climate scientists say.

“The Economist has a real financial motive to publish- however skewed- such propoganda.”
No they don’t

They do. They side with many big corporations who don't want to have to change anything because they're making a bunch of money by leaving the rest of society to pick up their environmental bill.

On the subject of Global Warming, it’s funny that weathermen can’t predict tomorrow very well yet somehow science/technology allows us to say without a shadow of a doubt that Global Warming is the fault of humans and more importantly we know that it will destroy the earth. Let’s not forget that our existence on the planet represents a small fraction of time in the history of the planet, accordingly there is plenty of science that suggests this is just a natural phenomena that we have as much control over as earthquakes or tornados.

On the subject of evil corporations, I think you’re letting your politics dictate your environmental policy. Yes some corporations make money, but without corporations we don’t have things like products and services. This “environmental bill” you refer to will ultimately get picked up by consumers because if you don’t allow corporations to make money they will cease to exist.

"On the subject of Global Warming, it’s funny that weathermen can’t predict tomorrow very well yet somehow science/technology allows us to say without a shadow of a doubt that Global Warming is the fault of humans and more importantly we know that it will destroy the earth. "

You are confusing "weather" and "climate".

"On the subject of evil corporations, I think you’re letting your politics dictate your environmental policy."

Most people don't believe that corporations are "evil" (that's a straw man), but many do believe that the way incentives are currently built, that corporations are incentived into ignoring the destruction of nature. If the market wasn't distorted and recognized the real value of nature, companies would be incentived to make money without destroying it.

So yeah, objectively the actions of many corps are "evil" (how else do you call poisoning the air, water and soil?), but it not necessarily because someone sat down and decided to be evil. Still, the situation must be changed...

Substitute climate for weather, my point is the same.

Spare me the evil corporation garbage. It’s you, the consumer that have demanded larger houses in the suburbs, SUVs, cheap air travel, etc. All any corporation does is attempt to meet your demand. In the name of the environment, are you willing to give up your car, house and vacation travel? I didn’t think so.

Perhaps the following analogy will help with the weather vs. climate problem:

If I go to Las Vegas I may come home with more money than I left with. This small sample of events (my gampling) is like weather, very hard to predict. However, on the whole, people who go to Las Vegas to gamble DO NOT come home with more money than they started with. (If they did there would be many fewer casinos.) This is like climate. Over the long run (months or years) it is entirely possible to predict cilmate.

Furthermore, if the govennment of Nevada allows the casinos to change the odds in the slot machines, it is entirely obvious what effect this will have on gamblers in aggregate. (I would liken this to changing the equilibrium of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.)

I think that’s a great analogy. Now back to my point, scientists can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that humans have significantly accelerated global warming. Having said that, wouldn’t it be a better allocation of environmental resources if we focused on the things that we can prove and more importantly, have definitive ways to deal with the problem. For example, don’t we all agree that destroying rain forests is bad for the environment? Or how about over-fishing? Or decreasing automotive reliance by improving public transportation? The list of curable problems is endless.

