While the government of the United States might be hesitant to call climate change a significant factor in policy development, the Russian government doesn’t seem to be. A recent parliamentary council report states that it is likely the Arctic ice caps will be completely gone by 2070 and that the effects of such a drastic change must be considered in the formation of policy for the region.

The indigenous populations along coastal regions will be most affected, at least among people, with rampant flooding likely to be a threat to the traditional way of life. A recent ABC article cited Yury Vorobyov of the North Affairs Committee as commenting that the thickness of ice in the Arctic Ocean has decreased by 50% over the last three decades and that the total amount of ice has decreased by 30%. The inevitability of the disappearance of the ice caps is looming more and more apparent in the eyes of the Russian Parliament members.

While it remains to be seen what the Russian government has in mind as to the specifics of future policy, their early attitude seems to be of a more accepting nature of climate change as a theory than the United States government. While the USA did declare the polar bear threatened in the last month or so and even admitted the point that climate change is responsible for that status, already new leases have been granted for oil companies to drill in the Chukchi Sea.

In addition to offering leases for further drilling and exploration, the protections for oil and natural gas companies include allowing them to avoid punishment for small numbers of polar bears who may be killed in the process. To get this protection companies must take extra precautions to avoid contact with the bears so that none are injured during contact with humans. This will include being aware of the bears’ territories and habits and staying as far away from them as possible.

While it’s admirable that the administration would offer protection to the polar bear, it’s hard not to notice the difference of levels of commitment to the idea that climate change is real and that it should affect policy making in the most formative stages. Since the two nations are engaged in something of a race to stake claim in the natural gas and oil resources likely at the bottom of the ocean there, it would seem that the difference between the nations’ strategies would be rather important in guessing who might be more successful in the long term, as well as how they will do it.

Will the Russian government succeed in the Arctic by engaging in a political maneuver likely to please the rest of the global community and thereby secure the cooperation of some of its members? Will the American government reach it first by staunch competitiveness? Will the need to feed an energy thirsty world take massive amounts of drilling to one of the most devastated regions on our planet? According to the Russian government, we should know in the next 70 years or so.