Because the poles are sensitive barometers of environmental change, IPY results will provide crucial insights into events unfolding on our planet. Already the programme is revealing disturbing rates of change due to climate instability. It is also, however, showing new, effective ways in which scientists can work together to make rapid progress on issues of global significance.
David Carlson, director of IPY’s International Programme Office gave more details to Vanessa Spedding.
Today is the third International Polar Day, part of the extensive outreach effort of IPY, which has the focus Our Changing Earth. For those not yet touched by IPY’s outreach activities, could you summarise progress and discoveries so far?
Certainly. We’re a very big project covering a wide breadth of science, from anthropology to astronomy. The research goes seasonally: when it’s warm in the North we focus efforts there, when it’s warm in the South, efforts move there. So far, we’ve done one round of this, so have spent a season in each of the poles. Big factors that we’ve seen to date centre around the melting of the sea ice in the North and the variety of other changes that go along with that, such as in permafrost cover and vegetation. The single word that sums up our response to what we’ve seen in the Arctic is surprise – at the rapidity of change.
In the Antarctic things are harder. Research depends on a lot of ocean-based work and snow traverses. We finished a series of three traverses with snow vehicles across Antarctic ice, comparing snow accumulations and losses with those of previous years. We’re also surveying the ocean eco-system. There’s never been a full survey there before so we’re making new discoveries every day – of new species of sea-worms, other creatures, etc.
But the real news is the rapidity of the changes. We describe the polar regions as "restless". While we can’t say, "this will happen at this point and that will happen then," we have a very strong sense of unease.
What challenges has the programme met to date?
In the North, many things depend on there being solid ice, which we need as a platform for our scientific instruments. This summer it was hard to find that solid ice. There is new ice, but we need ice that has accumulated over several years, to be confident of putting a piece of equipment worth £50,000 on it! Other projects are also suffering. The Russians, who every year undertake a skilful and challenging Arctic winter camp, were unable to do it this time as there was not enough solid ice to make a safe runway for their plane to land. We’ve also come across the sorts of challenges that face us because these are such difficult places to work. One of our best traverses, involving Norway, the US and the Polar Institute, was ruined by equipment failure. And we had a tragic helicopter crash in Antarctica.
How does IPY minimise the environmental impact of its research activities?
Again, the two poles have different constraints: the Antarctic is governed by a treaty system which has a strong environmental protocol. So everything that goes in to the region must come out – literally everything – which can present some interesting challenges. The new Antarctic base being built by Belgium is aiming for a zero environmental footprint. If we use snow vehicles, we always look at alternative fuels and look carefully at our long-term energy needs. The Arctic is governed more by national requirements. But the factor we all feel is the price of fuel, which itself is a big incentive to minimise its use.
We see many references to the legacy of IPY. From the point of view of observational networks, data acquisition and scientific understanding, its legacy will clearly be enormous and of great scientific benefit. But what of its legacy from the point of view of the planet and its inhabitants: will that be positive, overall?
First, we look at and take care with our environmental legacy, as we discussed just now. The second way to look at our legacy would be: 'how does our information, produced and shared in an open scientific context, get used in its second scientific life?' If it’s for something like creating new marine reserves, then we can say this is a positive legacy. If it’s to advance shipping or the activities of extractive industries, then there will be a potential negative legacy. We recognise that there are both positive and negative ways in which that information can get used. Of course, public data gets used for commercial interests, some of which have negative environmental impacts, all the time. All the basic bathymetry data, the USGS [US Geological Survey] data, it’s all public: there’ll be no end to that happening, although of course extractive industries still have to do their own, proprietary studies for their surveys and drilling operations. The question is: can we make a judgement as to whether our data will be used positively or negatively? We don’t want to be complicit in the next gold rush in the Arctic!
But I’m not sure we’re smart enough to make that judgement. The point is, we agree to share everything, internationally, and that’s one of the benefits of IPY.
The third way to look at the legacy of IPY is its impact on public attitudes to the global situation as a whole. It’s hard to tell the effects here – but we can at least see an improved climate for discussion of these issues. IPY may be a blip riding on the wave of global public opinion, but if it communicates a specific message, it can be a leading edge on that wave. There is another attitude that’s a bit of a challenge for us, though. We want to show that the poles are not just distant places that have polar ecosystems: they are part of our ecosystem. Damage to any part of our world, even to its cold edges, is damage to our own ecosystem. IPY provides a good means of bringing that attitude forward.
IPY has brought about an incredible framework for collaboration. Could this be replicated in other fields – for example, for pursuing environmentally-friendly technologies or undertaking global disease research? Do you think science could better benefit humanity if more of it happened in this way?
Some sciences have a long history of sharing, but lots of others don’t have that tradition – so the requirement for the immediate sharing of data does sometimes challenge us. We’re completely enthusiastic about it – we think it’s good for science and good for the individual scientist – but there’s still a selling job to do to those who are not used to it. We have to encourage them to see the advantages.
I actually share that idealistic view, but the reality is that not all disciplines share those traditions. Where we do have a chance is to share new, international best practice in bringing the disciplines together. We are setting a new standard for international scientific collaboration. It shows that you can do this anywhere – at the poles, in the tropics, in other aspects of human welfare – and I think we can do better than using the old patterns of proprietary data management. Personally, I hope we do.