What do you think we should be doing to save the Arctic?

Posted by bex - 13 February 2012 at 10:46am - Comments

Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man recreated on Arctic sea ice by John Quigley

As I write, major oil companies like Shell, ExxonMobil and Chevron are planning their moves into the Arctic to exploit its vast mineral resources. The five Arctic states are beginning the process of carving up the high north. Meanwhile, the ice keeps melting – we’ve now lost 75 per cent of Arctic sea ice in just 30 years. The global battle to protect the Arctic - from oil exploration, from industrialisation and from climate change – needs to be ambitious, bold and successful. So we’re asking you: what do you think we should we be doing to save the Arctic?

Last year, you helped to make sure that Cairn’s oil spill response plan was published – and exposed as deeply flawed. You challenged VW’s stance on climate change laws, dividing the car industry around this critical issue. You pushed to get the Arctic onto the UK’s political agenda by asking David Cameron what his plans were to protect the Arctic.

All of this has brought us a step closer to saving the Arctic. But as the high north grows more vulnerable to industrialisation, as the ice melts, as the oil companies move in and the geopolitical battles over its resources heat up, we need to step up our efforts to protect it – and quickly.

In the coming months and years we need to campaign boldly - and successfully - to save the Arctic. This is going to need a lot of help from you. So we want to know:

What do you think we should be doing to save the Arctic?

Comment on our blog, share your ideas on Facebook or Tweet with the hashtag #SaveTheArctic.

If you’re in need of inspiration, have a look at our Antarctica campaign, which eventually resulted in the signing of The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty and the establishment of 'World Park Antarctica'.

Update: Scroll down to the bottom of the comments and click on the last page to view the latest comments.

Article tagged as: antartica, arctic, arctic drilling, climate change, climate impacts, take action

Comments Commenting is now closed

they should all agree to have itas a conservation area keeping greedy oil giants out and preserve it keeping people off the ice leave it alone and do more to save what we have left if it is not to late already

By netbet boo - 13 February 2012 at 3:32pm

1 person agrees

Sаlvation of the Arctic by internet group Anonymous, and Kyoto :)

By Dimitar Dolnooryahov - 13 February 2012 at 3:33pm

make the Arctic a World Park sounds a great idea as a first step.

By Julio Martinez - 13 February 2012 at 3:33pm

1 person agrees

People hate pedophiles because they harm children.

People should hate climate change and its deniers and causers - like big oil, 4x4 drivers etc in the same way.

Yet people do not always make this connection. Many still think climate change is just about the removed 'environment' (trees and stuff) rather than nature, human beings, and their own habitat.

I think a poster campaign with white western children on would get the message home
"Don't kill my future" - End oil exploration in the Artic- Climatete change kills. Or
"Climate change kills children and will harm your grand children"... unless you act.

Cigarette style warnings to fly post on car adverts, air flight adverts and so on saying 'Caution: Oil consumption = oil wars, climate change and a threat to your life' would be good.

By Simon Nash - 13 February 2012 at 3:33pm

1 person agrees

I think the problem is that still not enough people believe we are in danger of extinction. At 75, I am only concerned for my children and grandchildren. The excessive population occupation for sustainability would be solved! The only answer is possible only by personal action, namely refusing to use oil and air travel. What chances!!??

By Dr. Peter Foreman, FIET - 13 February 2012 at 3:34pm

2 people agree

Gather together a group of dedicated people who have the ability/will to 'merge' with the elemental forces, and working in harmony; hearts merged with Great Mother Earth; summon the water elementals and the wind elementals to make the seas too dangerous for those who seek to destroy our beautiful nature.This can be done from anywhere in the world, it just requires the imagination to visualize the areas, the focus to maintain the objective, and a burning passionate heart that knows it is a guardian of Terra therefore one with nature in essence. Elemental forces react to human emotional feelings, they can't help it, so summoning those forces to defend nature in a conscious way is very simple. Tune into the dolphins and whales; guardians of the soul of Mother Earth; and ask them to add their loving power to strengthen the cause.

By angela francesco - 13 February 2012 at 3:35pm

We need to encourage people to vote for "green" politicians.

Each country and each individual could have a carbon footprint card and countries and people who cause the least environmental damage should be rewarded financially and those who cause the most should be fined.

Also an advertising campaign to make people aware of their choices and the damage they cause.Ask people to think of their children and grandchildren and use less oil and oil based products.Buy locally and local goods.Check where goods come from.Buy less.