--''it would lead to flooding that would displace the majority of humans who live near the equator”
And create more opportunities for human life at places away from the equator.--
There are 6 + billion people on the planet. Only two countries of significance will (possibly) 'benefit' from global warming in a direct and short term economic sense - Russia and Canada - which have a combined population less than 200 million. The vast majority of the world's population lives along coasts and rivers. Large increases in sea levels will displace hundreds of millions at the least. Severe rainfalls will lead to property damage from river flooding, causing more displacement. Yes, Siberia will become more hospitable to human life and it is a large area. But how many hundreds of millions of Africans, Indians, Indonesians, etc. will Putin's succesors allow to move from areas no longer hospitable to human life to these new areas within Russia? What about Canada? And who will pay for these poor thirld worlders' transportation, new housing, schools, infrastucture, etc. Russia? Canada? Or the poor thirld world countries that are losing not just productive land but also population? Furthermore, most of the planet's landmass lies between latitudes that will suffer greatly from global warming, causing even more displacement from the effects of droughts, desertification, fires, etc. Is the vast majority of the world's population going to pack up and abandon the majority of the planet's landmass to go live in northern Canada and Russia? Let us be honest. Neither Russia nor Canada nor any other country will allow such an unprecedented and massive migration of poor people, and they definitely will not pay to absorb them. Nevertheless, if global warming reaches levels that create a hospitable Siberia, the already worrying avalanche of poor migrants from the thirld world to the rich north will become a human flood of tsunami proportions, and any economic benefits the rich north and Russia may achieve from milder temps will be cancelled out by attempts to care for increasing numbers of illegal migrants and attempts to stop this flood of illegal immigrants. It would not create more opportunities for human life, and it is doubtful that it will create net economic benefits for Russia when all is taken into consideration.

--“it would be disastrous to biodiversity”
More biodiversity exists in warmer rather than colder climates.--
It would be detrimental to biodiversity everywhere, especially closer to the poles (such as northern Canada and Siberia) since this biodiversity isn't going to migrate so much to the north that it leapfrogs to Antartica. Yes, warmer weather allows for greater species diversity in a given size area. But species evolve over extremely long periods of time - and have done so in a planet that hasn't been ravaged by Man's greed and self-centeredness. Are you suggesting that the Earth's flora and fauna, greatly weakened by Man's activities already and to be expected that increased human population and development will only worsen this damage, will manage to pull off the miracle feat of ultra fast-forward evolution? The only thing species today can do is try to follow the weather they have evolved to. Some species may do this easily, many won't for any number of reasons. Furthermore, some species will move more quickly than others into areas that can not cope with the new species - what will happen if the processionary moth suddenly reaches Scandinavia way before its natural predators? There won't be much biodiversity if there aren't any forests. Each ecosystem is a balance of forces. Any small change could have dramatic, negative consequences. And yes, there have been changes in ecosystems since the eath's dawn, but changes have occurred slowly which has allowed the species within to either evolve or perish slowly - a shifting balance was maintained. Any massive sudden changes have led to massive extinctions and a complete radical change in the flora and fauna - such as the extinction of the mighty dinosaurs. Species evolution today would have to occur today at an unsustainable pace and against the will of Man - Scandinavians will fight the processionary moth tooth and nail rather than let their forests be chewed up. So people should rule out any evolution miracle and simply take for granted that severe global warming will lead to severe biodiversity loss. And this goes for both Russia and Canada. How will the loss of biodiversity in these countries negatively affect the economy? How much time, money and effort will ordinary Russians and Canadians (and their govts) spend trying to save what they cherish?

--“many people have an incredibly stunted ability to see human impact past their own sphere of occupation.”
What human impact, Global Warming is still arguably a natural phenomenon that humans have done little to escalate.--
What human impact? Still arguable? A butterfly flapping its wings can start a chain of events that can lead to a hurricane on the other side of the planet, but 6 billion + individuals of the most powerful species ever to walk the earth can not change the climate? We can make rain and snow. We can completely destroy the planet through full-scale nuclear war. But we can't cause climate change? Yes, I know, it is arguable that the unarguable climate change that is occurring today is caused or worsened by human activity. It is also 'arguable' that the evolution of plant species on the planet led to a change in the composition of the atmosphere that enabled animals to come into being. But it should be clear that eliminating all plant life today would eliminate all oxygen and thereby elimate any species that depends on oxygen. So it is only logical to conclude that plant evolution led to animal life. Just like it is only logical to assume that taking massive quantities of solid, liquid and gas carbon out of the ground and pumping them into the atmosphere will have an effect on the climate. And for a hundred years now scientists have been warning that this effect would be increasing temps. And so there have been. I will not be so foolish as to disbelieve Einstein's argumentations that such a thing as nuclear fission energy is possible after countless of nuclear plants have been built and operated. How much evidence is needed to convince the last skeptic that global warming is real and that human's are causing it? Does God need to come down from the Heaven's and say 'It's not me, it's you.'? Would that even do since anything and everything is ultimately arguable when one is willing to demand unrealistic and unrealizable proofs? After all, I've never been in a nuclear plant, so maybe fission isn't real?

