Global warming and the melting of the polar ice caps are sculpting more than the world's geographic future. They are shaping its global political and economic fate as well.

This observation became clear after a story The New York Times ran Oct. 10 that discussed the changing physical and political landscape of the Arctic region. There, the melting of large ice caps is making the North Pole more navigable and thus more appealing to a number of interested parties.

The United States, Russia, Norway, China and Canada are the major players in a competitive field vying for possession of newly created land experts say is worth billions of dollars.

The recently melted water may prove even more valuable.

Undersea oil and gas fields are ripe for exploring and exploiting in this age of energy shortfalls. In fact, the U.S. Geological Survey believes that one-fourth of the world's undiscovered oil and gas resources are in the Arctic region. The possibility of bountiful new fisheries and the development of new shipping routes also increase global desire to claim as large a share as possible.

The competition will be fierce. But do the words "global warming" also spell global war?

Competition for natural resources and geographic territory has caused more wars on this globe than man cares to count. Yet it is unlikely that countries will engage in violent border disputes.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea says that territory is determined by how far a nation's continental shelf extends into the sea, but the physical changes have occurred rapidly and have not attracted much government attention. As a result, most countries have been able to stake out their desired territory with relatively little challenge, especially from the United States.

The acquisitions may also be left unchallenged by national governments, because private industries are taking the leadership role in the Arctic. Companies and corporations are grabbing up territory and gobbling up national resources before most governments can evaluate a next step. Thus, the private sector is the one dictating the terms of development and determining how the Arctic's economic future is shaped.

This form of frantic international competition could have grave effects for the natural environment near the North Pole if countries do not agree on standards for development in the Arctic.

Environmental considerations should be first on the list of concerns. Anyone entering this unique region should be extremely careful to maintain the fragile balance that supports the Arctic ecosystem. Emissions must be controlled and industries must ensure their technologies prevent nightmare oil spills, gas leaks and a multitude of similar threats that could hurt the region.

The break-up of larger icebergs into smaller ones makes sea navigation difficult, especially because most of this seascape is uncharted. If large oil, cruise, and fishing ships are going to enter this region, it will take international cooperation to ensure their safety and that of the Arctic territory as well. Governments should step in to regulate travel and help map the Arctic Circle as accurately as possible.

Countries should also be concerned with the treatment of Inuit tribes. About 150,000 people already inhabit the Arctic Circle and have used its natural resources respectfully for hundreds of years. Changes in the global climate should not mean that their sovereignty and way of life melt away, leaving them to watch while businesses compete to exploit the Arctic's land and water.

At this time, the United States has a unique opportunity to exercise good leadership and polish its tarnished environmental image by facilitating the development of these standards. Progress is already being made without us and the time to act is now.

Norway is already attracting foreign business after deciding to extract and sell natural gas in the Barents Sea. Russia is also gearing up to enter the energy industry. These new participants in the oil economy may be able to challenge dominance of OPEC. And with proper guidelines, they could force better industry standards for cleaner extraction and business dealings.

Global warming may be the unfortunate result of nations failing to improve energy consumption and fuel emissions when the moment was right. We should not make that same mistake as we make our imminent move into the Arctic region for economic and energy gains. The United States should invite other nations bordering the Arctic Circle to engage in negotiations over the development of this fragile and important region.

As private countries and public governments strive to define the future of the Arctic Circle, borders and bills are just the tip of the iceberg. The real challenge, but the most important one, lies in ensuring that this inevitable development is respectful, safe and just for all involved.

Sarah Howard ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science and journalism.