Penguins and coal are symbols

Press, 2 November 1989, Page 15

Penguins and coal are symbols

ROBIN McKIE

and

ANDREW SPICER

report on the recent British debate over the

Antarctic’s future. Opponents of the British-ratified minerals convention say it will —-—open up the icebound continent to future damage.

British scientists made a strange discovery last January while inspecting the environmental impact of Antarctic research stations. They found that the country’s abandoned base at Port Lockroy had been broken into. A pile of coal had been stolen. The culprits were eventually traced: a local colony of gentoo penguins. “Anthracite nuts, old fuel for a Nissen hut stove, were just the right size for penguin nests, which gentoos normally build out of stones,” says one scientist, Dr John Heap. “They carted them off, one at a time in their beaks, to build their nests several hundred yards away. It must have taken thousands of penguin hours to strip the hut of coal. At least the anthracite went to good use, though.” The tale has a daffy, endearing quality. It also has its symbolic importance, as Dr Heap, head of the Foreign Office’s polar regions section, acknowledges. "You could say the story shows man’s influence on Antarctic ecology is really fairly slight — if not beneficial. “On the other hand, you could equally say we were lucky. The penguins could just as easily have stumbled on something harmful and wiped themselves out.”

Such disparate interpretations indicate how opinions can differ about the continent. Ahtar'ctica could soon be opened to oil prospecting, which many fear could spell its doom. Australia — along with France, Greenpeace, wildlife experts, and many others — believes prospecting could trigger the devastation of the pure, pol-lution-free conditions that have made Antarctica vital to a proper understanding of our planet. They want the continent declared a sanctuary, a pristine laboratory for monitoring global pollution and protecting wildlife. The minerals convention would allow countries for the first time to prospect for oil and oil deposits, although they could not exploit them. But without the signatures of Australia and France, two of the 33 nations interested in the Antarctic, the convention will collapse, says Tim Eggar, the Junior Foreign Minister who piloted the British legislation, “resulting in an Antarctic free-for-all. They

are not protecting Antarctica, they are endangering it.” He says the countries could simply sign the convention and veto any other country’s mining plans in the future and “effectively create a sanctuary. This behaviour is just a gesture — and a very dangerous one.” The Antarctic’s history has always been controversial. Even its discovery — claimed by America, Russia and Britain — is disputed. Most academics reckon a Russian, Fabian Bellingshausen, has the strongest claim. Discovery in 1820 was followed by exploration in the early 1900 s when Robert Scott and Ernest Shackleton led expeditions into the continent’s interior, although both were beaten to the South Pole by the Norwegian, Roald Amundsen. Modern Antarctic politics were

shaped during World War 11. A threat posed by Nazi warships in the South Atlantic prompted the Royal Navy to closely monitor north Antarctica. On one visit to Deception Island, naval officers discovered a brass cylinder left by Argentine visitors, who claimed the peninsula for Buenos Aires. Incensed, the British hoisted the Union Jack and returned the cylinder to the Argentine Government with a rude note. Reaction was swift — Argentina. sent a rude note back. This galvanised Britain, which was already frightened that a proGerman Argentine Government might gain control of both sides ' of the vital Drake Passage linking Atlantic and Pacific sea routes. As a result, Britain set up a Deception Island base. Britain continued its presence after the

war, causing Argentina and Chile to follow suit. By the 19505, Norway, Australia, France, New Zealand, Chile, Great Britain and Argentina had established competing territorial claims to the Antarctic ice cap. Other countries, including the Soviet Union and the United States, rejected any concept of national ownership. To put an end to growing tensions, the Antarctic Treaty System was created. A moratorium was declared on military or commercial development, but the new minerals convention ends that moratorium. It is this prospect of even limited despoiling that has divided Antarctic experts, including the sons of Ernest Shackleton and Robert Scott. Lord Shackleton, a former deputy chairman of mining company R.T.Z., is a supporter of the

convention. “It permits any signatory to veto plans to exploit minerals, a very important power,” he says. “Indeed, failing to sign could destabilise the whole Antarctic Treaty System.” Wildlife expert Sir Peter Scott strongly backs Australia’s position. "Even prospecting is dangerous. Already there are signs of pollution. The only answer is to create an Antarctica Wilderness Park through the U.N.” Antarctica’s importance goes far beyond its mineral potential. It was here that scientists discovered the ozone hole that is developing in the Earth’s atmosphere. Pure conditions at the South Pole were crucial to that discovery, says the British scientist responsible, Dr Joe Farman. “Antarctica is so vast that it fools you into thinking that it’s not possible to spoil it,” he says. “But the ozone hole has taught us

that we can spoil it without even going there. Indeed, some parts of Antarctica have so much pollution from air traffic that the snow is unusable for scientific study.” Most reports suggest Antarctica contains vast deposits of coal, oil and valuable ores. For instance, in 1984 the United States Government reckoned there were 45 billion barrels of oil, more than Alaska’s reserves. That claim is still taken as fact by most people, but Dr Rob William, a geologist with the British Antarctic Survey, believes it is grievously inaccurate: “There is no . El Dorado in Antarctica. The U.S. figure was based on methods you could do with a child's atlas.” Similar claims that the greatest coalfield in the world lies in the Transantarctic Mountains ignores the poor quality of the coal, while iron deposits in Prince Charles Mountains have not been found in economically exploitable amounts.

future exploitation. The fragility of polar regions was demonstrated vividly by the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska. In Antarctica, says Greenpeace, the problem of cleaning up a similar oil spill would be worse. If the spill happened in the Antarctic autumn, during March, oil could spread underneath the pack ice as it formed. Pollution would be locked away, spreading freely until the thaw six months later. /?;'* These threats particularly alarm ecologists because Antarctica is almost environmentally pristine. For example, scientists exploring the distant history of. Earth’s atmosphere can find crucial data trapped in air bubbles and dust in the ice. Nevertheless, wildlife is still the continent’s greatest asset, including penguins, whales, seals and seabirds which thrive in large, unspoiled colonies. But the climate is so harsh that the whole ecological system becomes fragile. A small change in the number of species could bring the whole of Antarctica to starvation.

A rapid fall in the population of plankton in surrounding seas, for instance, caused perhaps by an oil spill, would rapidly filter through to the larger creatures, with devastating consequences. Copyright London Observer

This is an important point when considering Antarctica’s