So, let's see. Nicaragua is building a new "panama canal" that will tear the entire country geographically in two, as well as costing a fortune. All in all being a very risky project. Meanwhile, a new "free" and shorter route is emerging just up north! Oh Nicaragua, you are fucked. I smell economic and environmental catastrophe, with some human welfare causalties.
richoz27 however true that may be, we must also accept that we (as individuals)currently cannot get by without the oil based mobility. We must understand this on an individual basis and become energy independent. Instead of depending on our governments.
IKR!! It wouldn't be so bad of all that oil was only used for petroleum products instead of wasting it by burning it up in what are essentially ancient engines.
Except its a natural occurring cycle, the fact is that we are still in the "last ice age" and have been for quite some time, the earth has been much warmer many times in the past, with the peak of it ending approx 12,000 years ago and since then the earth has been slowly warming up. My point isn't that our activity has no effect, my point is that we don't know exactly how much its going to make a difference when no matter what we do the global temperature is going to rise, on top of this happening and is probably directly affected by it is that we are entering a solar prime, this means the sun is putting out more energy right now and its a normal cycle for the sun to go up and down in energy yield its producing. Climate change has happened many times in earths history without us even existing, some of them were mild, some were very extreme to the point the entire earth was covered in ice with only deep sea creatures and microbes being able to inhabit the planet, on the other side the earth has been incredibly hotter in the past as well. Pretty much no matter what we do we cannot control every single factor in climate change and we cannot even say what our introduction to these cycles has effected at all yet.
Hi D3ATHBYFIR3, I'm very interested in your assertion. My understanding is, and this is from the scientific papers I have read, that the real crisis here is that human beings are dramatically altering the RATE of climate change. That's the real crux of the issue. Yes, the climate changes over geologic timescales with or without our species' "help", but very slowly (from a human perspective), and certainly not at such a rapid rate that the oceans acidify within a couple of generations or sea levels rise so dramatically over a hundred years or massive droughts/temperature rises render previously lived-in parts of the planet pretty much uninhabitable or parts of the earth such as Florida revert to salt marsh within a human lifetime. As you put it, the problem is not that the climate changes, it will always change, the problem is, are we changing it so rapidly that we risk rendering our species vulnerable to massive die-off or obliterating the ecological framework that supports us? The reason I say this is that there has been a concerted effort by corporate think tanks to sow doubt, not to explicitly disprove, merely to delay heavily needed legislation so they can maximise their profit margins using exactly the line you are now utilizing. I'm sure that's not your intent, but I am curious what you are suggesting here. That emissions do not have a dramatic effect on the climate? That seems like a scientifically dubious proposition to me given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If you have some reputable scientific peer-reviewed evidence that suggests otherwise I'd love to see it! Needless to say it would be a huge relief to me if there was convincing iron-clad proof that disproved the current consensus. :)
D3ATHBYFIR3 its more like earth is warming and we are not prepared life on earth will always survive but will we ? if climate change affected only animal life only PETA would be crying for it
Bro, when are you going to make a US geopolitics video? I understand that you probably think it's obvious or something but I honestly want to know all the aspects because you make such clear and educated videos.
Why is the southern hemisphere getting colder though? Antarctic ice cap is actually expanding. If it's just the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere surely the effect would be global? What if it's another slight orbital fluctuation like little ice age? Climate is naturally unstable, and retarded hippies still cry about killing the mother earth.
Bogdan Bogdanoff imagine what amounts of resources that are in Antarctica..... and imagine how the sea levels will be if Antarctica starts disappearing.... it will be a economical and political and geographical disaster.
