(Not) The End

I can't believe we've reached the end of our polar expedition!

We've explored a whole range of topics, from the impact of climate change on the polar regions, to the issues of pollution and resource exploitation, to the consequences of polar tourism. What's struck me is how differently the Arctic and Antarctic regions have responded to some of these impacts (for example, sea ice is disappearing in the north, but expanding in some areas of the Antarctic). Of course, there are many similarities between the regions too, such as their vulnerability to pollution. 

I've also found it interesting how some of the human impacts link together. For example, melting Arctic sea ice has led to increased opportunities for oil drilling (and therefore potential pollution issues) and tourism. 

I hope that you've enjoyed reading my blog, and that you've learnt something about the way in which humanity is impacting upon the polar regions. If nothing else, maybe it's helped you to answer more questions on University Challenge than usual (an added bonus, I've found). Above all, hopefully it's inspired you to find out more about the polar regions and their relationship with mankind. After all, this may be the end of my blog (for now!), but many of the issues we've discussed are only going to become more prominent in the future. 

So, I'll say goodbye for the moment, and leave you with this video. It shows why the polar regions need to be protected, highlighting their importance as a habitat for wildlife. Also, it's just plain cute. 

Ready to Pack Your Suitcase?

Last time we had a look at your responses to my polar tourism poll, and I was quite surprised at the general enthusiasm it revealed...Of course, it's brilliant that people want to learn about these regions, but what's the real impact of tourism at the poles?

Throughout this blog we've been making comparisons between the Arctic and Antarctica. In terms of tourism - just as with many of the topics we've discussed - there are similarities and differences between the two regions. Let's start off with a bit of history...

Tourism in the Arctic began MUCH earlier than in Antarctica, with people journeying to the far north as long ago as the early-1800s (GRID-Arendal, 2014). In the mid-1800s there was a boom in the market, with the rapid expansion of Arctic transportation networks, and tourism here has been increasing ever since (GRID-Arendal, 2014). In contrast, the first tourists did not arrive in Antarctica until over a century later, in 1957 (GRID-Arendal, 2014). Mind you, they've been doing a bit of catching-up lately, with a 430% increase in ship-borne tourists between 1993-2007, and a 757% increase in the number of visitors making landfall between 1997-2007 (UNEP, 2007).
                                                                                   

People want to visit the Arctic for a range of reasons, including
participation in activities such as this...
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

So how exactly does this tourism affect the polar regions? According to GRID-Arendal, it has environmental, cultural and economic implications, some of which vary between the two regions. The following is discussed in their report on polar tourism (GRID-Arendal, 2014):

The Arctic:

Tourist ships pose a threat to the Arctic environment, in terms of the potential for an accident and resultant oil-spill. Even without such a drastic scenario, increased ocean traffic leads to noise and water pollution, with implications for marine wildlife. On land, groups of tourists can also have an environmental impact, for example through trampling of vegetation and noise-disturbance. The noise produced by helicopters can also be disruptive, and is particularly damaging to bird populations, with panic-flights sometimes causing egg loss. 

Economic implications can be both positive and negative. For example, local people often benefit from the increased employment opportunities associated with tourism, and see it as a reliable form of income. Furthermore, local businesses profit when visitor numbers are high. However, the cost of maintaining the facilities used by tourists should not be underestimated. These include the more obvious examples of transport and accommodation, but also requirements such as the emergency services and waste-disposal facilities. What needs to be considered is if the financial benefits outweigh the costs. It is also important to remember that a significant amount of the money spent by tourists goes to external companies, as opposed to the local people.

Culturally, tourism can again be both beneficial and harmful. On the one hand, tourism could be integral in the preservation of many traditions, with visitors keen to hear native languages and experience local customs. On the other hand, vast numbers of tourists can overwhelm small communities, and limited resources may lead to friction between local and visiting hunters.

Looks pretty nice? But what are the consequences of this form
of tourism? Source: www.coolgeography.co.uk

The Antarctic:

One of the main differences between the Arctic and Antarctica, as previously discussed, is that nobody lives permanently on Antarctica. As such, tourism here has no impact - positive or negative - on local people. Nevertheless, those that do live on the southernmost continent (namely scientific researchers) can be affected by tourism. For example, they can be called upon in emergency situations, such as search-and-rescue missions. This is obviously dangerous, and disturbs research projects.

