Sir Edmund blasts US road to pole

[number6]

New Zealand mountaineer Edmund Hillary has strongly criticised the activities of the US and Britain in Antarctica.
The 85-year-old explorer told New Zealand media that a road being built by the Americans across the continent was "terrible".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4048985.stm

[acmavm]

1. Well I have no doubt that bush*, cheney, and Company couldn't give

a fat rat's patoot what anyone, including Sir Edmund Hillary think.

Someone somewhere has to be able to put some limits to what these bastards do. I have no doubt the day will come, but I usually end up wondering if the day will come with a 'mushroom cloud' as Condi, I believe, is so fond of saying.

[Lucky Luciano]

2. I have no problem with this road...

Besides Hillary was saying he only opposed the roads on the grounds that it could make trips to the south pole less exciting. The road may actually serve a scientific purpose by freeing up resources (the planes) to do other things.

[htuttle]

3. Taking bets on when the first Starbucks Antarctica opens up

Gonna be a mud problem down there for a long while, but after it dries out, it might be quite nice.

I'm thinking a Starbucks in Antarctica by 2020.

Personally, I'm rooting for oil depletion first...

[number6]

5. first Starbucks Antarctica opens up and .....

walmart and mcdonalds, maybe not, but
could become the circus that Everest has ....

[Xithras]

4. Umm....why?

They're not displacing any wildlife or carving through any rock formations (most of the road is built on ice), so what's the difference? I know that Hillary wants to preserve the nostalgic isolation of the Pole, but having a land road would be safer for the humans, pollute less than the aircraft, and potentially allow greater scientific development of the pole site. There are no downsides, so what's the big deal?

[Nihil]

6. There is a downside

As stated above, the problem inherent with improved access is nothing
to do with greater scientific development of the pole site but is all
to do with greater commercial development.

If you believe that improving access would not also improve the "tourist
viability" of the place or that the increased human activity (even if it
did somehow manage to stay vaguely scientific) would not draw in the
corporations, I think you are being slightly naive.

BTW: Why do you think that a land road would be "safer for the humans"?
Have there been many aircraft crashes? (Honest question: I haven't
heard of any but wondered if there have been some recently?)

[Xithras]

7. Not really

First off, I don't really see much potential for a South Pole tourism industry outside of the occasional thrillseeker. I don't know how familiar you are with the pole itself (not the Antarctic coasts, which aren't affected by the road, but the pole region), but honestly there IS NO environment to be destroyed by hordes of rampaging tourists. There no plantlife or wildlife at the pole, just mildly undulating plains of flat, desolate snow. Personally, I'd rather have tourists trampling THAT than some of our national parks.

As for the corporations, it is also unlikely that they will come in any great force because it is impossible to build permanent structures at the pole. The snow piles deeper every year, and EVERY manmade structure will sink below the surface unless it can be lifted periodically. You'll never see a resort hotel at the pole for that reason, and you'll never see a factory there either.

If there is any tourist development of the area, it probably wouldn't be anything more than a few small lodges servicing groups of extreme heli-skiiers (who already visit and ski the Antarctic peninsula with some regularity). You'll never see fleets of Winnebago's backed up on the Trans-Antarctic highway on labor day.

[jpak]

8. The Antarctic is also protected by international treaty

Furthermore, are surface vehicles really a cost effective and safe means of supplying South Pole???

It's a LOOONNNGGG way from McMurdo to SP and any travel in the Antarctic is inherently dangerous.

Anything not worth flying in (like Freshies :) ) would have to be transported by ship from NZ or Hobart to McMurdo (5 knots max through the ice), and then transported to the pole by snowcat (15 km/hr max on the snow).

It would take forever to get there - if it got there at all.

The supply train would also have to carry all its own food, fuel, maintenance and medical support, emergency supplies, rescue equipment, replacement vehicles, etc. with them - this would balloon the size and cost of a convoy tremendously.

There's also a very small seasonal weather window when all that could happen.

A C-17 does a much better job any way you look at it...



.

[Xithras]

9. Actually, this article doesn't go into the details of it's being built.

1) The "road" isn't really a road. It's a pre-scouted route over the top of the ice that will simply be flagged for the vehicles to follow. Nobody is laying down any roadbed or asphalt, so no real damage is being done.

2) The primary purpose of the road isn't supplies, but as a service route for a new fiber optic project that is being undertaken to open up the bandwidth of the SP station (needed for some upcoming science projects).

3) Current airlifts to the SP station number 250 a year, and can only happen in a certain seasonal window when the weather permits. Everyone involved seems to agree that the air maintenance concept has reached its practical limits, and that it will not scale to the increased scientific demands of the SP station. The road will be open for more than 100 days a year, irregardless of weather (they are planning on traversing it in large convoys).

4) The Hercules planes have a cargo limit of about 12.5 tons. This works for regular supplies, has always acted as a limiter for the construction of larger scientific projects like a new astronomical observatory. The ability to bring equipment in without worrying about weight will allow greater scientific development of the south pole station.

5) Not a single major environmental organization, from GreenPeace and the Sierra Club, to EarthFirst, has mounted any objection to it. The road doesn't damage the environment in any way, and so nobody besides Hillary has found a valid argument against it. Hillary's argument is founded solely in nostalgia and is borderline elitist, and it certainly isn't sufficient to scrap the whole project.

[pmbryant]

10. Thanks for the info (n/t)