Latest news with #AntarcticTreatySystem
NDTV
23-07-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
'Westarctica' Fake Embassy Busted Near Delhi, Has Cars With Diplomatic Plates
High-end cars with diplomatic number plates parked outside, diplomatic passports in a fake office, morphed pictures with state leaders and foreign currency -- officials of the Uttar Pradesh Special Task Force (STF) have busted a fake embassy in Ghaziabad. Yes, you read it right: a fake embassy. Police have arrested Harsvardhan Jain, who allegedly rented a luxurious double-storeyed building and ran it as the embassy of 'Westarctica', a micronation founded by a US Navy officer, but not recognised by any sovereign state. He is accused of running a job racket to lure people with work abroad and was also allegedly part of a money laundering network. Jain would allegedly introduce himself as Westarctica's 'Baron' and travel in high-end cars with diplomatic number plates. It is alleged that he would use morphed pictures with the President, the Prime Minister and other eminent people to curry favour in elite circles. In fact, a case was registered against Jain back in 2011 for illegally possessing a satellite phone. Officers of the STF have recovered four high-end cars with diplomatic number plates, 'diplomatic passports' of 12 micronations, documents with stamps of the External Affairs Ministry, stamps of 34 nations, Rs 44 lakh in cash, foreign currency and 18 diplomatic number plates. What Is Westarctica? Travis McHenry, an officer in the US Navy, founded 'Westarctica' in 2001 and later appointed himself its Grand Duke. Located in Antarctica, Westarctica has an area of 620,000 square miles and McHenry used a loophole in the Antarctic Treaty System to appoint himself the ruler While the treaty prohibits countries from laying claim to parts of Antarctica, it says nothing about private individuals. Westarctica claims it has 2,356 citizens -- none of them live there. Based in southern California, the Grand Duchy of Westarctica functions as a non-profit that spreads awareness about climate change and Antarctica. It has its own flag, currency and also issues titles that no government recognises. View this post on Instagram A post shared by @ Interestingly, days before the UP STF busted the fake embassy, the official Instagram handle of Westarctica had shared photos of its "Consulate-General in New Delhi". "Managed by Baron HV Jain, Westarctica's Consulate-General in New Delhi has been operational since 2017. In addition to representing Westarctica's interests in India, Baron Jain also distributes food to the local population 5 times per year, serving over 1,000 people in need," the caption read, sharing photos of the plush building in Ghaziabad and also a 'bhandara' reportedly organised by Jain.
Japan Today
14-07-2025
- Japan Today
More and more tourists are flocking to Antarctica. Let's stop it from being loved to death
By Darla Hatton MacDonald and Elizabeth Leane The number of tourists heading to Antarctica has been skyrocketing. From fewer than 8,000 a year about three decades ago, nearly 125,000 tourists flocked to the icy continent in 2023–24. The trend is likely to continue in the long term. Unchecked tourism growth in Antarctica risks undermining the very environment that draws visitors. This would be bad for operators and tourists. It would also be bad for Antarctica – and the planet. Over the past two weeks, the nations that decide what human activities are permitted in Antarctica have convened in Italy. The meeting incorporates discussions by a special working group that aims to address tourism issues. It's not easy to manage tourist visitors to a continent beyond any one country's control. So, how do we stop Antarctica being loved to death? The answer may lie in economics. Future visitor trends We recently modelled future visitor trends in Antarctica. A conservative scenario shows by 2033–34, visitor numbers could reach around 285,000. Under the least conservative scenario, numbers could reach 450,000 – however, this figure incorporates pent-up demand from COVID shutdowns that will likely diminish. The vast majority of the Antarctic tourism industry comprises cruise-ship tourism in the Antarctic Peninsula. A small percentage of visitors travel to the Ross Sea region and parts of the continent's interior. Antarctic tourism is managed by an international set of agreements together known as the Antarctic Treaty System, as well as the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO). The Treaty System is notoriously slow-moving and riven by geopolitics, and IAATO does not have the power to cap visitor numbers. Pressure on a fragile continent About two-thirds of Antarctic tourists land on the continent. The visitors can threaten fragile ecosystems by: compacting soils trampling fragile vegetation introducing non-native microbes and plant species disturbing breeding colonies of birds and seals. Even when cruise ships don't dock, they can cause problems such as air, water and noise pollution – as well as anchoring that can damage the seabed. Then there's carbon emissions. Each cruise ship traveller to Antarctica typically produces between 3.2 and 4.1 tonnes of carbon, not including travel to the port of departure. This is similar to the carbon emissions an average person produces in a year. Global warming caused by carbon emissions is damaging Antarctica. At the Peninsula region, glaciers and ice shelves are retreating and sea ice is shrinking, affecting