Is it time to kill the Antarctic Treaty?
- Image via Wikipedia
Fifty years ago, 12 nations—Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Britain, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the Soviet Union and the U.S.—agreed to cede their claims to Antarctica. The continent would belong to no nation and become a nature preserve and scientific laboratory open to all.
The signing was a remarkable achievement considering that it happened amid the Cold War and other international hostilities. The idealistic vision of a universal continent, though, has backfired environmentally, points out Scientific American contributor Brendan Borrell in his New York Times op-ed piece earlier this week. He had previously pointed out the treaty’s affect on marine ecosystems in his Scientific American story posted in November 2008.
The treaty, it seems, can be seen as the epitome of the “tragedy of the commons,” in which a resource open to all is ravaged to the detriment of all because no one takes responsibility for it. In a personal example, Borrell mentions that, when he visited Antarctica with a science team in 2001, he dined on toothfish freshly caught from the Ross Sea. (The fish is typically served in restaurants as Chilean sea bass.) In the past six years, though, no toothfish has been caught there, because of pirate fishing boats.
Related articles by Zemanta
- A Trip to Antarctica Aboard The Clipper Adventurer (gcaptain.com)
- A Brief History of Antarctica (time.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=455fc9fb-b158-4985-9fcd-42be80e86531)
