The report states that the observed changes in sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, in the mass of the Greenland ice sheet and in Arctic icecaps over the past ten years are dramatic and represent an obvious departure from the long-term patterns.

The warming of the Arctic, due to climate change, has been twice as high as the world average since 1980. Surface air temperatures in the Arctic since 2005 have been higher than for any five year period since measurements began around 1880. Arctic summer temperatures have been higher in the past few decades than at any time in the past 2000 years.

To make matters worse, the report also confirms that snow and sea ice are interacting with the climate system to accelerate warming. Average snow cover duration is projected to decline by up to 20% by 2050. As the light colored snow and sea ice melts, darker ocean and land takes over. And darker land or ocean surfaces absorb more of the sun’s energy, which in turn leads to further warming of the Earth’s surface and the air above.

Temperatures in the permafrost have risen by up to 2 degrees Celsius, and thawing permafrost causes deformation of buildings and infrastructure, which will cause some communities to relocate. The southern limit of permafrost has moved northward in Russia and Canada. Further, nearly all glaciers and ice caps in most Arctic regions have been declining faster since 2000 than they did in the previous decade.

Average winter temperatures are projected to increase even more in the future, averaging between 3 and 7 degrees Celsius warmer by 2080, in what will be a shorter winter season. The Arctic mountain glaciers and ice caps are projected to lose between 10% and 30% of their total mass by 2100. And the Arctic Ocean is predicted to be nearly ice free in summer during this century, likely as soon as the next 30 to 40 years. This is bad news for animals such as the polar bear. Changes in the ice and snow cause fundamental changes to the characteristics of Arctic ecosystems and in some cases loss of entire habitats. This also has consequences for people who receive benefits from Arctic ecosystems.

Loss of ice and snow in the Arctic also increases emissions of carbon dioxide and methane and change large scale ocean currents.

As the Arctic sea ice diminishes during summer, accessibility to the Arctic minerals, energy resources, and sea routes will increase. This will bring economic benefits even as it changes the landscape.

Adaptation also requires leadership from governments and international bodies, and increased investment in infrastructure. The SWIPA Assessment will be formally presented to the 7th Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting in Nuuk, Greenland on May 12, 2011.

The waters between Baffin and Devon Islands are feeding and breeding territory for mammals such as walruses, seals, polar bears, narwhals and belugas and bowhead whales to feed and breed. Large numbers of seabirds nest in the region. Protecting the richness of Lancaster Sound is essential to the health of Canada’s Arctic and also shows Canada’s commitment to combating climate change.

Earlier this summer Inuit leaders and environmentalists everywhere were shocked when the Canadian federal government gave permission to scientists to begin seismic testing of the area’s ocean floor. Two years ago the United States Geological Survey estimated that 90 billion barrels of oil at the bottom of the ocean floor. In August the Nunavut Court of Justice, however, granted an injunction that prevented the seismic exploration since the testing posed too many dangers to northern mammals.

The federal government has now decided to spend the time and money to protect the area from future exploration. The Environment Minister John Baird has even gone as far as stating that the government may even widen the drilling ban after consultation with the Inuit groups, the government of Nunavut and environmental groups, reports the Toronto Sun.

The federal government’s announcement comes just days before Mr. Baird’s departure to Mexico, where Canada is working with Japan and Russia to battle an extension of the Kyoto Accord. After Canada’s poor performance in Copenhagen, Mr. Baird recently stated that this announcement sends a clear signal to the world that Canada is committed to the environment.

The UN News Centre reports that a joint campaign by conservation groups and tour operators in the 1990’s has helped set up protected areas in Svalbard, Norway.  Svalbard is the closest tourism outpost to the North Pole, which is 1,000 kilometres away.  The sustainable tourism initiative has enacted new laws protecting biodiversity and has led to the successful protection of polar bears and other native species in the area.

Currently in Norway, partners UNEP and GRID-Arendal are planning to replicate the success in Svalbard by studying how sustainable tourism can support the management and development of protected areas.

In June 2010, participants from 12 countries met in Arendal to discuss how tourism and biodiversity protection in marine protected areas can lead to conservation successes, reports UNEP.  The meeting decided that financial, educational and political support are all important.  Although differences between areas makes establishing criteria that can be used to replicate successful tourism/biodiversity connections difficult, the aim of UNEP’s Linking Tourism & Conservation (LT&C) initiative is to show, learn from and replicate positive examples where tourism supports the management and development of protected areas.

UNEP and GRID-Arendal are hosting a study expedition to Svalbard for conservationists, journalists and members of the public.  They also plan to create an interactive map of tourist destinations engaged in conservation work that will allow travelers to view a destination’s green credentials before booking their trip.  All hail green tourism!

Legally, the decision of whether or not to add a threatened species to the Endangered Species Act list requires the use of “the best available science in a couple of key areas,” Jon Hunter, Policy Director of the Endangered Species Coalition, told me on Monday.  So the integrity of the science is very important. 

“The polar bear is a great example in the last couple of years, [–] the best science we have indicates that they are on a very bad path,” Jon explained.  The science that was needed pushed the boundaries of what has been traditionally considered good science.  “It looked further out and relies more on modeling and other predictions rather than a more traditional head count of how many exist and how many there were ten years ago.”

The US Geological Survey had to consider what the best climate models indicate will happen to the ice around the Arctic and Alaska.  The models told the USGS that “this is what will happen to the ice” and “from the ice, this is what will happen to the polar bears,” Jon explained.  “As a result, they could indicate that the polar bears were at serious risk, losing a lot of what they depend on for survival.”  This leads to the conclusion that there “clearly is a threat to the polar bear population being able to survive as a species.” 

“The definition of a threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future,” Jon continued.  “So they clearly said, ‘the best science we have, the models, indicate that there will be a risk at some point in the foreseeable future’.”  This is a fundamentally different use of science from the traditional approach which examines how “this species is being killed today by this cause.”  But Jon indicates that science is changing towards this model, and adds that “it’s important that we really look at science in this form to say ‘what can we expect with this species?’ ”  Good wildlife conservation considers the future of a species.

Sometimes politics enters into the field and politicians question scientific findings.  For this reason, agencies are doing more peer reviews.  That way, the science has a higher likelihood of standing up in court, which is where debates or challenges often go.  If the science is not solid, cases can be thrown out of court, which can sometimes allow threats to endangered species.  Most often, court cases examine “whether or not all of the science was used, if conclusions are actually founded in other determinations, and also how a decision or a delisting decision prescribes exactly as the law requires,” Jon explained. 

While not all endangered species decisions go through courts, there are a large number of challenges.  While details of challenges vary with species, the challenges are launched by members of two major groups.  “Oftentimes if a species isn’t listed, environmental groups look at it to closely to see if it would make a good court challenge.  If it does get listed, opponents to endangered species protection may challenge it,” such as a logging or a mining company.  And regardless of what side the court challenge comes from, the integrity and quality of the science used to make the decision can make a large difference for or against a threatened species.

The Arctic is warming alarmingly quickly, but there’s still time to make choices that alter the future and save it.  ”Oil and Ice”s purpose is to stimulate discussion and debate about those choices.  Struzik has witnessed the changes that are happening in the Arctic through his extensive time there, while Nikiforuk is an expert on the economics and influence of the tar sands.

The conversation will take place in 10 Canadian cities between November 4th and 20th.  More information is available on WWF-Canada’s website.