I took that as fatalistic irony. Still, it's about as funny as nuclear war.

Well, it wasn't meant to be funny, just to emphasize the point: we're talking so much about combating global warming yet the current forecast is for 90% fossil fuel powered cars in 2040(!).

I, personally, can't do much, so I'm just going to watch the show in this restaurant at the end of the universe :)

(again, with the smiley)

It means increased trade between Europe and East Asia, because container ships will be able to traverse the Arctic.

It also means faster warming, because of reduced albedo - and part of that warming is transferred to the adjacent land ice (esp. Greenland) and permafrost, melting it in turn, which translates to higher sea levels. For bonus points, when permafrost melts, it releases methane, which is also a greenhouse gas.

Then there's reduction of ocean salinity, affecting existing ecosystems established around the current level (and with a rate of change too fast for gradual adaptation).

And not to forget about the disruption of existing ocean currents, which significantly affect weather patterns. And if I remember correctly, atmospheric circulation would also be affected.

Open shipping lanes are well and good, but when you can't grow the usual crops where you used to be able to grow them, because the climate is no longer appropriate for them in that location, and seafood catches are lower because the ecosystem is disrupted in a big way, you may well find that all that extra cargo capacity is used up just shipping food to places that used to be able to grow their own.

Alaska is bigger than Hawaii, so warmer is better. Alaska has enough land for the entire USA. There is plenty of space to grow mangoes, papayas, bananas, and pineapples.

Who said anything about Hawaii? Why not compare to the wheat belt states?