| Summary: | Controversy surrounds the United State's National Science Foundation's (NSF) current construction Of a route between McMurdo Station, Ross Island, and Amunsden-Scott South Pole Station. Attitudes to the Route cover a wide spectrum. Proponents Of large-scale science consider it a necessity, in that it satisfies logistical demands and frees projects from the constraints Of air- cargo space. Others argue that, rather than a necessity, it is a cost-cutting exercise dictated by the primacy given to science in Antarctica. Some view the Route as a potential scar on both the physical landscape and the ideological landscape Of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), through the compromising Of the aesthetic and wilderness values that the ATS seeks to preserve; or the creation Of national boundaries. Yet Others regard the NSF's approach to the requisite Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) with suspicion. These varying attitudes focus attention on issues Of contemporary importance to the ATS. Controversy surrounds the United State's National Science Foundation's (NSF) current construction Of a route between McMurdo Station, Ross Island, and Amunsden-Scott South Pole Station. Attitudes to the Route cover a wide spectrum. Proponents Of large-scale science consider it a necessity, in that it satisfies logistical demands and frees projects from the constraints Of air- cargo space. Others argue that, rather than a necessity, it is a cost-cutting exercise dictated by the primacy given to science in Antarctica. Some view the Route as a potential scar on both the physical landscape and the ideological landscape Of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), through the compromising Of the aesthetic and wilderness values that the ATS seeks to preserve; or the creation Of national boundaries. Yet Others regard the NSF's approach to the requisite Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) with suspicion. These varying attitudes focus attention on issues Of contemporary importance to the ATS.
|
|---|