Cars with low emissions should be given a "cool " image and those like 4x4's or cars with high emissions could be given the thumbs down sign by other drivers of low emissions cars,cyclists and pedestrians Put the price of petrol up so people choose alternative methods of travel.

By J.L. - 13 February 2012 at 3:36pm

Declarar el Ártico y la Antártida parques mundiales protegidos antes de nada.

By Martina Zalguizuri Blasquiz - 13 February 2012 at 3:36pm

What's the problem? The Northeastern passage was navigable back in 1660, and navigable again in 1878. There's been anacdotal evidence and maps of the passage many times in that period. You assume that an ice-free north is somehow unusual when it's occured before. Submarines have surfaced in thin ice at the North Pole many times since it was first done in 1952.

Ironically the opening up of the NorthEastern passage would save squllions of tonnes of carbon! Ships would not have to go the "long way round".

It's all good. Relax.

By DaitheSci - 13 February 2012 at 3:40pm

Drive a campaign obtaining a commitment from consumers not to buy a new car until manufactured cars are powered from renewable resources eg electric cars charged by solar / wind / biomass. Charging at night means electric power is utilised at low peak times when RE source needs topping up.

Eskom in South Africa had an electric prototype with a system that could be retrofiited into virtually any make of car. That would be cheaper & use less resources, create lots of jobs and drive oil prices down, making speculation in future oil deposits too risky.

By Christine Garbett - 13 February 2012 at 3:41pm

Sorry upliftin, but Fusion technology creates radioactive waste - maybe not as much as nuclear fission - but vast quantities all the same!!

Chris A.

By Chris Aldridge - 13 February 2012 at 3:43pm

Can we make the artic reserve, and that the people who is trying to use this territory to be fine with jail time.. or a lot of money.

By anonimo4564 - 13 February 2012 at 3:45pm

We have to seek the ban on all kind of development (oil / petroleum production, any outputs or extractions, weapon testing, any hunting or fishing etc.) on the territory of Arctic the same as on the territory of Antarctic to protect our future, the Earth and all flesh.

By Olga21 - 13 February 2012 at 3:45pm

Perhaps ask all polititians to go on television and talk about what they are doing to save the planet.

By crol - 13 February 2012 at 3:46pm

I think that a treaty will need to be set up to protect the Arctic in the same way as the one for Antarctica.

By Liz Allmark - 13 February 2012 at 3:47pm

Oil and gas exploration and exploitation in the Arctic should be encouraged and promoted. The resources of this area are far too valuable to be ignored or sacrificed to the the "cause" of bogus environmentalism.

Runoff of fresh water into the Arctic Ocean must be carefully monitored to ensure that the ocean's salinity is not reduced to the point that the "Atlantic Conveyor" of warm water to the northern latitudes (the Gulf Stream) is significantly reduced in volume. If that should be allowed to happen, a new ice age will probably afflict Europe. As the Earth's climate warms --- and it surely shall do so until the present ice age peaks and begins to recede --- some or all of the increased runoff from the melting of fresh water ice all along the north slopes of Asia and America will have to be controlled and diverted to the south. These new supplies of diverted fresh water will be welcomed in the southern areas where drought from climate change will inevitably create great difficulties. The employment created by the hydro-engineering of these diversion projects will be greatly beneficial to the world's economies.

By DAN ROGERS - 13 February 2012 at 3:48pm

The best thing we can do for the planet is to get Greenpeace to stop their anti-science, anti-humanity, luddite ranting about the problem to the "climate crisis" (if one exists): Nuclear power.

Greenpeace are the problem, not the solution.

By DaitheSci - 13 February 2012 at 3:49pm

Education and true information

By GiampietroFraccari - 13 February 2012 at 3:50pm

I don't feel strongly inclined to preserve and extol the virtues of what is effectively an ice desert impeding human and animal movement and communication, and would seek instead to

a) adopt the approach to ecology advocated by Chris Thomas, whereby vulnerable species (including coatal man) are transported, where appropriate, to places of safety, and

b) focus on a global reafforestation programme to offset the effects of greenhouse gas and climate change

By Richard Comaish - 13 February 2012 at 3:50pm

Hello Bex at Greenpeace,

I think you have made a great start by asking the question. I think it is a question you could ask other groups and organisations as well as Greenpeace supporters. To form a network of networks.

