WaterWired

CRS Reports: 1) 'NAFTA and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)'; 2) 'Environmental Provisions in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs)'

1) M. Angeles Villarreal and Ian F. Fergusson penned this CRS report (2 March 2020): NAFTA and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). 

Graphics can be enlarged by clicking on them.

Download CRS_Report_NAFTA_USMCA_2March2020

Overview

The 116th Congress, in both its legislative and oversight capacities, has been active in numerous trade policy issues related to renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its replacement, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). In May 2017, the Trump Administration sent a 90-day notification to Congress of its intent to begin talks with Canada and Mexico to renegotiate and modernize NAFTA, as required by the 2015 Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). Negotiations officially began on August 16, 2017, and were concluded on September 30, 2018. The USMCA was signed on November 30, 2018. The agreement was approved by the House of Representatives (H.R. 5430) on December 19, 2019, by a vote of 385-41, and by the Senate (S. 3052) on January 16, 2020, by a vote of 89-10. President Trump signed the USMCA implementing legislation on January 29, 2020 (P.L. 116-113). All three parties must ratify the agreement and have regulations and laws in effect to meet their USMCA commitments before the agreement enters into force.

The first NAFTA negotiations were launched in 1992. Implementing legislation was signed on December 8, 1991 (P.L. 103- 182) and NAFTA entered into force on January 1, 1994. It is particularly significant because it was the most comprehensive free trade agreement (FTA) negotiated at the time, contained several groundbreaking provisions, and was the first of a new generation of U.S. FTAs later negotiated. NAFTA established trade liberalization commitments and set new rules and disciplines for future FTAs on issues important to the United States, including intellectual property rights protection, services trade, dispute settlement procedures, investment, labor, and environment. NAFTA’s market-opening provisions gradually eliminated nearly all tariff and most nontariff barriers on merchandise trade. At the time of NAFTA negotiations, average applied U.S. duties on imports from Mexico were 2.07%, while U.S. businesses faced average tariffs of 10%, in addition to nontariff and investment barriers, in Mexico. The U.S.-Canada FTA, which had been in effect since 1989, was suspended under NAFTA. NAFTA will stay in effect until USMCA enters into force.

USMCA, comprised of 34 chapters and 12 side letters, retains most of NAFTA’s market opening measures and other measures, while making notable changes to auto rules of origin, dispute settlement provisions, government procurement, investment, and intellectual property rights (IPR) protection. It also modernizes provisions in services, labor, and the environment. New trade issues, such as digital trade, state-owned enterprises, anticorruption, and currency misalignment, are also addressed. Key issues for Congress in the debate surrounding USMCA included worker rights protection in Mexico, IPR provisions and access to medicine, the enforceability of labor and environmental provisions, as well the constitutional authority of Congress over international trade and its role in revising, approving, or withdrawing from the agreement. Congress was also active in considering U.S. negotiating objectives and the extent to which USMCA made progress in meeting them, as required under TPA.

At least 30 days prior to USMCA’s entry into force, the President must notify Congress that he has determined that the otherparties have taken the necessary legal and regulatory measures to comply with their commitments under the agreement. Such measures include laws or regulations regarding rules of origin, tariffs, panel rosters related to dispute resolution, establishing committees such as the one called for in the chapter on small and medium-sized enterprises, and labor law implementation in Mexico, among others. After all parties have the necessary legal and regulatory measures in place to meet their USMCAcommitments, the agreement will enter into force “on the first day of the third month following the last notification.” The process could take several months or longer. USMCA parties may take as much time as they need to meet their obligations.

I want to reproduce what the report says about the environment (pages 33-35):

Environment

NAFTA was the first U.S. FTA to include a side agreement related to the environment. As with the chapter on labor, environment provisions in U.S. FTAs have evolved significantly over time. The NAFTA side agreement—the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC)—required all parties to enforce their own environmental laws, and contains an

enforcement mechanism applicable to a party’s failure to enforce these laws. NAAEC included a consultation mechanism for addressing disputes with a special dispute settlement procedure. Subsequent FTAs included a similar environmental chapter within the main text of the agreement, including a country’s obligations to enforce their own laws.83

