Climate Refugees: Their Phantom Protections

insideclimatenews.org

In 2020, unprecedented flooding in rural areas of Afghanistan displaced thousands of Afghans. This resulted not only from more extreme storms, but also from the destruction of trees that protected and aggregated the soil. Farmers were forced to move to higher ground, local cities, and to Iran as their homes, crops, and livestock washed away. Since then, flooding has continued to increase year to year during the wet season, making the region inhabitable and contributing to global climate migration. 

Climate change poses a major threat to nations around the world. In the coming decades, millions of people will be displaced as a result of natural disasters, coastline erosion, and lack of resources. As of 2021, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees released data saying that the rate of climate related migrants has risen 21.5 million since 2010, and the Institute for Economics and Peace estimates that at least 1.2 billion people will be displaced as a result of these disasters by 2050. The facts are clear: climate migration will become a major policy issue as an eighth of the world’s population is expected to migrate in the next thirty years, so how are governments responding to the looming climate-caused refugee crisis? The answer: they are not. Current policies and standing meetings like the Paris Agreement (adopted in 2015), the annual Conference of Parties (COP), and the Loss and Damage Finance Facility (LDFF) set standards for net zero emissions and began reparations work that hold major emitter, industrialized countries accountable for climate change. But these do not establish individual protections for climate migrants who are the face of climate adaptation and the bearers of environmental injustice. 

Climate migrants fall into three categories: refugees, internally displaced peoples (IDPs), and stateless peoples. Yet they cannot be defined by their relation to the climate alone as they often live in the cross hairs of conflict, making them even more vulnerable. Climate hotspots are areas more susceptible to the effects of climate change, leaving the people within them particularly vulnerable. They contribute to the lack of the necessary resources needed to adapt to climate change in their regions, forcing communities to move once again. Environmental damages are even being used against minority groups in existing national conflicts, as seen in the Azerbaijan/Armenia conflict. For the past three decades, Azerbaijan has demolished the biodiversity in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, the disputed territory of the Armenian minority population, to make them more vulnerable during their attacks. This is just one example of how the environment is weaponized by states to debilitate populations already in crisis. 

While the UN General Assembly acknowledged in 2018 that climate change is a major contributor to migration, “climate refugee” is still not an official status. Without refugee status, individuals cannot seek asylum abroad, are waitlisted for medical care and social services, and are not protected as stateless people by their receiving countries. Additionally, the acknowledgement of climate refugees would signal that “wealthier countries, which are most responsible for planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, [have a] global responsibility to help those harmed by climate change,” according Mia Prange of CFR. With the rates of climate migration growing, the international community is currently unprepared for the rise in refugees they will have to take in and will likely need more lenient refugee policies that encompass victims of climate change to support them.

In 1950, the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR) was organized, and in 1951, the Refugee Convention defined a refugee as, “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.” This definition is still the framework for defining refugees today, and while its broad outlook on refugees makes it adaptable to many different conflicts and circumstances, its stagnant definition has prevented it from adapting to modern issues like climate change. Since migrants moving as a result of natural disasters and climate change are not facing direct persecution by another group of people, they are not covered in all cases in the way that they would be if they were their own designated group. 

In 2008, the Brookings Institution identified five categories of migrants who have to move for climate and natural disasters: hydro-meteorological disasters, situations of environmental degradation, sinking of small island states, zones too dangerous for human habitation, and climate change induced. In many instances, the initial reason for migration is to look for economic advantages abroad, but when things get drastic and a sudden hurricane or fire wipes out a region destroying homes and livelihoods, the move is more urgent. While economic migrants have protection, climate refugees do not have the designations protecting them when disaster strikes. 

Without climate refugees being a defined status, individuals do not get the protections that legal refugees do. These can range from resettlement documentation and health care to case work and recreational activities. The most significant of these protections is non-refoulement in Article 33 of Refugee Convention, which gives everyone the right to seek asylum and protects asylum seekers from being turned away or sent back to their country of origin at international borders. This is important because, even before a person receives their official refugee status and the process of resettlement, they are protected by international governments and supported in their journey to liberty. Therefore, the concern advocates of climate refugees have is that, without protection and a legal category by the international community, climate migrants will be deported back to their homes of origin, which may be demolished, in famine or drought, and uninhabitable, as in the case of Ioane Teitiota. He is a citizen and resident of Kiribati, a small island nation in the Pacific threatened to “sink” as result of rising tides. In 2015, he sought asylum in New Zealand but was denied because there was no imminent threat to his life, as scientists still predict a few decades before sea levels rise to the point of island consumption. This resulted in him being sent back to Kiribati where he appealed to the UN Covenant on Civil Liberties. 

So what’s stopping the international community from stepping up and protecting climate refugees? One argument is that expected migration as a result of land loss and degradation is not severe enough for it to pose a threat to life or well-being, as was the conclusion of the court in Teitota’s appeal. Yet, even though they upheld the New Zealand decision, the UN ruling was critical for how climate refugee status is discussed. They acknowledge that in countries like Kiribati, life threatening effects of climate change are likely and that climate refugee status must be determined on a case by case basis. They also affirmed that slow on-set effects, like sea level rise and long term drought, can be just as deadly as quick on-set effects, like wildfire and cyclone decimation. 

In this case, the UN court used judicial activism to push the international community towards official climate refugee status but failed once again to legalize it. The true reason for the polarization of this debate is the responsibility of colonization that would fall on Western countries, and the economic burden they would have to bear. Research from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research shows the countries that will be hit hardest by temperature increases are those nearer the equator. The propensity for drought, soil degradation, monsoon level storms, heat waves, and wildfires are all projected to “reach 560 a year – or 1.5 each day, statistically speaking – by 2030,” according to the UN in 2022. And the states carrying the brunt of this burden are those in the global south, where these events occur more frequently. Additionally, equatorial developing countries are substantially more vulnerable, which leads to “long-term economic disadvantages,” whereas developed countries closer to the poles “tend to show no significant vulnerability.” When rich, colonizer nations block climate refugee status and modern migrant protections from passing on the global level, they are protecting themselves from the backlash of the inequalities they created, and they will not atone for their errors until it is too late. 