--“The Economist has a real financial motive to publish- however skewed- such propoganda.”
No they don’t
''They do. They side with many big corporations who don't want to have to change anything because they're making a bunch of money by leaving the rest of society to pick up their environmental bill.''--
I am subscribed to the Economist and read it weekly. I like what and how they write. I don't always agree with everything they write, but this holds true for every magazine, institution and individual. After all, there is no one whose words I trust and cherish more than my wife's, but she is not my clone and I am not her's. Yes, they have a financial motive to write such an article. It is not for nothing that they are called The Economist. They specialize in news as it affects the economy, and they target the magazine to business people. Yes, they have some normal news too, and some non-businessmen readers, but they are not the core. They make money by selling news that business-finance types will be interested in. I don't subscribe to the Economist for eco-news. I get my Greenpeace mag and come to TreeHugger for that. Most of their articles and thinking take an economics perspective first and foremost. Just like my Greenpeace mag takes an environmental focus. A different focus leads to a different view.

'scientists can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that humans have significantly accelerated global warming.'

First, scientists have proved to me beyond what I consider to be a reasonable doubt that global warming is real and has been caused by humans to what I consider a significant degree. As reasonable and significant are subjective concepts (like beauty in the eye of the beholder), it falls upon me to determine for myself whether something is or isn't reasonable and significant. It would have been more objective for you to say that they can't prove it beyond your 'reasonable' doubts and beyond what you consider significant. Second, as I have already mentioned some people will always demand proofs that are unrealistic and/or unrealizable before they accept it. These people will never be convinced, no matter how much new evidence piles up. One can not say that the scientific community has not come to agreement because of a minority that will never be convinced. And there is a minority opposed to practically every scientific theory there is. Third, a simple question to prove my point: what piece(s) of evidence do you want to see that would make you say that humans are to blame for most of the current global warming and who would need to provide that info?

--Having said that, wouldn’t it be a better allocation of environmental resources if we focused on the things that we can prove--
We can prove many things depending on one's criteria of evidence. As said one who demands unrealisic, unrealizable evidence will never accept something has been proved. And anyone can ask for that type of evidence on any issue. So there will always be some who are NOT convinced on each and every issue. Maybe you mean to say that you think it would be 'better' to allocate resources to something you think has been proved as opposed to something you think hasn't? Taking your mindset, I think it would be best to allocate resources to fighting global warming as it has been proved more than enough already to me as opposed to other things which I consider of lesser import or of lesser 'proof'.

--and more importantly, have definitive ways to deal with the problem. For example, don’t we all agree that destroying rain forests is bad for the environment? Or how about over-fishing? Or decreasing automotive reliance by improving public transportation? The list of curable problems is endless.--
Yes the list is. Amongst that list is stopping increases in GHGs. Taking your words, don't we all agree that destroying the climate is bad for the environment? Of course, you will now argue once again that global warming hasn't been proved to be a consequence of Man; but has the destruction of the rain forests being negative on the planet been proven? After all, not ALL scientists think so so there is no 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt.' Same goes with overfishing. I believe ALL of these things are problems with curable solutions because there IS a basic scientific consensus on all these issues regarding what the problem is and what needs to be done - including the consensus on global warming. Maybe you are being overly picky on which consensuses you aceept and asking us to accept your particular pickiness? Could that be possible?