More recent U.S. FTAs added an affirmative obligation for FTA partner countries to adhere to multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and allowed for environmental disputes under the FTAs to access the main dispute settlement provisions of the agreement. These obligations generally were reflected in the TPA-2015 negotiating objectives. The USMCA environment chapter obligates each party to

•   not fail to effectively enforce its environmental laws through a sustained or recurring course of action or inaction to attract trade and investment;

•   not waive or derogate from such laws in a manner that weakens or reduces the protections afforded in those law to encourage trade or investment;

•   ensure that its environmental laws and policies provide for and encourage high levels of protection;

•   strive to improve its levels of environmental protection;

•   require parties to adopt and maintain statutes and regulations consistent with

  multilateral environmental agreements to which each is a party;

•   recognize the sovereign right of each party to establish its own levels of domestic environmental protection, its own regulatory priorities, and to adopt or modify its priorities accordingly;

•   acknowledge a party’s right to exercise discretion with regard to enforcement resources;

•   provide for the resolution of disputes; and

•   provide a mechanism to implement the agreement.

  USMCA directly or implicitly addresses obligations under major Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs). It also includes obligations and encouragements to protect the ozone layer, protect the marine environment from ship pollution, encourage conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, encourage sustainable fisheries management and requires the control, reduction, and eventual elimination of subsidies that lead to overfishing or overcapacity. The USMCA does not contain language on climate change.

  The Protocol of Amendment to USMCA clarified some of the existing language in the agreement and addressed some perceived shortcoming in the original USMCA text, such as

•   Asserting the presumption that an environmental dispute affects trade and investment unless a respondent party can prove otherwise.

•   Requiring each party specifically to adopt, maintain, and implement laws, regulations and other measures to fulfill the following MEAs to which they are a party:

  •   Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES)

  •   Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

  • •   International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ship (MARPOL)

    •   Ramsar Convention on Wetlands

    •   Convention on Antarctic Marine Living Resources

    •   International Whaling Convention

    •   Inter-American Tropical Tuna Convention

The USMCA, as originally signed, only made explicit reference to CITES, MARPOL, and the Montreal Protocol. USMCA implementing legislation will create an Interagency Environment Committee for Monitoring and Enforcement, analogous to the labor chapter, and establishes environment-focused attachés in Mexico City to monitor compliance with the agreement. In addition, the implementing legislation includes measures for authorizing grants under the U.S.- Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program, the Trade Enforcement Trust Fund and a recapitalization of the North American Development Bank (NADB).

2) Richard K. Lattanzio and Ian F. Fergusson wrote this earlier (28 May 2015) CRS  InFocus two-pager: Environmental Provisions in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).

Download CRS_InFocus_EnvProvisions_FTAs_28May2015

Overview

Linkages between trade and environmental protection have long been a concern to some U.S. policymakers and stakeholders. The central question is whether trade liberalization (i.e., the removal of barriers on the free exchange of goods and services between nations) advances shared economic and environmental goals. Some observers argue that economic expansion brought on by trade liberalization adversely impacts the environment. Among other concerns, they contend that for developing countries, international competition may lead them to adopt less stringent environmental standards or to engage in more polluting activities. Thus, they claim that environmental provisions are necessary in trade agreements to help raise or maintain international standards and protect U.S. businesses and workers from perceived unfair competition. Other policy makers and stakeholders believe that trade liberalization and environmental protection are mutually supportive. They argue that while economic growth may adversely impact the environment during the initial stages of industrialization, it can also provide resources to mitigate such effects as countries develop. They also argue that trade liberalization can support U.S. environmental goals through the elimination of tariffs on environmental goods, and the reduction of trade-distorting subsidies.

Trade-related environmental provisions in U.S. FTAs were first introduced in the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1994 (NAFTA). Through the years, they have moved from side agreements to integral chapters within FTA texts, and increasingly have incorporated cooperation and dispute settlement (DS) mechanisms. By executive order in 1999, President Clinton required trade agreements to undergo environmental assessments. In the Trade Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-210), Congress included environmental provisions as a principal negotiating objective in renewing the President’s Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) (previously known as fast-track) legislation. Since then, the United States has been at the forefront of using trade agreements to promote core environmental protections. The structure and use of environmental provisions is currently under debate in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and in Congress’ consideration of TPA renewal legislation.

