Long inaccessible to ships, thanks to global warming, much of the Arctic Ocean is now navigable in the summer months. The new ice-free Northern Sea Route cuts the distance of the journey between Northern Europe and Japan by 40 percent contributing to a tremendous saving in fuel and other operational costs of shipping. Being one-third shorter than shipping via the Suez Canal in Egypt, Arctic shipping route could significantly cut vessels' emissions of carbon dioxide, apparently reducing global warming. With the saving in distance of 40%, the economic cost saving in CO2 emission is about US$ 84,000 for tanker and US$ 130,000 for a container ship per voyage assuming 3.02 tonnes of CO2 per 1 MT of Marine Fuel Oil and US 25 per ton of CO2 released. Shipping route through the Arctic leads to vibration causing faster melting of sea ice. Incomplete combustion of ship fuel, resulting in the emissions of black carbon, deposit on ice and snow consequently and have already contributed to a significant portion of the region's ice melting. Since the impact of emissions in the Arctic region counteract the benefits of shorter voyage distance (and lower fuel consumption per voyage), the Northern Sea Route has no overall benefits for the climate, even when cleaner fuels are used. The warming effects of low power operations are much larger in the Artic than in the rest of the world. Talking about oil spills in the region, Exxon Valdez in 1989, Selendang Ayu in 2007 and Navion Brittanica in 2009 have contributed to an ecocide in the region. For policymakers it is a difficult trade-off between temporary economic savings and long-term accelerated polar ice melting and consequent permanent damage to the atmosphere. Recently, the Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise Operators (AECO) has approved a self-imposed ban on the use and carriage of HFO in the Arctic.
