The Alaskan environment is also fragile due to the high risk of earthquakes and volcanoes, which if were to cause the pipeline to burst, would destroy the environment yet development continued. Although the oil companies such as “Exxon” did research heavily into finding an ecologically sound way of transporting the oil, as it could not go underground as the permafrost would melt. This shows that fragility of the Alaskan tundra did affect development in terms that firms were more vigilant in trying to protect the landscape using a pipeline on stilts. It is my opinion that the fragility of Alaskan tundra and any arctic tundra should stop development, as it is clearly not sustainable but firms just see the profit made in the short term and do not realize the long term effects. This is a symptom of Westernization, individuals only see the short term effects of there actions not the long term and thus the possibility of the destruction of a beautiful landscape is not a problem.
The Antarctic Peninsula is also a very fragile environment; it has impressive fauna in summer that is very fragile if disturbed for instance whales. The vegetation in Antarctica is virtually none, although in the Peninsula mosses, lichens and algae do form on rocks. If the vegetation is disturbed in the Peninsula it is unlikely it will grow back and seriously disrupts vegetation succession. The region of Antarctica has potential to be extremely fragile, the prospect of global warming shows just how fragile this area is and any human development that intervenes in its natural processes could cause immeasurable harm. Fragility of Antarctica has affected development immensely; in this case the Antarctic Treaty and the Environmental Protocol protect the region, which restricts development. The Environment Protocol is the most significant- banning any mineral exploration, which shows that the fragility and the uncertainty of the future of Antarctica have slowed development significantly. Coal has been found in commercially viable amounts and there is likely to be oil and other valuable minerals under the ice sheet and thus it is my opinion that Antarctica’s fragility and the long-term effects of development have been realized by the Western world and have outweighed the economic benefits.
The impact of development on Antarctica is extreme as it is such a pristine and untouched environment; any slight disturbance ruins this natural environment. Humans always have waste and if development is allowed to accelerate thus bringing more visitors waste will increase. The effect of leaving waste can be seen on Deception Island, where British and Chilean researchers left the island like a rubbish dump, the intensity of the cold also makes waste very difficult to breakdown. The other impact of this waste is that it can be washed into the Southern Ocean having adverse effects on whales, seals and fish. Also it ruins the pristine environment and this can never be returned to its natural extent. The prospect of increasing the amount of tourists is inevitable and the fragility and pristine nature of this environment has not affected this development. Although, tourism may work to protect the fragile environment, there is an economic incentive to keep the area maybe not pristine but clean in order to attract more tourists.
In contrast to the fragility of Antarctica being realized and the possibly sustainable development taking place, the Southern Ocean has and still is being vastly exploited. Fishing South of the convergence zone is regulated reasonably effectively but due to over-fishing of other areas such as the North Sea commercial fishers are looking to the Antarctic once more. The Southern ocean is very fragile and due to the cold waters they grow slowly, are sexually immature for an extended period and have low levels of fertility. The arrival of commercial fishermen will destroy the Southern Ocean fish stocks in the near future along with the destruction of the seabed by deep sea trawling. Fishing can be sustainable but if the Southern Ocean is vastly over fished then the food chain will be disrupted and many species of fish may die out including the ever rarer “Patagonian tooth fish”. The fragility of this Ocean has not deterred development once again due to fisherman feeling the economic benefits outweigh the ecological problems, but there will be no economic benefit when fish stocks are at an all time low and they have no jobs and it is for this reason I feel that in the long term the fragility will be recognized and the rate of development will concur with that.
Some cold environments, such as the Alpine regions of Europe are not particularly fragile and this reflects the rate of development. Tourism in areas such as Verbier in Switzerland as expanded immensely and this coincides with most of the alpine region, it is arguable whether one can classify this region as a cold environment because in the summer due to the continental effect and the height of the sun the temperature can reach 20 degrees centigrade. The fragility of these areas is low, the warm summer climate allows a longer growing season and plants can easily regenerate. Despite this area not being fragile the impact of tourism is felt- litter, increased erosion. The more serious effects of tourism on Verbier and the surrounding area is the removal of trees in order to create ski runs. This destroys natural habitats for fauna and can cause avalanching. Avalanching is example of this region being fragile but it is a small risk and thus development continues. In comparison to Arctic tundra and Antarctica the Alpine region is not fragile.
In conclusion I feel cold environments are completely fragile mainly due to the fact the climate restricts regeneration and the slightest disruption can have knock on effects to the whole environment. At this moment development is taking place in fragile cold environments due to the short-termism that plagues the capitalist world. The rich always seem to find the economic benefits to outweigh the environmental cost but if they looked to the long-term it is not sustainable. The fragility of Antarctica and Canadian tundra is immense and this does not affect development in most cases. Although Antarctica is protected, in the future the greed of the Western world will exploit this area to the maximum for raw materials and there will be no pristine world left. Development is only possible at the expense of the environment.
