Ice
There’s something alluring about the cold white harshness of Antarctica. It’s the literal end of the world, the most inhospitable and majestic landscape, composed of aeons-old rock and covered in ice. For a long time, I’ve dreamed of being able to visit there. For as long as I’ve wanted to go to the Antarctic, I’ve had a problem with my desire – any trip down to the ice would compound the problems faced by the fragile biogeochemical systems in the area. Why would my desire to go down to the Antarctic be any worse than any of the other tourists visiting? That’s the thing – I wouldn’t want to see the place transformed into a tourist destination. That would demystify it in addition to physically affecting the landscape.
A solution would be to get a position with an organization such as the British Antarctic Survey and actually contribute constructively to the arguably valuable research being done down there. What’s needed for that is a relevant and required skill, as well as the capability (both mental and professional) to work “down south” for anything up to 18 months. I should have been a plumber, they’re always in demand.
Another solution for a more sustainable trip down to the ice would be to go in a reinforced sailboat. That requires lots of money and is ultimately a tourist cruise to the most hospitable parts of the Antarctic peninsula. And, to be honest, the last thing the place needs is more tourists, no matter how “sustainable” their itinerary. Also, somehow I feel that touching land at the peninsula or some of the outer islands wouldn’t be as satisfying as actually managing to make it to the continental ice shelf. This musing is completely unrelated to the serious work that would have to go into financing an actual trip should I not go in a professional capacity.
One thing I would never want to end up seeing myself do is end up in an Antarctic base as some guest of honour traipsing ceremonially in oversized gear like Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth. That kind of posturing is needed even less than light-footed visits by limited numbers of high-paying visitors (assuming the prices they pay reflect the effects they have, and are used to offset any negatives). An official getting a photo opportunity in front of a snowcat for the purpose of “raising awareness of the plight of the continent” and climate change just makes me angry. Why not actually use that money, fuel and time for actual productive research, mitigation or adaptation?
May 4th, 2008 at 19:46
I’ve wanted to visit Antarctica for years too, but despite not being as environmentally aware of the consequences of even limited tourism to the local as well as global ecosystem, have decided to give it a miss, unless it is for something more than just a vacation.
And its not just the price, or the time, or the risks… Its because I want it to be the last place on earth to get a McDonald’s.
I have always felt that it is a bit stupid to make big-money, high budget documentaries about problems that the same money could fix. Rich western journalists going around making programs about hungry children in Africa. I am sure that the helicopter trip over the whole of Sudan could feed quite a few kids more than the program will make in watcher-donations.
May 4th, 2008 at 19:49
There was a show on either BBC or Discovery, about climate change and its effects on beautiful places all over the world, where during the ending credits they would always say that the show had been made to be carbon-neutral, with every helicopter flight’s carbon emissions being canceled out by giving money to charity.
But it made me think, how much less carbon there would be if we gave the money to the development programs anyway, but did without the helicopters for fancy shots of coral reefs. I mean, we have to have enough file-footage and CGI capabilities, surely?