One cannot discuss the global response to climate change without talking about reparations, and this would be just one way that wealthy countries can make amends. At COP28 in Dubai last year, two dozen countries committed to a “loss and damages” fund that would distribute wealth from countries responsible for the creation of global warming, to countries suffering the impacts. While this is a monumental step towards adapting to climate change on a state by state basis, COP and the UN still need to support individuals on the frontlines of natural disasters. Adaptation can only take the world so far when major action to stimmy the burning of fossil fuels has failed time and again. Eventually, people, often the economically disadvantaged from underdeveloped countries, will be forced to move, and when they do, states have to be ready to take them. Waiting for the day when a flood of people land on a country’s doorstep looking for aid to make a decision, is neither constructive nor sustainable.

And the day has already come. In March, Cyclone Freddy hit southern Africa, killing more than five hundred people and displacing hundreds of thousands of people across Malawi, Madagascar, and Mozambique, leading to record breaking internal and external migration. Migration as a result of climate change is not just the future, but the present, and until governments put aside their prides and end the debate on refugee status, people will not be safe to move where they need to protect themselves and their families against the rising water levels, increased temperatures, and extreme weather. In decades to come, inaction during the case of climate refugee status is the same as inaction during a human rights crisis. Definitions in the law are important - they define who has rights and who doesn't, who is secure and who isn’t. This is just one definition that could make a world of good if the international community took up the mantle and protected migrants.

The Future of Climate Policy for Brazil and the United States after Bolsonaro and Trump

On October 30th, 2022, former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva beat incumbent Jair Bolsonaro in the Brazilian presidential election. It was a close election, with Lula getting 50.9% of the vote and Bolsonaro getting 49.1%. Bolsonaro had a turbulent and divisive one-term presidency with attacks on the democratic institutions in Brazil, improper COVID-19 policies which left 700,000 citizens dead, unfounded claims of voter fraud in the most recent presidential election, and telling his supporters to take to the street in protest. Now, if you think that this all sounds familiar, you are right. Former United States president, Donald Trump, also had quite a divisive and controversial presidential term that has similarities to Bolsonaro’s in terms of ideologies and policies. However, one of the most impactful and important ways that these two conservative presidents were similar was their climate and environmental policies. The two almost seemed to copy and bounce off each other with such matching policies and rollbacks. Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro have similar degradation of environmental policies such as wanting to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords and dismantling their federal environmental agencies, the EPA and the MMA. However, now that both countries’ recent elections have ousted both the right-wing presidents, Biden and Lula are now cutting back on conservative climate policy to try to fill the gap.

The Paris Climate Accords

What exactly are the Paris Climate Accords? Put simply, they are a legally binding international treaty concerning climate change. In December 2015, world leaders came together at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris, France because they agreed that climate change is a global emergency that all the countries of the world need to concern themselves with. The agreement that they came up with a set of long-term goals for the 194 countries in attendance. The agreement’s main goals were to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, limit the Earth’s temperature rise to 1.5C, review countries’ commitments to cutting emissions every five years, and provide financial aid to developing countries who need help financing environmental policies. Every five years, each country is expected to submit a climate action plan to the United Nations. In that plan should be the actions they plan to take to meet the agreed upon long-terms of the Paris Agreement, which are mandatory. This plan lets countries chart their own course on how they contribute to fighting climate change that best suits them. This will spark a huge economic boom for the rest of the century. There are greener jobs everywhere now, from the manufacturing of electric cars and the installation of solar panels. Not only will this plan help fight global climate change but it will also help the global economy. So why then, did Trump and Bolsonaro want to withdraw their countries from the Paris Climate Accords? In 2017, not even two years after the agreement was signed by the United States, Trump announced that the United States will withdraw from the agreement. In a press statement from the State Department that came out in November 2019, it stated that the US would withdraw from the accords because of “its unfair economic burden imposed on American workers, businesses, and taxpayers by the US pledges made under the Agreement.” It also claimed that the United States does not need the help or regulations of the UN because they have already been reducing emissions and ensuring the citizen’s access to affordable energy options. However, it promised to continue to work with other countries to react to the effects and impacts of climate change. Others believe that Trump pulled out of this agreement because it would be popular with his voters and supporters, who work in the fossil fuel industries.The US now represents around 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, it remains the world's biggest and most powerful economy. So, when they are the only country so far to withdraw from this agreement, it raises a global problem of trust and responsibility.

Bolsonaro’s presidency

Early on in Bolsonaro’s presidential campaign, he said that he wanted to withdraw Brazil from the Paris Agreement. Just before the election, Bolsonaro changed his plan saying that he would keep Brazil in for now but only if certain conditions were met. While his mind kept changing about this particular agreement, he was dead-set on pulling out of others, such as the 2019 United Nations Climate Conference (COP25) and Brazil’s 2015 carbon emissions education pledge. In 2018, Bolsonaro said that Brazil would remain in the agreement if someone could give him a written guarantee that there would be no “Triple A” project and no “independence of any indigenous area” Triple A is a proposal of an NGO from Colombia for some protected areas between the Andes and the Atlantic. Bolsonaro thought that this proposal is a conspiracy to take the Amazon rainforest away from Brazil. When he referred to the “independence of indigenous areas,” what he really meant was foreign governments are trying to get indigenous communities to declare independence from Brazil so that those governments can take the Amazon as their own. While Bolsonaro eventually scraped his pledge to withdraw from the agreement, and the US remains the only country to actually do so, this could have set a dangerous precedent for other powerhouse countries to leave the agreement as well, effectively nullifying it.

