A triumph for man, a disaster for mankind
Two ships are finishing the first commercial navigation of the fabled North-east Passage. It is an epic moment – but also a vivid sign of climate change in the Arctic
No commercial vessel has ever successfully travelled the North-east Passage, a fabled Arctic Sea route that links the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific far more directly than the usual southerly cargo route.
It has been one of the elusive goals of seafaring nations almost since the beginnings of waterborne trade, but for nearly 500 years the idea has been dismissed as an impossible dream. Now, as a result of global warming, the dream is about to come true.
Within days, a journey that represents both a huge commercial boon and a dark milestone on the route to environmental catastrophe is expected to be completed for the first time. No commercial vessel has ever successfully travelled the North-east Passage, a fabled Arctic Sea route that links the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific far more directly than the usual southerly cargo route. Explorers throughout history have tried, and failed; some have died in the attempt.
But early next week the German-owned vessels, Beluga Fraternity and Beluga Foresight, are scheduled to dock in the Dutch port of Rotterdam. It is the culmination of a two-month voyage from South Korea across the perilous waters of the Arctic, where an unprecedented ice-melt has at last made the previously impassable course a viable possibility.
The new route could transform Russia's economic fortunes. Throughout history, the country's search for a warm-water port that would provide sea routes open year-round has dominated the geopolitics of the region. But the economic advantages are balanced by the disastrous environmental news that the transit represents.
"This is further proof that climate change is happening now," said Melanie Duchin, Arctic Expedition leader on board the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise, who added that the development put greater pressure on world leaders to agree a major emissions cut at their Copenhagen meeting in December. "This is not a cause for celebration but cause for immediate action," she said.
The 12,000-tonne vessels' summer journey through the Northeast Passage was carried out with 3,500 tonnes of construction materials and parts for a Siberian power station on board. Once completed, the voyage will have shortened the traditional commercial sea route from the Far East to Europe – via the Suez Canal – by more than 4,000 nautical miles.
Russian maritime officials are now hoping that the feat will result in an "Arctic Rush" with the northern sea route becoming a viable summer competitor to the Suez and Panama canals. They have offered to cut ice-breaker fees in the North-east Passage to encourage major shipping companies to start using it.
Nils Stolberg, the President of the Bremen-based Beluga group which organised the commercial voyage insisted yesterday that ships' transit was not an experiment but the first step towards opening the North-east Passage to shipping world wide. He said his company already had new contracts to ship goods along the route from Asia to Siberia next summer.
"We are all very proud and delighted to be the first Western shipping company to have successfully transited the legendary North-east Passage and delivered a sensitive cargo safely through this extraordinarily demanding sea area," he said. He also estimated that the path had saved $92,000 (£55,000) worth of fuel for each ship.
Despite global warming, the Northeast Passage is still seriously hampered by hundred-mile long swathes of shifting pack ice that extend southwards from the North Pole even in summer. The islands off the north coast of Siberia also contain glaciers which cast icebergs into the warming waters of the passage with increasing frequency.
In 1983 a Russian ship was crushed by pack ice it encountered in the passage in the middle of summer. However, the Russian Transport Ministry which operates a fleet of six nuclear powered-ice-breakers to assist Russian and other coastal commercial ships, says that in recent summers the route has rarely been completely impassable. "The ice conditions were far more severe 20 years ago," a spokesman said.
The voyage of the two Beluga vessels was certainly no picnic. Although not thoroughbred ice-breakers themselves, both ships were designed to cope with ice-strewn waters and were accompanied by at least one Russian nuclear ice-breaker during the whole of the trip. The two ships encountered snow, fog, ice floes, and treacherous icebergs which showed only about one meter of their huge underwater volume on the sea's surface.
The most challenging stretch of the voyage came at its northernmost point, the Vilkizi Strait on the tip of Siberia. Half of the sea's surface was covered with pack ice and the captains of both vessels had to call Russian ice pilots on board to shepherd them through. Vlarey Durov, captain of the Beluga Foresight spoke of the stress he experienced from having to keep a constant lookout for ice and the time spent waiting for the seas to clear. But he insisted: "It is an economically and ecologically beneficial shortcut between Europe and Asia... On such voyages the advantage of fewer miles can outweigh the delays in waiting for clear water."
