The privacy problem with camera traps: you don’t know who else could be watching



File 20180605 175438 skeqeo.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
A spotted-tailed Quoll detected during a small mammal survey at Carrai Plateau, New South Wales.
Paul Meek, Author provided

Paul D Meek, University of New England; Greg Falzon, University of New England, and James Bishop, University of New England

We use remotely activated cameras – known as camera traps – to study the ecology and population responses of wildlife and pest species in management programs across Australia.

These devices are used widely by scientists, researchers and managers to detect rare wildlife, monitor populations, study behaviour and measure long term wildlife population health.

But the lack of transparency surrounding how these images are transmitted, where they are stored, and who has access to them in transit, has scientists worried.

We’ve discovered that images captured by these devices may potentially be accessed by more than those intended, and that this could pose potential privacy breaches, and even poaching risks.




Read more:
Publish and don’t perish – how to keep rare species’ data away from poachers


A chance discovery

It was an accidental discovery that our images can travel from the field to big overseas internet servers. We had not considered the transmission path of our images, and who may have access to them along the way.

Manufacturers have developed camera traps that are capable of transmitting image data using the telecommunications network (in Australia this is 3G and soon to move to 4G).

Most of these camera trap models can transmit images using both MMS (Multi Media Message Service), where the image is sent in an SMS (Short Message Service) to a smart phone, and via SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol), where the image is transmitted to an email address.

A 3G camera trap set in the Strzelecki Desert and sending images to the authors email and phone.
PM, Author provided

In Australia, when you buy a 3G compatible camera trap you just need to add a SIM card from a service provider. The images will then be sent from the camera trap at a field site to your work or home in seconds. This process is made simple for users by manufacturers who set up default settings to assist you in programming the camera trap.

If, like most people, you don’t over-ride the default settings, then your data will be managed for you. An attractive offer, especially for those people who are not tech-savvy or who don’t have time to fiddle around with programming equipment.

But where are your images going? Who has the legal right to access and store them? How secure is each stage of the transmission path, and are your images being used without your knowledge?




Read more:
Explainer: what is 4G?


An evaluation process

Our research team has been evaluating the transmission of images via SMTP for a larger research project, aimed at developing camera trap transmission via satellite.

We have been testing and comparing several models of 3G camera trap, which includes evaluating the message structure and headers.

It was these investigations that revealed some alarming information that pose several potential risks to camera trap users when a camera trap is set up using the default settings for SMTP transmission.

Each manufacturer will use different methods, but in essence when an image is transferred through some 3G telecommunication service, the image is sent to one or more web-servers, where the image may be stored, then sent to the recipient email address or phone.

These servers can be in any country. Our investigations of the five models we tested identified that images are being sent via some large, well-known Asian and North American companies. The exact location of each server, and the full transmission pathway cannot be fully known.

Exactly what happens to these images during transmission also remains unknown. But most practitioners we have spoken to have no idea their images could potentially be going to servers overseas, so it raises several concerns for users.

A privacy concern

One of our foremost concerns is how legal professionals would interpret ownership and distribution of images of people under privacy legislation. Camera traps deployed to detect wildlife often detect unsuspecting people walking past.

A harmless image of an un-suspecting person walking past a camera trap could end up in a court of law if the image is used without their permission.
Paul Meek, Author provided

It’s a legal mine field when a camera trap user potentially distributes an image of a person without their permission.

It was an issue raised back in 2012 when an unnamed Austrian politician was caught in a sexual encounter by a camera trap. In that case the image wasn’t released publicly but it raised concerns over a potential breach of privacy.

In Australia, such an image belongs to the person who is photographed irrespective of where the images were taken, so strictly speaking they could pursue legal action against anyone distributing it.

Clearly there would be extenuating circumstances, but whether or not there is a case to be answered is yet to be tested and would depend on the country and legislation involved.

Camera traps are also used for security purposes by authorities, farmers and members of the public, so potential legal and sensitive data could be distributed over the internet. As there is a lack of transparency surrounding the transmission pathway, storage, and usage of the data, this could be a huge concern.

In Australia, this might constitute a breach under the Privacy Act 1988 dependent on the whether any personal data is disclosed and the potential for serious harm which might result.

All in the cloud

The Australian government has released policy and guidelines concerning the protection of data privacy when using cloud services.