I think it meaans working across differences and engaging with people from all walks of life. There will have to be trade offs if we are really going to save the Arctic.

The second thing is, i think the campaign begins by mapping out the oil industry in relation to the economy. We can only win this by recognising the real stakes and dealing with them.

All people have a right to know about investments already made by our banks into oil from the arctic and that this is not just a choice between renewables and oil. It is quite probably a choice between the arctic and the economic system. That is a very powerful idea. But, of course, a dangerous one.

I would support this campaign as a writer and journalist and human being, i would do pretty much anything to save the arctic. but like many of us right now i dont have money for the campaign!

By Rachel Francis - 13 February 2012 at 3:58pm

I go with Phil Kavadias. And: Greenpeace activists sitting on nuclear power plants sounds good, but I have the impression that it's these actions what gives Greenpeace the air of embittered preventers of "today's lifestyle". ("Those flower power guys want to throw us back to stone age.")

I think Greenpeace must get in the news with positive examples (like the SmiLE car Greenpeace released in June, 2000 which ran with less than 50% of gaz than the original.) I think it should become "sexy" to be part of Greenpeace. I would like CEOs, politicians and decision makers to be part of Greenpeace -- just because it's cool and because they know that they will be re-elected, if they are. And I want to live in a world where no one has to wear Greenpeace t-shirts, because everyone is part of it anyway!

So, Greenpeace, I think it's all about inventions:
-- If you are able to find a way to grow environment-friendly fish which is cheaper than searching the sea for The Last Tuna, the industry will follow automatically (and you get the licence fee).
-- If you manage to invent a handy which can be produced without poisonning the world ...
-- If you find a way to make affordable furniture without formaldehyde ...

In my opinion you proved with the SmiLE-car that you can do it all! Instead of fighting against drilling plans, make them dispensable! May the Force be with you!

By Chris Weiller - 13 February 2012 at 4:00pm

Can greed ever be thwarted? I fear not. The greedy always find ways to thwart those who try to constrain them. We know who they are and the only weapon we have is to shame them - those that are capable of feeling shame, that is. We cannot regulate them, we cannot simply put forward arguments no matter how good, we cannot physically prevent them.

By Colins - 13 February 2012 at 4:00pm

The artic is going to change so what can we do about it? We can prevent exploitation of this wilderness and allow species to adapt without hindrance. We can slow down climate change to maximise their chances.

By Peter Hirst - 13 February 2012 at 4:00pm

The Arctic is just one area that must be dealt with. As mentioned by previous posters it must be a multi-pronged action in every area that is endangered and essentail to the healthy lungs of the world.

Also, as posted by several previous posters, an effort made to control the population growth in an effortr to turn it around within a decade or two to population reduction. Currently the world cannot sustain this population at the size it is - even if all 'green'; measure are taken.

By Nyabonga - 13 February 2012 at 4:04pm

I hope, that this place will be a blank area in the future as like it is now. It is one of the biggest advertisements of our planet that the earth has. It is so big, you can even see it from the moon. And it is our responsibility to keep this clean and present it to our children.

Hopefully, Boje

By Boje Arndt Kiesiel - 13 February 2012 at 4:05pm

All these natural wildernesses like the Antartic (and also mountains like Everest and even tropical forests) should have a rule that all rubbish created is completely taken away by the perpetrators. And a rule that any activity/development can only be done if there is absolute certainty that it will not harm the ecosystem. A no-risk strategy for the earth. Maybe get all countries to identify and designate where these are. Global action, global government.

By Pat McKenna - 13 February 2012 at 4:07pm

There is an immediate need to shift our focus from oil exploration to renewable source of energy.

By Earth Lover - 13 February 2012 at 4:10pm

I agree with upliftin that the definitive solution would be to research and develop free energy. Free energy would turn oil and gas into oldfashioned dirty fuels. Nobody in their right mind would go drill in the freezing Arctic when the price of oil is going down.

By Ennar G - 13 February 2012 at 4:11pm

wenn sie/wir nicht alle eltern und großeltern überzeugen können, dass wir derzeit alle noch vorhandenen grundstoffe vergeuden udn für unsere kinder und enkelkinder nichts als verbrannte, ausgebeutete, fast nutzlose und trostlose leer zurücklassen, wenn wir dass nicht uns und unseren kindern klar machen können, dann wird es nichts.

für die "rettung" des arktikeises ist es ohnehin schon zu spät. aber zumindest die bodenschätze sollten wir nicht derartig sinnlos wie derzeit für immer vergeuden. dies ist aber nur mit meinungsbildung der wähler möglich. politiker und manager werden alles versprechen, gamacht wird aber nur was ihnen "gewinn" bringt, solange nicht von den wählern/konsumenten druck kommt.