Comparing Trump’s environmental policies to Bolsonaro

Trump and Bolsonaro also had similar plans to defund or dismantle their federal environmental agencies, for the US, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and in Brazil, the Ministry of the Environment (MMA). In the US, the Administrators of the EPA were deep in scandal and controversy. The first one was Scott Pruitt, a senator from Oklahoma, who was a fossil fuel industry enthusiast and had a disdain for climate science. He supported Trump in his rollbacks of the EPA regulation on multiple different issues. Trump signed an executive order in 2017 that would lift bans on federal leasing for coal, lifts restrictions on the production of oil, natural gas, coal, and shale, returns the power of such regulation to the states, and a re-evaluation of the Clean Power Plan. This is Obama’s signature climate policy which intended to cut 32% of power plant emissions by replacing coal with renewable energy. This plan only works if the EPA has regulation power of carbon pollution regulations. However, under Trump, this was not going to happen. If these carbon pollution regulations do not happen, the American people, especially the poor and people of color will suffer from it. There is also something called the Waters of US Rule, which Trump also wanted to eliminate. This was passed by the EPA in 2015 to include smaller streams in the Clean Water Act that could provide drinking water to a third of Americans, especially some in rural areas where access to clean drinking water is sparse. If the EPA’s ability to regulate the Clean Power Plan and the companies that produce fossil fuels, we could have a global climate crisis on our hands. Bolsonaro has used similar tactics to dismantle his federal environmental agency, the Ministry of the Environment (MMA). In 2019, he announced that he would be stripping the environment ministry’s authority over regulations in the forestry and water agency, which is a big problem since the Amazon rainforest is included in that description. Critics of this decision said that the lack of clear directives to fight against climate change is not allowing Brazil to meet its commitments to cut greenhouse gasses, which Bolsonaro has already done. Environmentalists at the time feared that since the ministry does not have as much regulatory power, deforestation in the Amazon will increase. In addition, in 2020, his government published 195 acts, ordinances, decrees, and other measures which would continually dismantle Brazil’s environmental laws. These acts would allow those who illegally deforested and occupied conserved areas of the Amazon to receive full amnesty for their crimes. Also, the supervision of fisheries was being relaxed so this could increase the illegal trafficking of tropical fish. These acts have also led to the firing of specialized agency heads and the hiring of personnel with little to no experience in environmental management. Under Bolsonaro, the Amazon rainforest has suffered an increase in deforestation rates. Brazil was once the standard for environmental conservation since they have a rainforest, whose protection is necessary for survival on Earth. However, since Bolsonaro took office in 2019, he stripped enforcement measures of the MMA, cut funding for the MMA, fired environmental experts and replaced them with personnel with little to no experience, and weakened indigenous land rights. There have been many forest fires and criminal activity such as illegal logging due to the MMA’s inability to enforce its regulations and protections. In the first three years of his being in office, the Amazon had lost 8.4 million acres, which just for context, is the same size as the entire country of Belgium. It is a 52 percent increase from the deforestation rates from previous years. In 2021, 17% of the whole rainforest had been destroyed. There are estimations that if that number reaches 20 to 25 percent, it could threaten millions of people and animals whose lives depend on the rainforest.

The new presidents and their policies: Biden and Lula

However powerless we feel as individuals about the inevitability of climate change, there is hope for the United States and Brazil in their new leaders. Both new presidents have promised to undo a lot of the policies, cuts, and setbacks to the environment from the last administrations. In the 2022 Brazilian presidential election, many felt that the Amazon’s fate was at stake. Lula has pledged to protect the Amazon and is the ‘greenest’ candidate that ran in the election. He was president also in 2003 and he often points to his track record during that term to show that he can succeed in his plans. He started enforcing a policy called the Forest Code which got many government agencies to work together to decrease deforestation. When Lula was in power, deforestation fell dramatically by 80%. Since Lula’s win of the office only occurred a short while ago, we can only look at his past performance to see if he will hold to his future promises to reduce deforestation. In the United States, the same environmental promises were made by Joe Biden when he was elected. Since Biden has been in office since 2020, we can look to see how the promises he made during his campaigns have fared. Biden has started protecting land that was opened to drilling. Trump approved the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, which invaded Native American and farming land. He also opened up federally managed land and ocean for oil and gas drilling. Biden, however, has halted oil and gas leasing, reserved land and ocean drilling for oil and gas, and blocked the Keystone pipelines. In addition, Biden has started enforcing environmental regulations again. Trump allowed businesses that polluted to not be prosecuted by the federal government for any broken environmental laws. Biden has started cracking down on pursuing and prosecuting polluters while also suing fossil fuel companies for the climate damage they have caused. He restored flood protection standards, revoked the executive order that made it harder for agencies to issue environmental rules, and reserved the requirement to reduce climate considerations when assessing the impact of a project. All that being said, the future of the environment and the impact of climate change will be decided in the next few years. All we can do as individuals are elect the officials with the Earth’s best interests in mind and hopefully, the policies being created now will help prevent irreversible damage further down the line.

Climate Change & The Public’s Perception In The United States

In the United States, there is not a unified public perception of climate change. Despite the scientific evidence, there is debate over whether or not climate change is real, and if it is, whether or not humans are perpetuating it. Among the people who agree that climate change is existent and perpetuated by humans, there is still controversy about whether the burden lies on the government, corporations, or individuals to counteract it. However, the situation gets even more complicated. The public’s perception of climate change has been impacted by everything from the economics of a region to the deflection of guilt from large corporations, and at this point, some people are influenced by specific global leaders and political ideologies more than science.

As aforementioned, some people do not believe that climate change is real. This perspective is not rooted in science, so it has to come from somewhere else. Accordingly, the most common opinions of climate change have a correlation to certain ideologies. For example, in the United States, the current President of the United States, Donald Trump, has a history of denying the existence of climate change. Arguably the most prominent political figure in the country, President Donald Trump has called climate change a “hoax” and asserted that it was fabricated by China. He has also referenced “global cooling,” a belief dating back to the 1920s — although it was not a widespread view at the time — in order to denounce global warming. In the same statement, he claimed that nobody actually knows if global warming is a reality, despite the evidence offered by scientists.

When President Trump discussed the current California fires, he belittled them. It took him three weeks to finally acknowledge the fires at all, but once he did, he attributed them to a forest management issue. Despite mounting criticism on his climate change rhetoric, he has remained committed to his original opinion on the cause of the fires. In 2018, the last time California experienced devastating wildfires during President Trump’s term, he blamed forest management once again, discounting the role of climate change in the catastrophes. Even when evidence of climate change is extraordinarily conspicuous, President Trump will revert back to his initial stance on climate change: pure denial. When the American people and public figures accused him of ignoring science, all he had to say was “It’ll start getting cooler, you just watch.” He also insisted that other countries did not have the same problems, implying that climate change must not be real because it would be affecting the entire planet.

There is some merit regarding President Trump’s default to blaming forest maintenance mismanagement. Insufficient forest management does contribute to the problem; even California Governor Gavin Newsom has admitted that fact. However, the fires are getting exponentially worse, to the point that forest mismanagement can no longer account for these issues. In 2018 alone, 1.89 million acres of California burned. It was “the most destructive year in California history” — that is, until 2020. As of October 4, 2020, 4 million acres of state lands have gone up in flames, and California has already had “six of the 20 largest blazes in state history” this year. Additionally, if President Trump blames California’s inadequate forest management for the fires, he should comment on Oregon and Washington’s forest management as well. For that matter, he should mention forest management in Canada, a country that proves this wildfire problem is not unique to the United States.