But these requirements might not extend, or have not been adopted, in the context of technological based ecology monitoring and so valuable data could currently be leaving Australian shores.

How this data is used is also largely unknown. It may serve many commercial purposes for companies, such as data mining, advertising, and machine learning and artificial intelligence development, to name but a few. Exactly what country, where and how securely the data is stored remains a mystery.

Of real concern for many international wildlife conservation groups is the potential misuse of wildlife images that could identify threatened species and locations. This information could be illegally accessed by poachers, or those looking to sell the data for profit.

Our disclaimer here is that we have no evidence to prove or deny that such practices are occurring, but the potential exists and the lack of transparency is alarming.




Read more:
Scientists are accidentally helping poachers drive rare species to extinction


Reducing the risk

Until recently we did not fully comprehend the risks we were taking by using 3G camera traps without taking some precautions. Like most, we accepted that our data was safe and controlled by Australian telecommunications systems, and had no concept that the images may be transmitted or stored by servers overseas.

We now know the risks and that in many cases this image management protocol can be circumvented by over-riding the camera’s default settings. In the ideal world every user would know the full transmission pathway of the image and could take steps to make sure it is as secure as practically possible. Given this is not possible, we recommend that where possible, users program camera traps to send SMTP images direct to an email address that they have more control over.

The ConversationIt will take a little extra time to program the camera traps, but at least users will have more control over the path of their image from the field to any receiving device.

The right thing captured in the camera trap: a spotted-tailed Quoll.
Paul Meek, Author provided

Paul D Meek, Adjunct Lecturer in School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England; Greg Falzon, Lecturer in Computational Science, University of New England, and James Bishop, PhD candidate, software engineer, University of New England

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Advertisements

Proposed NSW logging laws value timber over environmental protection



File 20180619 38863 ta299m.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Increased logging in NSW could affect threatened species.
Nativesrule, Author provided

Oisín Sweeney, University of Sydney

New South Wales is revamping its logging laws for the first time in two decades, drafting regulations that will govern more than two million hectares of public native forest.

Among the changes are proposals to permit logging in exclusion zones – part of the reserve system – and dramatic increases to the scale and intensity of logging, putting several threatened species at direct risk.

NSW can implement these changes unilaterally. But if it does, NSW will effectively be asking the federal government to agree to changes that directly contradict the federal Threatened Species Strategy and several species recovery plans, and reduce the extent of the reserve system.




Read more:
Native forest protections are deeply flawed, yet may be in place for another 20 years


Regional Forest Agreements

The federal government has arrangements with the states called Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs). They provide certainty to logging operations by accrediting state logging rules under federal environment law. No other industry gets this treatment – but RFAs are now expiring after having been in place for 20 years.

But the proposed changes to NSW logging laws clearly prioritise timber extraction over environmental protection. In 2014 the NSW government extended wood supply agreements with timber companies, locking in a commitment to logging at a certain level. The changes are cited as necessary to meet these wood supply agreements.

This means abandoning commitments made under the National Forest Policy Statement in 1992, including the concept of ecologically sustainable forest management. This is a fundamental shift and, because of the impacts on the reserve system and threatened species, against the national interest.




Read more:
Money can’t buy me love, but you can put a price on a tree


Overlogging is behind the changes

In its 2016 Forestry Industry Roadmap the NSW government made a dual commitment to maintain logging levels without eroding environmental protection. However, the NSW Natural Resources Commission tasked with finding a way to do this reported “it is not possible to meet the government’s commitments around both environmental values and wood supply”.

The commission therefore recommended the NSW government “remap and rezone” old-growth forest and rainforest to increase the area that can be logged and make up timber shortfalls.

There are three kinds of zones that make up protected forest reserves. The first zone requires an act of state parliament to revoke, but the second and third can be revoked by the state forestry minister.

To further increase timber supply, headwater stream buffers – areas around waterways that cannot be logged – will be reduced from 10 metres to five.

The new laws also permit the logging of giant trees up to 140cm in diameter, or 160cm in the case of blackbutt and alpine ash (preferred timber species).

Northeast NSW to see the biggest changes

In northeast NSW, a new “intensive harvesting zone” will cover 140,000 hectares of coastal forests between Taree and Grafton. These forests are in the Forests of East Australia global biodiversity hotspot and many are included in a proposed Great Koala National Park.




Read more:
Forests of eastern Australia are the world’s newest biodiversity hotspot


This will see 45-hectare patches of forest cleared of all but a smattering of small trees. The intensity of logging everywhere else in the “selective” harvesting zone will, on average, double.

Implications for wildlife and forest ecosystems

The new proposals move towards a retention model where habitat features are to be retained in clumps over several logging cycles. This “retention approach” is good in theory, but is undermined by the landscape-wide intensification of logging – particularly in the intensive zone – and the need to maximise timber production, not the conservation of forest species.

Although hollow-bearing trees are to be retained, no younger trees – which will eventually replace their elders – are required to be protected. This means the inevitable loss of hollow-bearing trees, exacerbated by logging rezoned old-growth. There is no longer any requirement to protect eucalypt nectar trees, vital resources for the critically endangered regent honeyeater and swift parrot.

A report on the proposals from the Threatened Species Expert Panel reveals that almost no data was available to design the new environmental protections, and there was great uncertainty as to whether they will work. One panel member commented:

The intensive harvesting zones are being formally introduced to prop up an unsustainable wood supply arrangement at the expense of the environment.

It is frustrating trying to be part of the solution when the underlying driver of the wood supply agreements fundamentally restricts any chance of a balanced approach.

The federal government has a problem

The federal government has already committed to extending Regional Forest Agreements with the states. Yet besides potentially reducing the size of the reserve network, NSW’s proposals directly threaten federally-listed species.

Conservation advice for the marsupial greater glider clearly states the impact of habitat loss and fragmentation through intensive logging.

Greater gliders (Petauroides volans) are vulnerable to loss of tree hollows and habitat fragmentation, which will both be exacerbated under NSW’s proposals.
Dave Gallan

Koalas prefer large trees and mature forests, yet the intensive logging zone will cover almost half of identified high quality koala habitat. Legally, loggers will only have to keep 10 trees of 20cm diameter per hectare – far too few and too small for koalas.

The national recovery plan for the swift parrot proposes the retention of all trees over 60cm diameter – clearly incompatible with the proposed intensive harvesting zone – while the recovery plan for the regent honeyeater identifies all breeding and foraging habitat as critical to survival.

Recent research has predicted a 31% probability of swift parrot extinction in the next 20 years, and a 57% probability for the regent honeyeater. Both birds are priority species under the Australian government’s Threatened Species Strategy.

Public feedback on the proposed changes is invited until June 29. After that, the federal government must decide whether it deems the proposals to be consistent with national environment law in a new Regional Forest Agreement. Signing off on these changes will cast serious doubt on the federal government’s commitment to the national environmental interest.




Read more:
Australia might water down illegal logging laws – here’s why it’s a bad idea



The ConversationThe author would like to acknowledge the contribution of Dailan Pugh, OAM and co-founder of the North East Forest Alliance, to this article.

Oisín Sweeney, Senior Ecologist at the National Parks Association of NSW, Research Fellow, University of Sydney

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

China and India’s border dispute is a slow-moving environmental disaster



File 20180615 32307 1p57oni.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Development is peaking in the high country between India and China.
Vinay Vaars/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Ruth Gamble, La Trobe University

Chinese and Indian competition on their shared Himalayan border is more likely to create a slow-moving environmental catastrophe than a quick military or nuclear disaster.

The Himalayan plateau plays a crucial role in Asia. It generates the monsoonal rains and seasonal ice-melts that feed rivers and deliver nutrients to South, Southeast and East Asia. Almost half the world’s population and 20% of its economy depend on these rivers, and they are already threatened by climate change. China and India’s competition for their headwaters increases this threat.

Until the mid-20th century, the Himalaya’s high altitude prevented its large-scale development and conserved its environment. But after the Republic of India and the People’s Republic of China were created in the late 1940s, these two new states began competing for high ground in the western and eastern Himalayas. They fought a war over their unresolved border in 1962, and have scuffled ever since. The most recent clash was in 2017, when China built a road into Doklam, an area claimed by Bhutan and protected by India.




Read more:
Lessons from the Doklam Pass: how little Bhutan faced down China over a border dispute


Tensions rose again last week when China unveiled a new mine in Lhunze, near the de facto border with India’s northeastern state of Arunachal Pradesh, east of Bhutan. The mine sits on a deposit of gold, silver and other precious metals worth up to US$60 billion.

Most analysis of the Sino-Indian border dispute has focused on the potential for another war between these two nuclear-armed neighbours. The environmental impacts of their continued entrenchment are rarely mentioned, despite the fact that they are significant and growing.

The various tracts of the disputed Sino-Indian border are host to many new development projects.
Author provided

All of this development along the border is built on the world’s third-largest ice-pack or in biodiversity hotspots. The region was militarised during the 1962 war, and has since been inundated by troops, roads, airports, barracks and hospitals. These have caused deforestation, landslides, and – if a study on troop movements on other glaciers is any guide – possibly even glacial retreat.

The buildup of troops on the border has displaced local ethnic groups, and they have been encouraged to give up their land to make way for intensive farming. Animal habitats have decreased and clashes with tigers and snow leopards have increased. Population transfers and agricultural intensification have even heightened the risk that antibiotic-resistant superbugs and other toxic pollutants will seep into the world’s most diffused watershed.

During the past 20 years, first China and then India have increased this degradation by building large-scale mines and hydroelectric dams in this sensitive region. These projects have not been profitable or environmentally sound, but they have solidified state control by entrenching populations, upgrading transport networks, and integrating these fringes into national economies. The tightening of state control along the border has been further complicated by calls from the Tibetans and other ethnic groups for greater autonomy.

Many of the projects have been developed within the transnational Brahmaputra River basin. This river’s headwaters are in China, but most of its catchment is in Arunachal Pradesh, which is controlled by India but claimed by China. It then flows through Assam and Bangladesh, where it joins the Ganges River. Some 630 million people live in the Ganges-Brahmaputra River catchment.

China and India’s geopolitical resources rush threatens the safety of this entire river system. The new Lhunze mine’s position among the Brahmaputra’s headwaters is so precarious that its owner, Hua Yu Mining, was only allowed to mine there under strict environmental conditions. To its credit, Hua Yu has agreed to be a “green” miner, limiting emissions, water use and minimising “grassland disturbance”. But even if the company does not inadvertently leak acid and arsenic into the environment like other mines in Tibet, the mine is still liable to be damaged by the region’s frequent earthquakes. Any toxic leak from Lhunze will flow straight into the Brahmaputra and then into the lower Ganges.




Read more:
China’s growing footprint on the globe threatens to trample the natural world


On its side of the border, India has concentrated on dams rather than mines. Between 2000 and 2016, the Arunachal Pradesh government approved the construction of 153 dams, before realising that it had overextended itself.

So far only one dam is complete, and all the other projects have stalled. One of these stalled dams is on the Subansiri River, the same river from which the Lhunze mine draws water. India is racing to build these dams without community consultation or environmental studies because it sees itself as competing with China for the region’s water. China has already built four dams in the upper Brahmaputra River basin.

Indian strategists argue that they can stop China building more dams by building hydroelectric projects whose need for water will be recognised under international law. Given China’s dismissal of previous rulings by the International Court of Justice, and its recent refusal to share water-flow data with India after the Doklam incident (data that India needs to plan flood controls), this strategy seems unlikely to succeed.

Even if it does, it is hard to see how building large hydropower projects in an earthquake-probne region will ultimately help India. It won’t stop China developing the borderland, and it could cause more problems than it solves.

The ConversationTo keep Asia’s major rivers flowing and relatively non-toxic, both nations need to stop competing and start collaborating. Their leaders understand that neither nation would win a nuclear war. Now they need to realise that no one will benefit from destroying a shared watershed.

Ruth Gamble, David Myers Research Fellow, La Trobe University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Wollemi pines are dinosaur trees



File 20180615 32327 1rxja65.png?ixlib=rb 1.1
Wollemi pines once covered prehistoric Australia.
The Conversation/Wikipedia

Cris Brack, Australian National University

Welcome to Beating Around the Bush, a series that profiles native plants. Read more about the series here or get in touch to pitch a plant at batb@theconversation.edu.au.


There’s a tree that once covered the whole of Australia, then dwindled to a dozen examples, and is now spread around the world. We call it the Wollemi pine (Wollemia nobilis), but you could call it the dinosaur tree.

Fossil evidence indicates that between 200 million and 100 million years ago, Wollemi pine was present across all of Australia. A dryer, more flammable continent is likely to have driven the tree to near extinction over the millennia, leaving just a very small remnant of the Wollemi in a secluded deep gully not far from Sydney.




Read more:
Where the old things are: Australia’s most ancient trees


And there these trees remained, hidden, until they were discovered by a canyoning National Park worker in 1994.

The Conversation.
CC BY

A spectacular discovery

The reaction to the discovery of this tree, thought to have disappeared 100 million years ago and only known through its fossils, was spectacular. Great secrecy was maintained around the site of the find. Because there were so few, the individual trees in the gorge were given their own names to celebrate their importance and acknowledge the efforts of those trying to protect them.

Scientists, arborists and botanists swung into action to discover ways to propagate more trees and establish other colonies of the Wollemi as insurance against that single refuge being lost.




Read more:
Sandpaper figs make food, fire, medicine and a cosy home for wasps


There was a great sigh of relief when it was discovered that trees could be successfully cloned, and new trees were potted up in the Sydney and Mount Annan Botanic Gardens. The interest in these original cloned offspring was so great that they were auctioned off by Sotheby’s, with the profits going back to support more research into this little-known living fossil.

Students and staff from my school at the Australian National University pooled together to bid for a clone of the Wollemi, christened the “John Banks” – named for our colleague Dr John C.G. Banks, who was one of the first researchers to describe the tree’s dendrology. We planted our tree in memory of John, with a cage around it because it was so rare and valuable.

Sent around the world

In 2006, just over a decade after the original discovery, huge numbers of cloned Wollemi Pine seedlings were released from the official nursery in Queensland.

Every major nursery in Australia stocked potted Wollemi Pines for sale to a public who were keen to own a piece of ancient life and help ensure it didn’t go extinct. Enthusiasts around the world also bought their own dinosaur trees.

But it’s not just gardeners who have spread the Wollemi back to all corners of Australia and across the seas. Special Wollemi pines are also in the diplomatic service, having been presented by Australian prime ministers and foreign affairs ministers to various dignitaries.

Seedlings are an obvious choice to represent long-term friendship and trust, as the act of planting a tree is one of hope for the future and a common good. A seedling that can trace its history back more than 100 million years, and which represents the reversal of an extinction, is even better.

Wollemi were thought to be extinct long before humans arrived in Australia, so there is no opportunity for humans to have used it in any specific way. However, ancient species may have properties or traits that are no longer present in evolved plants and these may be useful. For example, extracts from Wollemi pine leaves have been found to be successful in inhibiting a pest that affects winter wheat production – which may help control an expensive problem without herbicides.

Scientists found that extracts from the leaves of the Wollemi contained chemicals that had never previously been described, and which suppressed annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum). The ryegrass, like many modern weeds, has evolved in the absence of Wollemi and thus was unlikely to have developed resistance to its chemistry.

How does it grow?

Little was known about Wollemi pines when the remnant was found. We knew the conditions of the gorge where they grew, but not whether these were optimal. Could the tree survive in hotter or cooler, drier or wetter, more clay or gravelly soils?

We now know from planting experience outside the National Park that Wollemi pines can grow on exposed rock slopes, surviving frost and temperatures lower than -5℃ with the help of a waxy coat it puts on top of its growing buds. They can also survive heat greater than 45℃ in full sun.

Some Wollemi pines have been known to happily sit in small pots on verandas or decks, growing to over 3 metres – only to die within weeks of being transplanted into carefully prepared holes. They can be slow-growing, but given good light and moisture they can grow more than 50cm per year. Horticulturalists and the Sydney Royal Botanic Gardens continue to work on finding the best ways of tending these pines.




Read more:
Bunya pines are ancient, delicious and possibly deadly


Wollemi pines, unlike their nearest neighbours in the Araucariaceae, can also produce coppice or epicormic shoots in response to drought or fire. It is likely that this ability is responsible for the survival of the original remanants in the National Park, with new upper stems regenerating from below-ground stocks century after century.

A potential issue with clonal reproduction is the lack of genetic diversity, which could make the pines susceptible to further environmental changes or pests. However, many trees are maturing and producing viable seeds, and there is certainly diversity in the phenology with some Wollemi of the same age producing female cones, some male cones (and some both).




Read more:
Mountain ash has a regal presence: the tallest flowering plant in the world


The ConversationDespite the ability to survive cold and heat and even recover from damage using epicormics, Wollemi Pines may not make ideal street trees, as the branches on the trunk shed relatively quickly. Shedding leaves, bark or branches are regularly complained about by residents in cities. But in the right place in a backyard – with low frost intensity, warm summers and enough moisture – you can grow your very own dinosaur tree.

Cris Brack, Assoc Professor Forest measurement & management, Australian National University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Mass slaughter of wedge-tailed eagles could have Australia-wide consequences


Simon Cherriman, Murdoch University

Last week it was revealed that at least 136 wedge-tailed eagles have been intentionally poisoned in East Gippsland, with concerns that more are yet to be found.

In the past five years I have used satellite tracking devices to research wedge-tailed eagles’ movements across Australia, and I’ve never encountered raptor deaths on this scale.




Read more:
How birds survived the dinosaur-killing asteroid


It’s been suggested that the birds were killed to protect lambs. Tragically, not only was this illegal cull unnecessary – evidence suggests that eagles do not often kill livestock – but it could also have ecological consequences right across Australia.

Juvenile birds

There are two main categories of wedge-tailed eagles, based on their age class: sedentary breeding adults, which stay in a home range with nest sites; and highly nomadic juvenile birds that can cover huge distances. There are usually fewer adult birds in one place, because they are territorial.

The very high number of birds affected make it likely that they were largely juveniles. There is currently no accurate data on how many wedge-tailed eagles are in Australia, but this single culling event could have serious effects on future generations’ breeding capacity.




Read more:
Bold and aggressive behaviour means birds thrive in cities


Sites of persecution can have impacts to eagle populations if they become “ecological sinks”. These are places that draw birds in from a wide area, perhaps because of an unnaturally abundant food source, and then result in birds dying. If these ongoing “mortality black holes” cause hundreds of birds to die in relatively short periods of time, this can start impacting the population.

Do eagles kill lambs?

The wedge-tailed eagle is a powerful predator that kills a variety of mammals. Anecdotal observations by landowners describe birds attacking live lambs and even half-grown sheep. There are also cases in the literature of them working in tandem to hunt larger prey such as kangaroos – behaviour that has been widely documented for large eagle species.

However, evidence gathered during extensive research in Australia has shown that in most cases, eagles seen feeding on lamb or sheep carcasses are “cleaning up” after other predators like foxes and crows, which were actually the direct cause of death.

There are no documented cases of wedge-tailed eagles causing significant economic impacts to the sheep industry. But even if they did, there are other options besides culling. Carcasses placed near livestock would provide easier alternative food sources, for example. Shepherds can effectively guard flocks and protect lambs. Finally, given that wedge-tailed eagles are protected, it may be appropriate for the government to pay compensation for livestock losses.




Read more:
Birds wearing backpacks trace a path to conservation


It must also be emphasised that eagles prey on a range of other species that are considered to be agricultural pests, such as overabundant native kangaroos, cockatoos, and feral species like rabbits and foxes.

The ConversationSome eagles live, and some die. Such is life on this amazing, arid continent. Death itself is a normal ecological phenomenon, but unnatural deaths on such a large scale can have disastrous consequences for long-lived raptors like the wedge-tailed eagle. We must as a community respect the critical role that predators play in the landscape.

Simon Cherriman, Ornithology, Murdoch University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Antarctica has lost 3 trillion tonnes of ice in 25 years. Time is running out for the frozen continent



File 20180613 110178 4dith6.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
As the world prevaricates over climate action, Antarctica’s future is shrouded in uncertainty.
Hamish Pritchard/British Antarctic Survey

Steve Rintoul, CSIRO and Steven Chown, Monash University

Antarctica lost 3 trillion tonnes of ice between 1992 and 2017, according to a new analysis of satellite observations. In vulnerable West Antarctica, the annual rate of ice loss has tripled during that period, reaching 159 billion tonnes a year. Overall, enough ice has been lost from Antarctica over the past quarter-century to raise global seas by 8 millimetres.

What will Antarctica look like in the year 2070, and how will changes in Antarctica impact the rest of the globe? The answer to these questions depends on choices we make in the next decade, as outlined in our accompanying paper, also published today in Nature.




Read more:
Ocean waves and lack of sea ice can trigger Antarctic ice shelves to disintegrate


Our research contrasts two potential narratives for Antarctica over the coming half-century – a story that will play out within the lifetimes of today’s children and young adults.

While the two scenarios are necessarily speculative, two things are certain. The first is that once significant changes occur in Antarctica, we are committed to centuries of further, irreversible change on global scales. The second is that we don’t have much time – the narrative that eventually plays out will depend on choices made in the coming decade.

Change in Antarctica has global impacts

Despite being the most remote region on Earth, changes in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean will have global consequences for the planet and humanity.

For example, the rate of sea-level rise depends on the response of the Antarctic ice sheet to warming of the atmosphere and ocean, while the speed of climate change depends on how much heat and carbon dioxide is taken up by the Southern Ocean. What’s more, marine ecosystems all over the world are sustained by the nutrients exported from the Southern Ocean to lower latitudes.

From a political perspective, Antarctica and the Southern Ocean are among the largest shared spaces on Earth, regulated by a unique governance regime known as the Antarctic Treaty System. So far this regime has been successful at managing the environment and avoiding discord.

However, just as the physical and biological systems of Antarctica face challenges from rapid environmental change driven by human activities, so too does the management of the continent.

Antarctica in 2070

We considered two narratives of the next 50 years for Antarctica, each describing a plausible future based on the latest science.

In the first scenario, global greenhouse gas emissions remain unchecked, the climate continues to warm, and little policy action is taken to respond to environmental factors and human activities that affect the Antarctic.

Under this scenario, Antarctica and the Southern Ocean undergo widespread and rapid change, with global consequences. Warming of the ocean and atmosphere result in dramatic loss of major ice shelves. This causes increased loss of ice from the Antarctic ice sheet and acceleration of sea-level rise to rates not seen since the end of the last glacial period more than 10,000 years ago.

Warming, sea-ice retreat and ocean acidification significantly change marine ecosystems. And unrestricted growth in human use of Antarctica degrades the environment and results in the establishment of invasive species.

Under the high-emissions scenario, widespread changes occur by 2070 in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, with global impacts.
Rintoul et al. 2018. Click image to enlarge.

In the second scenario, ambitious action is taken to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to establish policies that reduce human pressure on Antarctica’s environment.

Under this scenario, Antarctica in 2070 looks much like it does today. The ice shelves remain largely intact, reducing loss of ice from the Antarctic ice sheet and therefore limiting sea-level rise.

An increasingly collaborative and effective governance regime helps to alleviate human pressures on Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. Marine ecosystems remain largely intact as warming and acidification are held in check. On land, biological invasions remain rare. Antarctica’s unique invertebrates and microbes continue to flourish.

Antarctica and the Southern Ocean in 2070, under the low-emissions (left) and high-emissions (right) scenarios. Each of these systems will continue to change after 2070, with the magnitude of the change to which we are committed being generally much larger than the change realised by 2070.
Rintoul et al. 2018. Click image to enlarge.

The choice is ours

We can choose which of these trajectories we follow over the coming half-century. But the window of opportunity is closing fast.

Global warming is determined by global greenhouse emissions, which continue to grow. This will commit us to further unavoidable climate impacts, some of which will take decades or centuries to play out. Greenhouse gas emissions must peak and start falling within the coming decade if our second narrative is to stand a chance of coming true.

If our more optimistic scenario for Antarctica plays out, there is a good chance that the continent’s buttressing ice shelves will survive and that Antarctica’s contribution to sea-level rise will remain below 1 metre. A rise of 1m or more would displace millions of people and cause substantial economic hardship.

Under the more damaging of our potential scenarios, many Antarctic ice shelves will likely be lost and the Antarctic ice sheet will contribute as much as 3m of sea level rise by 2300, with an irreversible commitment of 5-15m in the coming millennia.

The ConversationWhile challenging, we can take action now to prevent Antarctica and the world from suffering out-of-control climate consequences. Success will demonstrate the power of peaceful international collaboration and show that, when it comes to the crunch, we can use scientific evidence to take decisions that are in our long-term best interest.

The choice is ours.

Steve Rintoul, Research Team Leader, Marine & Atmospheric Research, CSIRO and Steven Chown, Professor of Biological Sciences, Monash University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.