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

It's difficult to find the vision.

I guess some kind of international binding treaty on emissions would help, no?

By Rob Telford - 13 February 2012 at 5:13pm

When I opened the message : What do you think we should be doing to save the Arctic, I thought the question almost unanswerable. I have been worried about climate change since

By sonya lippoldAnonymous - 13 February 2012 at 5:15pm

We must keep the Artic as pristine and safe as in the days of the great explorer Shackleton we humans have taken over this entire world, for Gods sake we need to keep this place human free for all the generations to come.

By Tina Blackwell - 13 February 2012 at 5:31pm

apart from all current activities by pushing major intuders of the arctic I find it worth to start certain campaigns where a re-thinking about the individual behaviour by using power, water, gaz and other resources will be put under reflection.

From my point of view - and this is also shown by experience (e.g. the ban of Shell stations by consumers after the announcement that Brent Spar should be scupped in the north atlantic) - it gives a very good pressure for any of those companies if consumers do not need that much energy etc. any more than in the past.

Why should I let my lamps switched on while being in a different room; why should I use my car instead of my bike; why should I wait for boiling water if I needed just warm water but let it run for minutes; why shall I take a bath instead of a quick shower; why do I need 25°C in my living room insted of 18-20°C and having a light jacket on; ....

There might be many other possibilities which are not really cost-intensive but will give a major impact on everything if many participate.

By Martin Werner - 13 February 2012 at 5:38pm

1 person agrees

We need an international treaty to protect the Arctic. At the very least, it should ban all mineral exploitation (including oil) in the seas, within the Arctic Circle, and transportation (of same) in that area. Greenpeace would be the organisation who would know the best way to go about this but, I would suggest, a good start would be a campaign to invite all menbers of the public to send E-mails to all Heads of State. Greenpeace could send out a pro-forma Email (editable), via the internet, to all their contacts, with an invitation to share. An ePetition might be a good idea but would probably not be as effective as a mass E-mail campaign.

By The Bodger - 13 February 2012 at 5:42pm

By Dr David Hanraty - 13 February 2012 at 5:46pm

I just think surely you could extract fuel from a multiplicity of sources which are all sustainable AND don't take millions of years to grow/develop. Probably already been said on here but I didn't read any other comments.

By Castle - 13 February 2012 at 5:50pm

Agree it would be a good idea for all the environmental charities to amalgamate on this. Massive campaign to get public support. Lobbying of governments from countries involved and of those not involved who might back such a campaign. Also involve animal/wildlife charities who might not normally be involved in this kind of campaign. Yes - must involve children - their voices will hopefully be heard by politicians thinking of next generation voters !!!! Lets go - we're all behind you !!!

By knashersmum - 13 February 2012 at 5:51pm

I am really happy to put my voice alongside Greanpeace. I remember the signing of the treaty in 1959 and my gratitude for those who together had made it happen and a strong feeling of confirmation in the values of humankind. I saw then that the Arctic was going to be a different story - being more difficult to define and potentially crossing many fronteirs. Now I think the time has come - everything within the Arctic Circle be declared a World Heritage Site and be protected by the new law against Ecocide. With thanks. Richard Price.

By Richard Price - 13 February 2012 at 5:52pm

I live in Juneau Alaska and some of our Reps just headed to DC to lobby for drilling in ANWR.

There is an artical about this in the Anchorage Daily News on Feb. 11, 2012

http://www.adn.com/2012/02/09/2309652/legislators-plan-dc-trip-to-sell.html

By Blackbart - 13 February 2012 at 5:57pm

I believe that a possible solution would be to take the initiative so
that other renewable energies took the relief of the petroliferous
industry.

How to obtain this?

On the one hand, Greenpeace has a great power of call, that could unite
to other groups, companies and organizations with the same restlessness.

Also there is amount of people who we think that things can be made
different, in many senses, including the dependency energetics, and that
another world is possible. A leadership is needed to make a change.