Misinformation has been spreading around the internet, and just like President Trump, people on social media have implied that the impacts of climate change are constrained to the United States. For example, conspiracy theories about the fires have spread on TikTok. Certain videos include maps that show how the fires stop at the United States-Canadian border, and several influencers have used them to support their narratives that the fires are fake, they were started by the United States government in a big conspiracy, or they are a problem unique to the United States. However, as many people have pointed out, it was not a global or North American fire map; it was only a fire map for the United States. Yet, influencers, President Trump, and a portion of the American people have insisted that other countries never experienced the same measure of fires as the United States.

One other semi-common view is that climate change exists, and humans do not contribute to it. This is second in the order of President Trump’s five stances on the reality of climate change. He made his belief very clear: “I am not a great believer in man-made climate change. I’m not a great believer.” Given his status as the current leader of the GOP, it is not surprising to learn that members of his party align with his beliefs more than members of the Democratic Party. Pew Research Center found that “Republicans with a high level of science knowledge were no more likely than those with a low level of knowledge to say human activity plays a strong role in climate change.” Although it is unclear whether this view stems from the members of the party or the President — the chicken or the egg — it is certainly perpetuated by President Trump. 

On the other hand, politics around the globe has played a role in the public’s perception of climate change, and a scientific study by the University of Kansas showed how framing plays an impactful role in the media. According to the study, climate change is more politicized in richer countries than poorer countries, and the conversation in richer countries is more centered around “debate or argument about political approaches as opposed to proposing policy solutions.” It is advantageous to many groups to either claim that humans do not contribute to climate change or to affirm their stance that people are not a major contributing factor.

For those who do claim that people perpetuate climate change, there are several main beliefs: it is up to the individual, corporations, government, or a combination of the three to reduce its effects. Beginning with the individual, most of us probably know someone who brings a reusable straw in their bag everywhere they go. Although it is admirable, one must acknowledge that corporations have benefited from shoving this idea and other emphases on the individual down people’s throats. Even if everyone recycles and sticks to using reusable straws, some sources say that one hundred companies are responsible for seventy percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Taking that into consideration, many people believe that the mission to limit climate change to 1.5 degrees Celsius is impossible without corporations and governments doing their part. Some corporations seem to agree and have taken measures to become more sustainable, such as Starbucks with their recyclable and strawless lids and the sustainability efforts by McDonald’s, but these actions are not enough to outweigh the damage by corporations as a whole. Many people have called for governments to sanction corporations so that they will not have a realistic opportunity to ignore the environmental costs, and others have advocated for other ways in which governments can counteract climate change.

In terms of public opinion regarding the effectiveness of climate policy, identifying with a political party in the United States is once again an indication of a person’s stance. According to Pew Research Center, 71% of Democrats and only 34% of Republicans said that policies to reduce climate change overall benefit the environment, while 43% of Republicans said they make no difference and 22% said they “do more harm than good for the environment.” However, a two-thirds majority of adults in the United States said that the federal government is not doing enough to reduce the effects of climate change. 

A multitude of people are actively pushing the federal government to do more. For instance, people have been advocating for the Green New Deal, a proposal to move the United States toward net-zero emissions by 2050. Renewable energy, new jobs with government-funded training in clean energy industries, an upgraded power grid, and modified transportation systems are just some of the proposed provisions. Others have urged the government to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement. 

The criticism against the United States for its failure on climate action was particularly amplified when the decision was made to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. The United Nations Secretary-General called the decision a “major disappointment.” The New Zealand Climate Change minister gave a similar message, also conveying her opinion that the United States should be decreasing its dependency on fossil fuels. The spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry called the United States the “biggest destroyer of international environmental cooperation.” France, Italy, and Germany released a joint statement affirming their belief that the Paris Climate Agreement cannot be renegotiated. 

In the end, it is clear that there are many factors that cause such varied views on climate change within the United States. With the mixed signals from the government, international leaders, domestic leaders, the experience of each country, and corporations, it can be understood why the public’s perception of climate change is not necessarily based on science.

Fossil Fuel Independence

Many of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have run on the platform of action on climate change, which has been one of the central topics that citizens have been advocating for across the globe. This goal is only possible if there is complete independence from fossil fuels. Elimination of coal, petroleum, and natural gas cannot be ceased overnight, and it will take effort from all parts of the world to collaborate on this issue.

Fossil fuels have become the center of discussion around the future of American environmental political discourse. In 2017, petroleum constituted 28 percent of American energy production. According to a 2019 Yale University study, a majority (53 percent) of Americans blame fossil fuel companies for global warming. “Climate science has found that the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) produced by fossil fuel companies is causing global warming.” Global warming is the cause of wildfires, droughts, flooding, and other dangers looming throughout the country. In California, deadly wildfires are ramping up, causing celebrity outcry and civilian displacement. Gerard Butler recalled a “Heartbreaking time across California,” after the Woolsey fire last year. The Los Angeles County Fire Chief Daryl Osby even recognized the impact of the situation, stating, “And as evident by the Camp Fire in Northern California -- which is larger than this, more structures have been lost than this, more lives have been lost -- it's evident from that situation statewide that we're in climate change and it's going to be here for the foreseeable future." The outcry has become increasingly perceptive. With the increase in attention by celebrity influencers, the younger generations have come out speaking about the climate crisis, its effect on the environment, and what it means for their future.

Climate strikes have sprung up among students and advocacy has reached new levels. Greta Thunberg, a sixteen-year-old activist from Sweden, started the Fridays for Future movement last year after a few years of striking on her own across the world. Fridays for Future is targeted at students, encouraging them to strike every Friday to demand action from their government. Greta started the movement by sitting in front of the Swedish parliament every school day, inspiring countries and students around the world to demand a solution to this overbearing threat to lives and futures. 

Greta is joining forces with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic United States Representative of the Bronx, New York, to create, introduce, and demand the Green New Deal, another hot topic featured in many of the presidential debates. The Green New Deal calls for the elimination of fossil fuels in the United States and to “curb planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions across the economy.” Bernie Sanders, a 2020 presidential candidate endorsed by Ocasio-Cortez, has accused the fossil fuel executives of greed and causing the climate crisis. All three of these leaders have noticed the climate crisis and the root of the problem, but the action needed will need bipartisan support within the United States as well as global support, because this problem is affecting all of humanity. Incredibly, a sixteen-year old has set the foundation and information that will be a center focus in the new decade. Greta has inspired leaders across the globe to take action and plans, such as the Green New Deal, are in place, but the elimination of fossil fuels and conversion to wind, water, and solar (WWS) power will be a difficult transition.

