It’s that time of year again, when we check in to see where the annual Arctic sea ice minimum will end up. And this year is a doozie. We haven’t quite bottomed out at the end of the melt season, yet, but already 2012 has set new records for smallest Arctic sea ice extent and volume, smashing through the numbers from 2007. Records are often attention-grabbing and "exciting," in a way, but while Usain Bolt’s incredible shrinking 100-meter dash time may be uplifting, shrinking sea ice is not.

Every time a new sea ice extent record is broken, the same question comes up: how long until it’s gone? That is, how long will it be before the Arctic Ocean is functionally ice-free in the summer, legitimately opening the once-fabled Northwest Passage?

The fact is, we don’t know. Climate models continue to underestimate the rate of sea ice loss we’re observing, leaving researchers to hazard less scientific guesses. Many estimate that day will come around 2030, but some others push it out to 2070. Regardless, Arctic sea ice is changing—and fast. The prospects of open shipping routes and newly-accessible resources have corporations chomping at the bit and governments racing to prepare the way. Three (open access) articles in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists describe the outlook for a changing Arctic from the perspectives of the US, Russia, and Canada. There will be some disagreements, but all parties have at least one view in common—things will get complicated.

Shipping issues

It starts with shipping. An ice-free Arctic isn’t as tranquil as it sounds, and commercial use of these routes will require a lot of support. Those who provide that support will, to some extent, control access. One critical service will be icebreakers—specially designed ships that can safely clear the way even when things get dicey. Russia has the world’s largest fleet, and recently budgeted for the construction of six more: three nuclear-powered and three diesel-powered. Other countries are also building more (or the first) ships of their own.

Beyond that, there are also refueling tankers and depots, as well as search-and-rescue capabilities. Canada, for example, is expanding its cooperative effort with the indigenous people who make the Arctic their home (a volunteer group known as the Canadian Rangers) and building a patrol fleet that will put a Canadian naval presence in the Arctic for the first time since the 1950s.

Mineral rights

The Arctic also holds large, untapped reserves of oil and natural gas. (Estimates put it around 30 percent of global undeveloped natural gas, and 13 percent of undeveloped oil.) The question is, who does it belong to?

Despite Russia’s well-publicized planting of a flag on the Arctic seafloor, the region will be carved up by international negotiation, not by the colonial-age rules of “finders, keepers.” As part of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, there are some rules about how far from the coast a country’s economic claims are valid. However, the United States has never signed onto the convention because of its refusal to defer to an International Seabed Authority when no country has a clear claim to a resource.

There’s enough ambiguity in the application of existing rules to the Arctic (plus one country that hasn’t necessarily agreed to abide by all those rules) that there will certainly be disputes about claims, and these could develop into considerable sources of tension. The parties involved have talked a good talk about fair, diplomatic settlements, but that doesn't mean they can put these intentions into practice.

When considering oil production, there’s also the issue of agreeing on and enforcing environmental regulations. Cooperative agreements will be required to prepare for spills, and the livelihoods of those indigenous to the Arctic will have to be protected.

Defense and management

There is, of course, another obvious concern—defense. Canada, in particular, can no longer ignore the Arctic as a quiet border. And even if all nations are harmoniously cooperative, there’s still the possibility of terrorism (including ecoterrorism). Learning to operate in the Arctic will be no small task for armed forces.

Add in the fact that countries will be expected to protect commercial operations in a region teeming with other nations and other corporations, and it’s easy to imagine friction. As George Backus, author of the US perspective and a researcher at Sandia National Laboratory, writes, “An unexpected confluence of vessels and aircraft being in the wrong place, when Arctic weather conditions prevent adequate communications, could lead to tense situations, unless national security forces have the ability to readily manage the situation.”

Russia, Canada, and the US aren’t the only nations with an Arctic claim. There are others (most notably Denmark and Norway), and there are also countries with no claim that, nevertheless, want a piece of the action. Many European nations are in that category, as are China, South Korea, and Japan.

The greater the number of parties involved, the more international politics rears its head. China and the EU both want a seat at the Arctic Council. Strained trade relations between Canada and the EU (which banned the import of seal products, an economic staple of Arctic peoples) have been a sticking point, whereas Canada’s more cooperative trade relationship with China has opened a door to the Chinese.

Change as a constant

Not only will the situation in the Arctic be complicated, but the variables will constantly be changing, often in unpredictable ways. While scientists worry about sea ice behavior and the implications for climate, weather, and ecosystems, national leaders will be navigating a dynamic geopolitical landscape certain to spawn quarrels. Still, corporations will ply these risky waters because the potential pay-offs are huge.

And while countries will be intently focused on managing the situation in the Arctic Ocean, they won’t be able to ignore the effects of climate change on their own turf. This will be most obvious in Canada and Russia. Yury Morozov, a professor at the Russian Academy of Military Sciences and author of the Russian perspective, writes, “Currently, up to 40 percent of the infrastructure of Russian cities and towns built on permafrost is in critical condition because the frozen ground is melting. Apartment buildings and factories are gradually sinking into quagmires. Buildings are collapsing and pipelines are rupturing.”

And as that permafrost melts, of course, it releases large quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, further amplifying the warming that’s changing the Arctic and the rest of the world.

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2012. DOI: 10.1177/0096340212451568, 10.1177/0096340212451573, 10.1177/0096340212451572 (Open Access) (About DOIs).