wildlife and vegetation. Of course, Antarctic tourism represents only a tiny fraction of overall emissions. However, the industry has a moral obligation to protect the place that maintains it. And tourism in Antarctica can compound damage from climate change, tipping delicate ecosystems into decline. Some operators use hybrid ships and less polluting fuels, and offset emissions to offer carbon-neutral travel. IAATO has pledged to halve emissions by 2050 – a positive step. Can economics protect Antarctica? Market-based tools – such as taxes, cap-and-trade schemes and certification – have been used in environmental management around the world. Research shows these tools could also prevent Antarctic tourist numbers from getting out of control. One option is requiring visitors to pay a tourism tax. This would help raise revenue to support environmental monitoring and enforcement in Antarctica, as well as fund research. Such a tax already exists in the small South Asian nation of Bhutan, where each tourist pays a tax of U.S.$100 a night. But while a tax might deter the budget-conscious, it probably wouldn't deter high income, experience-driven tourists. Alternatively, a cap-and-trade system would create a limited number of Antarctica visitor permits for a fixed period. The initial distribution of permits could be among tourism operators or countries, via negotiation, auction or lottery. Unused permits could then be sold, making them quite valuable. Caps have been successful at managing tourism impacts elsewhere, such as Lord Howe Island, although there are no trades allowed in that system. Any cap on tourist numbers in Antarctica, and rules for trading, must be based on evidence about what the environment can handle. But there is a lack of precise data on Antarctica's carrying capacity. And permit allocations amongst the operators and nations would need to be fair and inclusive. Alternatively, existing industry standards could be augmented with independent schemes certifying particular practices – for example, reducing carbon footprints. This could be backed by robust monitoring and enforcement to avoid greenwashing. Looking ahead Given the complexities of Antarctic governance, our research finds that the most workable solution is a combination of these market-based options, alongside other regulatory measures. So far, parties to the Antarctic treaty have made very few binding rules for the tourism industry. And some market-based levers will be more acceptable to the parties than others. But doing nothing is not a solution. The authors would like to acknowledge Valeria Senigaglia, Natalie Stoeckl and Jing Tian and the rest of the team for their contributions to the research upon which this article was based. Darla Hatton MacDonald is Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Tasmania. Elizabeth Leane is Professor of Antarctic Studies, School of Humanities, University of Tasmania. The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. External Link © The Conversation
The Independent
07-07-2025
- The Independent
Why you should consider taking Antarctica off your bucket list
The number of tourists heading to Antarctica has been skyrocketing. From fewer than 8,000 a year about three decades ago, nearly 125,000 tourists flocked to the icy continent in 2023–24. The trend is likely to continue in the long term. Unchecked tourism growth in Antarctica risks undermining the very environment that draws visitors. This would be bad for operators and tourists. It would also be bad for Antarctica – and the planet. Over the past two weeks, the nations that decide what human activities are permitted in Antarctica have convened in Italy. The meeting incorporates discussions by a special working group that aims to address tourism issues. It's not easy to manage tourist visitors to a continent beyond any one country's control. So, how do we stop Antarctica being loved to death? The answer may lie in economics. Future visitor trends We recently modelled future visitor trends in Antarctica. A conservative scenario shows by 2033–34, visitor numbers could reach around 285,000. Under the least conservative scenario, numbers could reach 450,000 – however, this figure incorporates pent-up demand from Covid shutdowns that will likely diminish. The vast majority of the Antarctic tourism industry comprises cruise-ship tourism in the Antarctic Peninsula. A small percentage of visitors travel to the Ross Sea region and parts of the continent's interior. Antarctic tourism is managed by an international set of agreements together known as the Antarctic Treaty System, as well as the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO). The Treaty System is notoriously slow-moving and riven by geopolitics, and IAATO does not have the power to cap visitor numbers. Pressure on a fragile continent About two-thirds of Antarctic tourists land on the continent. The visitors can threaten fragile ecosystems by: compacting soils trampling fragile vegetation introducing non-native microbes and plant species disturbing breeding colonies of birds and seals. Even when cruise ships don't dock, they can cause problems such as air, water and noise pollution – as well as anchoring that can damage the seabed. Then there's carbon emissions. Each cruise ship traveller to Antarctica typically produces between 3.2 and 4.1 tonnes of carbon, not including travel to the port of departure. This is similar to the carbon emissions an average person produces in a year. Global warming