Finding a North-east Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific was the goal of mariners and governments in 16th-century Europe because the route would have shortened the voyage to the newly discovered spice islands of the East Indies by some 2,000 miles – the equivalent of a year's sailing.
However, most expeditions ended in disaster. The first attempt by the British navigator Richard Chancellor took place in 1553 but was brought to an abrupt halt in the winter of the same year when his ships became trapped in the ice. Chancellor abandoned ship and marched across the ice to Moscow where he was entertained at the court of Ivan the Terrible.
His fellow explorer Sir Hugh Willoughby stayed with his crew aboard ship and was discovered frozen to death two years later.
Another attempt in 1597 by the Dutch explorer William Barents ended with his ship being trapped and crushed in the ice. Barents and his crew were forced to spend the winter in a makeshift driftwood hut living on polar bear meat. Barents, after whom the polar Barents sea is named, did not survive either.
If the current voyage ends successfully, such maritime disasters may become a thing of the past. But a separate environmental disaster may be only beginning to unfold.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Reduce your global impact.
Comments
The only change since 1878 is that now we have large cargo carrying ice breakers, so the route can, hopefully, become commercial.
Frankly Mr Paterson the standard of your journalism is rather pathetic
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Real satellite data shows this years summer Artic melt is less than last year, while in the Antartic the winter freeze is greater than last year.
Was there at any time such a thing as journalistic integrity? None showing here.
Really, you people should start ordaining ministers. You already have a religion.
Sadly the inconvenient truth available to anyone with a brain is that ths route has been used for decades, since 1935 commercially.
A pathetic article reprinted without any reference to fact.
As for the article mentioning climate change, it bellows global warming and pins it by implication on CO2 so the whole thrust of the article is AGW not, as you imply, a mere peripheral issue.
As for denying reality, see the HADCRUT3 dataset since 1997 which, at least, implies that the Models MAY have errors re CO2 being the main driver for recent climate change. Temps are stable or slightly declining. This may be a blip but some Scientists, and the likes of Vicky Pope seem to be catching up with them at long last, have been saying for years that the recent warming has mainly been because of factors other than CO2.
If you wish to post smug abuse of the opinions of others you might, at a minimum, post some incontrovertible facts that PROVE that CO2 is the cause. You will not, of course, because you cannot. The only validation for AGW predictions is the Models and they are not giving a good fit with reality for the last 12 years. Why, therefore should I believe the 4 degree rise predicted for this century. Pope is right that short term variations can bugger up predictions but should smooth out over time but, since some variations are multi decadal, they can also make the 4 degree prediction fallacious.
A little less hysteria re AGW and a little more humility re uncertainties would be most welcome from the warmists. Then we might have a chance of convincing people to do those things that we should be doing anyway, even if AGW is wholly untrue.
The North-East passage has been open since 1934, when the required ice-breaking assistance materialised, and never "closed" since. Tens of thousands of ships have made the trip ever since mostly during the summer months, of course.
Need I say more?
I looked at the link you reference, and which you use as evidence that sea ice melt is slowing.
Here is a cut and paste from the Sept 8th entry:
-snip-
Atmospheric circulation patterns in August helped spread out sea ice, slowing ice loss in most regions of the Arctic. NSIDC scientists expect to see the minimum ice extent for the year in the next few weeks. While this year's minimum ice extent will probably not reach the record low of 2007, it remains well below normal: average ice extent for August 2009 was the third-lowest in the satellite record. Ice extent has now fallen below the 2005 minimum, previously the third-lowest extent in the satellite record.
Sea ice extent averaged over the month of August 2009 was 6.26 million square kilometers (2.42 million square miles). This is 900,000 square kilometers (350,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which occurred in August 2007, 200,000 square kilometers (77,000 square miles) above August 2008, and just below the August 2005 value of 6.30 million square kilometers (2.43 million square miles). Arctic sea ice extent for August 2009 was 1.41 million square kilometers (540,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.
Conditions in context
In the beginning of August, the rate of ice loss was fairly slow....But because of the higher-than-average rate of ice loss in July, average ice extent for August 2009 was still far below the 1978 to 2000 average extent for the month....On September 2, Arctic sea ice extent dropped below the minimum extent for 2005. This year is now the third-lowest ice extent in the satellite record, with one to two weeks left in the melt season.
