This House would cease exploitation of the Antarctic continent

It is little more than one hundred years since humans first set foot on Antarctica and even today few people have visited the frozen and hostile southern continent. Although nine countries have territorial claims on the continent, several of them overlapping, these political disagreements were suspended in The Antarctic Treaty of 1959. In the Treaty (covering all areas south of 60 degrees South Latitude), it was agreed that Antarctica should be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and that military activities would be prohibited. It also guaranteed continued freedom for scientific research and promoted international scientific cooperation (antarctica.ac.uk).

Successive treaties have built upon this foundation, providing strong protection for the Antarctic environment and strictly regulating fishing, for example. These culminated in the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. It prohibits mining, arguments over which caused the failure of a proposed Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA) in the late 1980s. CRAMRA would have potentially allowed future exploitation of Antarctic resources, subject to the agreement of all treaty signatories, but it ran into strong opposition from the international environmental movement, which convinced several of the treaty nations to refuse to sign it (sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu). Instead, the ‘Madrid Protocol’ was adopted in 1998, which designates Antarctica as a ‘natural reserve, devoted to peace and science’ and establishes environmental principles to govern the conduct of all activities (antarctica.ac.uk). Annexes to the treaty were added in 2002 and 2005. The treaty is treated as indefinite; however the prohibition can be modified at any time if all parties agree. If requested, after 50 years a review conference may decide to modify the mining prohibition, provided that at least ¾ of the current Consultative Parties agree, a legal regime for controlling mining is in force, and the sovereign interests of parties are safeguarded. Currently, no commercial drilling has been allowed to take place in Antarctica, so we are unsure of the level of resources, such as oil and gas, that it contains.

The proposal maintains it is right to maintain Antarctica purely as a ‘natural reserve, devoted to peace and science’ (antartica.ac.uk).

Points For	Points Against
Antarctica should be left undisturbed for scientific research	Antarctica’s resources can and should be used for the benefit and enjoyment of everyone, not just scientists
The potential environmental damage that would be caused by exploitation does not outweigh the benefits it might bring	Antarctica should be accessible to all
It is impractical to exploit Antarctica's natural resources	Mineral wealth
Exploiting Antarctica's resources would have a disastrous effect on its marine environment

Remember to choose a winning argument!

Antarctica should be left undisturbed for scientific research

Point

Antarctica is a pristine and unspoilt continent of great scientific value. In particular, it has a critical impact on the world's environment and ocean systems. Antarctic science has revealed much about the impact of human activity on the natural world. The discovery in 1985 by scientists at British Antarctic Survey (BAS) of the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica revealed the damage done to the Earth's atmosphere by man-made chemicals. This means that it must be left undisturbed, in order to allow further study of such critical international issues as climate change, ozone depletion, long-range weather forecasting and the operation of marine eco-systems (crucial to sustainable fishing). The very placement of mines that produce emissions on the continent may perhaps themselves affect the scientific readings, only by having Antarctica completely undisturbed can we guarantee the level of accuracy we now have.

Counterpoint

While scientific research is important, there may come a time when the need for resources exceeds the need for Antarctica to be left alone. Therefore perhaps we should consider continuing scientific research in Antarctica while also using the resources it has available. As Antarctica is such a large continent, it seems possible that mining for its resources can occur on one side of the continent, while the other half could be maintained for scientific research. The distances between each base would mean that hopefully neither would directly affect the others work too much. Furthermore, as the scientists would be actively working they would be able to notice if any abnormalities were occurring because of the exploitation of resources, and if this was the case could promote discussions between governments, miners and scientists in order to come to a new arrangement.

The potential environmental damage that would be caused by exploitation does not outweigh the benefits it might bring

Point

Opening Antarctica to exploitation would create a serious danger of pollution. This would arise both from oil or other spills and other spoilage that could potentially occur while drilling for resources; the means of transport used to get both workers and machines to Antarctica; and from the increased human presence. This pollution could then lead to disaster for Antarctica and the world in general, as it contributes to global warming. In Antarctica this may lead to the melting of ice caps, the breaking of ice sheets, which results in loss of habitat and food for creatures such as Penguins and Krill. It is believed that over 13,000 square kilometres of Antarctica’s ice has melted in the last 50 years, over the past five years, studies have found that melting Antarctic ice caps contribute at least 15% to the current global sea level rise of 2mm (0.08in) a year. Worldwide, the melting ice can lead to rising sea levels, and an increase in global temperature; In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted the average global sea level would rise by between 11cm (4.3in) and 77cm (30.3in) by 2100. The consequence of this is increased rainfall, increased risk of volcanic eruption, severe risk of flooding (particularly in areas such as Shanghai, Lagos, Texas and North Carolina), problems with farming, increased risk of tropical diseases and an increase in insect life (New Scientist, Natural Resources Defence Council, Cool Antarctica, SCAR, BBC News).