Strikes have helped leaders see the necessity for the large-scale conversion to 100 percent WWS power, but another obstacle has emerged. Mark Jacobson from Stanford University explored the issue that the power grid holds, stating, “the high cost of avoiding load loss caused by WWS variability and uncertainty,” is the greatest concern for achieving complete neutralization of fossil fuel power. While WWS is the ultimate goal for the global economy due to its safety, access, and cleanliness, utility and grid operators continue to find failures to accommodate wind and solar supplies.  

Jacobson has conducted a study to build a system that will test the long-term benefits of using only WWS power at low load loss and at a low cost. This is the first study to analyze long-term benefits. The system tests multiple variables on the ability of WWS installations in the United States, to further understand if a 100 percent WWS world can exist by 2050-2055. The results found that only 11 percent of the initial WWS power was lost during transmission in the 3D model system, supplies had matched the load causing zero to minimal load loss, and solar and wind power complemented each other seasonally. In his conclusion, Jacobson discussed that the social cost would be greater than expected, considering the improvements among heating and cooling systems and transportation systems in the United States. This study found that the overall load loss of the WWS power system is nothing, which means that the electricity-utility aspect of the system were balanced. For example, a pump stored heat and the current of the model converted electricity to heat. Reflecting upon Jacobson’s results, this study demonstrates that a 100 percent renewable energy system is possible.

Political leaders should be improving the funding WWS installations. Jacobson’s study conducted in 2015 was the first to test the long-term benefits of WWS power, yet this climate crisis has been emerging long before. The growth of renewable energy industries, such as the solar power industry, has skyrocketed within the past few years, yet the lack of skilled manpower in these industries is the biggest problem that they face. Global warming is still striking the world, yet global collective action to combat this issue is difficult to acquire due to the lack of agreement and perspective. This past summer the G20, the most well-equipped group to decide what the climate crisis means for the world, met. Unfortunately, the international body reached no consensus on the crisis. “Since Donald Trump’s inauguration, G20 leaders have been unable to reach an agreement on climate and have instead adopted a “G19+1” approach.” Most media implores the current administration to look at the bigger picture, but there has been no push to move the climate crisis to a top priority. More strikes have risen due to this lack of collaboration. 

If it is possible to contribute to a “no load loss,” renewable energy country, as Jacobson proved, the biggest threat to climate change is the lack of manpower and funding behind the WWS installations. This makes independence a current pipe dream due to the lack of governmental collective action. The action needed is dire, as Greta Thunberg mentions, and the need for the Green New Deal is necessary. 

Expanding Our Definition of Meat: Changing perceptions of alternative protein sources for potential benefits

Introduction

I’m vegetarian. I’m vegan. These are two statements that can mean very different things to different people.  For some, being a vegetarian or vegan means giving up animal products in order to save the lives of other living creatures. For others, it means eating a healthier or “cleaner” diet in order to obtain a certain weight-loss goal or body image. And in some cases, these statements can be heard with resentment or negativity, incorporating another meaning to vegetarianism and veganism that’s tied with an undesirable social context.

However, it is agreed that choosing to follow a vegetarian and vegan diet is so much more than simply giving up meat or only eating vegetables. A vegetarian diet excludes the consumption of animal meat (including any livestock, seafood, and wild animals), but can include the consumption of some animal byproducts, such as milk and cheese. A vegan diet, meanwhile, excludes the consumption of all animal meats and by products, including gelatin and honey. Vegan diets have also been referred to as “total vegetarian.”

Recently vegetarian eating behavior rose in popularity, almost as much as participation in the vegan lifestyle; between 2014 and 2017, there occured a 600% increase of the number of people in the United States who identified as being vegan. The reasons that more and more people have chosen to consume a meatless and/or no-animal-product diet are numerous, complex, and many are justifiably sound. It’s common to associate vegetarianism, veganism, and meat-selective diets with the ethical desire to avoid killing animals unnecessarily or with religion. But the rise in choosing an exclusively or almost exclusively plant-based diet over a diet that includes meat and animal products is linked to environmental, health, and economic benefits. These benefits have been thoroughly researched and examined for legitimacy with an abundance of scientific data as support.

Yet there is still a strong negative social response to veganism and vegetarianism. While most people in contemporary culture avoid “open expressions of prejudice towards racial outgroups,” many people feel that they can be openly prejudice towards vegetarians/vegans. Most of this prejudice is voiced in the form of social media, especially online memes, to represent non-vegetarians’ exasperation over vegetarian and vegan lifestyle choices. Stereotyping, exaggeration, and misunderstanding have all contributed to anti- vegetarian and vegan discourse, discrediting and diminishing many of the positive benefits these diets can provide. One of the main criticisms of meatless diets is the assumption that one cannot get sufficient protein from non-animal sources, or alternative protein sources. This assumption illustrates the fundamental lack of understanding and nutritional education of many people, especially in the United States. However, the negative perception of vegetarianism and veganism has been, and can continue to be, changed as new health related research, plant-based products, environmental concerns, and economic justifications provide a more holistic understanding of these diets. Changing consumers’ perceptions about alternative protein sources that are essential parts of vegetarian and vegan diets may lead to better public and individual health outcomes, environmental sustainability, and more economically affordable food options.

Today’s Meat Consumption Culture and Perceptions of Vegetarianism

Although vegetarianism and veganism is on the rise, it is sound to say that the consumption of meat will continue to grow as well. In 2004 the average American consumed 203.2 pounds of meat per year, which translates to over half a pound of meat per day. The meat industry continued to grow and strengthen its production capabilities throughout the decade until the economic shock of the Great Recession reduced Americans’ consumption of meat to 186.6 pounds a year in 201. Now, the average consumption of meat per person in the U.S. is creeping back up to 200 pounds per year and is expected to reach 219 pounds a year by 2025, according to the USDA Economic Research Service.