On the other hand there are ethical banks that give loans for
sustainable projects.
Many of us we considered if the function who exert the banks now is the
one that the humanity needs. We could find a bank (to stimulate one
existing one or to create one) that fulfills the requirements that we
wish?

How many us we would be had to put part of our savings in a bank of
these characteristics to be able to initiate a way towards a change?

The bank could give loans to companies that were created (or existing)
in order to improve the existing renewable energies and to perhaps find
others.

The companies can create new jobs.

Also a company with small microcredits could be financed, in which it
could be a species of cooperative. Certainly there is amount of
solutions in this respect.

I am digressing much?

By Teresa Miarnau - 13 February 2012 at 5:59pm

I think that it would be a good idea to hold protests in busy areas like London, in order to raise awareness of the issues involving the Arctic. Or maybe campaigning with many other environmental groups would be good! :)

By Abigail Keane-Atkins - 13 February 2012 at 6:01pm

I agree with many of the comments made thus far. Bringing them together I'd like to see an aggressive campaign for a new Artic Treaty, along the llines of the Antartic Treaty. Excepting the issues around nations exisiting interests and territories in the actric we need to work for a treaty that ensures the artic can be seen as a global commons belonging to us all, becomes a demilitarised zone, bans mining and mineral exploitation and only allows scientific research which is freely available to all and benefits the whole planet and not national or commerical interests.

Stuart

By Stuart Singleton-White - 13 February 2012 at 6:09pm

please do more.

By chander kumar soni - 13 February 2012 at 6:14pm

please do more.

still now, we are so far.

By chander kumar soni - 13 February 2012 at 6:14pm

1. Declare the area a Site of Specific Scientific Interest. Or. more to the point, a Site of Specific Planetary Interest.

2. Make Ecocide a crime.

By Anonymous 999 - 13 February 2012 at 6:15pm

Make a film of the conditions now. And compare with archive film showing the declinig in various properties. This could then be used to have various fund raising events, as well as awareness raising

By Caroline Morgan yes its me - 13 February 2012 at 6:21pm

How about widely publicising maps showing where will be under water with different levels of artic melt?.

By Buster - 13 February 2012 at 6:28pm

Look guys, however good your intentions, you are just peeing into the wind. The plain facts are that unless you can annihilate about 5 billion people quickly the Artic is lost. The only way this planet can support an ever growing population of humans is to exploit every possible energy source. The Artic is but just one. Shale gas, coal tar and nuclear are others. All will be exploited in their turn. I support your ideals, but stop all this wooly thinking. If mankind is to survive at these and ever greater population densities we need all the energy we can get. To the average man a few polar bears are a fair trade to get food on his plate and a job. I return you to a man who will ultimately be proved right, he just got his timings wrong. Rember Malthus ?

By R Jones - 13 February 2012 at 6:29pm

Repeat of unfinished message.

When I opened the message: What do you think we should be doing to save the Arctic, I thought the question unanswerable,I have been worried about climate change since 1969 , when walking my chidren to school, noticing the effects of car emissions on the roadside vegetation. I am really cheered by the many ideas pouring on to the response site, well done to all the people contributing. the hard task now to hit on the winning solutions, and how to get the truly critical point , to the attention of ordinary people.

sonya lippold long term Greenpeace supporter .

By sonya lippold - 13 February 2012 at 6:36pm

A strong united voice from all the the volountary organisations, whose focus is environmental issues. One voice, to confront all governments and the United Nations; with the demand that the Artic and the Antartica be declared areas where mineral resources are never to be explored, or exploited.

Further, (and this is almost certainly an impossibility), that money that would have been used to explore and exploit mineral resources in these and othe desperatly sensitive area's, be diverted to research into low carbon footprint sustainable sources of energy; for one example photo synsthesis.

It is a desperate situation, that requires a major wake up call of sufficient strength and power, to give Politicians the moral fibre to face down the Industrial Giant's, and their profit hungry investors.

I wish I could see even a glimmer of hope, that those who could save our planet, show signs of having the power, the will, and determination to do so. Unfortunately I see no evidence of that,

Caroline Mercer

By Caroline Mercer - 13 February 2012 at 6:37pm

Thank you for putting this crucial issue to the public.