@@bogdanbogdanoff5164 "Antarctic ice cap is actually expanding. If it's just the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere surely the effect would be global?" Warmer oceans means more water evaporates into clouds. More clouds means more snow coming down at the polar caps. That doesn't help the north pole because it floats entirely on water so the higher water temperature has greater effect. The south pole sits largely on a continental shelf -> is less effected by warmer water and comparatively more by the increased water cycle(aka snowfall) -> the Antarctic ice cap grows. But you know we can actually measure temperature all over the globe so pointing at any (explainable) tertiary phenomenon doesn't help your "case" either way. "retarded hippies still cry about killing the mother earth." yes this needless anthropomorphisation of presumably our biosphere is dumb af, but no less retarded than your sophist excuses.
@@DeHerg Water vapor constitutes vast majority of "greenhouse gases". Human civilization at large still has little effect on climate compared to solar cycles. Soil and ocean pollution is easily more important than someone's car emission. Wanna lessen transportation-generated CO2? Request your country to tariff buying cheap shit from china and start manufacturing themselves - A Dozen or so biggest transport ships generate more pollution than most cars combined.
Politis = Foreign Chronicles (name changed today) I would like to thank those who have been following Caspian Report for a while. Thank you for your curiosity for his beautiful work. Thank you for your loyalty to his independant analysis. Thanks to you, he has been able to create a large, qualitative, and - most of all - an independant media. And today, he decided to help my tiny channel. He has nothing to earn from it. Only he wants to encourage what you are also fighting for: independant medias. I can just tell you that you are supporting the right man. An original, smart and wise person, with the hand on his heart. My warmest thanks go to you. They go to you for supporting him. Patrice
It's part of the Canadian waters, but you know how the world works. This reminds be of a famous quote by Shikhlinski - you must be strong to have rights.
How come every single conspiracy nut thinks anyone with an opposing view is a paid shill!? Oh, wait... that's in the definition of a conspiracy nut... never mind...
John Ransom Because Canada is nice and the nature very similar to Scandinavia. Nvm you were talking about Russia. Well I can tell they’re more powerful that’s why.
ani625 but he's now changed his website from saying he'll leave the Paris deal. Trump talks so much shit, no one but him knows what he's going to do. There's no point guessing what he thinks until he actually becomes president.
Why should Canada give away it's sovereign right to tax the traffic as everyone else do. Canada should better be increasing its population and building it's military strength for future standoff. I hope Defence minister Sajjan Singh will do something about it
Liberals are too worried about gender politics to deal with real issues. Trudeau has no backbone and everyone knows it, unless it's taking a bone from behind. And yes, let's leave it to a city bound sikh defense minister to get things right about the Canadian arctic. This country blows my mind.
Because there are plenty of other straits that are exactly the same: open to anyone without taxes. In plenty of other places passage through straits is only a symbolic sum.
I don't think Canada would win any kind of direct military engagement. Put a bunch of mines in the water and call it a day if the other countries won't recognize Canadian sovereignty. The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down just to feel it's warmth.
I just discovered your channel yesterday and I really like it, your videos seem objective and well informed, something unimaginably valuable in our current times. Thank you for producing this content.
Hi Shirvan! Thank you very much for the interesting video. I also read about this topic in the book you reviewed "Prisoners of Geography". Thank you for that review as well. Very cool book indeed. I do have two questions. I hope you may answer it. 1. Does it mean that global worming is actually more beneficial then disadvantageous to the 5 nordic nations? And that they will never try to become green or want to restore the ice? 2. Wouldn't it be likely or in the US interest to "force" Denmark and "help" Greenland to become a independent country followed by increasing US domination over an independent Greenland and Canada? Or is the north pole not profitable enough for this scenario?
I'm glad you found the book useful :) As for your questions: 1. Certain countries do indeed prefer global warming. For instance, Russian officials have expressed ambitions to use the warming of the Arctic Ocean to stimulate the growth of Northern/Siberian cities. The idea is that the Northern Sea Route could spark new St.Petersburg-like cities in the Northern regions. There is indeed a lot of potential for the Russians in regards to global warming. 2. There would be no benefit in an independent Greenland. Besides, the US already dominates the Canadian and Danish foreign policies. The most active Arctic country besides Russia is Norway. Oslo is trying hard to get NATO involved in its Arctic security concerns. Ironically, the most passive Arctic state is the US. I'll go over these factors in the next report.