Indeed, even with the rise in meat-less and meat-restricted diets, Americans in general are demanding and eating more meat. There are several speculations for why this is, such as the idea that meat consumption has been a fundamental part of the “American” diet since the early settlement period. Increase in meat consumption can also be correlated with the steady increase in United States’ GPD over the past 50 years, offering the idea that as Americans generate more wealth they can afford to eat more meat. However, an increase in meat consumption is strongly correlated to other, more harmful, trends related to Americans’ health and environmental destruction. As Americans are eating more meat, they’re also increasing rates of obesity, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes among other weight related health problems.. Meanwhile, the food industry has contributed to a quarter of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions with 80% of that are linked to animal meat and livestock production. These massive livestock production farms are housed on huge areas of land that are depleted of their original and natural vegetation and create 3 times more animal waste than the amount of human waste the entire U.S population creates per year.

Yet with all of this data that emphasizes the disadvantages, an understatement for sure, of Americans’ current meat consumption habits, there are still strong negative perceptions of vegetarian and vegan diets. Unsurprisingly, an experimental survey to explore prejudices against vegetarians, found that individuals who enjoy beef tend to have to “anti-vegetarian prejudices”. This result emphasizes the sociological need that people have to distance themselves from groups who they disagree with. Simply put, people who eat meat really enjoy eating meat and it bothers some people that vegetarians and vegans don’t eat meat. And that is one of the fundamental reasons why there is resistance to vegetarianism and veganism: people enjoy and take great pleasure out of purchasing, cooking, and eating meat. Animal meat is delicious and high in protein so it leaves people feeling full and satisfied, so of course it would be difficult for a lot people to give up.

But what if we could change the perception and concept of “meat” to more than strictly animal products? There is an emerging market in the food industry that has been developing plant-based food products meant to resemble, taste like, and ultimately be able to replace meat as alternative protein sources. Beyond Meat, one of the leading companies, has already created and is now actively selling plant-based “meat” products that are changing how people view being vegetarian and vegan.  

Changing Perceptions of Alternative Protein Sources and the Potential Benefits

Beyond Meat is a company based in El Segundo, California that was founded in 2009 with the mission to “create mass-market solutions that perfectly replace animal protein with plant protein”. The company’s desire to use plant-based proteins to replace meat-based proteins is aimed to improve global and environmental health, decrease the demand for mass livestock production farms, and conserve natural resources. The company recognizes that to achieve this goal it must appeal to more consumers than just vegans and vegetarians. Alexandra Sexton thoroughly analyzes and the way in which the Beyond Meat company creates, markets, and justifies its products in pursuit of its mission.

One of the main concepts that Sexton focuses in her study is how the Beyond Meat company curates the experience of purchasing, preparing, and consuming its product to reflect almost identically the experience one has with the meat equivalent. Sexton argues that the experience, or the “non-stuff”, plays a strong role in the perception, categorization, and enjoyment of what we eat. This is particularly true with how we perceive meat and meat consumption. Culturally, socially, nutritionally, and psychologically speaking, foods that are labeled as “meat” have a very different process of being prepared than those that we would traditionally label as “non-meat” or plant-based. However, through her research and experience with Beyond Meat, Sexton shows that this distinct perception between meat and non-meat can be challenged by utilizing the experience and “non-stuff” of the food itself.

Sexton performed field work analysis of the actual Beyond Meat product and carefully describes the entire experience. She first describes her trip to the local Whole Foods where she walked to the refrigerated meat section of the store and picked up a package Beyond Meat “chicken strips” that are shelved just a few feet away from real, raw chicken breasts. When she opened the package back in her kitchen to prepare a meal with the Beyond Chicken Strips, she carefully describes the texture, consistency, and smell of the strips prior to cooking. Although they did not have a distinct smell, Sexton was surprised to find that when she “broke” a strip in half, it shredded like real cooked chicken meat would. At this point she emphasized her visceral reaction of preparing the Beyond Chicken; up until this point she had had the same experience she would have had with real chicken strips. The only significant difference was that she saved time from not having to worry about the health risks with actual raw chicken. While cooking her Beyond Chicken strips in a sauté pan with onions, spices, and coconut milk to make a “chicken” coconut curry, she reported that the “sounds and smells of the dish” were almost identical the what she had experienced while cooking the same dish but with real chicken. When she ate her meal she reported that although the chicken strips did not contribute largely or combat with the overall flavor of the dish, she said that “[if] I had not known they were plant-based I would have quite likely passed them off as pre-cooked conventional chicken pieces from the supermarket”.

It is at that crucial moment, the culmination of the entire process of preparation and consumption, where Beyond Meat can change one’s perception of what is meat. Based on Sexton’s, and many others’ experience with this alternative-protein product, there is reason to reconsider what we think of as “meat.” If this product looks like meat, is sold in the same grocery store location as meat, cooks like meat, smells like meat, tastes like meat, and even has the same texture as meat can it be considered meat? A follow up question would then be: Why not? Just because the Beyond Chicken strips do not come from an actual chicken and are in fact made of mostly soy protein isolate and pea protein isolate , can they not be considered meat? Ultimately, it is up to each individual consumer to decide that. Nevertheless, the Beyond Meat company has been able to capture the experience one has with meat and mimic it with a product that contains only plant-based protein. In the same way that we accepted the endless types of cakes, pizzas, soups, and many other foods with large varieties, perhaps we can include plant-based protein products in our “meat” category.

The potential benefits for substantially changing Americans’, if not other high meat-consuming countries’, perceptions of meat to include alternative protein sources from plant-based products are profound on both the individual and global level. First, increasing people’s intake of nutrient-dense vegetables from plant-based protein products while decreasing the amount of fatty meats will lead to more nutritious diets and curb the obesity epidemic. With the country’s current eating habit, Americans on average consume daily 2 to 5 ounces of meat more than the American Heart Association recommends to avoid heart disease from high saturated fat and cholesterol intakes. Meanwhile, the average American eats less than 60% of their daily recommended amount of nutritious vegetables.

Secondly, eating a more plant-based diet will also save people economic costs both at the grocery store and in weight-related medical bills. Plant-based protein is more cost efficient to produce as it only requires the farming of plants instead of clearing land, raising, feeding, maintaining, slaughtering, and packaging the meat of livestock. If Americans were to shift towards a predominantly vegetarian diet, the country could save up to $735 billion per year on groceries, medical bills, and other costs related to meat production and consumption. The greater affordability of mass-produced plant-based products would also help people with low-income obtain more nutritious forms of protein.

