Obama to Call for More Icebreakers in Arctic as U.S. Seeks Foothold

Oh check this out!! digitalcommons.lmu.edu...

There is an Arctic Council... www.arctic-council.org...#

These Countries spend a lot of money researching the area. They have been... who knows maybe they really NEED it to melt. Economies would BOOM!

Canada
Kingdom of Denmark
Finland
Iceland
Norway
Russian Federation
Sweden
United States of America

China is now an observer too.

If the Arctic Council can garner more international cooperation, as
it did through admitting China, then it will open the door to sharing
research and knowledge among many different groups and state
actors.This could prove to be beneficial in finding a more sustainable
solution to Arctic governance, since more people would be working
towards the solution. Moreover, China’s presence and participation as
an observer will strengthen the “legitimacy, authority and effectiveness of the Arctic Council

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Wait ... I thought there wasn't enough ice in the Arctic to merit needing icebreakers. Isn't that what we get told? Isn't that why Obama is busy stumping all over Alaska and renaming mountains, so he can promote how horribly badly the environment is degrading due to warming?

But ... we need more icebreakers to break the ice that's disappearing ...

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Why would we need more icebreakers when "everyone" knows that due to man's activities all the ice in the arctic is just about gone, right?

originally posted by: bbracken677
Why would we need more icebreakers...

Maybe he did not mean icebreakers but he meant Ice Breakers:

a reply to: MamaJ

Maybe so...

But during every interglacial period the arctic ice melts without man.. now the ice is melting because of man? Wait...we are in an interglacial period, right?

In all seriousness, the potential for mineral and petro development and mining is incredible.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

HAHA yes! Funny but that crossed my mind as well.

Not to mention, the social version of an icebreaker... maybe he can work out better relations with the Russians by utilizing "ice breakers".

Umm...hmm...somehow I dont think that will be the result of any icebreakers used in the Arctic.

a reply to: bbracken677

I agree with everything you posted.

What's your point? What am I missing?

originally posted by: Isurrender73
Can't humanity leave just one area of this planet alone? Not every piece of land and sea needs a damn dollar sign attached to it.

I liked your post but on the other hand, there's less to kill in the arctic than lets say, the Amazonian jungle.

Now that's something that shouldn't have been done...and it could get worse.

a reply to: bbracken677

Why not? We already depend on them for our access to space.

a reply to: MamaJ

The point is (nothing earth shattering) is, more or less, two-fold.

One: Obama is a hypocrite.

Two: there are megabucks involved there and we want our piece of the pie.

As I said...nothing earth shattering requiring a doctorate to understand.

a reply to: ketsuko

lol

What I was kidding around about was that any icebreaking (whether literal or social) we do in the area, as we jump into that game in the Arctic we will not be improving our relations with the Russians.

a reply to: bbracken677

Well, there is that. We could just send them some giant red buttons. Seems to work out well.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Vasa Croe

The retreat of Arctic sea ice has created opportunities for shipping, tourism, mineral exploration and fishing — and with it, a rush of marine traffic that is bringing new difficulties.

Since the ice is retreating, they can drill into the sea floor for oil. The Russians have a jump on that game with over fifty ice breakers. The US has some 6 or 7.

Now Obama wants to use the military to open new territory for the corporations? How about Big Oil pays for the ice breakers themselves?

Because its the Russians…

article

You think they're down there for the oil......Aren't you adorable!

I guess global warming was an accident too? Gosh, I learned sumting today! "Martha, fire up the cook pit, WE'RE HAVIN' A HOOTENANNY!!!"

a reply to: trifecta

You think they're down there for the oil……

It in't for the Plankton. Ice breakers break up ice so they can get down there and drill and protect and resupply oil drilling platforms from, wait for it…. more ice.

When I enlisted in the Coast Guard back in 1970 the CG had 4 active icebreakers for the Arctic and Antarctic. 1 icebreaker on the Great Lakes. Those 4 breakers where all WW2 ex Navy ships that where transferred to the CG. By the time I retired in 1992 the CG had 2 new breakers on active service. Because they are so expensive to build the CG never asked to have more built. Those two breakers did everything that was called upon them to do by Congress and the Commandant of the Coast Guard. There just was no interest by the POTUS or Congress to be active in the Arctic regions. Now that Russia is attempting a land grab it has drawn attention to the Arctic are of our world. That is the only reason the POTUS is even involved. Even if approved it would take about 3 years to build a icebreaker.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

But, But, why we need more icebreakers, I thought the artic is melting at a record rate, why not just wait a few years for the artic to melt completely, darn that will save money on the tax payer, right?, right?



The irony.

a reply to: marg6043

That is really not a good argument. The arctic is loosing ice no doubt, but that does not mean it still won't have ice or still won't freeze in the winter(when there is no sun). This is not much different than holding a snowball and acting like that somehow disproves the notion of AGW.

My understanding is these new icebreakers are for the purpose of helping the petroleum industry, so they can exploit more of the arctic as it thaws.

Lol everything obama does outrages you people, its pretty pathetic. I don't think he's a good president, hell, he's nothing more than a puppet reading a teleprompter, but I don't keep his name in my mouth, I don't even give him a thought until I see crap like this being posted.

Let's face it, if bush was president and made this move, the same people throwing a fit now would be on their knees, praising the move.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: marg6043

That is really not a good argument. The arctic is loosing ice no doubt, but that does not mean it still won't have ice or still won't freeze in the winter(when there is no sun). This is not much different than holding a snowball and acting like that somehow disproves the notion of AGW.
.

Absolute truth... just as true as the melting of the snowball somehow proves AGW.

We are in an interglacial period. Curiously, what happens during interglacial periods is: ice melts. Glaciers recede....

We have not currently reached even the high global temps of 3 of the last 4 interglacial periods. During the one in question we are pretty close. All the predicted doom and gloom is not much different from that of the 2k scare, the Mayan scare and the planet x scare.

Has man had an effect? Undoubtedly so... has man had a catastrophic effect? Nope..

a reply to: jrod

You know I been sarcastic right?

And yes, is despicable that while talking about preservation and parading the remaining indigenous population of Alaskans as the first casualties on global warming, the raping of the land for profits and the effects of that kind of polution in Alaska was no a government issue.