Sea ice in the Davis Strait between Greenland and Canada, as seen from an aircraft on January 23, 2015. (Photo: © Tom Yulsman) It seems that at least for now, the bloom is off the Arctic rose. As an article in this week's Economist argues, fervent hopes for developing the Arctic's energy and minerals, and for using an Arctic sea route to ship goods between Asia and Europe more quickly, have faded. Blame plunging petroleum prices that have made exploring for Arctic oil uneconomic — but not just that. Despite global warming, which has caused the Arctic to warm faster than any other region, it is still an inhospitable place. And no amount of bullishness for development of resources there will make the natural up and down swings of weather and climate go away — swings that complicate the best laid plans of the Arctic bulls. That said, the opportunities haven't necessarily gone away either. But as is often the case, nature has turned out to be less cooperative than some would have liked. At the center of it all is a paradox, one I've written about quite a lot here at ImaGeo — the polar paradox: As our emissions of greenhouse gases have warmed the Arctic, sea ice has shrunk and parts of the region have looked more hospitable to development — most especially development of oil and natural gas. But burning Arctic fossil fuel reserves will only enhance the warming in the region, and globally as well. To countries like Norway and Russia, which depend heavily on revenues from fossil fuel development, this polar paradox has seemed like a golden opportunity.