By Marte Rommetveit.

Many of us perceive Antarctica as a distant and mysterious corner of the world.

The coldest and most wind-swept region on Earth was the last continent to be discovered. Today, it stands as a nature reserve devoted to peace and scientific research.

“But Antarctica is not an apolitical human paradise with untouched nature – a sort of continent for scientific inquiry alone. That’s a misconception,” says Peder Roberts, a professor of the history of ideas at the University of Oslo (UiO).

He has researched the polar area for many years and is particularly interested in the intersection between politics, environment, and scientific exploration.

“Humans have always brought their own interests to Antarctica,” he says.

The race to the South Pole

In 1911, Roald Amundsen planted the Norwegian flag at the South Pole, where no one had set foot before. With this, he punctuated a nail-biting race against the Briton Robert Falcon Scott and was hailed as a hero.

Fifty years later, the Antarctic Treaty came into force – a pact ensuring that future races between nations are predominantly carried out through scientific endeavours.

For a long time, the continent has been dedicated to research.

“All research in Antarctica is the result of a political decision, as it is through research that countries gain influence within the Antarctic Treaty,” says Professor Peder Roberts.

More politics in environmental research than you might think

For this reason, the historian of ideas suggests it is time we rethink our perspective on Antarctica: from a protected scientific haven to a place where geopolitics, environment, and science converge and influence our future.

“This doesn’t mean that the research is any less valuable or credible, but we must acknowledge how science is a tool for conducting politics in Antarctica, not an alternative to it.”

Roberts sees Antarctica as a prime example of how science and politics blend together.

“There is no such thing as purely environmental issues. All questions of nature preservation are inherently political. It’s humans who assign value to nature and environment and decide when, why, and how areas should be protected.”

“But environmental and climate policy is a distinct and well-known field. Don’t you think people are aware of this connection?”

“Yes, people are aware that environment and politics are linked, but environmental policy is also always a form of economic or cultural policy,” he emphasises.

Antarctic treaty reflects the cold war

To those who perceive Antarctica as distant and exotic, removed from the political and economic structures shaping the rest of the world, Roberts is unequivocal:

“There’s more politics happening here than one might think. Antarctica mirrors the world to a much greater extent than one might expect. Just look at the agreements governing Antarctica.”

No country owns Antarctica, but many have claimed land on the continent, including Norway. The culmination of these claims was the Antarctic Treaty, an international agreement that came into force during the Cold War.

“The treaty is often seen as a geopolitical exception. It prohibits all military activities on the continent, freezes sovereignty claims, and makes research the way states can secure a place at the table when decisions about Antarctica are made,” Roberts explains.

He suggests that Antarctica reflects Cold War politics in the same way the space race did.

Environmental protection: a late addition to the agenda

Only later did resource extraction and environmental protection become prominent issues.

In 1991, parties to the treaty concluded an environmental agreement ensuring Antarctica remains a nature reserve for peace and research. The environmental protocol prohibits various activities, including mineral extraction, introducing non-native species, and leaving any form of waste.

“The environmental agreement may appear to be just an environmental issue, and it was important to many. However, the ban on mineral extraction until at least 2048 also addressed a problem concerning economic equity,” Roberts notes.

Countries outside the Antarctic Treaty feared they would be excluded from future gains, much like how wealthy nations and colonial powers had previously dominated natural resource extraction in other parts of the world.

“Saying no one can access Antarctic mineral resources was both a way to show respect for environmental conservation and simultaneously avoid complaints about unfair resource distribution,” he explains.

“The parties resolved the ownership debate by setting it aside. This was a solution fitting the time. It freed countries like Norway from costly obligations and allowed superpowers to showcase their scientific prowess,” Roberts says.

Today, 54 states have signed the treaty.

An Antarctic paradox

The ice in Antarctica is melting. If unstable ice shelves collapse and the ice on the mainland melts, global sea levels could rise by several metres, posing a threat to millions of people further north.

Roberts argues that the climate crisis underscores Antarctica’s significance in global politics even more.

“Antarctica has transitioned from being the most protected continent to being one of the most threatened – and threatening,” asserts the historian of ideas.

Roberts has researched this with philosophy professor Alejandra Mancilla at UiO. They call it the Antarctic Paradox.

The parties to the Antarctic Treaty are committed to preserving the environment on the continent, but what about carbon emissions at home?

“Protecting the Antarctic environment is impossible without changing human activities outside Antarctica,” he says.

Science as currency

Only nations engaged in significant research activities in Antarctica are permitted to take part in decision-making processes concerning the continent.

“Conducting extensive research, even of high quality, should not be the deciding factor for influence. Countries may heavily invest in environmental research while simultaneously engaging in oil exploration and exacerbating climate change at home.”

The historian of ideas has considered alternatives to the current system.

“Imagine if the countries most affected by climate changes in Antarctica, such as Bangladesh, the Maldives, or Kiribati, were given decision-making power. What would happen then?” he wonders.

That is a question to which we do not have an answer.

Antarctica is not irrelevant

Roberts aims to help us understand that Antarctica cannot be dismissed as a mere laboratory insignificant in the global context.

“History has repeatedly shown that power over the environment is always linked to power over people. It’s fundamentally wrong to view the environment almost like a political luxury that can be set aside when convenient,” he says.

Does Antarctica still feel far away?

“If your house becomes flooded in the future, it will most likely be due to Antarctica. Antarctica is not distant and irrelevant to our lives; it is close and threatening. The continent has a direct impact on us, and we cannot afford to ignore it.”