Houston:

It’s clear the only difference we have on this global warming issue is the concept of reasonable doubt. Although you may have made up your mind, there are plenty of scientists that are not convinced humans caused/significantly increased global warming. However, no scientist would agree that if you over fish an area the immediate and surrounding environment will be severely damaged. Same is true for a rain forest. So while you spend all sorts of money and effort figuring out ways to eliminate GHGs, I think you’re spinning your tires. More importantly, you and so many other environmentalists live in a dream world. In the real world people drive cars and I don’t see them giving them up even if you could prove they caused global warming.

'Although you may have made up your mind, there are plenty of scientists that are not convinced humans caused/significantly increased global warming. '
As I said, there are always some individuals and scientists that refuse to accept the majority scientific view of what is going on around us. This includes global warming and man's role in its propagation. The word plenty is fairly subjective, like reasonable and significant. Some may consider a minority of 10% to be 'plenty' and others would consider it a minority view that should not be dictating policy. I don't know if the number is 1 or 5 or 15 or 25%. What I do know is that the vast majority of scientists believe man has either caused or contributed to our current global warming. The 'plenty' minority view should not be taken as an argumentative tool to dissuade people of man's role in global warming. Rather, the 'plenty' majority view should be used to convince them of it. And I think it abundantly obvious and well-established that the world's countries and politicians as a whole take the view that you should make policy based on the majority view, and not the tiny minority view. As you are doing here.

'However, no scientist would agree that if you over fish an area the immediate and surrounding environment will be severely damaged.'
I am more than confident that I could find scientists who would disagree with you. As a matter of fact, I know of scientific studies that show how overfishing using certain industrial type boats with their large deep nets not only sweep up every type of fish in its path, be it tuna or dolphin, but also complete bulldoze and destroy the bottom surface ecosystem. As a matter of fact, this is the scientific consensus rather than a minority view of zero.

'Same is true for a rain forest.'
And the same is true for a rain forest. If you over exploit a forest, which means clear-cutting large areas, you destroy the trees and all the animal life that depends on them. This again is the scientific consensus, rather than a minority view of zero as you suggest.

'So while you spend all sorts of money and effort figuring out ways to eliminate GHGs, I think you’re spinning your tires.'
Well, I am glad your view is a tiny minority view and that responsible politicians the world over are trying to figure out ways to do what you are here deriding.

'More importantly, you and so many other environmentalists live in a dream world.'
No, I live in the real world, with my eyes wide open. I will NOT see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. And luckily for me and everyone else, most people also refuse to act that way, including most politicians. And when I say most people, I am not referring to 'environmentalists'. I am referring to normal people who care about their future and that of their descendants and the rest of MAN. Futhermore, you make clear your disdain for 'environmentalists', which leads me to wonder exactly what your aim is in coming to a green website and expressing your non-green views? You must have some ulterior motive because you have made clear that you are not an environmentalist.

'In the real world people drive cars and I don’t see them giving them up even if you could prove they caused global warming.'
Yes, they do drive cars. And no they will not give them up completely. But more and more people are and will continue to opt for more fuel-efficient and non-polluting cars, more public transport, more bike paths, more walking, etc. In the real world, people try to figure out what our problems are, what needs to be done to solve those problems and what they need to do on a personal level to act responsibly with respect to those problems. In the real world, we try to solve our problems rather than ignore them. And that is exactly what politicians are doing by implementing policies, taxes, regulations, transport networks, etc. to stop global warming. And that is exactly what individuals are doing when they buy a hybrid car, or opt for public transport or their bike, or decide to telecommute or walk, or travel less, etc. Please speak for yourself when you express such negative views of people's willingness to be responsible.

Global warming is going to have an overall depressing effect on the global economy if the northern sea routes open up, because rising sea levels are going to devastate coastal regions, agricultural production will be disrupted, requiring relocation and fresh water will become more scarce. So, even though there may be some economic benefits for Russia, if the overall global economy is faultering, how in the hell are they going to make more money on trade with nations that can't afford to do business with them?

Hello

Why do you not mention the car that runs on air?

regards

Beau