By Der letzte Mohikaner - 13 February 2012 at 4:12pm

I think that as the future of the Anctartic is a question that comopromises the future of all mankind, we should follow the Aram example and demand, through an internet campaign, that all the heads of state and governments in the countries where we are citizens work to insure that all of Antarctica should be declared property of mankind, and be put under the protectorate of the United Nations and other World organization such as that.

If there are countries opposing this declaration, we all, citizens of Planet Earth should start a protest by signing a promise of not buying any product coming from that country and avoiding in posiible to travel there or to sell products or services.

I think it is about time to take our future in our hands. If we all fight as a unit I'm sure we will win. Thanks.

By Alvaro Ricardez - 13 February 2012 at 4:12pm

Where a glacier in Austria is melting fast and may mean losing skiing business to the area, they have put white plastic over the newly exposed area and it worked. The glacier-melt actually slowed down. With that as an example, all we have to do is spread a white sheet over the whole of the Arctic. After you ....... Seriously though, might we consider covering the newly-dark areas? Or parts of them?

By Janet Robertson - 13 February 2012 at 4:14pm

It's a huge question. Fundamental change is required - we have to stop relying on neo-liberal political & economic models, and totally rethink our relationship with nature. Easier said than done, though: unfortunately, the western world is still motivated by economics, and the consequences of environmental damage have yet to be accepted (or even understood). So, what can we do to save the arctic? More campaigns - bigger, bolder, louder campaigns than ever before, and approach these issues in a business-like manner (it's the only language that people will take seriously). Use social networking sites to their full potential. Help friends and family understand the issues, make ethical choices as consumers, and lead by example. Most importantly, keep believing that we can change the world for the better.

By Dan1974 - 13 February 2012 at 4:18pm

Lots of rhetoric here but obviously deeply felt. I have three problema with all this. First.Global warming is happening over a long period. How long I have no idea because detailed records have not been taken that far back. I have even read that current records have been misleading. Second. What is actually causing the effect? Is global warming taking place because the earth is creeping infinitessimally closr to the sun? Is the sun itself evolving into a hotter source of energy? Thirdly and probably the most important. Fossil fuels will eventually expire, run out, be used up. Oil fields are closing everywhere I believe. Alternative sources of energy need to be found pretty damn quick. My top money is on nuclear for cleanliness and availability and it can be used everywhere from tiny cells in households and transportation to large units in industry. Nuclear waste can be fired out into space to land on the hottest planet where it will be burnt out. My next money is on solar energy. Greater sophistication in harnessing the power of light, which is free and abundant, is needed. My third money is on a stack of small power producing schemes from wind and tide to running water. Complacency is not an option. Let the the oil companies drill for oil - I dont believe that they do that much harm, barring the occasional accident of course, and the oil fields will run out and do the job for you anyway but in the meantime look at the long term and lobby for more progress on alternative energy sources. I do not believe that the shrinking of the ice caps can be stopped - it is a natural phenomenon.

By Greenhawn - 13 February 2012 at 4:18pm

There seems to be many complicated environmental laws but not an over riding environmental law that is in place to conserve wilderness areas crucial to other beings aide from humans. Can't something be done to implement a universal law that deals with oil mining, reduction of greenhouse gases and prottection of wildlife. Big Oil companies should be accountable to a higher law. Currently they own the law and the politicians so they can do what they damn well please - even Shell got off lightly after virtually destroying an ecosystem. They should have been struck off as a doctor is struck off for malpractice. Until we have world leaders with vision and courage to move towards alternative energy and away from the dependence of oil the future of the arctic belongs to the oil co's who have already invested billions in their planned offshore activity. It is screwed - sorry to be so negative....

By Baxter - 13 February 2012 at 4:19pm

I would like to get involved in 'direct action' be part of a team that disrupts activities on a Greenpeace boat

www.theecosocialist.com

By MartinOB - 13 February 2012 at 4:20pm

How about linking up to other organisations that are also fighting this battle, Ecocide is a movement that is pushing to make eco crimes illegal in international law, if this happens then the Arctic could be protected under these laws.