Counterpoint

These concerns are countered by the suggestions that by far the greatest impacts on the Antarctic are external, e.g. the impact of CFCs on the ozone layer over the south pole, global warming, the effects of whaling and pollution on the marine environment. Compared to these global influences, limited exploitation of Antarctic resources under strict environmental regulation will not make a significant difference.

A further implication is that scientists themselves are as damaging to Antarctica as anyone using its resources would be; that scientific research does leave a footprint in Antarctica. One example is the ‘ice highway’ the American National Science Foundation built in 2006 through the continent to the bases at the South Pole, or the waste products of the many scientific bases on the continent. This suggests that if a ban is to be placed on exploiting Antarctica’s resources because of the environmental risk, then scientific activity should also be banned in order to protect the environment.

It is impractical to exploit Antarctica's natural resources

Point

There are many reasons why oil and gas exploration should not be allowed in the Antarctic. Firstly, proven and probable reserves of oil and gas are still rising faster than global consumption, so there is no economic need to exploit any hypothetical Antarctic sources. Furthermore, the economics of exploiting Antarctica’s resources suggest that it would cost far more that current oil reserves. It is estimated by CoolAntarctica.com (2008) that each barrel of oil from Antarctica would cost USD$100, whereas current reserves of oil cost on average USD$77 a barrel. Also, at a practical level, the cost of exploration and production would be completely uneconomic, especially given the hostile climate and the serious iceberg threats to offshore rigs, tankers and pipelines, as well as the very deep continental shelf. The conditions would be even more difficult for more conventional mining onshore where the mining would need to go through the icecap.

Counterpoint

Oil and gas exploration should be allowed, both on the Antarctic continent and in the southern ocean surrounding it. Although current technology would not enable exploitation of any reserves at economic prices, future technological advances and rises in the price of fossil fuels may change this equation. Once, deep water extraction from the hostile North Sea or Arctic Oceans seemed impossible, but now these are taken for granted.

Exploiting Antarctica's resources would have a disastrous effect on its marine environment

Point

One of Antarctica’s sought after resources are its fish. Antarctica has suffered greatly from overfishing in its past; fur seals, elephant seals, and the great whales were all hunted to the brink of extinction. Now, as many other oceans have already been overfished, fishermen are once again turning to Antarctic waters, particularly for its Krill. Yet overfishing has dangerous consequences, not just for the fish itself; overfishing risks collapsing the fragile ocean ecology all together (National Geographic). One example of this is that if we overfish Krill then there is less food for the humpback whales that feed on krill. This could lead to a reduction in the amount of humpback whales that remain alive, and perhaps even an extinction of the species.

Counterpoint

The Antarctic oceans are under-exploited compared to all other fisheries. Quotas for different species are set very low by scientists sticking to very conservative precautionary principles, and could in most cases be greatly expanded without risk of over-fishing. Indeed, increased catch limits would remove much of the incentive for illegal fishing, and might reduce the pressure on other, less well-protected fisheries elsewhere. If fish stocks are found to be under pressure, then quotas can be reduced once again.

Antarctica’s resources can and should be used for the benefit and enjoyment of everyone, not just scientists

Point

There is a danger in allowing scientific elite to set the global agenda, without regard to either economic logic or democratic accountability. If the Antarctic can help to provide additional resources for a rapidly growing world population, then we should be able to have an intelligent debate about the costs and benefits involved. Many believe our prosperity depends upon cheap energy from fossil fuels, and it would be wrong to risk this by an arbitrary decision to declare the Antarctic off-limits to exploration.

Counterpoint

Antarctica presents an alternative to a world dominated by political disputes, economic exploitation and environmental destruction. Placing the southern continent in the care of scientists and out of reach of both politicians and multinational corporations has ensured it can be preserved unchanged for future generations. This provides a model and a precedent for future international cooperation and global efforts to save the planet.

Antarctica should be accessible to all

Point

Tourism should be greatly expanded to allow as many people as possible to visit this unique environment. Antarctica should be for all of humanity, not just for an elite few scientists who seek to deny others access while simultaneously demanding huge sums of money for their research projects. Revenues from tourism could in any case be taxed in order to offset the cost of scientific research. The International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators operates a strict code of practice to prevent damage to the environment, and concludes that ‘The benefits derived from responsible tourism, such as better knowledge and appreciation of the region are substantial’ (iaato.org). This suggests tourism could also promote environmental aims, as it would educate visitors about the importance of Antarctica and so help to influence environmental policy in many countries around the world.

Counterpoint

Access to Antarctica should be restricted to those with a serious scientific purpose. To suggest an example perhaps 27000 tourists are expected in 2014, mostly on cruise ships which call at Antarctic sites for just a few days, but this number is rising rapidly and some visitors are now undertaking adventurous activities such as ski-hiking, scuba-diving, snowboarding and mountaineering. Unchecked, this influx of people is greatly increasing the problems of waste management and their activities are having a negative impact on the coastal environment and its wildlife. Adventurous tourists will also need to be rescued by the authorities, diverting resources from science. The more vessels visiting the continent, the greater the chance of catastrophic oil spills or for rogue operators to neglect proper waste management (both already problems in the Alaskan cruise industry). Overall, tourism will create a precedent for economic exploitation that may make it harder to defend the unique status of the continent in the future.

