During the past few weeks two news events of global importance have occurred that have received extensive international press coverage: the election of George Bush to lead the United States for four more years, and the death of Yasser Arafat, leader of the Palestinians for the past 40 years. Both of these events will have important implications for world politics over the next few years.

During the same time period two other news reports with even greater long-term global consequences received only minor coverage. One was a report by NASA presenting evidence that the arctic region from 1981 to 2001 had warmed eight times faster than the rate for the past century. This information was based on thermal infra-red images taken from satellites orbiting the pole. The second report was produced by the Arctic Council, a group of eight nations, including the United States, that have arctic territories. Their “Arctic Climate Impact Assessment” (ACIA) report was four years in the making, involving about 300 scientists.

The ACIA report confirmed and expanded on the NASA report, noting that the arctic will likely lose 50 to 60 percent of its current ice distribution by 2100. The ice pack has already shrunk by 15 to 20 percent during the past 30 years. Ice melting will lead to an estimated sea level rise of 4 to 35 inches, and wind action on ice-free seas will cause extensive shoreline erosion. Polar bears will likely disappear and other indigenous plant, animal and human populations in the arctic will be greatly altered.

But are these predicted changes in the arctic really worth worrying about? After all Nunavut, Canada’s newest and largest northern territory, covering nearly 1.2 million square miles (close to half the size of Europe, excluding Russia), only has about 27,000 people, less than the population of Bangor. Do those native Inuit need to continue a culture based on seals and polar bears? Couldn’t they switch to a wood products economy as forests extend northward? And what about fishing opportunities? Won’t access to the arctic seas be easier with the ice gone? We also may find new gas and oil reserves and will be able to easily set up drilling platforms in the ice-free ocean. What’s to worry about?

It is true that the earth has undergone warming and cooling trends in the past, and ecosystems have mostly adapted (the big exception was the extinction of the dinosaurs after a rapid climate change). Two key differences distinguish most epochs of the past from the present: 1) the speed of climate change (with the exception of the dinosaur case we think that climate change occurred over thousands of years, not hundreds, in the past); and 2) the presence of humans (45 million years ago when the polar regions were last warm, man had not yet evolved; now we are the dominant influence on climate and ecosystems on earth).

The climate changes occurring in the arctic are the canary in the coal mine. Scientists have long predicted that global warming would be noticed first and most dramatically in the polar regions. This is because of a positive feedback mechanism – ice and snow reflect heat back to the atmosphere, but with melting and exposure of darker soil or water, heat is absorbed rather than reflected, and this accelerates the warming process. Although the dramatic changes occurring in the arctic are not yet documented at lower latitudes, a number of more subtle changes, such as increasing incidence of forest fires and hurricanes, portend future calamities.

Even possible short-term positive aspects of arctic warming are merely cunning traps. The major fish of commercial value in the arctic is cod. Increased fishing will only further deplete this endangered resource. Prospects for new sources of oil or gas will only boost our dependency on this finite energy resource, add to carbon dioxide emissions, and postpone conservation measures and the inevitable switch to other energy sources.

The prospects for forests extending northward, providing additional fiber and fuel as well as Co2 absorbing capacity, may also be an illusion. Recent research by Canadians has suggested that the extensive permafrost areas of the low arctic contain high levels of organic matter, and when the permafrost melts huge quantities of Co2 will be released, more than likely a quantity greater than the potential sequestering potential of newly developing forests. And based on research in our lab, we find that many current boreal tree species may not be the best adapted to the unique light environment (weak, continuous illumination during the growing season) of the high arctic. The tree that seems to be best adapted (and the one that dominated the polar region 45 million years ago) is dawn redwood, a tree near extinction in a remote area of China.

In summary, the ecosystems and climate of this earth are extremely complex. We tamper with them at our own peril. Slowing or reversing global warming will take enormous political will around the world. Many have criticized the Kyoto pact, saying it is just window dressing. Recently the chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Global Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, stated “my feeling is that we will probably need to do more than most people are talking about.”

As true as this statement may be, the only way for the United States to get serious about this matter is by adopting the strategy of alcoholics anonymous. We must proclaim our petro-holic dependency and sign the Kyoto pact. It is only a first step, but the most important one. Even the Russians have now signed on. As the greatest polluter in the world our country needs to get its head out of the (oil) sand and join with the rest of industrialized society.

Richard Jagels is a professor of forest biology at the University of Maine.