Written by by
Recently, a university delegation representing the Antarctic Treaty countries and the Irish Antarctic Platform hosted a COP26 meeting in Glasgow. The COP was ostensibly to discuss the long-term scientific relationship with the United States. Instead, many participants noted a profound sense of frustration with the lack of progress made at the high-level conference that followed.
One example of the summit’s failure came at the plenary session. The Irish delegation suggested that the United States in certain areas, such as forecasting and forecasting the effects of climate change on polar regions, might wish to “participate constructively in any potential conversation about how to improve their science capabilities.”
Without any mention of what this means, the United States delegation remained silent.
Several participants observed that the United States would not commit to discussing its lack of leadership and persisting denial of scientific uncertainty or human-induced climate change with participating countries.
That’s a crying shame, given that there was clear agreement by delegates from some of the world’s greatest scientific powers that this topic can and should be a high priority.
In 2005, the Antarctic Treaty countries agreed that climate change is the “most serious threat to the future of Antarctica.”
Read more on this topic: Climate change is hotter on Antarctica than on Earth
In 1996, these countries, which include the United States, had concluded that the world must address climate change “very seriously.” Since that time, there has been no full carbon tax in any Antarctic Treaty country, and carbon dioxide emissions from the Antarctic region has been growing year after year.
But according to the most recent IPCC report, if current emissions trends continue, the world will exceed the 1.5 degree Celsius of warming limit that was set in Paris in 2015. Antarctica is warming faster than the world average, with about 40 percent of the continent now experiencing temperatures higher than the 2-degree world-average mean in 1990.
And if we don’t change course, Antarctica could even warm more than that, according to a joint study by the UK’s Met Office and NASA.
This month, the South Pole will open to tourism for the first time. It has plenty of land for the number of visitors expected for the entire year, which will be about 20,000 and for the duration of the season.
Tourists arriving in Cape Royds, Antarctica. UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe
This represents a dramatic change from just decades ago, when tourists could only visit Antarctica in the summertime and there were only two research stations, located in the northernmost parts of the Antarctic Peninsula.
But tourists and research stations are two different things.
First, tourists often have the biggest impact on other ecosystems, such as wildlife, which most can’t survive without. Antarctica is a unique ecosystem, with many species not found on Earth.
As a result, researchers are very concerned that tourism may not only take away this unique habitat and biodiversity, but also open up a Pandora’s box of negative consequences for other communities in the Antarctic region.
Tourists tend to consume a lot, and the recent surge in Antarctic tourism shows no signs of slowing down. There is plenty of talk about ways to curb the impact, but so far few concrete solutions have been proposed.
It is possible to better manage tourism in Antarctica, but it requires the willingness to start discussions between local communities and visitors, and the effort to build new relationships.
Furthermore, we need to continue to study Antarctica’s interconnections with the world.
Gerald Frohlinger and I recently traveled to Antarctica to conduct a joint study for the European Commission. We found that some of the consequences we were measuring for climate change were related to other natural events, including submarine glaciers, westerly winds and even earthquakes.
While there was wide agreement that the Antarctic Treaty is an effective framework to promote research, it has been ignored when it comes to our biggest global crisis, climate change. A fundamental change in thinking is needed, and for good reason: Environmental issues transcend national borders.
As the Polar Institute at Oxford University noted in a paper about the COP26 meeting: “It is very unfortunate that, in the last week of July, no one made the point that ‘work’ in the Antarctic on climate is in fact an entirely domestic matter. Some serious, cross-border thinking is needed if it is to happen.”
• Erin Foulkes is an Antarctic expert and scientist at the Natural Environment Research Council.