The minimum ice extent for the year will probably occur in the next two weeks. NSIDC scientists are closely monitoring conditions and will report the minimum when it occurs.
August 2009 compared to past years
Arctic sea ice extent for August 2009 was the third lowest August since 1978, continuing the downward trend observed over the last three decades. Only 2007 and 2008 had lower ice extent during August. The long-term trend indicates a decline of 8.7% per decade in August ice extent since 1979.
-/snip-
So it would seem that your own reference source documents that sea ice is declining, thus supporting The Indies facts as referenced in the article.
Simon,
I claimed that the extent of the melt for the last two years was less than 2007. The graph depicted on the site I identified and the extract you've cut and pasted confirms that. The medium term trend to 2007 was of an increasing melt year upon year. No argument. My principal point was that the use of "unprecedented" was incorrect. It was wrong in relation to the last two years and the evidence to support that claim is pretty solid as you no doubt saw.
If you can demonstrate that the writer of this piece was right in his claim to the effect that this year's melt was unprecedented (in its extent) then I would be glad to be corrected, and will apologise to Mr Paterson.
Thanks for your reply. I think we're splitting hairs. The author uses the word "unprecedented" once; "It is the culmination of a two-month voyage from South Korea across the perilous waters of the Arctic, where an unprecedented ice-melt has at last made the previously impassable course a viable possibility. "
The way the word is used in the sentence lacks context as far as time frame. Did the author mean an "unprecedented melt has taken place this year compared to last year"?. Or did the author mean "unprecedented over the historical period of known human seafaring expeditions"? Given the context of the preceding two paragraphs however I would say that the author meant the latter. The sentence in the article is, unfortunately, a little sloppy and could have benefited from some tighter editing.
Nevertheless, the point shouldn't be the question of whether the ice has melted more or less this year than last. The point is that it has now melted enough over the last decade (or so) to enable commercial exploitation of the route. Furthermore, as the article indicates, the Russian government and Nils Stolberg foresee this as simply the first test of what is intended to become a regular commercial shipping route. You can bet that they have applied a reasonable level of risk analysis as well as projections of expected ice pack density and total ice coverage in their preparatory planning. The fact that they have attempted the transverse of the route is proof that they have concluded that over the coming years it is more likely that ice pack coverage and floe density will be more amenable to commercial shipping using the route. Clearly if they expected that the ice reduction that has enabled this transversal was a "one off", or that the ice coverage was trending back to MORE ice, then they would not be pushing to open up the route in the longer term.
It is also worth commenting on the presence of the two Russian ice breakers which has been cited as proof of the route not being commercially viable. Such comments are naive in the extreme. Military vessels from the US and other countries are deployed to attempt to protect commercial shipping from pirates off the East coast of Africa. The Russian government would love nothing better than to have a reason for an expanded naval presence through a newly opened North-Est passage. While the article does not indicate whether the particular ice-breakers where naval or commercial, it does indicate that an offer has already been made to discount the hiring rates (which probably means they're commercial breakers) in order to encourage further exploitation of the route.
I hope tankers will be forbidden there
Periodic change happens, earth has cyclic patterns due to many factors; earth core cycles, sun core cycles, our solar systems spin position in the galaxy, alignment of planets and galaxies etc.
The big question is what impact does man's rearrangement of the surface of the earth and its altering of atmospheric gases have on the natural changes.
We talk about the butterfly effect, having a minute but real ripple effect on the whole earth system. So what about the sledgehammer effect which mankind is inflicting on the earth? Air travel, pestecides, fungicides, insectacides, chemical industry, deforestation, over-fishing, agriculture over vast masses of land, land transport pollution, aerosol pollution, etc, etc.
It would be ignorant to say that humans have no effect on the planet. Because we do.
These changes have (about 13,000 years ago) altered the maps of all the continents. Each contient lost about a third of its land mass when the ice age ended. There is expected to be massive land loss as we get further warming. Some of the low level islands are seeing this change today when high tides bring sea water into their gardens.
Baaa....