Enjoy, or as one of my students would say: 'Knock yourself out.'.

“It’s not true that you never learn from history. You do, but then you forget.” – Martin Wolf

Fatima Taha Presentation: 'Where Do Our Choices Take Us? Finding Ways to Measure Alternative Future Scenarios Models Across The User Community'

Fatima Taha gave this excellent presentation to my Geograhy seminar class on 27 January 2020.

Download GEOG_Seminar_27January 2020_Fatima

I have added a few slides to whet your appetite.

Download Fatima_Choics_Alternstive_Futures.Models_27Jan2020pdf

Enjoy!

“Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character." - Albert Einstein

CRS Report: Indian Water Rights Settlements (Updated: 26 December 2019)

From Charles V. Stern comes this updated CRS report: 'Indian Water Rights Settlements'.

Great topic!

Download CRS_Report_Indian_Water_Rights_Settlements_26Dec2019

Summary
In the second half of the 19th century, the federal government pursued a policy of confining Indian tribes to reservations. These reservations were either a portion of a tribe’s aboriginal land or an area of land taken out of the public domain and set aside for a tribe. The federal statutes and treaties reserving such land for Indian reservations typically did not address the water needs of these reservations, a fact that has given rise to questions and disputes regarding Indian reserved water rights. Dating to a 1908 Supreme Court ruling, courts generally have held that many tribes have a reserved right to water sufficient to fulfill the purpose of their reservations and that this right took effect on the date the reservations were established. This means that, in the context of a state water law system of prior appropriations, which is common in many U.S. western states, many tribes have water rights senior to those of non-Indian users with water rights and access established subsequent to the Indian reservations’ creation. Although many Indian tribes hold senior water rights through their reservations, the quantification of these rights is undetermined in many cases.

Tribes have pursued quantification of their water rights through both litigation and negotiated settlements. The settlements involve negotiation among tribes, the federal government, states, water districts, and private water users, and others. They aim to resolve conflict between rights holders and allow the parties to determine specific terms of water allocation and use with certainty. Over the last 50 years, negotiated settlements have been the preferred course for most tribes because they are often less lengthy and costly than litigation. Additionally, many stakeholders have noted that these negotiated agreements are more likely to allow tribes not only to quantify their water rights on paper but also to procure access to these resources in the form of infrastructure and other related expenses, at least in some cases.

After being negotiated, approval and implementation of Indian water rights settlements require federal action. As of 2019, 36 Indian water rights settlements had been federally approved, with total estimated costs in excess of $5.8 billion. Of these, 32 settlements were approved and enacted by Congress and 4 were administratively approved by the U.S. Departments of Justice and the Interior. After being congressionally authorized, federal projects associated with approved Indian water rights settlements generally have been implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (both within the Department of the Interior), pursuant to congressional directions. Congress has appropriated discretionary and mandatory funding (and, in some cases, both) for these activities, including in recent appropriations bills. In the 116th Congress, H.R. 1904 proposes to extend in perpetuity the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund, which is currently scheduled to provide $120 million per year in mandatory funds for these settlements through FY2029.

Several individual Indian water rights settlements have recently been considered and approved by Congress, including three that were enacted during the 114th Congress. In addition to opposition to some proposed settlements, one of the primary challenges facing new settlements is the availability of federal funds and the related question of cost-shares among federal, state, local, and tribal interests.

At issue is under what circumstances (if any) Congress should approve new Indian water rights settlements and whether Congress should fund (and in some cases amend) existing settlements. Some argue that resolution of Indian water rights settlements is a mutually beneficial means to resolve long-standing legal issues, provide certainty of water deliveries, and reduce the federal government’s liability. Others argue against authorization and funding of new settlements, either on general principle or with regard to specific individual settlements and activities.

How about a conclusion?