By Mandyp - 13 February 2012 at 4:20pm

some ideas in no particular order:

huge awareness campaign with famous famous involved. including tv ads (factual/emotional)

going to the United Nations

Pressure on governments, and big organisations who are active in the area. pressurising govenments to draft legislation to make it illegal to go into the arctic for it's resources.

children from schools to write to decision makers.

huge boycott of products from companies that are involved in the arctic. naming and shaming. make them unpopular choices by applauding competitors who aren't doing same.

teaming up with other ngos who are fighting for same cause.

By Shasha - 13 February 2012 at 4:24pm

Strikes me that in the last year or so there's been a huge amount of change that's been sparked or backed by online and offline activists with groups like avaaz and 38 degrees. I think we need something on this kind of scale to wake people up to the reality of what is happening not just in the arctic, but all over the world, and is going to get 100 times worse if we don't act now. We need some kind of global revolution. With as much on and offline presence as possible, we need to take direct action against companies and governments that are threatening the arctic, but as well as this, we need to make sure that Joe Public understands what is going on and how catastrophic it will be if things don't change. Massive publicity, and brave people are needed, then hope that it snowballs.

By Josslyn - 13 February 2012 at 4:29pm

All of the above, and two more points

1. The Arctic (and Antarctic) are the polar equivalents of the rain-forests which have won a lot of friends through the arguments, but also through having lots of photogenic flora and fauna, as well as significant numbers of indigenous people and relatively easy access for tourists.This is not to say that the arguments have been won, but the cause-and-effect sequence is widely understood.

The polar regions are equally vital, but without the pulling power or the understanding. Campaigning groups will have to work hard to build an effective case using the much smaller number of native peoples, the Attenborough images, and so on. Satellite data and photos will be invaluable. In the UK tales of heroic failure such as Sir John Franklin and Captain Scott may even have their place too. But the polar bear is surely the iconic image - a massive creature on the verge of extinction in its natural habit because of mankind's short-sightedness and greed

2. Some Greenpeace members own shares in major oil companies through inheritance or strategic investment purchases. Many will want to persuade their companies to change direction towards renewable, sustainable energy production while providing dividends to their shareholders both in short-term cash and long-term environmental gain. The two are not incompatible. Campaigning through AGMs and other routes open to shareholders may not be as attractive as animal costume dramas in Trafalgar Square, or direct action north of the Arctic Circle, but it has its place too

By Chris W - 13 February 2012 at 4:29pm

It boils down to the following:

1. Make the Arctic a World Park
2. Reduce oil consumption
3. Support companies who are working in a positive way
4. Expose companies who aren't
5. Keep up the pressure on the decision-makers through the use of publicity

By Cas22 - 13 February 2012 at 4:33pm

We have to get to the root of the problem for the dissapearance of the ice in the Arctic. And that is the pollution! This is a very large scale task to put into action. All the world leaders have to be informed of the decline of natural ecosystems in and around the Arctic and what long term implications that would have on humanity. But I recommend this be done in a grim kind of manner. If this can be done successfully, then the world leaders can perform their national tasks with greater speed.

By David Hope - 13 February 2012 at 4:36pm

A global carbon tax might help, although I hardly see it coming any time soon.

Legal actions to implement the internationally recognized "polluters must pay principle". Maybe try to seek the status of crimes against humanity for massive and widespread loss of biodiversity and land?

Campaigning to obtain for the Artic the World Heritage status from UNESCO

A campaign on environmental justice and to internationally recognize environmental refugees as protected by refugee law.

An interview with the people of Tuvalu, Micronesia Federation and all other insular states that are going to disappear on what the planned to do (working title, the nations that won't be?)

By Green 3lmo - 13 February 2012 at 4:45pm

i think that we should just go on to do what is right because this planet is above any form of human selfish greed and our "suit our need" kind of laws. the antarctic needs protection and it should just be protected.

By Jairoop Riar - 13 February 2012 at 4:49pm

At the moment it seems complicated to work out how the man in the street can help. I should like to see widespread media publication of lists of products from the 'bad' companies in order of their threat to the earth, and if possible a list of alternatives from the 'good' companies who make an effort to be green. This way we could know quite simply what to boycott and where to find alternatives. If large numbers of us used the same lists, we could make a big difference.

