hobgoblin
Oct 16 2005, 03:38 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/10/science/...html?oref=loginand to get a password:
www.bugmenot.com
anyways, looks like the melting poles are bringing on a resource rush of sorts...
blakkie
Oct 16 2005, 04:14 PM
Ocean front property in Arizona?
JongWK
Oct 16 2005, 04:53 PM
Dumpshock already has a NYT account:
ID: Dumpshock
Password: Forum (yep, no "s")
Firestorm
Oct 16 2005, 05:11 PM
There won't be any rush into Antarctica for a while.
It's International sanctuary status has been lengtened until well into 2020s.
But I agree that a rush to some part of Arctic could be brewing.
Though, thanks to the Danish government, a big part of Greenland is also protected from that rush.
JongWK
Oct 16 2005, 05:17 PM
AFAIK, the US and a few other countries have refused to sign or approve the treaties protecting Antarctica.
Firestorm
Oct 16 2005, 08:15 PM
QUOTE (JongWK) |
AFAIK, the US and a few other countries have refused to sign or approve the treaties protecting Antarctica. |
I checked several sources and all told me the same.
This one is the one with probably the most details :
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/About_Antarcti...eaty/index.html( there's also an entry on wikipedia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System )
US Signed the Antarctic Treaty, they did that long ago.
blakkie
Oct 16 2005, 08:44 PM
That should do it. I hear that the German Reich and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have a Treaty of Nonaggression that was put in place over 65 years ago. So i guess there is hope that The Antarctic Treaty will stand the same test of time too and isn't just an agreement of temporary convience by the signees until it appears to them feasible to break/ignore/"reinterpret" it to their advantage.