What I enjoyed most about this piece is its logical flow that's extremely accessible to someone new to geopolitics (i.e. unfamiliar with Mahan, Mackinder, or Spykman) and/or arctic State relations. It also calls into light Mackinder's analysis possibly becoming once again relevant. The reason for that being with climate change melting arctic ice, both accessibility and the possibility of development in the Arctic region increases. Melting Arctic offers regional states with 4 possibilities:
Increased accessibility through land and sea (Something Russia is extremely aware of, as detailed in CSIS's THE ICE CURTAIN: RUSSIA’S ARCTIC MILITARY PRESENCE) Access to previously untapped natural resources and raw materials Shortened shipping distance between Asia and North Atlantic regions Changes in regional hospitability. (This last one is often overlooked, but the increased bands of viable farmable land for Canada and Russia will have major implications for international food production.)
Such increased accessibility and potentials are opening new opportunities for the economic prosperity and a new security environment with some possible security threats for regional states. It will also increase strategic value of the region and regional claims by state actors.
------------------------
A small note, the authors point to "regional international regime such Arctic Council" (whose membership comprise Canada; Denmark; Finland; Iceland; Norway; Russia; Sweden; United States) as an example of how regional conflict can be mitigated and cooperation between Russia and NATO had.
Well, those of you who follow the recent happenings of the Arctic Council know how even north pole relations can still be spicy.
On March 3, 2022, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and the United States (so everyone part of the Council except Russia) declared that they will not attend meetings of the Arctic Council under Russian chairmanship because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The same countries issued a second statement on June 8, 2022 that declared their intent to resume cooperation on a limited number of previously approved Arctic Council projects that do not involve Russian leadership or participation.
So much for the author's aspiration organization like the Arctic Council were sources of regional cooperation...
------------------------
P.S. My reasoning behind sharing the infographic as the post and the article in the comments is that it (hopefully) is a win-win for all in the community.
The infograph is for those interested in the discipline, but not willing to read a 45-page paper. It will also draw more upvotes due to being more engaging than a simple paper title.
With more folks flowing into the comments due to more engagements causing reddit to serve this post to a greater amount of r/Geopolitics members, hopefully that actually causes more people to be exposed to and read the paper than would have otherwise.
Feel free to give your thoughts/opinions on this approach as well.
This is my favorite topic when looking at the next 10 ish years. It’s truly a game changer when it comes to global shipping and infrastructure. Definitely something everyone should be watching closely as time progresses.
I wonder how this will dovetail with expected oil demand plateau by the end of the decade. 1.5 million BPD of oil is being displaced now by electric vehicles. What will that look like by 2030? If oil demand is entering a secular decline, will companies see the value in investing the capital?
Just six more doublings of installed solar capacity would have solar generation alone exceeding the current global primary energy use. And both solar and wind are getting cheaper, not more expensive. Over 90% of new capacity being deployed is just solar and wind. I think it's a reasonable assumption that we won't move completely off of oil and gas anytime soon, but a secular decline is going to make investment less attractive.
the increased bands of viable farmable land for Canada and Russia will have major implications for international food production.
Another factor here is that pilot factories are being built now for cultured meat. 80% of the soy we grow, and a sizable portion of the grain and corn, are just to feed to animals. Cultured meat, however, will significantly reduce the amount of farmland needed. It is much more efficient, so would need far less inputs than animal agriculture.
There are also companies like Air Protein and Solar Foods using hydrogenotrophs to make proteins and carbohydrates, such as flour and substitutes for plant oils. They can also make growth media for cultured meat. Cellular agriculture includes meat, dairy, and seafood, but also cotton, coffee, chocolate, and some other things. Pilot factories are being built now in many cases, and it will take time to scale production. But this tech will dramatically reduce the amount of arable land we need to produce food. It won't displace all outdoors or conventional farming, but can still significantly reduce it.
With a fertility rate currently of 1.5, Russia is going to have a much smaller and older population by 2100. Even if they succeed in absorbing Ukraine, Ukraine has an even lower fertility rate. And their invasion of Ukraine has accelerated investment in solar and wind. Battery manufacturing capacity is expanding by about 10x every five years. Though obviously that multiple won't last forever.
dieyoufool3 on August 4th, 2022 at 03:22 UTC »
Day 8 of "Make r/Geopolitics Quality Again"
Given the situation heating up in the Taiwan strait, I thought to share analysis on a chill topic: Arctic geopolitics!