Conclusion
Long-standing disputes over water rights and use involving Indian tribes continue to be negotiated and settled by the executive branch and are thus likely to be an ongoing issue for Congress. This matter includes implementation of ongoing Indian water rights settlements, negotiation of new settlements, and consideration of these settlements for potential enactment and subsequent funding. As of the end of the 115th Congress, 32 settlements had been enacted since 1978, and four settlements had been approved administratively. Additional funding for ongoing settlements and authorization of and appropriations for new settlements are likely to be requested in the future. In considering Indian water rights settlements, primary issues for Congress may include the cost, contents, and sufficiency of federally authorized efforts to settle tribal water rights claims, as well as the circumstances under which these settlements are considered andapproved by authorizing committees and others (i.e., whether the settlements are accompanied by formal statements of Administration support, cost estimates). In addition, the preferred extent of federal involvement in implementing settlements, including the question of whether the federal government or tribes should take the lead in developing and constructing projects, may be a central question under consideration in future settlements under consideration by Congress.

Enjoy!

“Like a man who has been dying for many days, a man in your city is numb to the stench.” - Chief Seattle

Jesse J. Richardson, Jr. Opines: The Special Master's Report on Florida v. Georgia

Jesse James Richardson, Jr., Professor of Law at West Virginia University's College of Law, is one of the smartest water lawyers I know. He is also a delightful speaker so if you get a chance to hear him speak, do so.

Here's a piece he wrote after reading the Report of the Special Master in Florida v. Georgia water dispute. He gave me permission to post it. I just added the report itself, the ACF basin graphic, Jesse' picture, and the aphorism at the bottom.

Download Report_SpecialMaster_FL_v_GA_11Dec2019

As a Christmas present to myself, I read the report of the Special Master in Florida v. Georgia yesterday. In summary, the Special Master recommends denying Florida's request for a decree because it has not proved the elements necessary to obtain relief. Florida points to the oyster fishery collapse as the harm, but the Special Master found that Florida failed to prove that Georgia caused the collapse. The collapse was likely caused, according to the Special Master, by frequent droughts, over-harvesting, and climate change.

 

In addition, the Special Master found that Georgia's use was not unreasonable or inequitable. Finally, the Special Master determined that the benefits of the apportionment would not substantially outweigh the harms. This is a good recommendation for agriculture, since the Special Master recognizes agricultural as a reasonable use generating "substantial benefits". However, the recommendation could prove to be ominous for rural states since the Special Master considered proportional population and economic production, even while decrying how relying on these measures too much would mean that the "larger state always win".

 

The recommendation is likely bad for environmental groups. Environmental benefits and costs appeared to be given minimal weight, especially when compared with tangible economic benefits and costs.

 

I think SCOTUS will accept these recommendations. The recommendations and very methodical and well supported. Since the Special Master has seen the witnesses and has developed the facts, it would be difficult to reject such well supported findings.

 

Overall, Several interesting points in the report.

 

(1) The Special Master thought it was important that Florida only presented evidence of harm during drought years. It was important to the findings that no harm was alleged during normal to above normal rainfall years. That seems odd to mean. Wouldn't one expect the harm to occur during drought years? I think the point was that the drought caused the damages, not Georgia's pumping. However, but for the the pumping of Georgia, would damages have occurred?

 

(2) The Special Master was very critical of the experts for Florida. Their testimony, in his opinion, failed to specially address harm to individual fish species. Florida's experts relied on a model, many of the assumptions of which the special master viewed skeptically, at best. Georgia's experts, on the other hand, used actual data from on-site meters and the like, which the Special Master viewed favorably. Note that on some issues, experts for both sides used models. The Special Master viewed the Georgia experts as more persuasive on those issues as well.

 

Note that the Special Master seemed to dismiss the testimony of one of Florida's experts because the expert failed to mention the weaknesses of the model until questioned on cross-examination. That expert also failed to disclose several results that did not support his conclusions.

 

In addition, Georgia's experts attacked Florida's data with specificity while Florida's experts offered only generalized attacks. For example, one expert challenged the irrigated acreage totals presented by Georgia, but never estimated how much acreage was omitted.

 

(3) The Special Master also found that Georgia's consumptive use was reasonable. As to the amount of consumptive use, this is the area where Florida used rainfall runoff models while Georgia's experts used number of irrigated acres and metering results. The Special Master found the Georgia method more reliable.

 

Although emphasizing that relying on this fact as dispositive would make reduce equitable apportionment analysis to a "rigid rule whereby the larger state always wins", the Special Master nonetheless seemed to place great weight on the comparison between the proportion of population (92%), employment (96%) and gross regional product (99%) attributable to Georgia and the consumption of state line flows (up to 17.4%, depending on how calculated). This seems odd to me as well. Percentage of population, etc. is all well and good, but the percentage of state line flows consumed may well need to be limited to a very small proportion of the water. 