2. Old Sol has recently ended a VERY intense sunspot cycle.
3. The 'average' temperatures have been falling since 1998.
4. Linking 'human activity' to 'climate change' and ignoring STELLAR FORCES - is fallacy, like say:
A. Stalin was a communist.
B. Stalin drank milk.
C. Therefore, all milk drinkers are communist.
Thus, 'Carbon footprint trading’ is exposed as nothing more than
A FRAUDULENT NEW TAX ON THE VERY AIR WE BREATHE - started in ...
MAFIA CHICAGO by none other than Al Gore.
wow.
google is still free right..
well all you deniers and believers alike share in this truth.
weapon/weather modification has been around for a while and is going on continuously
tesla has some pretty good ideas that im sure he never meant for malignant purposes
Moreover, RE:
Scientists find CO2 link to Antarctic ice cap origin
infohiway WROTE:
Re: MORE HOGWASH - CHASING GRANTS!
Linking temperature and ice-sheet changes to CO2 levels is utter fallacy without precise information about solar activity.
Chasing the wind by creating vacuous 'models' to fit more vacuous 'theory' is just more junk science and there nothing we can EVER be able to do about 'Old Sol'.
tatcawh SAID: I'm pretty confident that if I put a blanket and a hot water bottle on an old lady, she will be warmer than if I had not. She might be too warm, or she might still be too cold, but I can be sure she'll be warmer than she would be without the blanket and the bottle, I can demonstrate it experimentally and theoretically,
- and in order to come to this conclusion I really don't need to know whether she had central heating in 1976.
infohiway SAID:
Excellent! There has to be some grant money out there for your study, as long as the right buzz words are peppered throughout and the CONclusion is pre-determined.
infohiway SAID:
Cicero wrote: ?You can tell how corrupt a nation is by the number of laws it?s passed.? The first ?carbon trading platform' is in Chicago (yikes!) by Al (?I invented the internet.?) Gore, now merrily taking advantage of convoluted laws and accords, written by duplicitous politician lawyers and grant-hungry academics (a toxic and gaseous mix if there ever was one), just like Prohibition era gangsters.
freethinkin wrote:
Saturday, 12 September 2009 at 09:29 am (UTC)
An article that mentions climate change is published: the deniers slither out from under their rocks to deny reality.
Really, you people should start ordaining ministers. You already have a religion.
Anything that uses the immortal words 'you people' rather damns itself already, especially when also a tad shy on anything substantive as well. Hence the attempted invocation of religion as a pejorative being a tad ironic.
What I see is a piece of in theory objective, balanced and well-researched professional reporting being challenged and, it seems with a fair amount of well-sourced contrary data and argued opinion.
So far, by way of counter, we have only one reasoned (and appreciated) supportive contribution... and a lot of heat at the expense of light.
Which is not a great way to convince those who don't happen to think they fall under the term 'you people' but have an active interest in this topic.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/0
highlights that we are simply being lied to about the effects of climate change.
The Soviet Union offered to open the route to global commerce in 1967, but with war in the Middle East closing the Suez, Russia didn't want to offend its Arab allies. Since the 1930s the route has seen major ports spring up, carrying over 200,000 tons of freight passing through each year, although this has declined with the fall of the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union offered to open the route to global commerce in 1967, but with war in the Middle East closing the Suez, Russia didn't want to offend its Arab allies. Since the 1930s the route has seen major ports spring up, carrying over 200,000 tons of freight passing through each year, although this has declined with the fall of the Soviet Union.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/826
I would rather be over cautious , and make the sacrificies we need to become sustainable , which we need to be in the long run wahatever the ammount of climate change. Just carry on polluting, waiting until it is too late , and only tyring thing have become really bad , and too late to change, seems really stupid.
Does this paper not do any basic fact checking?
Oh really! A picture says more than a thousand words.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/0
Watts Up With That?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/07/t
Does the Independent care to re-write the 'story'?
The North-East Passage, which you recently mentioned as an example of purported global warming, has been open since 1934 to commercial shipping.
Get your facts right before predicting that we are on the way to climate catastrophe, please. Even the North-West passage has been open on occasion in previous eras long before the supposed impact of anthropogenic global warming.
marchesarosa