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!

Pause for Thought

Since I started this blog three months ago, I have covered a wide range of topics. Given this and the enormity of this subject, I thought that this post should summarise the main findings so far.

Here is a summary of the key points and conclusions:

• Different parts of Antarctica are being affected differently. It is easy to consider Antarctica as one unified system which is affected the same when things happen because the whole continent looks homogeneous. For example, “Larsen B has collapsed, quick! We have to find a way to stop the whole continent from melting!” In reality, ice sheets in Antarctica are complex to understand because they are affected by climate change, ocean circulations…etc. The Bipolar Sea-saw Pattern can help explain one part of the observed sea ice changes, however it is only a contributing factor out of many.
• Tourism is a recent phenomenon and as tourist numbers continue to increase, and they will do in the future, animals are being affected in different ways. But the extent that they are affected differs between species. Tourism also has indirect impacts which are just as damaging to the environment, for example oil spills.
• International organisations such as the UN try to create treaties to regulate Antarctica. I have analysed regulation in terms of tourism and found that there are flaws in them. In my view tougher restrictions are required if the environment is to remain unaltered by human actions. Furthermore, regulation can have negative and positive impacts on animals in Antarctica, for example, whaling bans, krill and penguins. It is unlikely that international organisations foresee these indirect food chain effects and this reduces the impact of regulation.
• Krill are immensely important in the Antarctic food chain but fishing activities may be jeopardising them. However, it is difficult to understand whether krill populations are reacting to fishing or natural changes in sea ice extent caused by La Niña. Because of this, separating natural impacts and human impacts is more complex than it seems. 
• Fishing is harmful for fur seals and other mammals because debris lost in the ocean creates entanglement.
• Regulation seems to be the only way that humans are trying to make amends. It seems that banning happens less often.

My Thoughts

Furthermore, I would like to use this as an opportunity to evaluate what I have posted so far, giving my thoughts on what I think I have done well and not so well.

• Diversity: I have tried to include a range of case studies throughout the blog to make it more interesting, drawing on different animals and explaining the different effects where ever I can. For instance, my discussions have drawn on fur seals, Adélie penguins, Gentoo penguins, krill, South Polar Skua…etc. I also want to point out that it has been an enjoyable experience learning about these wonderful animals!
• Geographical dispersion: I have tried to include case studies from different parts of Antarctica to illustrate what’s happening everywhere. This has been supplemented with maps (see below). Antarctica is a large continent and different regions are affected by different activities. Having said this, I believe I have focussed on west side of Antarctica more than the east side. While writing and researching, I have discovered that there is little literature on the east side of Antarctica which is the main reason why. Perhaps this is because eastern Antarctica is less accessible than the west side so research tends to be focussed here.
• Maps: I understand that naming Antarctic islands, ice sheets and seas could be confusing and hold little meaning if no one knows where they are. So where I can, I have places maps throughout the blog and highlighted where my case study locations are. Hopefully I haven’t created an overload, but I feel they are necessary!
• Balance: I have given a balanced view of the impacts throughout the blog, presenting arguments for natural causes as well as human impacts.

Is it S.O.S Antarctica?

The name of my blog suggests that, because of the human impacts, Antarctica is sending a distress signal, asking humans to leave it alone! So far, I have been counting the negative and postive/ natural impacts and they currently stand at 5-3 to negative impacts. Perhaps the continent is in trouble... In my last post I will attempt to answer the above question based on my previous posts and the total score.

Finally I wish to explain what the next few topics are. In this final month or so, I aim to discuss:

• The impact of research stations on Antarctica. Yes research has discovered ways to correct human impacts, but are there any negative impacts?

• The Ozone layer. So far I have focussed on terrestrial and marine impacts, but what about the atmospheric impact?

Thank you for reading, until next week, I’ll end with this cartoon to prepare for the next post. 

 Figure 1. The impact of research