 

(4) This Special Master also disagreed with the prior Special Master with respect to Georgia's conservation of water. The Special Master noted that, despite a substantial increase in population, Georgia uses much less water than it did 30 years ago, but failed to mention that that fact is true across the country due to increased efficiencies (low-flow toilets, more efficient irrigation, etc.).

 

"Drinking and other domestic purposes are the highest uses of water".  Agricultural uses of water in Georgia provide "substantial benefits". The special master also found the consumption "reasonable". However, agricultural use of water during drought was called out as "only increasing" and "not effectively curbed", making the question "to what extent the two states should share the burden of drought". The Special Master answered that question by, in a very perfunctory manner, applying the doctrine of reasonable use, and finding Georgia's use reasonable.

 

(5) The Special Master also found that even if the Corps of Engineers would increase flows into Florida, the impact would be minimal. Therefore, Florida would see "no appreciable benefit from a decree".

 

(6) Finally, the Special Master found that the potential harms to Georgia of apportionment would substantially outweigh the benefits to Florida. The Special Master specifically limited his analysis to marginal costs and marginal benefits, drawing approval from economists everywhere. The cost of generating increasing the flow by 801 cfs during summers during dry years would cost $100 million. The Apalachicola fishing industry generates "only" $11.7 million per year and the oyster industry "only" $6.6 million per year before the collapse. This difference appeared to be dispositive.

 

Enjoy!

"August in Florida is God's way of reminding us who's in charge." - Blaize Clement

CRS Report: 'Changes in the Arctic - Background and Issues for Congress' Updated: 27 November 2019

This is another CRS report that is updated periodically.

Just the other day I heard a story on NPR about increased Russian activity in the Arctic and the wariness of the Norwegians and others.  

So here is the latest update by Ronald O'Rourke at al. 'Changes in the Arctic - Background and Issues for Congress'

Download CRS_Report_Changes_Arctic_27Nov2019  

Summary
The diminishment of Arctic sea ice has led to increased human activities in the Arctic, and has heightened interest in, and concerns about, the region’s future. The United States, by virtue of Alaska, is an Arctic country and has substantial interests in the region.

Record low extents of Arctic sea ice over the past decade have focused scientific and policy attention on links to global climate change and projected ice-free seasons in the Arctic within decades. These changes have potential consequences for weather in the United States, access to mineral and biological resources in the Arctic, the economies and cultures of peoples in the region, and national security.

Although there is significant international cooperation on Arctic issues, the Arctic is increasingly being viewed by some observers as a potential emerging security issue. Some of the Arctic coastal states, particularly Russia, have taken actions to enhance their military presences in the high north. U.S. military forces, particularly the Navy and Coast Guard, have begun to pay more attention to the region in their planning and operations.

The five Arctic coastal states—the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway, and Denmark (of which Greenland is a territory)—have made or are in the process of preparing submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf regarding the outer limits of their extended continental shelves. The Russian submission includes the underwater Lomonosov Ridge, a feature that spans a considerable distance across the center of the Arctic Ocean.

Two of the Coast Guard’s three polar icebreakers—Polar Star and Polar Sea—have exceeded their intended 30-year service lives, and Polar Sea is not operational. The Coast Guard has initiated a project to build up to three new heavy polar icebreakers. On May 12, 2011, representatives from the member states of the Arctic Council signed an agreement on cooperation on search and rescue in the Arctic.

The diminishment of Arctic ice could lead in coming years to increased commercial shipping on two trans-Arctic sea routes—the Northern Sea Route close to Russia, and the Northwest Passage close to Alaska and through the Canadian archipelago—though the rate of increase in the use of these routes might not be as great as sometimes anticipated in press accounts. International guidelines for ships operating in Arctic waters have been recently updated.

