Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire
Yeah, the tourism angle is overrated... I'm not sure that you want to ramp up the number of tourists to an ecologically sensitive area by a factor of 10 or 100 anyway. However, the arctic sovereignty angle is much more compelling... Churchill could play an important part in helping to secure Canada's foothold in the arctic.
|
This is exactly what I was going to say. It will be important for us to have a military base and presence up there, but I do not think trying to increase tourism and shipping through the arctic waters is something we should be doing at all.
We need to make sure the people living there can survive, and some tourism is fine, but making it the Bermuda of the north would be catastrophic for the area. Some of the most famous tourist spots in the world are curbin or outright banning tourism due to the havoc it wreaks on nature. Even Thailand is taking action.