As someone who lives by the Arctic, I'd like to add a few things: According to studies Greenland and Iceland are the countries that would most benefit from a warming climate, with other Arctic countries but the U.S. benefiting as well: web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=6b910e63-2606-4a35-901c-a5846c09eb8f%40sessionmgr4009 My cousins in Greenland are working towards independence, and hope that access to mineral and hydrocarbon resources will help them achieve that goal. Greenland as well as the Faroe Islands are autonomous countries within the Danish realm. One can think of their relationship to Denmark as being similar to the one between Puerto Rico and the U.S, but as a simplification. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenlandic_independence There was no mention of my home country Iceland, even though it lies wholly or partly within the Arctic, depending on which definition is used. Iceland has political aspirations in the Arctic, and hopes that good relations with an independent Greenland and Faroes will be mutually beneficial in that regard. A map of the definitions of the Arctic: arcticportal.org/images/maps/small/1.9.jpg
@@Delgen1951 how to denuclearize the Korean peninsula, by achieving peace. Getting our troops out of the middle east, and not going to military war with anyone. And making sure China and Europe trade fairly, by using tariffs as threats and leverage. Oh, and as well as where the neatest golf course and women is.
Melting of Arctic ice will not increase sea levels, because it is already floating in water. It is the melting of Antarctic ice that will increase sea levels, because it is anchored on land. It's minor nitpick, because both poles are going to melt down. It's just the way it is told in video that it sounds inaccurate.
Open mouth, insert foot. The part of icebergs and shelves ABOVE the water when they crash into the water and melt, yes that displacement Does increase sea levels.
Interesting. but maybe it won't be as drastic a change as predicted if northern sea route does open. Why? because, in my opinion, the population in southern hemisphere will grow bigger than those in the north. northern sea route is important because it's shorten the range between two powerful market : Europe, and China. and since the fact that main drive for market is population, which is in quite a decline in Europe, guess Europe won't be that attractive of a market. So, if the new powerful market will be those from south hemisphere like India, Brazil, Indonesia, or Africa nations, opening of northern sea route will be quite meaningless Any arguments are welcome
SubhanAllah! Another Fine Visual Short On Geo Politics. Focusing Mainly The Arctic Region And Surroundings, It Actually Encircles The Entire Globe, With A Very Compact And Concise Geographic, Geo Economic And Geo Political Set Of Essential Details, Within The Proper Contextual Relevance Of The Subject. Even Duly Reflicting On The Geolological Aspect Of The Arctic Ocean And The Arctic Circle In Its Proper And Prospective Geo Economic And Financially Viable Geo Strategic Perspective. Giving A New Ray Of Hope And Expectation To A World, Already Lacking In Parity And Consistency Of Planning And Development, Beside The Mismanaged Logistics And Distribution And Conflictng, Clashing And Fighting Over The Existing And Available Mineral And Natural Resources, In The Various Parts And Regions Of The World, Other Than The Frozen Sea And The Arctic Region. By All Respects, A Very Well Composed Brief Visual Report On The Global Geo Politics. With Thanks And Regards For Sharing It. May God Bless You. Jazza K Allah Khair. SNR. (FFP). ...
I have an alternative to squabbles over oil in the Arctic: pioneer nuclear fusion & electricity exploitation technology and watch the other nations scramble to catch up when the hydrocarbons run out.
Your report of the northwest passage dispute (NWP) is factually inaccurate. 1.Its only the USA that disputes Ottawa's sovereignty of those passages. 2.The waters of the NWF passages are shallow and not suitable for large ships.
