SOS

Hi everyone, today is my final post! Blogging about Antarctica has been incredibly insightful and I’ve enjoyed learning about a range of topics and ideas along the way. Also, apologies for the lengthy posts along the way, there was just so much I wanted to say about each topic! The aim of my blog was to shed light on the impacts that humans have had on Antarctica beyond climate (recall my first post). In this post, I’m going to summarise these impacts and come to some final conclusions which I hope my readers will take away from this blog.

Conclusions: Is Antarctica facing an SOS situation?

Recall that I posted up a short evaluation on 23 December where I wanted to take a step back to organise the findings of my blog and reflect on what I had written so far. This post will be an extension of this. Since the ‘Pause for Thought’ post, I introduced two new topics: scientific research stations and waste, and the hole in the ozone layer. In my blog, I have been keeping tabs on which impacts have a negative impact on Antarctica and which have a positive or natural effect. As this is the last post, I can now present the final score, which is 7-5. This means that, of the topics looked at, humans have been responsible for more negative than positive impacts. I know you’re probably reading this thinking, ‘I could have told you so…’ But I wanted to explore these effects in detail to discover what is actually happening and to what extent humans are responsible. In summary, this blog has shown that human intervention in Antarctica is for economic reasons (e.g. krill fishing), scientific reasons (e.g. research stations), leisure (e.g. tourism) and convenience (e.g. the use of CFCs).

A key conclusion I have reached from my blog is that the global system is so complex that often it difficult to distinguish between what is human and what is natural. This makes it hard to allocate blame for a problem that is observed in Antarctica. For example, when I looked at the collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf and declining krill population, I also presented natural causes that can be used to explain these events. Also, regarding the ozone hole, the true effect of CFCs on ozone may be hard to distinguish from the effect of climate on ozone (for example changes in the Arctic Oscillation). This means that it is a challenge to understand the extent that climate affects ozone levels and the extent that CFCs affect ozone levels.

Another conclusion I can draw is that even though regulations are trying to limit human impacts, the effect of human actions prior to regulation is on-going and regulations don't change this. This means that long term protection is achieved while in the short term, the environment must face the consequences of our actions. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Well it’s bad that the environment continues to suffer even though we have limited our harmful actions. However, regulation is producing a ‘short term costs over long term benefits’ type of situation. This means that long term benefits could outweigh the negative impacts from human intervention in Antarctica. So in the future, perhaps the score board will look different.

Furthermore, one specific human action doesn’t just have one specific impact on Antarctica. There are many indirect effects that may often be unprecedented and this exaggerates the impact that humans are having on Antarctica. For instance, recall my post about the effect of a whaling ban on the food chain and krill/ penguin populations. Additionally, tourist ships are bringing invasive species into Antarctica, but these invasive species can sometimes bring diseases which can infect native animals like penguins. Tourist ships can also create oil spills. This is an unexpected result because it is not a consequence of the tourists themselves; rather it’s a consequence of bringing the tourism industry into Antarctica. These examples highlight the interconnectedness of Antarctic native animals with the ecosystem.

I hope you can hear the SOS call coming from Antarctica as I have throughout the past three months. I want to end this post with a note about a term I mentioned at the start of my blog. I referred to 'the Anthropocene' as a new geological epoch that describes the way that humans have affected this planet (see my Melting Ice – Larsen B post). By analysing the impact on Antarctica, the most remote, unique and wonderful location in the world, I have discovered that humans are everywhere, not just in population terms, but in aura. The presence of humans is truly felt everywhere and my opinion is that anyone who denies the use of this term should reconsider once they have read this blog!

There’s a Hole in the Ozone Layer, Dear Liza, Dear Liza

A blog about the human impacts on Antarctica would be incomplete without a post or two concerning the hole in the ozone layer. This is perhaps the most well-known human impact on the continent. Furthermore, this blog has so far considered the human impacts on the ground or on the marine environment. The atmospheric effects are also significant. 

The ozone layer lies between the stratosphere and the troposphere. The reason this layer is useful to us is that ozone molecules absorb ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the Sun and therefore protect us from the harmful effects of excessive UV radiation exposure (Martin and Hine, 2014, in ‘A Dictionary of Biology’).

The hole in the ozone layer was discovered by Farman et al. (1985). The authors collected data at the Halley Bay research station from 1957 to 1984 and, by using spectrophotometers, discovered that the ozone layer was depleting in spring (which is from September to November). The cause of ozone depletion was found to be a chemical reaction that occurs between chlorine and bromine atoms, that originate from chlorofluorocarbons, and ozone (Molina and Rowland, 1974). Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were invented in the 1920s and commercially manufactured in the 1930s (The Ozone Hole, 2014). CFCs were used as cleaning solvents, in fire extinguishers, in aerosols and as refrigerants in air conditioning units (Tsai, 2014:883, in ‘Encyclopedia of Toxicology’). They were desirable because they possessed beneficial properties, including the fact that they were nontoxic and non-flammable. 