I would like to see Greenpeace (and the Green party of course) elected and the manifesto would promote the total stopping of the use of oil. We need houses and cars to work more efficiently and we need to start building passive eco houses and we need to completely change the transport system. I work with Transition Malvern Hills and we have a grant to thermal image houses in Malvern to help with pocket and planet, People can save money and save the planet at the same time. We need to join the Green party and the local Transition Town. LONG LIVE THE WONDERFUL GREENPEACE and SAVE THE WORLD, you guys!! Thank you! Get moving people of the world !

By Lynn Jones - 13 February 2012 at 6:41pm

I don't know about solutions; we can only keep on living on this planet if all people of the earth think it is worth it. The only solution I see is the one of prayer and meditation. Of course also other things must be done but it won't work if biggest part of the world population doesn't care. So, my idea is: let's (also) pray, meditate or wish for really happy governments/ presidents/politicians etc. : people , happy people with love and peace in their heart will hate to do ugly things. Beauty will make them happy; they will long for it. And really happy and loving people will also love it when others are able to live in beauty and happiness. I am not a fool or an unpractical dreamer...I am a hard working person, doing what I can to save a good envirement but I know that non-caring people have a lack of real peace and happiness and doing the job with succes, you need people who care so let's do it, let's feel sorry for them, let's love our so called enemies and let's also take care that we keep up the love and peace in our selves this world needs love and happy hearts

By Marjan booy - 13 February 2012 at 6:45pm

I would try to encorage goverments to invest in more wind and water power.and I would also blow China in to space.but then that probaby wont be printed....................................

By jean martin - 13 February 2012 at 6:47pm

There are some absolutely brilliant ideas and discussions going on here. We're reading / listening with huge interest. The ideas / discussions here will feed into our planning, so please do keep them coming!

Thanks all,

Bex
gpuk

By bex - 13 February 2012 at 6:49pm

I think greenpeace should actively campaigne for nuclear energy. I know this is reversal of previous ideas but when facts change we should change are minds also. Newer designs are much safer and eleminate nuclear waste.

The killer argument the fossil fuel industry always makes is that there is no choice, they say we might not like oil but look how few people don't actually use any. By supporting nuclear energy and electric transportation we can demonstrate a real alternative and deprive the oil industry of its reason to exist.

By nick flynn - 13 February 2012 at 6:55pm

Overpopulation is strangling the world and it's resources. Concentrate on strengthening the education of women/girls in the third world countries and through this opportunity, they will find more useful time for themselves in the job market etc. they will have learned that large families are detrimental to the limited resource of the planet .

By Greenpeace member - 13 February 2012 at 6:55pm

I am liking the tone of these comments. There still are people who took a big swig of Al Gore's elixir a long time ago and who have learned nothing new since then, but there are many more people nowadays who recognize that climate warming is going on, cannot be stopped by anything man can do or stop doing, and that we should be preparing to deal with it. Diverting runoff water from the north slope down to southern dry areas --- to prevent the Atlantic Conveyor from slowing down or stopping and to supply fresh water to areas being dried out by the warming trend --- makes the most sense to me as far as the Arctic strategy is concerned, but it seems obvious that we are going to have to take special measures to preserve wildlife in the area. Mankind and wildlife must be symbiotic to the maximum extent compatible with sensible economics. Otherwise the area will become a wasteland or a battleground.

By DAN ROGERS - 13 February 2012 at 7:00pm

My local taxi driver is also my local ( Conservative) councillor. I once had a 20 minute journey in his cab where he was emphatic that climate change doesn't exist, that he'd read up on it and was now sure of his opinion. I was embarrassed at his crassness, his self interest, his patriarchal attitude. My only retort has been to never use his cab again. If I had challenged him verbally I would have ended up shouting incoherently, swearing and generally showing emotion.

Blindness to the ecological catastrophe is institutionalised, it is 100% bolstered by Conservative/capitalist "big business". Their credo is USE, USE, USE. They don't get emotional about it, they are only focussing on the big fat dollar signs.

