Canada sends navy to Arctic north

[CoHo]

Canada vs Denmark... wouldn't that qualify as the lamest war in history?



Canada sends navy to Arctic north (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4175446.stm)

Canada is sending its navy back to the far northern Arctic port of Churchill after a 30-year absence. The visit by two warships to the area is the latest move to challenge rival claims in the Arctic triggered by the threat of melting ice.

The move follows a spat between Canada and Denmark, over an uninhabited rock called Hans Island in the eastern Arctic region.

A visit there by Canada's defence minister last month angered the Danes.

Now two Canadian warships, the Shawinigan and the Glace Bay, are on a mission to display what Canada calls its territorial sovereignty over parts of the Arctic it believes are within its borders.



Click here for a map of the region (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4175446.stm#map)
The dispute seems rather odd, when scientists say the region around the island is unlikely to be rich in oil or other natural resources.

But Canada is deeply worried that it has taken what it considers as its Arctic territory for granted.

The islands were not included in border discussions between Denmark and Canada more than 30 years ago.

Warming concern

It is also believed that global warming is causing the rapid melting of the ice across the Arctic, and that could make the legendary North-West Passage linking the Atlantic and the Pacific passable for ships for the first time.

The US has already said it regards the passage as an international strait, not Canadian waters.

Russia, Norway and Denmark also have competing claims to the continental shelf and the natural resources such as gas and oil that may lie beneath the sea bed.

If this all alarms the Canadian government, it upsets environmentalists even more.

They say the Arctic is one of the last of the earth's relatively untouched pristine frontiers and that a rush to exploit it will have a devastating impact on marine mammals and the rest of the fragile eco-system there.

[Hypnos]

Oh dear, there might be throwing of things. LEGOs and hockey pucks.

[PenguinHunter]

Canada vs Denmark... wouldn't that qualify as the lamest war in history?



:lol: I saw that yesterday but forgot to post it. I think that Canada could take them down. We have like 3 or 4 ships. They probably only have 1 or 2.

[misutii]

it may sound stupid to the common man at first, but these territorial issues have symbolic meaning. Canada has many disputed areas in the arctic with Denmark, Russia and the US. If Canada was to give in and allow the Danes to take this small island, then a prescedence would be set and the US and Russia could be more confident in asserting sovereignty over their disputed areas. politics 101

[Hypnos]

Isn't it precisely the common man who cares about this stupid crap?

[SheepDog]

Aside from the global warming, this is the most important sentence in that article:

Russia, Norway and Denmark also have competing claims to the continental shelf and the natural resources such as gas and oil that may lie beneath the sea bed.
Depending on how much there may be, it may not be so lame or trivial.

[Hypnos]

Aside from the global warming, this is the most important sentence in that article:

Depending on how much there may be, it may not be so lame or trivial.
The article says that this particular spit has none. And what's so important about global warming?

[SheepDog]

The article says that this particular spit has none.The path to oil/gas is not always straightforward. I haven't really looked into the specifics of this particular case, but it sounds similar to the South China Sea. At the least, I can see the situation in the South China Sea as a precedent in any oil/gas disuputes.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/schina.html

[The South China Sea] includes more than 200 small islands, rocks, and reefs, with the majority located in the Paracel and Spratly Island chains. Many of these islands are partially submerged islets, rocks, and reefs that are little more than shipping hazards not suitable for habitation; the total land area of the Spratly Islands is less than 3 square miles. The islands are important, however, for strategic and political reasons, because ownership claims to them are used to bolster claims to the surrounding sea and its resources.
The report goes on to explain that nautical boundaries are affected by land territories by respective countries. So the ownership of a little island (or reef, whatever) affects how the drilling rights are divided.

I'm certainly not making any definitive conclusions here, but pointing out that it is probably more than just symbolic, even if it proves to be only speculative with respect to actual oil/gas reserves.


And what's so important about global warming?
funny... or not.

[Dman]

And what's so important about global warming?

Same level of importance as the US trade deficit :)

[Hypnos]

funny... or not.
That there is a warming trend this past century is pretty well-established. That it has anything to do with human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, is not. Most climate scientists believe it, but for some reason, on this particular question, they are adhering to a much lower standard than in the rest of science for establishing a causal relation.

[Hypnos]

Same level of importance as the US trade deficit :)
Now that concerns me -- the consequences are quite clear, but no one wants to slow the gravy train.

[SheepDog]

That there is a warming trend this past century is pretty well-established. That it has anything to do with human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, is not. Most climate scientists believe it, but for some reason, on this particular question, they are adhering to a much lower standard than in the rest of science for establishing a causal relation.
Note that I'm not jumping to conclusions on the cause, either. Global climate change is still a big deal.

[SheepDog]

Same level of importance as the US trade deficit :)
I'll give in and ask your reasons for thinking that either the trade deficit or (from another thread) the US federal budget deficit are insignificant. By that I mean, what do you base that on?

[crule81]

The Danes are toast. Even the supposedly mean pirate lego-men have permanent smiles. Furthermore, they didn't even put up any kind of fight in 1940. They just woke up in the morning with the Germans in every major city.

The Canadians are more militaristic than one supposes (at least the Anglophones). When I was in the Maritimes recently, it seemed that many of the major attractions were military related. In St. John's and Halifax, they had highschool aged kids marching around firing muskets, rifles and cannons.

[SheepDog]

Now that concerns me -- the consequences are quite clear, but no one wants to slow the gravy train.
Especially those who believe in permanently "sustainable growth".

[Hypnos]

Especially those who believe in permanently "sustainable growth".
I believe in it. But the deficits keep increasing because spending is outpacing GDP growth.