Climate Change Implications for Arctic Geopolitics | LINK TO THE PAPER HEREWhat I enjoyed most about this piece is its logical flow that's extremely accessible to someone new to geopolitics (i.e. unfamiliar with Mahan, Mackinder, or Spykman) and/or arctic State relations. It also calls into light Mackinder's analysis possibly becoming once again relevant. The reason for that being with climate change melting arctic ice, both accessibility and the possibility of development in the Arctic region increases. Melting Arctic offers regional states with 4 possibilities:
Increased accessibility through land and sea (Something Russia is extremely aware of, as detailed in CSIS's THE ICE CURTAIN: RUSSIA’S ARCTIC MILITARY PRESENCE) Access to previously untapped natural resources and raw materials Shortened shipping distance between Asia and North Atlantic regions Changes in regional hospitability. (This last one is often overlooked, but the increased bands of viable farmable land for Canada and Russia will have major implications for international food production.)Such increased accessibility and potentials are opening new opportunities for the economic prosperity and a new security environment with some possible security threats for regional states. It will also increase strategic value of the region and regional claims by state actors.
------------------------
A small note, the authors point to "regional international regime such Arctic Council" (whose membership comprise Canada; Denmark; Finland; Iceland; Norway; Russia; Sweden; United States) as an example of how regional conflict can be mitigated and cooperation between Russia and NATO had.
Well, those of you who follow the recent happenings of the Arctic Council know how even north pole relations can still be spicy.
So much for the author's aspiration organization like the Arctic Council were sources of regional cooperation...
------------------------
P.S. My reasoning behind sharing the infographic as the post and the article in the comments is that it (hopefully) is a win-win for all in the community.
The infograph is for those interested in the discipline, but not willing to read a 45-page paper. It will also draw more upvotes due to being more engaging than a simple paper title.
With more folks flowing into the comments due to more engagements causing reddit to serve this post to a greater amount of r/Geopolitics members, hopefully that actually causes more people to be exposed to and read the paper than would have otherwise.
Feel free to give your thoughts/opinions on this approach as well.
madgunner122 on August 4th, 2022 at 03:46 UTC »
This is my favorite topic when looking at the next 10 ish years. It’s truly a game changer when it comes to global shipping and infrastructure. Definitely something everyone should be watching closely as time progresses.
mhornberger on August 4th, 2022 at 05:06 UTC »
I wonder how this will dovetail with expected oil demand plateau by the end of the decade. 1.5 million BPD of oil is being displaced now by electric vehicles. What will that look like by 2030? If oil demand is entering a secular decline, will companies see the value in investing the capital?
https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/
Just six more doublings of installed solar capacity would have solar generation alone exceeding the current global primary energy use. And both solar and wind are getting cheaper, not more expensive. Over 90% of new capacity being deployed is just solar and wind. I think it's a reasonable assumption that we won't move completely off of oil and gas anytime soon, but a secular decline is going to make investment less attractive.
Another factor here is that pilot factories are being built now for cultured meat. 80% of the soy we grow, and a sizable portion of the grain and corn, are just to feed to animals. Cultured meat, however, will significantly reduce the amount of farmland needed. It is much more efficient, so would need far less inputs than animal agriculture.
There are also companies like Air Protein and Solar Foods using hydrogenotrophs to make proteins and carbohydrates, such as flour and substitutes for plant oils. They can also make growth media for cultured meat. Cellular agriculture includes meat, dairy, and seafood, but also cotton, coffee, chocolate, and some other things. Pilot factories are being built now in many cases, and it will take time to scale production. But this tech will dramatically reduce the amount of arable land we need to produce food. It won't displace all outdoors or conventional farming, but can still significantly reduce it.
With a fertility rate currently of 1.5, Russia is going to have a much smaller and older population by 2100. Even if they succeed in absorbing Ukraine, Ukraine has an even lower fertility rate. And their invasion of Ukraine has accelerated investment in solar and wind. Battery manufacturing capacity is expanding by about 10x every five years. Though obviously that multiple won't last forever.