Molina and Rowland found that the reaction takes place in the presence of UV radiation. According to the NOAA (2008), during the Antarctic winter, ‘stratospheric ice clouds (PSCs, polar stratospheric clouds) form when temperatures drop below -78C. These clouds are responsible for chemical changes that promote production of chemically active chlorine and bromine’. During the winter, there is no sunlight in Antarctica. Thus, when spring arrives and the sun appears, chlorine and bromine molecules react with ozone molecules, causing it to break down. This is what creates a hole in the ozone layer during the spring. The reason why Antarctica in particular is subject to ozone depletion more than, say, the Arctic, is that cold temperatures are required for the reaction (Solomon, 2004). Figure 1 shows the monthly mean total ozone levels at Halley Bay in October, the middle of spring when ozone depletion occurs, from 1957 to 1984. The figure shows spring ozone depletion starting from the mid-1960s. CFCs have caused the ozone layer to deplete by as much as 50% (Smith et al. 1992) not just in spring, but in the winter as well (Rowland, 1986). The human invention of CFCs has therefore been the sole contribution to ozone depletion. 

Figure 1. Monthly mean total ozone levels at Halley Bay in October from 1957 to 1984. Source: Farman et al. (1985)

Effects

Without the protective shield from the ozone layer, more UV radiation reaches the Earth. For humans, greater exposure to UV can have severe health effects, such as increasing the likelihood of developing skin cancer (Norval et al. 2011), damage to DNA (Herrlich et al. 1992) and eye damage (Longstreth et al. 1995).

But I think it would be more relevant to focus on the effects of ozone depletion on species living in Antarctica. For instance, it has been observed that marine phytoplankton and diatoms have experienced DNA damage due to greater UV exposure (Buma et al. 2001). Furthermore, Smith et al. (1992) discovered that, in the Bellingshausen Sea (for a map of its location, see this post), a greater concentration of UV radiation is hindering photosynthesis which in turn is preventing the growth of phytoplankton. These findings illustrate how the marine ecosystem is negatively affected by the hole in the ozone layer. More specifically, phytoplankton is affected negatively. The importance of phytoplankton is illustrated by the food chain from my post from 29 November. Krill and penguins feed on phytoplankton. This shows how ozone depletion affects the food chain and therefore causes a change in the marine ecology of Antarctica. Additionally, this highlights that although ozone depletion happens in the stratosphere, there are indirect terrestrial effects observed as well.

Figure 2. Marine phytoplankton

I shall end this post with a short video to summarise the hole in the ozone layer, i.e. the key findings, the mechanism, the treaty…etc. It is presented by Shanklin, who co-discovered the hole in the ozone layer.

Next week, I will explore the subsequent regulation that followed from this discovery and its success at restoring the ozone layer. The updated score is 7-4, negative impacts seem to be taking the lead! 

Regulation Regulation Regulation

Is Montreal enough?

Are the Montreal Protocol and the general principles highlighted in Box 1 (from my post on Friday 14 November 2014) enough to remedy the potential negative wildlife impacts from tourism? This post is a discussion post where I will pick out and critically analyse some issues that I feel should be addressed going forward from the Montreal Protocol. You may also be pleased to know that this will be my final post about tourism!

The treaty has been criticised because there is no enforcement mechanism and because the tourism principles are non-binding (Lamers et al. 2012). There needs to be an enforcement mechanism otherwise governments will not take the principles seriously because they have nothing to lose if wildlife is negatively affected in Antarctica. Also, tourist companies need incentives to act to protect Antarctica. Without incentives created by governments, companies will feel relaxed about the limits because the short term gains are large and so they too lose nothing by disobeying the principles. Legally binding agreements and enforcement mechanisms are likely to make the Protocol more effective to help keep Antarctica in ecological equilibrium with minimal wildlife impact.

On a national scale, Argentina will lose out on tax revenues if business activities are restricted and Argentine tourist companies’ profits will fall. Tour companies that have to introduce mechanisms to reduce long-term degradation will incur costs, and revenues could fall if such mechanisms also add restrictions on tourist numbers. Because of this, profits will fall and so government tax revenues will also fall. The growth rate of the Argentine economy is currently 0.9% and over the past 20 years, the average growth rate has been only 0.84% (Trading Economics, 2014). These figures show that the Argentine government can greatly value the additional income that tourist companies generate for the country. Therefore if there is no enforcement mechanism, the government may be unwilling to act to ensure that the principles are met since this costs the economy. As can be seen, there is a strong economic element involved in regulating the Antarctic. In my opinion there should be an enforcement mechanism to encourage greater action to meet the goals the environmental standards proposed in Box 1 from my post on Friday 14 November 2014.

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA)

Annex One makes it a legal requirement for tour companies to conduct an EIA. The document must describe the scale of tourism and the impacts that these tourists are expected to have. Furthermore, tour companies must outline how they are going to limit these impacts. There is a wide range of literature on whether EIAs actually improve conservation efforts. If risks have been identified and the company has included methods to mitigate against them, this does not necessarily mean that the environment is healthier than it was before the intervention. In other words, the environment will be healthier without tourism and human interference altogether because a set of mitigation rules mean reducing the impact, not necessarily avoiding it. This is my general critique of EIAs.