Changes to the Arctic brought about by warming temperatures will likely allow more exploration for oil, gas, and minerals. Warming that causes permafrost to melt could pose challenges to onshore exploration activities. Increased oil and gas exploration and tourism (cruise ships) in the Arctic increase the risk of pollution in the region. Cleaning up oil spills in ice-covered waters will be more difficult than in other areas, primarily because effective strategies for cleaning up oil spills in ice-covered waters have yet to be developed.

Large commercial fisheries exist in the Arctic. The United States is currently meeting with other countries regarding the management of Arctic fish stocks. Changes in the Arctic could affect threatened and endangered species, and could result in migration of fish stocks to new waters. Under the Endangered Species Act, the polar bear was listed as threatened on May 15, 2008. Arctic climate change is also expected to affect the economies, health, and cultures of Arctic indigenous peoples.

Here is just one issue for Congress:

Climate Change and Loss of Arctic Sea Ice
Record low extents of Arctic sea ice in 2012 and 2007 have focused scientific and policy attention on climate changes in the high north, and on the implications of projected ice-free seasons in the Arctic within decades. The Arctic has been projected by several scientists to be ice-free in most late summers as soon as the 2030s.This opens opportunities for transport through the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route, extraction of potential oil and gas resources, and expanded fishing and tourism (Figure 3).

More broadly, physical changes in the Arctic include warming ocean, soil, and air temperatures; melting permafrost; shifting vegetation and animal abundances; and altered characteristics of Arctic cyclones. All these changes are expected to affect traditional livelihoods and cultures in the region and survival of polar bear and other animal populations, and raise risks of pollution, food supply, safety, cultural losses, and national security. Moreover, linkages (“teleconnections”) between warming Arctic conditions and extreme events in the mid-latitude continents are increasingly evident, identified in such extreme events as the heat waves and fires in Russia in 2010; severe winters in the eastern United States and Europe in 2009/2010 and in Europe in 2011/2012; and Indian summer monsoons and droughts. Hence, changing climate in the Arctic suggests important implications both locally and across the Hemisphere.

Like the rest of the globe, temperatures in the Arctic have varied84 but show a significant warming trend since the 1970s, and particularly since 1995. The annual average temperature for the Arctic region (from 60o to 90o N) is now about 1.8o F warmer than the “climate normal” (the average from 1961 to 1990). Temperatures in October-November are now about 9o F above the seasonal normal. Scientists have concluded that most of the global warming of the last three decades is very likely caused by human-related emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG, mostly carbon dioxide); they expect the GHG-induced warming to continue for decades, even if, and after, GHG concentrations in the atmosphere have been stabilized. The extra heat in the Arctic is amplified by processes there (the “polar amplification”) and may result in irreversible changes on human timescales.

The observed warmer temperatures along with rising cyclone size and strength in the Arctic have reduced sea ice extent, thickness, and ice that persists year-round (“perennial ice”); natural climate variability has likely contributed to the record low ice extents of 2007 and 2012. The 2007 minimum sea ice extent was influenced by warm Arctic temperatures and warm, moist winds blowing from the North Pacific into the central Arctic, contributing to melting and pushing ice toward and into the Atlantic past Greenland. Warm winds did not account for the near-record sea ice minimum in 2008. In early August 2012, an unusually large storm with low pressure developed over the Arctic, helping to disperse the already weak ice into warmer waters and accelerating its melt rate. By August 24, 2012, sea ice extent had shrunk below the previous observed minimum of late September 2007.

Modeling of GHG-induced climate change is particularly challenging for the Arctic, but it consistently projects warming through the 21st century, with annual average Arctic temperature increases ranging from +1° to +9.0° C (+2° to +19.0° F), depending on the GHG scenario and model used. While such warming is projected by most models throughout the Arctic, some models project slight cooling localized in the North Atlantic Ocean just south of Greenland and Iceland. Most warming would occur in autumn and winter, “with very little temperature change projected over the Arctic Ocean” in summer months.

Due to observed and projected climate change, scientists have concluded that the Arctic will have changed from an ice-covered environment to a recurrent ice-free ocean (in summers) as soon as the late 2030s. The character of ice cover is expected to change as well, with the ice being thinner, more fragile, and more regionally variable. The variability in recent years of both ice quantity and location could be expected to continue.

The next section deals with the geopolitical environment. Give it a read!

Excellent overview. Enjoy!

"Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups." -- John Kenneth Galbraith