For over 230 year, the poles of the Earth have been visualized by the world as white lands without economic potential, surrounded by massive ice where only native citizens traditionally know as Eskimos, passionate scientists and specific species of animals such as polar bears, narwhals and walruses live in. However, the picture of this territory has gradually changed over the past three decades. The melting of the Arctic ice caps has become a worldwide concern, not only in terms of the environmental risk that this event represents, but most importantly, it has been transformed into a global political, social and economic priority, taking into account the proficient resources such as oil, diamond, gold, uranium among many others that are located under the frozen Arctic Ocean.
Additionally, the fact that this massive mineral reserve might signify the beginning of a new lucrative resource scramble has meaningfully raised the interest of world superpowers (USA, China, Russia), who perceive this situation as a convenient opportunity to "carve out a new mineral frontier" (Macalister, 2012, p.310) and expand their territory and supremacy. This essay will measure the two contrasting perspectives in which the issue of the Arctic has been interpreted, and will try to generate sensible and objective opinions based on the real advantages and disadvantages that an eventual exploitation of the Arctic mineral resources could signify for humanity's wellbeing on Earth in the short and long run.
As the melting of the Arctic became a global preoccupation, scientists and scholars have attempted to attribute a clear definition to this event. Namely, the start of this environmental degradation can be traced back more than 1,500 years to the Medieval period. The United Nations Environmental Program (2007), explains this phenomenon of ice melting as a conversion process that turn ice from a solid to a liquid state as a result of exposure to heat.