A January 2024 article in 'Nature' brought attention to a plan first introduced by Finnish researchers aimed at saving the West Antarctic Ice Sheet from melting - a scenario that could contribute up to a 5-meter rise in global sea levels. This proposal involved building an 80-kilometer-long, 100-meter-high underwater barrier to block warm water from reaching the glaciers. Kobe University's SHIBATA Akiho, an expert in international law, observed, "What had been a technical discussion among some scientists quickly became a social debate involving the general public." However, he noted that the political elements were being overlooked, risking future discord over a project intended for global benefit in a region dedicated to scientific peace for over six decades.
Shibata, alongside Patrick FLAMM, a scholar from the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt, analyzed the potential political outcomes of such a global engineering project. "We believe that it was important to publish a paper within one year of the original proposal, before the social debate takes on a life of its own," Shibata stated. Their findings, detailed in 'International Affairs', highlight three main political issues: authority, sovereignty, and security. The authority aspect questions who would have the power to approve such a project and its impact on the governance structure of Antarctic access. Sovereignty concerns revolve around how territorial claims, both active and dormant, might be affected. Security considerations pertain to protecting a structure that would be regarded as vital planetary infrastructure.
Shibata explained, "This paper sheds light on the political and legal 'shadows' hidden behind the exciting surface of science and technology. However, we believe that it is necessary for the members of society to make decisions on the development of these technologies based on a thorough understanding of such negative aspects."
The researchers acknowledged that "In the current climate, with growing international rivalry and great power strategic competition, it would be an extremely unlikely diplomatic achievement to secure the level of international cooperation ... required for the proposed glacial geoengineering infrastructures." However, they suggested that historical precedents could offer solutions. For example, in the 1980s, disputes over Antarctic mineral extraction were resolved with the 1991 "Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty," which banned mining indefinitely and set an example for resolving potential conflicts.
Shibata clarified that a prohibition might not be the only outcome. "Recently, momentum has gathered among natural scientists to examine such technologies more multilaterally from the viewpoint of whether they are appropriate in the first place," he said. If broader scientific and technical discussions find that the social benefits justify the governance risks, political scientists and legal experts should contribute to the discourse. He added, "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."
Research Report:'Ice sheet conservation' and international discord: governing (potential) glacial geoengineering in the Antarctica
Related Links
Kobe University
Beyond the Ice Age
| Subscribe Free To Our Daily Newsletters |
| Subscribe Free To Our Daily Newsletters |