Can Russia charge ships for using their Arctic trade routes the way Panama does for Suez Cannel . I know officially it's international waters but if Russia is keeping the straight open via ice breakers and providing support they deserve to be paid right?
wrong 100% Earth is in a mini Ice age aka a grand solar minimum cycle a big one... Canada will be uninhabitable within the next 15 or less will be too cold all year round. Colorado snowpack 4000% above average today. jet streams are shifting patterns that's why you're getting record hot but you're also getting record colds in other places. overall global temperatures are falling and fast. crops are failing due to flooding, freak cold snaps exedra. well see famine this year in poor parts of the world Pakistan India China North Korea and eventually globally few more years down the road. crop yields have been declining for the past three years year-over-year increasingly and only getting worse . why do you think China's freaking out. u.s. China trade negotiations will announce the biggest ever grain purchases from the US soon as a trade deal.
Climate change isn't necessarily a bad thing. It might be better to live in a warmer world, or it might be worse. Humans once survived an ice age where Europe and North America were frozen over. Global warming might be encouraged, to a large, small or no significant degree, by human activity. It's fine to think for yourself and come to your own conclusions about climate change.
The current shale revolution happening within the US is causing major shifts. The US is now energy independent, and has recently become a net energy exporter (we sell more than we buy). We can produce oil for cheaper than anyone else, and at higher quality. This is important in this age of low oil prices for several reasons. Our methods have developed in a way that produces natural gas as a byproduct, making it incredibly cheap. It is also very friendly to the environment, contrary to popular belief. I have no interest in the oil industry by the way, but I do have interest in keeping the US strong.
Nobody ever really talks about rising sea levels, considering 90% of the human population lives along the coast line. Should be interesting to see the catastrophe that comes of rising sea levels and increased storms.
America militarizes former Soviet Block states to the south and west of Russia. Russia militarizes the arctic. Is the back in the front, or the front in the back? ;)
Can you make a video about India's demonetization of 500 and 1000 rupees notes and how it will affect terrorism, black money, economy and security in the country?
i would wait a little bit to see a trump report. Not much cant be said from a campaign, and a much richer report will be able to be done in a few months
That north west passage is in canadian waters hands down fuck what the usa and what Russia says .then the north east passage is Canada's then . Makes sense don't it .
Canada's North West Passage is considered international waters yet Canada flanks it on all sides. The concern Canada has is that they will be on the hook one way or another when a foreign ship dumps or suffers a hazardous cargo accident in the passage. Even if the UN says Canada deserves financial compensation from the shipping company (Very unlikely), near by Canadian fisheries and environmentally protected zones are still threatened or destroyed as a result of such hazardous cargo discharges.
What do you think of Alexander Dugins 1997 book "Foundations of geopolitics", many of the policy's he recommended in that book seem to have been have followed to a certain extent by the Russian administrations which have ruled since the books release, this makes sense since he is supposed to have close ties to the Kremlin. Here are some of the policy's he recommended: 1. Russian should create a Eurasian centric sphere of influence which should place most of the old communist nations under Russia's influence. 2. The rejection of Atlanticism and liberal values should be pushed for across the western world. 3. Ukraine should be annexed by Russia. 4. Sectarianism of all kinds, particularly racial unrest should be encouraged in the US. 5. The US should be manipulated into becoming an isolationist nation. 6. The UK must be isolated from Europe. 7. Armenia serves the purpose of being a strategic base for Moscow and Iran is a key Allie. 8. Georgia should be broken up. 9. a Russian Islamic alliance lies at the base of anti-Atlanticism. 10. China is a threat to Russian power and should be encouraged to spread its influence south towards Indo-China, Phillipines and Australia rather than north towards Eurasia. These are just a couple of the more interesting things.
The Arctic Union: an open borders for citizens, unrestricted trade and mutual protection pact between Canada, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Sweden.
The way the winds and currents flow in the Arctic means that the sea ice is pushed toward the Canadian coast. This makes Canadian waters much less navigable than Russian waters. Also most of the oil and gas resources are in the wide shallow continental shelf on the Russian side of the Arctic, as well as off he coast of Alaska. Most shelf off of the Canadian and Greenland waters are not geologically suited for oil and Gas, except for the Beaufort sea area near Alaska.