My neighbours use ecological washing up liquid - good for them. But they run two cars. I don't think the washing up liquid makes up for that. People are too soft on themselves regarding ethics. I use the train to get to work, the bus to go to town, taxis for anything unusual, I shop for groceries in my village. And I don't feel deprived in any way !! In fact we have more disposable income than most car - using friends.

People have been brainwashed into buying stuff. No one walks anywhere, we're all getting fat, we're all lonely/alienated/intolerant of others ( eg.I want a cottage in the countryside with no neighbours). The concept of luxury is now meaningless because so many already live in it.

Do you remember the 80's anti drug campaign, "just say no" ?

START A YOUTH CAMPAIGN WITH THE SAME SLOGAN - "JUST SAY NO". HAVE T SHIRTS, A LAPEL RIBBON, BILLBOARD ADVERTS NEAR CAMPUSES. No to crap public transport, no to two/three/four car households, no to buying stuff just to keep a big corporation going, no to corporate blindness and ignorance, no to ruining any more wilderness, no to the 1% who profit from these obscene acts ( which is hand in glove with the 1% who are profiting from the financial catastrophe in the world). Get young people to embrace their own ABSTAINING power.

Lobby the government to reward people who don't have a car, who use resources responsibly. Get cycle lanes as good as Holland. That would be massive - we need a different infrastructure to get ourselves around.

By willowpattern - 13 February 2012 at 7:00pm

I think I have heard enough of this utter drivel about "global warming".......there have been, and there always will be, swings from Ice ages to Tropic ages, which CANNOT be controlled by human beings, (unless one of them is superman, and can move the earth to a permanent postion at an Ideal distance from the sun) !!!.....FOSSIL fuels will expire well before they do any PERMANENT damage...then you will see far greater troubles than ant human being has experienced since time began....SAVE the TROPICAL FORESTS...not just housing the homeless Orangutans....for when they have all been cut down, THIS ALONE will alter the climate of the earth, with no trees to absorb co2, and bare earth becoming like deserts, the jet stream AND the gulf stream will alter course, and then we are for it !!!....SAVE the FORESTS.........or reap the dire consequences....there were dinosaurs in Britain....there was an ocean in Australia, the himalayers did not exist....this is the nature of things in the universe ....AMEN !!!

By k Johns - 13 February 2012 at 7:00pm

If you take a good look at global warming you'll see that the main reason for the change in the atmosphere (and thus melting of ice etc.) is because of our way to make electricity. For now there are some ways to create electricity: using fossil fuels that obviously pollute the earth, renewable energy, which actually hasn't enough efficiency to be sustainable, or nuclear power. It troubles me that people only know one sort of the latter, namely nuclear fission, or splitting an atom core. This form of producing electricity might be without the emission of greenhouse gasses, but there is only a limited amount of the required material on earth and the by-products are frightfully dangerous. There is, however, an alternative: nuclear fusion. This form of producing electricity emits no greenhouse gasses and can be done with simple hydrogen, of wich is plenty on earth. The by-product is helium, which has no impact at all on this climate or anything else.

So I wonder, why doesn't Greenpeace support this technology? Right now you say, "stop nuclear power" without proposing a decent alternative. Stopping fission is one step, but this will not be enough to have a proper solution, which is stopping fission and starting fusion.

By A scientist - 13 February 2012 at 7:08pm

We should oppose oil and gas exploration in the arctic. It is simply too dangerous!