Financially, tourism in Antarctica is unsupported. The same facilities as discussed above (such as waste-disposal and the emergency services) are still required, yet there are no permanent sources of funding to maintain them. Money spent by tourists generally goes to the tour operators, yet money is required to lay the foundations for sustainable tourism.

Lastly, tourism in the Antarctic has a profound environmental impact. Just as in the Arctic, ships can cause noise and water pollution; here, cetaceans are particularly under threat from human activity. Again, tourists can have a detrimental effect on bird colonies and vegetation cover. Nevertheless, under the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (that we looked at before Christmas), tour operators must provide environmental impact assessments before their journeys. 

So, would you still go?

After all that, would you consider a trip to the poles? There seem to be quite a few benefits associated with Arctic tourism - particularly for local people - and, if people are respectful of the environment and local communities (i.e. if it is ecotourism) it could be a good idea. Furthermore, tourism is an excellent way of educating people about an area, which could encourage them to become involved in conservation initiatives (GRID-Arendal, 2014). This obviously applies to both the Arctic and Antarctica. However, as much as I'd love to visit Antarctica, I don't think I would as a tourist. There, in my opinion, the environmental and economic costs seem to outweigh the benefits. 

For your information, here's a link to a document about Arctic tourism produced by WWF. It's got some useful advice about how the region can be visited in a way that benefits local communities, and has minimal impact on the environment.  

Anyone Fancy A Holiday?

Happy New Year everybody! I hope you all had a wonderful Christmas...I personally received more than one polar-themed gift (including the adoption of five Adélie penguins!), so am very happy!

Is anyone experiencing some post-Christmas blues, though? You know, it's January...it's back-to-work time...you're miserably failing your New Year's resolutions...the last mince pie's been eaten. Sorry, that's probably not making you feel much better. So how about a holiday? Come to think of it, why not a holiday to the Arctic? Or Antarctica for that matter? After all, there have been enough cute pictures of polar bears and penguins wearing woolly hats recently, you'd be crazy not to want to see to them first-hand!

This brings us nicely onto the moment you've all been waiting for - that's right, the results of our polar tourism poll... Time to see what you'd really think about a polar holiday. 

I must admit, I'm actually quite surprised by the results. I naïvely thought that a lot of people would say 'no way' to a polar holiday, preferring to spend their free-time relaxing on a nice sunny beach...In fact, only 12% (3/25) of you said 'absolutely no way!' to a holiday in the Arctic, and a tiny 5% (1/20) of you said you wouldn't go to Antarctica. Interesting - it seems there is indeed a market for tourism in these regions...

Yep, I can see why you voted as you did...This shows the
aurora borealis (northern lights) over the Lyngan Alps, Norway, in January 2012.
Source: www.news.nationalgeographic.com

Amongst those of you who said 'yes' to a polar holiday, the split between those who would go under any circumstances, and those who would go only if it was ecotourism, is very even. For the Arctic, equal numbers of you voted for each of these options (44%/11 people for each). In the Antarctic poll, 50% of you (10 people) said you'd 'grab any chance' to go, compared to 45% of you (9 people) saying you'd only go if it was ecotourism. 

I'm pleased that so many people are showing enthusiasm about these beautiful places. Mind you, a significant proportion of people said they'd go even if it wasn't ecotourism (tourism with limited environmental impact), which is a little worrying. What actually is the impact of tourism on these regions? Is it beneficial or harmful? Can it be both? Next time, we're going to finish off our polar journey by taking a look at these questions. I wonder if any of you would change your poll response after reading it...?

Get Your Votes In!

Very soon we're going to be taking a look at tourism in the polar regions. Would you ever fancy a trip to the Arctic? Maybe a holiday to Antarctica is more your thing? Let me know by filling in the poll on the right...I'm looking forward to seeing the results! 

"A natural reserve, devoted to peace and science"

Merry Christmas!!

'Tis the season to be jolly, so I've got an uplifting post for you today (makes a nice change, I know...).

Last week we looked at oil drilling in the Arctic, through the eyes of two very different parties - Greenpeace and Shell. So, you know what's next - we need to take a look at Antarctica!

The good news is, all exploitation of oil, gas and mineral resources is prohibited under the Antarctic Treaty (ATS, 2013). This came into effect on 23rd June 1961, after being signed by 12 countries on 1st December 1959 (NERC-BAS, 2014). A total of 50 countries have now acceded to the Treaty (ATS, 2013). 