[SheepDog]

I believe in it. But the deficits keep increasing because spending is outpacing GDP growth.
I jumped a couple steps on my statement. I was implying something about the idea that we can just "outgrow" our debt. Debt in itself isn't such a bad thing as long as the economy keeps growing. It's when that growth slows or stops that it becomes more of a problem.

This is a finite world. I don't believe that we can have indefinite real economic growth without increasing resources. (I say real, because we can always print money, but that's not growth, just inflation.) Goods and services require both energy and materials to produce. Energy and materials will become increasingly more scarce and expensive as we get nearer and nearer to our planet's limits. I just cannot see this as sustainable in the long term.

[Dman]

I'll give in and ask your reasons for thinking that either the trade deficit or (from another thread) the US federal budget deficit are insignificant. By that I mean, what do you base that on?

Like global warming, if left unchecked, it could become a problem eventually. I don’t think it is unchecked and I don’t think it will become a problem – unless everyone mistakenly believes it IS a serious problem and the US enacts protectionist policies. Then it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Consider how globally spread-out US companies have become. Why would they export from their US factories to other parts of the world, when they can do it locally? A US plant in China can supply the Chinese market. This skews the true balance of the trade deficit. US companies foreign affiliate sales are significantly higher than total US exports. But they are still US companies. The trade deficit is no longer a meaningful economic gauge due to globalization.

Here’s an old businessweek article that reiterates –

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_23/b3886033.htm


One other thing to note – why do you think the Bush administration does not appear to care about the weak dollar?


The budget deficit is even easier to remedy. These dollars are directly under control of the federal government and can be adjusted at any time, just depends on what their priorities are. Remember just a few years ago when it was a surplus? It’s totally flexible and can change in a very short period of time, depending upon policy. Only a big deal if it is completely ignored, which it obviously isn’t and won’t be.

[Claverhouse]

The Danes are toast. Even the supposedly mean pirate lego-men have permanent smiles. Furthermore, they didn't even put up any kind of fight in 1940. They just woke up in the morning with the Germans in every major city.
Happened to lots of people... :)

Anyway, the great v. Moltke the Elder, on whom be praise, was supposed to have only smiled three times in his life. Once was when the Danish ambassador at a party told him that the fortifications of Copenhagen made it impregnable.



The Canadians are more militaristic than one supposes (at least the Anglophones). When I was in the Maritimes recently, it seemed that many of the major attractions were military related. In St. John's and Halifax, they had highschool aged kids marching around firing muskets, rifles and cannons.
What else is there to do there ?



Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ Actually the maligned Helmuth was pretty cool: on becoming aware he was dying, he retired to a room so as not to bother people and died listening to Mozart. ]

[Hypnos]

This is a finite world. I don't believe that we can have indefinite real economic growth without increasing resources. (I say real, because we can always print money, but that's not growth, just inflation.) Goods and services require both energy and materials to produce. Energy and materials will become increasingly more scarce and expensive as we get nearer and nearer to our planet's limits. I just cannot see this as sustainable in the long term.
The solution, as always, has been technology. We don't use peat for fuel or hunt-and-gather anymore for material. It is true that even by boosting efficiencies of various sorts we will run out of materials, but that's a long way out.

I'll pester my physical/nuclear chemistry friends about transmutation and developing materials with only energy.

[SheepDog]

The solution, as always, has been technology. We don't use peat for fuel or hunt-and-gather anymore for material. It is true that even by boosting efficiencies of various sorts we will run out of materials, but that's a long way out.

I'll pester my physical/nuclear chemistry friends about transmutation and developing materials with only energy.
The solution has, to a large degree, always been technology. But technology requires energy and materials, too. This is a huge paradigm shift, I admit, but a key reason why I think we (humans) are going to have to shift from a positive growth model to one with neutral growth.

[Hypnos]

The solution has, to a large degree, always been technology. But technology requires energy and materials, too. This is a huge paradigm shift, I admit, but a key reason why I think we (humans) are going to have to shift from a positive growth model to one with neutral growth.
So is your thesis that as technology advances, even though new processes will become more energy and resource efficient, our demand will still increase?

There is merit in that because the greatest resource, human intellect, still lies fallow in most of the world. As this is harvested, aggregate demand will outpace technology. China and India are demonstrating this now.

My opinion is that this is merely temporary, and that scarcity will spur development of new tech. We will use less water, oil, metal, etc. Of course, we will always use more energy.

[Dman]

The solution, as always, has been technology. We don't use peat for fuel or hunt-and-gather anymore for material. It is true that even by boosting efficiencies of various sorts we will run out of materials, but that's a long way out.

that's what other planets are for

[Dman]

Are we all clear on the whole budget/trade deficit thing now?

[Hypnos]

Are we all clear on the whole budget/trade deficit thing now?
Explain the implications of our current account deficit.

[SheepDog]

Are we all clear on the whole budget/trade deficit thing now?
short answer is no, but I think it deserves a separate thread. I was going to start it, but haven't had time to give it the attention it deserves.

[Dman]

Explain the implications of our current account deficit.

Sounds exactly like a question I had on a test. I’ll see if I can find it and paste my answer here.


short answer is no, but I think it deserves a separate thread. I was going to start it, but haven't had time to give it the attention it deserves.

Good idea, I’ll wait until then (or start one myself if I find the time)

[distraction tactics]

What else is there to do there ?


Haha, that's pretty funny.

--

It's annoying to see the Ontarian Urbanite PR machine pass off Canada as a non-militaristic nation and have other countries believe it. It only marginalizes real contributions we've made in recent conflicts.