By Conor Scott - 13 February 2012 at 7:09pm

what about getting the Anonymous group to find out a bit more about the people at the "top" who are content to help sustain the supply demand paradigm.? i could be wrong but i think they hate the light that that kind of thing brings to them..
although trying to think of a positive way of doing things that doesn't involve punishment...
additionally try to focus on the good aspects of what is being achieved already...
one of the things is to wonder how we ever got along before oil products...a demonstration of oil free or reduced oil living might be useful...wooden tights? ..quite sexy really!
what about not worrying about the planet so much? ...it'll be okay and there may be a natural mindset change to more respect as we see a possible outcome..many don't worry until its on their doorstep. so a way of bringing the situation and their doorstep closer?
the problem isn't that the sea ice is melting.its arrogant to think we are causing more change than the ball of fire next door ....i would put that down to natural cycles as in the past but the pulling oil out of the sea beneath the melted ice..
I'm not sure this is the right way but i would teach people about birth control ..a bit.is there enough habitat for the number of people?

By pancreatic_insuffrafisch - 13 February 2012 at 7:13pm

It will happen as there is limited political will to stop the global multi-nationals and too many nations have vested interests and have thus gagged themselves. We therefore need to decide - how can 'it' be done - responsibly, with minimum impact, safeguards built in etc - then get behind this developing vision. The 'whole' vision is not possible at the start so it needs to be incremental and could usefully begin with some key questions: what does an independent monitoring body look like - how should it be funded - what powers should it have etc - who should set it up when and how. Participatory democracy and consensus are also flawed - so the structure and model will be important - look at how impotent the UN is in Syria right now - simply because 2 nations will not consent their good will to stop mass slaughter. We (the protesters) need to "box clever" but we must first decide what boxing clever looks like and then live in the present and short term as we cannot predict nor do we have the resources to imagine what these companies will be doing in the medium and longer term future. If we throw resources at the latter, we'll miss the detail happening now! KF

By fitch - 13 February 2012 at 7:17pm

theoretically....if everyone stopped using electricity and consuming goods...what would happen to the industries that supply it?....surely the system would find a better balance with the Earth that supports it?....
we would grow more body hair..some would not make it but that would nature as she was before...it would be ulitimately fair..
are the people at the "top", people that will be able to leave earth when they are done with it so don't worry about that sort of thing? it almost seems like it...or is no one in control?

By pancreatic_insuffrafisch - 13 February 2012 at 7:18pm

we've got keep on. we cant say die. we can´t give up. we´ve gotta go on for this beautiful world.

By sandy alejandra gomez - 13 February 2012 at 7:20pm

Ahem.....what I meant in my earlier post was: create the category: Site of Special Planetary Interest. The continuation of ALL species is, after all, of great interest as well as being crucial.

And, to open up the discussion a bit, I am personally a very big fan of Desertec projects: utilising the solar energy that heats up the world's deserts to provide electricity. You know it makes sense.

By Anonymous 999 - 13 February 2012 at 7:21pm

I like the idea of some kind of protected park. May not be able to do the whole "World Park Antarctica" agreement but what about a Marine Park? Also, we must recognize that there is controversy over who actually owns what in the Artic. Canada, Norway, Russia all need to have pressure put on them.

Definitely need to support sustainable energy programs to reduce the worlds dependence on oil. Bullfrog energy in Canada has succeeded in encouraging individuals and businesses to pay a premium for 100% renewable energy. http://www.bullfrogpower.com/. Canadians are far more environmentally conscious than our government would suggest. Don't listen to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his cronies.......they are completely pro business and it is upsetting a lot of Canadians.

Get Michael Moore to create a film around what the world will look like in 2100 at the current pace of exploration (both oil, gas and minerals). He and his films tends to get a lot of attention. If the world could envision what the population would look like and where all the drilling and explorations would be happening....it might have an affect. At what point will the world actually cave in on itself from all this drilling? We must look to more renewable resources in everything.

By YHiemstra - 13 February 2012 at 7:30pm

We should lobby all governments globally. Each country mounting mass protests. It's vital we get our message across that no more of our planet's resources should be plundered for short term gain and long term loss which will adversley affect present and future generations to come. We also need to lobby with just as much passion for the alternative solutions to fossil fuels, the green sustainable ones.

By Primrose Coley - 13 February 2012 at 7:30pm

I think you need to create a park, as we did with the Antarctic

By Planetix - 13 February 2012 at 7:32pm

My contribution to the discussion is as follows:

I agree with a mega project by Greenpeace, world Green Partys, IFAW, CPAWS, David Suzuki Foundation, Avaaz, 350.org, etc. to work together to create a World Park in Antarctica.