Mineral wealth

Point

The Antarctic Protocol of 1991 should be amended to allow for the possibility of mineral prospecting. The failed CRAMRA Convention of the late 1980s would have allowed for this possibility subject to strict regulation and the agreement of all treaty nations; reasonable conditions which were rejected by environmental purists. Geological analogies with other continents suggest that several very valuable minerals may be present in Antarctica. If multinational companies are prepared to pay high prices to treaty governments for concessions, why should we turn down this source of revenue which could potentially be used to improve the lives of people in poverty? Almost all mining activity would be underground, so it would be little affected by the harsh environment and likely to have little adverse impact upon it.

Counterpoint

Antarctica must be protected from mineral exploitation and the 1991 Protocol upheld. There are no known mineral deposits on the continent, so the argument for exploitation is highly speculative, but it is nonetheless dangerous. Even just exploration would greatly damage the delicate environment, both physically and by greatly increasing the number of people disturbing the landscape and eco-system. Actual mineral extraction, with its spoil heaps, pollution, processing facilities and transport infrastructure would be hugely destructive. Politically, placing an economic value upon Antarctic claims would renew dangers of territorial conflict that have been frozen since the 1961 Treaty, and risk the whole system of international cooperation falling apart.

Voting Results

Bibliography

The Antarctic Treaty 1959, British Antarctic Survey: Natural Environment Research Council, http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_antarctica/geopolitical/treaty/update_1959.php (Last Accessed 06/09/2011)

Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (1991), British Antarctic Survey: Natural Environment Research Council, http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_antarctica/geopolitical/treaty/update_1991.php (Last Accessed 06/09/2011)

The Madrid Protocol, Australian Antarctic Division, http://www.antarctica.gov.au/antarctic-law-and-treaty/the-madrid-protocol (Last Accessed 06/09/2011)

Environmental Treaties and Resource Indicators (ENTRI), Socioeconomic Data and Applications Centre, http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/entri/texts/acrc/cramra.txt.html (Last Accessed 06/09/2011)

Tourism Overview, The International Association of Antarctic Tourism Operators, http://iaato.org/tourism_overview.html#stats (Last Accessed 06/09/2011)

Brahic, Catherine, ‘Melting Ice Caps May Trigger More Volcanic Eruptions’ (03/04/2008), New Scientist Online, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13583-melting-ice-caps-may-trigger-more-volcanic-eruptions.html (Last Accessed 06/09/2011)

Global Warming put the Antarctic on thin ice (22/11/2005), Natural Resources Defence Council, http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp (Last Accessed 06/09/2011)

Antarctic- Global Warming, Cool Antarctica, http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/global_warming.htm (Last Accessed 06/09/2011)

Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment (11/2009), Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/SCAR_ssg_ps/ACCE_25_Nov_2009.pdf(Last Accessed 06/09/2011)

‘Antarctica’s Ice is Melting Faster’, BBC News Online, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4228411.stm (Last Accessed 06/09/2011)

Owen, James, ‘Antarctic Wildlife at Risk from Overfishing, Experts Say’ (05/08/2003), National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/0805_030805_antarctic.html (Last Accessed 06/09/2011)

Debates

This House would cease exploitation of the Antarctic continent

This House would cease exploitation of the Antarctic continent

Antarctica should be left undisturbed for scientific research

Point

Counterpoint

The potential environmental damage that would be caused by exploitation does not outweigh the benefits it might bring

Point

Counterpoint

It is impractical to exploit Antarctica's natural resources

Point

Counterpoint

Exploiting Antarctica's resources would have a disastrous effect on its marine environment

Point

Counterpoint

Antarctica’s resources can and should be used for the benefit and enjoyment of everyone, not just scientists

Point

Counterpoint

Antarctica should be accessible to all

Point

Counterpoint

Mineral wealth

Point

Counterpoint

Voting Results

Bibliography

Further Reading

Curate this debate

Editor

Author

Discussions

Related Tags:

Debates

This House would cease exploitation of the Antarctic continent

This House would cease exploitation of the Antarctic continent

Antarctica should be left undisturbed for scientific research

Point

Counterpoint

The potential environmental damage that would be caused by exploitation does not outweigh the benefits it might bring

Point

Counterpoint

It is impractical to exploit Antarctica's natural resources

Point

Counterpoint

Exploiting Antarctica's resources would have a disastrous effect on its marine environment

Point

Counterpoint

Antarctica’s resources can and should be used for the benefit and enjoyment of everyone, not just scientists

Point

Counterpoint

Antarctica should be accessible to all

Point

Counterpoint

Mineral wealth

Point

Counterpoint

Voting Results

Bibliography

Further Reading

Curate this debate

Editor

Author

Related Debates

Discussions

Related Tags: