The Law of the Sea Treaty, in its twenty-fifth year pending approval by Congress, is at least good for a case study in interconnectedness. Since the treaty came into effect for other countries in 1982, sea ice in the arctic has decreased by 20%, setting off a mad rush for the resources (oil, gas, diamonds, nickel) that were, until recently, inaccessible. Other countries bordering the Arctic are staking claims to these resources based on their rights as defined by the Law of the Sea Treaty. But the U.S. -- the treaty's lone hold-out -- has no basis to make claims. We are in the ironic position of being unable to secure one of the few benefits of climate change because we've refused to sign a treaty that is in our own national interest.

Perhaps climate change in the Arctic will push the Senate to do what the Pentagon, the administration and Greenpeace could not: ratify the treaty.