I agree with the suggestion to approach UNESCO to label Antarctica a World Heritage Site as this brings legal protection to the area.

I bring the following items to your attention to show there IS change a'happenin in the business world today:

http://www.cbc.ca/recivilization/episode/2012/02/07/episode-four-re-indu...

http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/analysis/business-analysis/123111-climate-change-is-causing-a-shift-in-business-models%2C-report-finds.html

http://www.scidev.net/en/science-and-innovation-policy/science-at-rio-20...

Greenpeace has been successful in the past, i.e. the Antarctic Treaty and the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement negotiated several years ago We can make change happen again!

Onni Milne

By Onni Milne - 13 February 2012 at 7:39pm

Just read how the oil industry has paid over $12 million to members of Congress to get the KeystoneXL passed. No mention of the names of these Congressmen. We have to be aggressive, get more organizations to commit, name those in Congress who are paid by the oil industry, illustrate the damage, keep repeating the damage, the congressmen, point out the loudest supporters and how much they have been paid. Naming names really gets the blood boiling. They know they cannot trust the propaganda by those who are paid to do so.

By Floss Shahbegian - 13 February 2012 at 7:45pm

Stopping this proces is a too big task for us humans. Just try to help addapting the animals. Life will not end because all of the ice is gone. Adaptability is natures secret.

Don't worry, arctic life will still be present within a million years.

By Paladin - 13 February 2012 at 7:46pm

We need campaigns to bring to light the facts, the truth surrounding global warming.

It's not an ideology from deluded scientists - it is actual; what's more, it's threatening the wildlife at the poles and us!

By Rebecca L - 13 February 2012 at 7:47pm

Joining hands with all possible environmental organisations and start with a massive pettition worldwide? If we could break a record with a massive petition, and a few millions would sign... hopefully they will listen? Only united will we be able to make a stand against so much greed!

By Eric Collignon - 13 February 2012 at 7:47pm

Support the ecocide campaign. There will be abig event in London on April 11th this year to talk about it. I will send you details. We need to make all of this deep drilling and extraction of oil from tar sands ILLEGAL. I will contact your office tomoerrow

By Diana Marquand - 13 February 2012 at 7:53pm

Produce my screenplay "JOURNEY FOR HEAVEN" which is an apocalypse film with a clear and hard message at the end.

By Leotien Parlevliet - 13 February 2012 at 7:58pm

Plan shareholder actions for AGMs of fuel companies. Plan carefully. Find out individual shareholders and ask them if they would be involved. Approach pension funds and other big shareholders - to see if they could support actions. Make it a real threat to withdraw funds, not just an awareness-raising media action (though that would be good too).

We have to break the deadly nexus: managers are obliged to make as much money as possible for shareholders; shareholders don't have knowledge to direct company activities. Therefore corporations are out of control, with greed built into the system as a guiding principle.

By redwing - 13 February 2012 at 8:03pm

Produce my screenplay "JOURNEY FOR HEAVEN" which is a apocalypse film with a clear and hard warning at the end

By Leotien Parlevliet - 13 February 2012 at 8:04pm

The sea ice will melt. There is nothing you can do to stop climate change by enough, fast enough to stop it.

Publicise what the world will look like without it.

There will be impacts on wildlife, the weather, the climate etc.

The only way to protect the sea ice is to halt Climate Change. I know this is pessimistic, but we're not going to be able to, however hard we all try. And that is not a reason to stop trying to halt the worst impacts - it serves to illustrate exactly how important it is to win this battle.

This loss may illustrate quite what we're all facing.

As for pollution from discharges and oil and mineral exploitation - the only thing that'll work is a binding, legally enforceable and robustly enforced international agreement to leave it pristine.

This won't protect the sea ice, though.

Perhaps, if we've lost the ice, we can save what's left.

By Sorry to be down on it - 13 February 2012 at 8:04pm