Secondly, Lyons (1993) argues that the language used in the Annex means that the “appropriate” level of assessment is open to interpretation. Annex One includes phrases such as “a minor or transitory impact”, “detrimental changes” and “significant changes”, which are vague and therefore each tour company and government are free to choose their own definitions of these phrases. This also makes it easier for them to make an excuse about why tourism activities have higher environmental impacts than the Protocol set. For example, a tour company can simply point out to the countries in the Antarctic Treaty that their definition of detrimental is more extreme and in their view, introducing one or two invasive species is not classified as “detrimental”. The vague wording therefore reduces the effectiveness of the Protocol.

Also, because of vague description of standards, Kriwoken and Rootes (2000) mention that it’s difficult to determine what should and shouldn't be measured as an impact of tourism. What this means is that there needs to be quantitative standards that allow tour operators to measure and monitor the exact impacts so they can better understand how they can adhere to the regulatory standards.

Sum up

The treaty doesn't signal to me that Antarctica is in safe hands. The lack of clarity in the wording of the actual treaty has to be addressed. Despite Bauer’s view that the Protocol is a barrier to future tourism development (1994), I feel that they are not strong enough because they have no binding or enforcing mechanism. This means that the environmental and wildlife problems arising from tourism will persist and we need more regulation regulation regulation.

Next time I move on to the effects that humans have had on Antarctic krill.

Holidaying in Antarctica II

This post is about even more impacts that tourism has had on the Antarctic environment.

Oil Spills

Oil spills that have occurred in Antarctica have never been of the same magnitude as oil spills that occur from oil pipe leakages such as the BP oil spill in 2010, where 210 million gallons of crude oil was spilt (The Telegraph, 2011), or the Little Buffalo oil spill in Canada that occurred in 2011, spilling more than 800,000 gallons (Yahoo News, 2014). Nevertheless, this does not mean that they don’t have severe consequences when they occur. If anything, oil spills have an even worse effect because marine life here is much less adaptable and rarer. 

When ships travel down to Antarctica they sometimes have oil spills. The frequency of oil spills is shown in table 1, along with a summary of their impacts on wildlife.

Source: Aronson et al. (2011)

From the table, it is clear that oil spills in Antarctica don’t happen as often as the spills that appear in the news from drilling sites. Over the past 30 years, Aronson et al. (2011) seem to report just five spills. Interestingly, all of the reported oil spills have occurred during Antarctica’s summer, confirming that these are impacts from tourism. Some of these oil spills had no reported effects, demonstrating that there should be no concern about tourism related oil spills, right?

Not quite! The reason why oil spills in Antarctica are problematic is that Antarctica does not have infrastructure to deal with oil spills properly. They don’t have infrastructure to undertake large scale clean-up operations or clean up oil soaked mammals. Moreover it is difficult to conduct these operations because of harsh conditions during the winter. Because of this, the effects of large oil spills can have long run impacts of marine and terrestrial wildlife.

Bahia Paraiso

The largest oil spill that happened was when the Bahia Paraiso tourist ship sank, carrying 130 tourists (but luckily they all evacuated just before the sinking!). The wildlife impacts of this spill were significant. The South Polar Skua, pictured in figure 1, is a sea bird found prominently in Antarctica. Antarctica is the bird’s natural habitat. Following the oil spill in 1989, the mortality rate among this bird species increased sharply and remained high while the oil was present. This could have been because the birds feed on krill and fish, both of these were chemically contaminated as a result of the spill. Young chicks were affected the most, with all of the chicks of a sample of 53 nests dying during the spill in December (Eppley and Rubega, 1990).  One reason for this was that parents had been fouled by the diesel oil when they went out looking for food in oil slicks (where fish and krill are found). Because of this, they spent more time away from their nests to bathe in freshwater ponds before returning to their nests. In the meantime this left young chicks unprotected and vulnerable to attack by other skuas. This affect was widespread and affected the entire population.

Figure 1: South Polar Skua

Other effects of this oil spill include the transfer of oil from parents to young or from prey to predator; changes in food availability due to effects on other populations and toxicity resulting in mortality of Adélie penguins. 

So the bottom line is that oil spills are catastrophic to wildlife in Antarctica and wouldn’t even happen if it wasn’t for all those tourists and tourist companies making careless mistakes. The new score is negative impacts: 3, positive/natural impacts: 1.

Again, I understand this post may be slightly depressing, so I would like to end with a few positive points. I came across the ytravel blog which includes a page about Antarctica. Along with a great selection of photos of Antarctica, it also includes a list of reasons to visit Antarctica! It can be accessed by clicking here. Also, my next post will be about how Antarctic treaties and international laws are trying to protect Antarctica – it’s not all doom and gloom! Until then, I’m going to leave you with a short video to brighten up this post, illustrating why we should celebrate the wildlife in Antarctica. Although note - it seems that some of the clips were videoed by tourists!

Edit: If you would like to know more about tourism in Antarctica, Fiona has a wonderful post about it and also gives her perspective on tourism. Here is a link to her blog.