Thirdly, reducing the consumption of animal meat due to an increase consumption of plant-based protein sources would dramatically reduce the negative effects the livestock industry has on the environment. A vegetarian diet produces 76% less greenhouse gas than a diet that regularly consumes red meat and requires a fraction of the water waste used to produce red meat products. Additionally, reducing the size and quantity of livestock farms and replacing them with a healthy rotation of plant crops would help preserve the land. The land that is used for mass livestock farms becomes depleted and destroyed by animal waste that traps large quantities of carbon and nitrogen in the soil. Using more land for alternative protein crop production instead of livestock could also create a more efficient and sustainable method of food production to feed the world’s growing population. Research from National Geographic reveals that only 55% of the world’s crop production goes to feeding people while the rest goes to feeding livestock or is turned into biofuels and industrial products. The world population is expected to grow to 9 billion people by 2050, but the world’s harvestable land mass cannot expand to sustain our current meat production rates. Whether or not we voluntarily switch to more plant-based diets, we may not have a choice in the very near future.

Potential Challenges and Concluding Remarks

Even with clear, tangible benefits, there are many challenges that can hinder the process of changing perceptions of meat to include alternative-protein sources to reduce animal meat consumption. One of the most substantial challenges is that current plant-based protein sources meant to mimic and replace animal meat products are not perfect. Even with the many positive reviews of Beyond Meat’s products, there are still strong critiques and criticism that highlight the products flaws. The main ones comes from scrutinizing the ingredients list of any of the Beyond Meat products. Although the Beyond Chicken strips were made mostly of water, soy protein isolate, and pea protein isolate, it also contains “natural flavoring”, maltodextrin, and “0.5% less of dipotassium phosphate”. Chemicals like these in processed foods draw skepticism and concern from consumers who would call this not a ‘natural’ product. However, since this is a new and emerging industry, there is great potential for future innovation from other alternative protein companies with similar missions to that of Beyond Meat.

Another substantial challenge is the fact that it’s hard to give up animal meat products. It is culturally ingrained for many Americans that meat is not only a necessity in daily diets, but is hailed as a proponent of the ‘American Dream.’ People may resent Beyond Meat products because it’s not the “real thing” and of course cannot compare them to a thick-cut, perfectly grilled, medium-rare steak that’s chard ever so slightly on the outside and satisfyingly chewy on the inside. But the point of Beyond Meat is not to attempt to make plant-based “meat” take on every aspect of beef meat; the point is to provide another option for meat products. Plant-based meat is different from beef meat as chicken meat is different from pork meat as lamb meat is different from fish meat, etc.

The growing shift towards eating more plant-based diets can be interpreted as a positive sign. People are becoming more informed and aware of how their consumption habits affect both their individual health as well as the health of the planet. One of the best parts about being human is our love for cooking, eating, and sharing food. Shifting towards our eating habits and changing our perception of meat should not be considered as “giving up” an aspect of our diets, but a celebration of even more diverse protein sources to come.

Climate Change and the Long-Run Economic Health of the Arctic

Although one may decry the environmental circumstances that allowed it to happen, the economic possibilities of the Arctic have never been more interesting. Warming temperatures and receding summer ice coverage have expanded the menu of economic opportunities that the region could previously support, and countries and companies around the world have taken note. According to a 2008 U.S. Geological Survey assessment, the Arctic holds 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil resources (approximately 90 billion barrels of oil) and 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered gas resources (approximately 1,669 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids). As receding sea ice and technological investments render the Arctic region increasingly accessible, this vast reserve of resources has become an attractive commercial opportunity for multinational corporations and state-run entities alike. According to estimates by Northern Economics, an Alaska-based economic consulting firm, oil and gas extraction in Alaska’s Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea sites alone are estimated to be capable of generating between $193 and $312 billion in state and local tax revenue through 2057, assuming oil prices remain between $65 and $120 per barrel. Even at the current $55 a barrel Brent Crude benchmark, Alaska and the regions around the two sites still stand to bring in roughly $165 billion in tax revenue from these two sites alone. Additionally, these two sites stand to bring an average of over 28,000 jobs to Alaska from now until 2057.

In addition to oil extraction, mineral- and other resource-extraction exploits promise greater economic returns with a warming Arctic. In Alaska alone, exports of mineral resources (such as gold, lead, zinc, etc.) generated $1.3 billion in 2010, and it is estimated that one mine, the Red Dog mine in northern Alaska (which accounts for 5 and 3 percent of the global zinc and lead production respectively), “has contributed $558 million to the statewide economy and $66 million to the Northwest Arctic Borough” between 1989 and 2011. Receding summer ice has also expanded the area available to fishing, and yields have grown steadily in recent years.

In the United States, much of the Arctic extraction activity has come following federal land leases to the highest-bidding commercial company. Between 2003 and 2007, the Bush Administration issued 241 leases covering over a million and a quarter acres in the Beaufort Sea, receiving $97 million in bids. In 2008 alone, 487 leases covering almost 3 million acres of the Chukchi Sea were issued for a total for $2.66 billion. In 2011, the Obama Administrationauthorized three more areas in Alaska to be available for leasing between 2012 and 2017, but these lease sales were later postponed due to environmental concerns. In addition to the initial revenue from bids, federal, state, and local taxes all allow the U.S. to extract revenue from the process.

Unsurprisingly, the United States is not alone is the race to capitalize on newly-extractable Arctic resources. In Russia, where as much as half of state revenue is derived from oil, the government offers special tax rates to encourage Arctic exploration and drilling, in addition to funding university research on special drilling methods and materials, such as supermagnets. Russia has also plantedtheir flag at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean at the North Pole, symbolically indicating their intention to maintain a presence in the region. Concurrently, Norway has recently offered a new round of oil leases in the Barents Sea, continuing an over 50 year practice of selling off drilling rights in explored areas. For its part, Finland looks to capitalize on the rush for Arctic resources through its world-leading icebreaker industry. In Greenland, optimists are even suggesting that tapping into its vast Arctic reserves might allow Greenland to become financially self-sufficient enough to formally split with Denmark and become an independent nation.