By J White - 13 February 2012 at 4:52pm

With five world powers now competing to exploit the arctic, it is highly unlikely that any will curtail their activities in this region without massive pressure from their own electorate. Nor will it be enough for one or two to adopt a responsible position. THEY ALL MUST. If it is not already too late, perhaps the only course of action for Greepeace now is to educate and campaign on an unprecedented scale, ideally in partnership with all other environmental groups.

By David Maunder - 13 February 2012 at 4:52pm

Many of the comments so far are really good. Hopefully I might reach this same high standard of debate.

First thought. Name and shame - Shell, ExxonMobil and Chevron so the Homo ostrichens take their heads out of the sand to find out what it really happening in the real / environmental world and not just on the computer screens of the world's stock exchanges.

Could the native peoples, whose territority is being destroyed as previously in history by economically motivated "developed / civilized" people, take a case to the UN that arctic exploration is a violation of their human rights ?

In passing:

Redjohn,

I know what you are saying and have been tempted to make similar comments. As a committed Christian, although admittedly far from fundamental (some evengelicals have condemned me as non-Christian), I take my duty to my Creator very seriously. As does Al Gore, who isn't past making a buck out of being the world's environmental saviour as well as producing about 20 times the carbon of the average US citizen. However, allowing for his very human failings, he does write and talk sense and he too disagrees with the happy Apocalyptical brigade which is living in the expectation that < he who sat upon the throne said, "Behold I make all things new.> (Revelation 21:5)

Incidentally don't knock religious experience completely. Many of you reading this will possibly think poor old ivanhamgibson is still suffering severely from a personal aberration experienced while hearing Billy Graham over 30 years ago. Admittedly very belatedly, some Christians are beginning to see the "writing on the wall" at Belshazzar's Feast (Daniel. 5). Harnessing the world's religious enthusiasm to help the environment if it should happen would include a large per centage of humanity and could be very effective.

Bronwen,

Certainly no humans would solve some problems. But what would be the point? Having both enjoyed and hated the last 65 years at various times, I live in the hope that the few young people who care about the planet might be sufficiently successful in preserving remaining resources for my grand daughters to enjoy seeing blue whales, grass rather than motorways and enjoying enough food to survive. Even if the last may not be that serious for them it is already that serious for many unfortunates.

Please do not throw in the sponge and shoot yourself just yet.

JMT,

Communication with the Inuit is an excellent idea but do we really want more (anti-) "environmental" tourism ?

Herculis, ssam

Hold on ! I hope the nuclear power you are suggesting is the magic stuff that lots of folks think is just round the next scientific laboratoy corner and will decay in weeks or if not at the most years - not millennia.

Antonia88,

Please tell me what is an environmentally friendly car. I've never managed to find one yet.

OK Everyone Else,

Now is your chance to rubbish my ideas.

I'm sorry I was so wordy but the problem with retirement is that one has too much of the wrong sort of time.

ivanhamgibson

By ivanhamgibson - 13 February 2012 at 4:59pm

hi threre

saving or protecting the arctic is a huge challenge, besides seen how that other org protecs the whales from the criminal acts of the japanesse killing them and saw the politicians and wall street in the person of h clinton talking in the arctic some bs related as facade for money hunger and greed after the destruction and manipulation of that area in the good name of progress in the good old american way... to fight those huge dark interest$ at the arctic it needs to worked in a higher level, i mean in the united nations it needs to be legally move and made the arctic as sort of same thing countries do to protec endangered areas as putting them as national reserves or national parks under laws that protect the arctic as a humanity protected area. but these might take a lot of protests and signs into million of directions and also a program of making people conscious onthe subject, to look for support in the sensible supported comunities, well thats my idea to fighting something into a change

By Neo Matrix - 13 February 2012 at 5:03pm

There have been plans to call for an "Arctic Nation" at Greenpeace last year, where all the inhabitants of the arctic, i.e. the inuit, form an officially and UN-recognised nation called "Polarland". What has happened to that idea?

By Uklatsch - 13 February 2012 at 5:05pm

The designation of the Arctic as an International or World Marine Reserve seems about the most plausible idea. So let's get started - petitions as well as action. Petitions need to be done and submitted on a global scale, so perhaps continent by continent ?

By Hel - 13 February 2012 at 5:09pm

Can we not move unique fauna such as polar bears to somewhere else

By jeremy hemming - 13 February 2012 at 5:09pm