"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

Lead on to Antarctica!

Roman pipes, Queen Elizabeth I's white make-up, HEAVINESS...there are many things that might spring to mind when you think about lead. But would you associate this element with Antarctica? I certainly didn't. But apparently lead found its way to the southern-most continent even before we did (McConnell et al., 2014).

Lead had reached Antarctica before Captain Roald Amundsen and
Captain Robert Falcon Scott famously raced to the South Pole in 1911...
Source: www.thesundaytimes.co.uk; Universal History Archive/Getty

Just as mercury is transported to the Arctic from the northern mid-latitudes (see last week's post), lead is transported to Antarctica from lower latitudes in the southern hemisphere (McConnell et al., 2014). 

In a study published earlier this year, McConnell et al. examined 16 ice cores across Antarctica in order to construct a 410 year record of lead pollution in the region. By looking at "lead concentration, enrichment and deposition flux", the authors were able to conclude that lead pollution existed in Antarctica as early as 1889, and that it still persists today (McConnell et al., 2014). 

By 1900, lead concentrations had reached up to 5.4 pg/g (compared to ~0.6 pg/g and ~1.8 pg/g in 1650 and 1885, respectively); 21st Century concentrations are lower, but still somewhat greater than pre-industrial levels (McConnell et al., 2014). Hmm...perhaps a different type of statistic would be easier to conceptualise: the authors estimate that ~660 tonnes of lead have been deposited on the continent over the last 130 years - that's pretty striking (McConnell et al., 2014). Not only that, but they can actually work out exactly where it's come from. Ooh. Grab your deerstalker, it's time for some detective work...

I've somehow managed to work Sherlock Holmes
into the post - I for one didn't see that coming. But seriously,
using isotopic ratios to trace the source of pollutants is good
detective work. Source: www.sherlock-holmes.co.uk

Isotopic ratios can tell us a lot about the source of lead pollution. By measuring Pb-206/Pb-207 isotopic ratios over time in nine ice cores, McConnell et al. (2014) were able to attribute the early lead pollution to just one source: the Port Pirie smelter in Australia. This site, which processes the Australian Broken Hill lead and silver ores, could be traced owing to the characteristically low isotopic ratio signature of the ore (McConnell et al., 2014). Interesting. Furthermore, the removal of lead from petrol in many countries in the southern hemisphere by 1996 could also be identified by looking at the ratios (McConnell et al., 2014).

Of course, there's more to Antarctic pollution than lead, just as there's more to Arctic pollution than mercury. But I was interested to investigate whether industrial pollution could also reach the interior of this vast, remote continent from the mid-latitudes, and this recent research provides evidence that it can.

Into the Arctic Haze...

How might increased Asian industrialisation lead to obesity in an Arctic indigenous population? Read on to find out!

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

Breathe in...breathe out...pure, clean, fresh Arctic air...mmmm...just what you want a bottle of when you're on the Tube. Yes?

Actually, it seems that the air in the Arctic might not be as detoxifying-ly lovely as I imagine it to be. Which is disappointing. It's also very worrying, in terms of the implications it holds for the Arctic ecosystem. 

The so-called 'Arctic haze' - which comprises particulate organic matter and sulphate, along with other compounds - is a tangible indication that all is not well with the Arctic atmosphere. Although it had been noticed previously, it wasn't until the 1970s that this mysterious smog was attributed to human industrial activities (Law & Stohl, 2007). But how does that work, when emissions in the Arctic region are relatively low? As discussed by Law and Stohl (2007), pollutants are transported to the Arctic from lower latitudes (such as Eurasia), where they then persist in the environment; the haze is particularly strong in the late Winter and early Spring when there is little precipitation to remove pollutants from the atmosphere. 

It's quite difficult to find a good picture of 'haze'! But I think this one does the job.
Source: www.redorbit.com

To be honest, we could be here for hours, talking about all the different components of the Arctic haze and their effects...Instead, let's focus on just one (but trust me, it's an important one): mercury.

Coal-burning is a major contributor to atmospheric mercury
pollution. Source: www.ft.com

While mercury is released into the environment via natural sources (for example through the weathering of rock and volcanic eruptions), it's no coincidence that emissions have risen steeply since the start of the industrial revolution (AMAP, 2011). Indeed, human activity accounts for approximately 30% of annual mercury emissions to the air (with an estimated 1960 tonnes released in 2010), compared to 10% from natural sources (UNEP, 2013). The remaining 60% can be explained by 're-emissions', the majority of which are also likely to be of anthropogenic origin (UNEP, 2013). Coal burning - which released 475 tonnes of mercury in a year (2010) - is an important source, however measures are being taken to reduce the amount of pollution produced during this process (UNEP, 2013). When looking at anthropogenic emissions, Asia is currently the largest contributor of mercury to the atmosphere, accounting for almost 50% (UNEP, 2013). Before I stop bombarding you with figures, it must also be remembered that mercury pollution is not restricted to the atmosphere: mercury concentrations in the top 100 metres of the ocean have increased two-fold over the last century owing to human emissions (UNEP, 2013).

So, although we intuitively know this probably isn't good for the planet, what does it actually matter? Well, seeing as this mercury is able to reach the Arctic in just a few days (when transported by air currents...it can take decades to be transported in the ocean), it has important consequences for the Arctic ecosystem (AMAP, 2011). 

A fluffy creature (or Vulpes lagopus to be more precise). Arctic
foxes are one of the species affected by mercury bioaccumulation.
Source: www.news.softpedia.com

Mercury can be found in many forms; in low oxygen environments (for example wetlands or the seabed) it is converted from an inorganic form to methylmercury, which is highly toxic (AMAP, 2011). Methylmercury is able to enter the food chain, where it then bioaccumulates, reaching levels in apex consumers that can be a million times greater than those in organisms at the bottom of the food chain (AMAP, 2011). This is obviously detrimental to these animals (which include the Arctic fox, polar bear and ringed seal), as demonstrated by the mercury-induced neurochemical effects observed in the toothed whale (Bocharova et al., 2013; AMAP, 2011). However, it also has implications for the Arctic indigenous populations that traditionally rely on these animals for food. In a problem known as the 'Arctic Dilemma', there must be a trade-off between the amount of mercury indigenous people are exposed to, and the nutritional benefits of these foods (AMAP, 2011). In order to limit their mercury intake, indigenous populations can be advised to eat alternative foods, but this can be damaging not only culturally but physically, since imported processed foods can increase the risk of heart disease and obesity...(AMAP, 2011).

So there we are, we've come full circle - that is how increased Asian industrialisation could lead to obesity in an Arctic indigenous population.