Though Greenlandic independence powered by oil extraction may be a slight oversell, for a region like the Arctic that has never seen large-scale economic activity, the ability to capitalize on existing reserves of natural capital represents an unprecedented opportunity for development. However, the abundance of natural capital in a given region can prove to be a curse if not managed proactively. A resource curse – or alternatively referred to as “Dutch Disease”, named after the role that oil wealth played in the decline of the Dutch manufacturing sector – refers to the tendency of communities to over-invest in a specific profitable sector of the economy at the expense of maintaining a diversified and stable long-run portfolio. While lucrative in the short-run, this approach tends to concentrate wealth in small communities and discourage balanced long-run growth. When the resource is non-renewable, such as oil and natural gas in the case of the Arctic, the country or region with Dutch Disease finds itself unable to compete in the long-run, as the region’s natural capital has not been properly re-invested into more sustainable economic endeavors. In a previous issue of The World Mind, Deborah Carey described this counterintuitive phenomenon in the context of Africa.

While it is difficult to definitively diagnose a given country or region with Dutch Disease, the data coming out of much of the Arctic region is symptomatic of a resource curse. In Alaska, a full 36.8 percent of the state’s 2010 foreign export earnings came from mineral resource extraction. More strikingly, petroleum extraction and other mining directly accounted for 30.6 percent of Alaska’s Gross Regional Product (GRP) in 2012, including the value added from transporting the resources across the state via pipeline. Indirectly, taxes on petroleum and mineral activity contribute the lion’s share of the state’s revenue, rendering the state budget heavily dependent on external demand for the state’s oil, gas, and minerals. For comparison, only 0.4 percent of Alaska’s 2012 GRP could be attributed to non-fish or oil extraction-related manufacturing, and only 6.2 and 1.9 percent can be attributed to health care/social work, and financial/insurance services respectively.

A similar story is also playing out in Russia, where over half (51.7 percent) of the entire Russian Arctic region’s GRP in 2012 came exclusively from the extraction of petroleum and other natural resources. In contrast, a mere 4.0, 3.0, and 0.1 percent of GRP came from the manufacturing, healthcare and social work, and financial and insurance service sectors respectively. Like Alaska, much of the economic benefit from resource extraction is realized by companies located outside of the region, and the local population realizes little economic benefit outside of what any local taxes levied may pay for. Not only do Arctic Russia and Alaska to rely heavily on natural resource extraction for generating wealth, but the wealth generated by resource extraction in these areas is not being re-invested in other, more sustainable sectors of the economy, but transferred out of the region entirely. Just as over-investment in oil production led to the neglect of other sustainable Dutch industries in the 1960s, it appears as though Alaska and Russia – who together make up over 60% of the land area of the region – appear to be forgoing a sustainable growth plan in exchange for the promise of short-term riches.

However, while diagnosing Dutch Disease is difficult on its own, it is equally difficult to propose a workable cure for a region so rich in natural resources and capital-starved in just about every other sector. Nevertheless, some Arctic countries seem to be developing more balanced portfolios. Sweden’s Arctic region, for instance, relies on petroleum and mineral extraction for only 10.9 percent of its 2012 GRP, compared to 11.7 and 11.8 percent on manufacturing and healthcare and social work respectively. Others, such as Canada, have ensured that local regions receive transfers from southern regions in exchange for petroleum and mineral extraction.

Yet, in order to construct a compelling long-term growth plan for the Arctic that does not rely exclusively on non-renewable resource extraction, one must identify other comparative advantages that the region may exploit in lieu of resource extraction. Surprisingly, some argue that electronics manufacturing and data storage have a natural long-term home in the Arctic, simply due to the Arctic’s year-long cold temperatures. The idea is that the natural, year-round cold of the Arctic substantially reduces the cost of keeping electronics from overheating, thereby reducing a major cost involved in large-scale data storage. With the global data center construction market expected to increase from $14.6 to $22.7 billion and the global fiber optics market expecting to grow 9.5% by 2020, the gains are there for Arctic countries who are able to exploit their unique climatic advantage. Tech giants like Facebook and Google both seem to be convinced of the advantages of Arctic cold, as the former recently opened a data center in Luleå, Sweden, to service its European traffic, and the latter has begun the process of repurposing an old paper mill in Hamina, Finland, to serve as a data storage center.

Not to be outdone, the Finnish government has already taken significant steps toward developing an electronics manufacturing operation in Oulu, a university city in northern Finland. Feeding off of the pre-iPhone success of Nokia (a Finnish company), Oulu has become a regional hub for the electronics industry. Though the city and region endured a painfully long period ofcontraction after the 2008 crisis and Nokia’s significant loss of marketshare, it has appeared to have bounced back. According to local economic development officials, over 500 tech startups have opened shop in the area since 2014, helping to support about 17,000 high-tech jobs, including around 7,500 in research and development. Additionally, Nokia and the University of Oulu recently announced their intent to collaborate on a new project to develop a 5G test network, which will include a 5G hackathon in June, promising to attract top tech talent to the Arctic town.

More ambitiously, the algorithmic stock trading industry may also be moving North in the near future. Quintillion, an Irish fund administration company, is currently heading phase 1 of a project to build an underwater fiber optic cable network that connects London with Tokyo through Canada’s Northwest Passage. Currently, it takes about 230 milliseconds for data to travel through the network of cables connecting London to Tokyo through the Suez Canal. However, Quintillion claims that its cable will cut this time by just over 26% to around 170 milliseconds, simply by virtue of the shorter distance that the data must travel between points A and B. While this speed boost may offer little more than a nice convenience for most users, to algorithmic stock traders this slight speed advantage is everything. Given that traders in this industry have historically fought to be physically closer to financial centers, it is not inconceivable that the existence of a faster cable in the Arctic may entice this industry to move North, giving Arctic regions a realistic chance to woo traders (and their tax dollars) to their cities. In addition to Quintillion’s Northwest Passage cable, the Finnish government and the Russian company Polarnet have discussed plans to build a submarine cable from Europe to Tokyo via an eastwardly route around Northern Russia, though the plan looks to be impossible without financial backing from the Russian government. Regardless of the ultimate profitability of submarine cable projects like these from the perspective of algorithmic stock traders or city governments, the provision of fast, high quality internet needed in order to facilitate meaningful economic and human development is a boon for the Arctic region that is already being realized.

Of course, transitioning from an economy driven by resource extraction to a digital economy hosting premier electronics manufacturing, data storage, and high-speed trading operations is not straightforward or guaranteed. Perhaps the Arctic climate will keep companies from being able to attract top tech talent, or the data storage or electronics manufacturing markets do not grow as quickly as anticipated. However, if Arctic governments are serious about pursuing healthy long-run growth, they must find a way to keep from over-investing in natural resource extraction, no matter how tempting the short-run gains from doing so may be.