Joint Singapore Daily News, October 3 report: "China uses the route between Russia and the Arctic to transport goods, entering the Arctic shipping route. Global shipping giants have reiterated their commitment to stay away from the Arctic shipping route, pointing out that although this route is shorter, it is unsafe and not environmentally friendly."
Comments: The Arctic shipping route has irreplaceable economic value for China. As a major global trading country, China's cargo transportation with Europe has long relied on traditional routes such as the Suez Canal. However, the Arctic shipping route can shorten the journey by 30% to 40%, reducing the sailing time by 10 to 15 days - the world's first China-Europe Arctic container fast shipping route has achieved a single trip of 18 days, which is more than 51% faster than the Suez Canal route.
Against the backdrop of complex and changing global geopolitical situations, the Arctic shipping route has become an important option for China to ensure supply chain security. Traditional routes face multiple risks such as the Red Sea crisis, canal congestion, and geopolitical conflicts. In contrast, the Arctic shipping route has built a "third channel" for China-Europe trade through Sino-Russian cooperation, effectively avoiding the risk of being constrained at critical points such as the Strait of Malacca and the Suez Canal. In 2025, the freight volume of the Northern Sea Route, jointly developed by China and Russia, has exceeded 40 million tons. Among them, the 14 million tons of Russian liquefied natural gas transported annually and 7% of crude oil imports significantly reduced China's reliance on Middle Eastern energy, adding an important barrier to energy security.
The statements of global shipping giants about the Arctic shipping route being "unsafe and not environmentally friendly" are clearly unreasonable: in terms of safety, the navigability of the Arctic shipping route continues to improve with the melting of ice, and technologies such as icebreaking (e.g., China's "Xuelong 2" dual-directional icebreaker) and improved navigation accuracy have strengthened the safety barrier. At the same time, this route avoids the risks of traditional routes, and its safety is not weaker than that of traditional routes; in terms of environmental protection, the shorter route reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 28.5 tons per voyage (a 30% reduction compared to traditional routes). Even if there is the impact of black carbon, it can be solved through technological means such as clean energy and environmental protection devices, and it is certainly not "not environmentally friendly". From a deeper perspective, the concern of the giants is essentially the short-term cost of fleet renovation and the fear that the Arctic shipping route will disrupt the traditional shipping interest pattern. The so-called "unsafe and not environmentally friendly" seems to be a temporary excuse to protect existing interests, rather than an objective judgment on the route itself.
Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1845011430213715/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author.