‘In a globalising world, the use of the global common of Antarctica can never be
sustainable’
How far do you agree with this view?
There are various uses of and threats to the Antarctic region in a globalising world, suggesting that
arguably, Antarctica can never be sustainable. Sustainability or sustainable development refers to the
development or use of natural resources that meet the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The inability to be sustainable can link to the
lack of sovereignty of Antarctica as it is a global common. Global commons require common
governance by the international community, and so can be difficult to manage. In this essay I am
going to consider the different environmental and political impacts and management, and how they
can determine the ability for sustainable use of Antarctica.
Antarctica is in the southern hemisphere and is a very important global common. It is under the
protection of different treaties and NGO’s due to its vast number of species and unexploited
resources. Climate change is a global issue within Antarctica. Antarctica is a place of extreme polar
climates suggesting that a change in environment can lead to massive impacts. The effects of global
warming are on a larger, global scale where everybody on the globe is contributing to the increasing
carbon in the atmosphere, suggesting that it’s far more difficult to manage than impacts on a more
local, smaller scale such as tourism and fishing. In an increasingly globalised world, levels of
exploitation and environmental damage will increase. An indirect impact of climate change, for
example, is ozone-depleting substances such as CFCs damaging the ozone layer. This is as a result
of a global contribution, affecting everyone globally, including Antarctica. However the Montreal
Protocol counteracts this- It’s one of the most effective protocols in combating against the impacts of
climate change. The Montreal Protocol is a global agreement to protect the ozone layer by eliminating
the production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances. This could suggest that arguably, the
use of Antarctica can be sustainable as there are successful and effective agreements put in place in
terms of reducing the impacts of climate change. This means that the ecosystems can be sustainably
managed, and preserved for future generations.
However, direct impacts of climate change on Antarctica comprise significant impacts to the
ecosystem. Increasing temperature melts ice sheets, which causes a significant rise in sea levels.
The fresh water from the ice mixes with the oceans sale water causing ph levels to change which
means that species like the Antarctic krill are unable to reproduce. The Antarctica krill is a major food
source for the ecosystem, and a decreasing population will drastically affect the food chain and
therefore the marine ecosystems. This suggests that the use of Antarctica can never be sustainable
as undermining the entire southern polar food chain reduces environmental sustainability. Ocean
acidification also impacts on the marine ecosystem. Ocean acidification decreases carbonate ions.
This means that the ocean waters may actually corrode organisms such as marine snails which play a
significant role in the oceanic carbon cycle, contributing to climate change- A positive feedback loop.
More direct impacts are harder to manage, as in order to combat these challenges changes need to
be done on a global scale. Attempts to reduce global carbon emissions have been made, however
there are many issues surrounding their criterias and successes, for example, the Paris Agreement.
This agreement involves countries to pledge emissions reductions, however there were no penalties if
countries did not meet the targets, questioning its effectiveness. This leads to countries such as the
USA refusing to commit to these goals suggesting that even with these agreements put in place,
Antarctica can never be used sustainably. Another problem faced by this agreement is that some
countries produce far more carbon emissions than others, for example China (30% of world
emissions), which the Paris agreement does not take into account suggesting the lack of
effectiveness as some countries need to be reducing more than other countries.
sustainable’
How far do you agree with this view?
There are various uses of and threats to the Antarctic region in a globalising world, suggesting that
arguably, Antarctica can never be sustainable. Sustainability or sustainable development refers to the
development or use of natural resources that meet the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The inability to be sustainable can link to the
lack of sovereignty of Antarctica as it is a global common. Global commons require common
governance by the international community, and so can be difficult to manage. In this essay I am
going to consider the different environmental and political impacts and management, and how they
can determine the ability for sustainable use of Antarctica.
Antarctica is in the southern hemisphere and is a very important global common. It is under the
protection of different treaties and NGO’s due to its vast number of species and unexploited
resources. Climate change is a global issue within Antarctica. Antarctica is a place of extreme polar
climates suggesting that a change in environment can lead to massive impacts. The effects of global
warming are on a larger, global scale where everybody on the globe is contributing to the increasing
carbon in the atmosphere, suggesting that it’s far more difficult to manage than impacts on a more
local, smaller scale such as tourism and fishing. In an increasingly globalised world, levels of
exploitation and environmental damage will increase. An indirect impact of climate change, for
example, is ozone-depleting substances such as CFCs damaging the ozone layer. This is as a result
of a global contribution, affecting everyone globally, including Antarctica. However the Montreal
Protocol counteracts this- It’s one of the most effective protocols in combating against the impacts of
climate change. The Montreal Protocol is a global agreement to protect the ozone layer by eliminating
the production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances. This could suggest that arguably, the
use of Antarctica can be sustainable as there are successful and effective agreements put in place in
terms of reducing the impacts of climate change. This means that the ecosystems can be sustainably
managed, and preserved for future generations.
However, direct impacts of climate change on Antarctica comprise significant impacts to the
ecosystem. Increasing temperature melts ice sheets, which causes a significant rise in sea levels.
The fresh water from the ice mixes with the oceans sale water causing ph levels to change which
means that species like the Antarctic krill are unable to reproduce. The Antarctica krill is a major food
source for the ecosystem, and a decreasing population will drastically affect the food chain and
therefore the marine ecosystems. This suggests that the use of Antarctica can never be sustainable
as undermining the entire southern polar food chain reduces environmental sustainability. Ocean
acidification also impacts on the marine ecosystem. Ocean acidification decreases carbonate ions.
This means that the ocean waters may actually corrode organisms such as marine snails which play a
significant role in the oceanic carbon cycle, contributing to climate change- A positive feedback loop.
More direct impacts are harder to manage, as in order to combat these challenges changes need to
be done on a global scale. Attempts to reduce global carbon emissions have been made, however
there are many issues surrounding their criterias and successes, for example, the Paris Agreement.
This agreement involves countries to pledge emissions reductions, however there were no penalties if
countries did not meet the targets, questioning its effectiveness. This leads to countries such as the
USA refusing to commit to these goals suggesting that even with these agreements put in place,
Antarctica can never be used sustainably. Another problem faced by this agreement is that some
countries produce far more carbon emissions than others, for example China (30% of world
emissions), which the Paris agreement does not take into account suggesting the lack of
effectiveness as some countries need to be reducing more than other countries.
