How Will the Melting Arctic Change the World?

Less ice, more vegetation. Our environment is changing faster than we ever predicted, and not for the better, scientists are saying.

Will beachfront property someday be available on the shores of the Arctic Ocean? It certainly seems to be shaping up that way around the Arctic Circle. By the year 2100, the Arctic tree line is expected to advance by as much as 500 kilometres, and 51 per cent of the tundra habitat in the Arctic will be gone, according to a report presented by the Arctic Council at the International Polar Year Science Conference in Oslo, Norway last week.

With 2,600 polar scientists from around the world sharing the results of two years of intense study in the Arctic and Antarctica during International Polar Year (which covers two regular years, from March 2007 to March 2009), the event was the largest gathering of scientists in recorded history. As expected, much of the discussion had to do with the effects of climate change on these fragile ecosystems.

One of the often repeated themes was the melting of polar ice. In the Arctic, the melting of sea ice has been recorded to be as much in three years as was previously expected over the next 30. In my film The Antarctica Challenge: A Global Warming, I reported that one glacier alone – Pine Island Glacier – is contributing 46 gigatons of fresh water into the Antarctic Ocean every year. At this rate, should the entire glacier melt, world sea levels would rise by 1.5 metres.

Since this is fresh water entering salt water, it seems like a complete waste of viable, sustainable drinking water. Dr. Pat Maher of the University of Northern British Columbia reported on a unique study involving polar tourism and its impact on the environment. One part of his study reported that 18 per cent of a sampling of Europeans felt that Antarctica’s fresh water should be “harvested” not only to prevent world sea-level rise, but also to provide a new supply of drinking water to the world.

Another interesting new finding coming from Antarctica is how the melting ice there is impacting the animal life. Dr. Katherine Richardson, a professor in biological oceanography and vice dean at the University of Copenhagen, announced an interesting correlation between the reduced amount of winter shelf ice in Antarctica and the reduced krill population.

“Since krill rely on the phyto-plankton found underneath these ice shelves, there is less food for them to eat, resulting in a decrease in their numbers in direct proportion to the decrease in [Antarctic] winter shelf ice,” Richardson said.

It was previously believed that the reasons for the drastic decline in the krill population were the crustacean's inability to reproduce in the warmer waters and the increase in their consumption by whales now entering those waters. Krill fishing was also believed to be a reason, but Richardson said this was “not a significant factor.”

Since all Antarctic animals (penguins, seals, whales) eat krill, the corresponding decline in their populations can now be considered a direct result of the decline in the krill population. – and the decline in the krill population can be directly linked to the lack of ice shelves in Antarctica.

The effects of climate change are also being felt by natives of the Nordic Arctic, the Sami, who are seeing their reindeer populations displaced due to an insect that cold weather usually kills off. Since the temperatures are getting warmer, the insects do not disappear, and continue to eat the grass usually eaten by reindeer. When the reindeer relocate looking for more grass, the Sami people are left without a food supply.

“The Arctic people around the world are very robust and can adapt sometimes better than most other indigenous people, but not all of them can,” said Jan Egeland, co-chair of the High-Level Task Force towards the Global Framework for Climate Services and former deputy secretary general of the United Nations. “We are implementing a system that will bring information to the people to assist in their adaptation.”

After five days of reports from the world’s great scientific minds, one thing was made very clear: our environment is changing faster than anyone thought – and not for the better.