Underwater curtains could be installed in Antarctica, but this technique for preserving glaciers is controversial. Two researchers, a lawyer and a political scientist, have explored the consequences of their deployment on the functioning of the Antarctic Treaty.
In the imagination of University of Lapland geophysicist Dr. John Moore and his colleagues, a 100-metre-high curtain has been designed to deflect warm underwater currents before they reach the foot of coastal glaciers, freeing the glaciers from excess marine heat. This would enable them to thicken and anchor themselves more firmly to the bottom of Antarctic estuaries and fjords.
The initiators estimate the cost of deploying the 80-kilometre-long system in the most vulnerable part of the western white continent at between $40 and $80 billion, plus an additional $2 billion for annual maintenance. The instigators hope in this way to reduce the cost of adapting to rising sea levels around the globe, estimated at 40 billion every year from 2100 onwards, according to their widely commented study published in 2023, the stirrings of which have animated public and scientific debate.
Glacier spokeswoman, glaciologist and activist Heïdi Sevestre, for example, criticized geoengineering on the French public radio channel last year, explaining that she knew of no studies on the consequences of such human intervention on the rest of underwater circulation and biodiversity. Hesitating between laughter and tears, she added that she didn’t know “how the Antarctic Treaty would authorize such installations”.
This is precisely the question raised by Dr. Akiho Shibata, a legal expert from Kobe University, and Dr. Patrick Flamm, a political scientist from the Frankfurt Peace Research Institute, in the journal International Affairs last week. In their view, glacial geoengineering could destabilize the Antarctic Treaty in geopolitical, security and sovereignty terms, even though the project would actually prevent or slow down sea-level rise.
“The object of international discord”
The pivotal element on which the project is based is the curbing of rising coastal waters. According to the authors of the analysis, this idea is linked to climate responsibility and the historical contribution of each country to the greenhouse effect. This is why the researchers put forward two reasons why the Treaty would be incompatible with the geo-engineers’ intention.
Firstly, such thinking, i.e. long-term sea-level control, would be beyond the scope of the Antarctic Treaty. These installations would legitimize access to the Treaty by countries whose coastlines are threatened. Secondly, relations within the signatory countries, and more generally, could become strained. With, on the one hand, the victims of rising sea levels, joined by low-emission countries, and, on the other, high-emission powers who could support or back the construction of underwater curtains, thus reclaiming the laurels of global protection against submersion.
According to the experts, this situation could spark off an international dispute and call into question the authority of the 29 over Antarctica, with dissatisfied parties claiming that this is political greenwashing. This is why the political scientists invoke an excerpt from the preamble to the Antarctic Treaty, a continent that “must not become the theater or object of international discord”.
Environmental impact?
In addition to the exercise of governance, the construction of these curtains would create two other contentious issues. The first is of a sovereign nature, as the players financing and building these infrastructures would have strategic access to the continent. The second, a security issue, related to the defense of these structures against sabotage, as Antarctica is demilitarized and has no police force.
Dr. Patrick Flamm and Dr. Akiho Shibata were keen to explore and broaden the issue before it entered the public debate and was put on the table at the Treaty’s consultative meetings. The subject was first raised last year in Kochi by the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) – the observer NGO dedicated to environmental protection.
ASOC said it was “closely monitoring the issue to ensure that these projects are subject to the rigorous environmental impact assessment process required by the protocol.” This is the point made by University of California lawyers Charles Corbett and Edward Parson, in their analysis in favor of the 2022 technology Radical Climate Adaptation in Antarctica: “the Madrid Protocol would most likely prohibit construction without the adoption and entry into force of an amendment.”
In order to circumvent environmental assessment, they argue that potential future intervention projects could be assessed separately from the deployment of science in Antarctica. Dr. Patrick Flamm and Dr. Akiho Shibata disagree, calling for a more thorough analysis of the situation, based on more in-depth scientific and technical foundations, such as those underway for solar geoengineering.
Dr. Akiho Shibata is not closing the door on debate, stating in a press release: “If in such a deeper scientific and technical discussion the argument is that there are social benefits that outweigh the governance risks we have presented, then again, we international political scientists and international legal scholars need to be involved in this discussion. Perhaps then the discussion will no longer be about protecting the key principles of the current Antarctic Treaty System while considering this technology but about modifying those key principles themselves.”
Camille Lin, Polar Journal AG
Find out more about this topic:
