Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for January 21, 2008

Volcanic Poles and Glacier Melting

By

In December I mentioned that global warming may not be the only thing melting Greenland. Scientists have found at least one natural magma hotspot under the Arctic island that could be pitching in.

Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic may also contain active volcanoes.

Now we have reports relating to an article in Nature Geoscience:

Herald Tribune: ‘Antarctic volcanoes identified as a possible culprit in glacier melting’

Excerpt: Volcanically, Antarctica is a fairly quiet place. But sometime around 325 B.C., the researchers said, a hidden and still active volcano erupted, puncturing several hundred yards of ice above it.

The Nature Geoscience article:

Published online: 20 January 2008 | doi:10.1038/ngeo106

A recent volcanic eruption beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet

Hugh F. J. Corr & David G. Vaughan

Indirect evidence suggests that volcanic activity occurring beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet influences ice flow and sheet stability. However, only volcanoes that protrude through the ice sheet and those inferred from geophysical techniques have been mapped so far. Here we analyse radar data from the Hudson Mountains, West Antarctica, that contain reflections from within the ice that had previously been interpreted erroneously as the ice-sheet bed. We show that the reflections are present within an elliptical area of about 23,000 km2 that contains tephra from an explosive volcanic eruption. The tephra layer is thickest at a subglacial topographic high, which we term the Hudson Mountains Subglacial Volcano. The layer depth dates the eruption at 207 BC (+/-240 years), which matches exceptionally strong but previously unattributed conductivity signals in nearby ice cores. The layer contains 0.019–0.31 km3 of tephra, which implies a volcanic explosive index of 3–4. Production and episodic release of water from the volcano probably affected ice flow at the time of the eruption. Ongoing volcanic heat production may have implications for contemporary ice dynamics in this glacial system.

British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge CB3 0ET, UK

Ignoring the slaughter of dugongs in Northern Australia

By

There are two criteria which should be applied to the harvest of an animal species: 1. Are the numbers taken sustainable, and 2. Is the method of killing humane?

At least that’s what I said on ABC Radio National last Friday morning when Steve Cannane asked me why I thought it was hypocritical for Australians to rally against whaling by the Japanese while ignoring the slaughter of dugongs by indigenous Australians.

In reply Steve interviewed Joe Morrison, Executive Officer of the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance, this morning. Mr Morrison essentially side-stepped the issue of whether dugongs were killed humanely, but he did dispute my claim that 1,000 dugongs are killed in northern Australia each year.

Mr Morrison suggested this number only applied to the Torres Straits. So how many dugongs are killed each year in Northern Australia?

You can listen to both interviews by podcast. The interviews were part of the Breakfast Program and so the podcasts include other interviews and news reports during that segment of the program.

1. Anti-whaling activists released

…The men are about to be handed over to the Sea Shepherd ship, the Steve Irwin. Meanwhile, an Australian public policy group is critical of the strong tactics used by conservation groups like the Sea Shepherds and Greenpeace, and the position of the Australian government on the whales issue.

Guests
Paul Watson, Captain of the Steve Irwin
Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, Senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs

Listen here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2008/2141167.htm

2. Whales and dugongs

Last week Breakfast heard from Dr Jennifer Marohasy from the Melbourne-based Institute of Public Affairs who described the Australian Government’s anti-whaling position as hypocritical. Dr Marohasy said the Federal Government and conservation groups like Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherd are jumping up and down about the slaughter of whales by the Japanese, yet ignoring the killing of more endangered species like dugongs and turtles by Indigenous people in Northern Australia.

Guests
Joe Morrison, Executive Officer of the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance (NAILSMA)

Listen here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2008/2142705.htm

‘Climate Change Refugees’ Not Refugees: A Note from Nichole Hoskin

By

In the movie The Day After Tomorrow changes in ocean current circulation from global warming result in the northern hemisphere freezeing over and US citizens fleeing to Mexico in search of a warmer environment. In An Inconvenient Truth we are told the world is already too warm with rising sealevels now displacing some Pacific islanders. Meanwhile, in the real world, it seems there really is no such a thing as a climate change refugee …

Hi Jennifer,

The Refugee Convention establishes a procedure for States to determine whether the individual is entitled to the status of a refugee. Once status determination takes place, with health and security checks, if the individual is a refugee then he/she is entitled to the human rights specified in the Convention–such as access to health care, education, employment, housing, social security etcetera.

The main problem with trying to include people displaced by climate change within the definition in Article 1(A)(2) of the Refugee Convention is that such persons do not meet the requirements of the definition. To be a refugee, an individual must have:

1) crossed an international frontier–ie. be outside of his/her country of origin. If the individual remains in his/her country of origin, then the individual is an Internally Displaced Person (IDP) and not a refugee

2) “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted” –the person left his/her country of origin because of the fear of being persecuted –the person left or cannot return to his/her country of origin because of the fear of being persecuted

3) the persecution is for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion

4) the individual is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of his country of origin–the main aim of the Refugee Convention was to attach an individual without the protection of a State to another State.

5) subject to cessation and exception clauses–mainly for war-criminals, serious criminals, and persons under the protection of another State/UN agency.

Since the definition of a refugee requires persecution for one of the five specified reasons (race etcetera), the indiscriminate nature of climate change means that people displaced by climate change are not refugees. The issue of how international law will resolve climate change displacement is only just emerging. However, the only academics that have written papers considering the issue are scientists without legal training, who generally don’t understand the definition of a refugee. No legal academics have written about the issue yet. However, Dr Jane McAdam, an expert in Refugee Law, has been getting increasing numbers of questions on this issue from Non-Government Organisations. Jane started the course ‘Forced Migration’ last year so that she could teach refugee law and consider whether it could extend to other circumstances where people are forcibly displaced, such as climate change, development induced displacement and internal displacement. Jane is also the director of the Centre for Climate Change in the Gilbert and Tobin Public Law Centre at the University of NSW.

While it is possible to open up negotiations for an extension of the Refugee Convention, through an Optional Protocol to vary the original Convention, there is significant resistance to doing this from the UN High Commission for Refugees and legal academics. Under International Law, States must consent to the obligations to be bound by them. At present it is unlikely that States will consent to an extension of their obligations to refugees in the current political climate, where most Developed States are actively pursuing policies to avoid responsibilities under the Refugee Convention.

The other alternative is for the negotiation of a separate treaty to specifically address the needs of people displaced by climate change. It is arguably preferable to adopt this approach, particularly considering the negative perceptions of ‘refugees’ in media discussions of immigration policy in Developed States (such as Europe, US and Australia). There is also the advantage of creating a definition that allows for arrangements to be made for resettlement before people are actually displaced by climate change, rather than persisting with the crossing an international border requirement.

It is also important to take into account that there were 9.9 million refugees in 2006. The vast majority of those refugees were in Developing States, such as Pakistan with 2.1 million Afghan refugees; and about 2 million Iraqi refugees in Iran, Syria, Jordon and Turkey. Since the international community has failed to equitably share the burden of refugees on Developing States, it is questionable whether increasing the numbers of people within the refugee definition will lead to durable solutions, such as resettlement in another State.

Nichole Hoskin