The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) comprises the original Treaty in addition to three further international agreements. One of these - 'The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty' (signed in Madrid, 1991) - has the aim of maintaining Antarctica as "a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science" (ATS, 2013). This agreement came into effect in 1998, with Article 7 placing a ban on "any activity relating to mineral resources, other than scientific research" (NERC-BAS, 2014). Only a unanimous decision of all Consultative Parties - accompanied by "a binding legal regime on Antarctic resource activities" - could alter this agreement, up until 2048 (ATS, 2013, NERC-BAS, 2014). 

Even without the Treaty, mineral exploitation in Antarctica would be dangerous, difficult and highly expensive (Department of the Environment, Australian Antarctic Division). Mining here is therefore an unattractive prospect, in stark contrast to what we have seen in the Arctic...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, here's an early Christmas present for you... Click on the link to unwrap it!

Source: www.animalsplannet.com

To Drill or Not to Drill?

If you type 'Drilling in the Arctic' into Google, the first two search results are pretty interesting, in that they tell opposing sides of the same story:

"Save the Arctic|Stop Arctic Drilling!" (Greenpeace)

"Shell in the Arctic - Shell Global" (Shell)

The exploitation of resources in the polar regions is another way in which humanity is impacting upon these areas. However, this is a complex issue, with political, social and economic implications. As such, I thought it would be interesting to examine Arctic drilling by looking at the views of both Greenpeace and Shell, provided in these top two search results. 

A Greenpeace protester at the Statoil
drilling rig. Source: greenpeaceblogs.org

Greenpeace

The Greenpeace website starts with a petition, which currently has 6,140,421 signatures, which includes a request for a ban on oil drilling in Arctic waters. 

While oil drilling has multiple implications for the Arctic environment, the focus here is on the risk of an oil spillage. Greenpeace describes Shell and Gazprom as "reckless companies" who are "risking a devastating oil spill for only three years' worth of oil". They also argue that an oil spill is an inevitable consequence of drilling, and therefore "not a question of if - but when". Of particular concern is that oil could leach undetected into surrounding ice, causing damage before the problem is found and rectified. 

Shell

Shell's 'Let's Go' advertising campaign. Source: www.shell.com

Switching to the Shell website, the company seems acutely aware of this concern. I must admit, I was expecting their headline to be a justification of oil drilling in the Arctic, perhaps followed by a list of its benefits. Instead, the focus seems to be on responding to the issues raised by organisations such as Greenpeace.

Under "Oil Spill Prevention and Response", Shell discuss the ways in which they are mitigating the risk of an oil spill, for example by employing technologies which can detect a drop in pipe-line pressure. They also state that they are "ready to respond to a spill within 60 minutes, 24 hours a day". Furthermore, they provide information about a research programme aimed at investigating potential ways of cleaning-up after an oil spill, carried out with SINTEF - a Norwegian research institute. 

The website also has a link to a page entitled 'Protecting Biodiversity', which gives information regarding efforts to investigate the impact of oil drilling on the Arctic ecosystem. Here they highlight their collaborations with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Wetlands International. Another page, 'Respecting our Neighbours', discusses the benefits of oil drilling to local people, for example through increased job opportunities.

So Who's Right?

In this post I've provided a quick summary of some of the points made on the Greenpeace and Shell websites...I'd be really interested to see what your view is on the topic! Of course, when forming an opinion, it is necessary to examine a whole range of sources - including neutral ones.

This entry has proved pretty timely, with Chevron Canada announcing only yesterday that it is withdrawing plans to explore the Beaufort Sea (CBC News, 2014). While this is for economic reasons, it obviously came as good news to organisations such as Greenpeace...

I'll leave you with a spoof image of Shell's 'Let's Go' advertising campaign, which encapsulates the general feeling towards Arctic drilling that is held by many people...

One of many parodies of Shell's 'Let's Go' advertising campaign.
Source:www.treehugger.com

Almost a Field Trip...

There was a polar bear...there were wolves...it was very, very cold. OK, I might not have actually made it to the Arctic this year (ahem, actually only to Hyde Park), but the Magical Ice Kingdom at Winter Wonderland did have a very polar feel!

Beautiful ice wolves. Credit: F.Jones

Scary ice polar bear! Credit: F. Jones