caused by carbon emissions is damaging Antarctica. At the Peninsula region, glaciers and ice shelves are retreating and sea ice is shrinking, affecting wildlife and vegetation. Of course, Antarctic tourism represents only a tiny fraction of overall emissions. However, the industry has a moral obligation to protect the place that maintains it. And tourism in Antarctica can compound damage from climate change, tipping delicate ecosystems into decline. Some operators use hybrid ships and less polluting fuels, and offset emissions to offer carbon-neutral travel. IAATO has pledged to halve emissions by 2050 – a positive step, but far short of the net-zero targets set by the International Maritime Organization. Can economics protect Antarctica? Market-based tools – such as taxes, cap-and-trade schemes and certification – have been used in environmental management around the world. Research shows these tools could also prevent Antarctic tourist numbers from getting out of control. One option is requiring visitors to pay a tourism tax. This would help raise revenue to support environmental monitoring and enforcement in Antarctica, as well as fund research. Such a tax already exists in the small South Asian nation of Bhutan, where each tourist pays a tax of US$100 (A$152) a night. But while a tax might deter the budget-conscious, it probably wouldn't deter high income, experience-driven tourists. Alternatively, a cap-and-trade system would create a limited number of Antarctica visitor permits for a fixed period. The initial distribution of permits could be among tourism operators or countries, via negotiation, auction or lottery. Unused permits could then be sold, making them quite valuable. Caps have been successful at managing tourism impacts elsewhere, such as Lord Howe Island, although there are no trades allowed in that system. Any cap on tourist numbers in Antarctica, and rules for trading, must be based on evidence about what the environment can handle. But there is a lack of precise data on Antarctica's carrying capacity. And permit allocations amongst the operators and nations would need to be fair and inclusive. Alternatively, existing industry standards could be augmented with independent schemes certifying particular practices – for example, reducing carbon footprints. This could be backed by robust monitoring and enforcement to avoid greenwashing. Looking ahead Given the complexities of Antarctic governance, our research finds that the most workable solution is a combination of these market-based options, alongside other regulatory measures. So far, parties to the Antarctic treaty have made very few binding rules for the tourism industry. And some market-based levers will be more acceptable to the parties than others. But doing nothing is not a solution. Darla Hatton MacDonald is a Professor of Environmental Economics at the University of Tasmania. Elizabeth Leane is a Professor of Antarctic Studies at the School of Humanities, University of Tasmania. The authors would like to acknowledge Valeria Senigaglia, Natalie Stoeckl and Jing Tian and the rest of the team for their contributions to the research upon which this article was based.
The Print
05-07-2025
- The Print
Antarctica is the new tourist hotspot. Stop it from being loved to death
Over the past two weeks, the nations that decide what human activities are permitted in Antarctica have convened in Italy . The meeting incorporates discussions by a special working group that aims to address tourism issues. Unchecked tourism growth in Antarctica risks undermining the very environment that draws visitors. This would be bad for operators and tourists. It would also be bad for Antarctica – and the planet. The number of tourists heading to Antarctica has been skyrocketing. From fewer than 8,000 a year about three decades ago, nearly 125,000 tourists flocked to the icy continent in 2023–24. The trend is likely to continue in the long term. It's not easy to manage tourist visitors to a continent beyond any one country's control. So, how do we stop Antarctica being loved to death? The answer may lie in economics. Future visitor trends We recently modelled future visitor trends in Antarctica. A conservative scenario shows by 2033–34, visitor numbers could reach around 285,000. Under the least conservative scenario, numbers could reach 450,000 – however, this figure incorporates pent-up demand from COVID shutdowns that will likely diminish. The vast majority of the Antarctic tourism industry comprises cruise-ship tourism in the Antarctic Peninsula. A small percentage of visitors travel to the Ross Sea region and parts of the continent's interior. Antarctic tourism is managed by an international set of agreements together known as the Antarctic Treaty System, as well as the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO). The Treaty System is notoriously slow-moving and riven by geopolitics, and IAATO does not have the power to cap visitor numbers. Pressure on a fragile continent About two-thirds of Antarctic tourists land on the continent. The visitors can threaten fragile ecosystems by: compacting soils trampling fragile vegetation introducing non-native microbes and plant species disturbing breeding colonies of birds and seals. Even when cruise ships don't dock, they can cause problems such as air, water and noise pollution – as well as anchoring that can damage the seabed. Then there's carbon emissions. Each cruise ship traveller to Antarctica typically produces between 3.2 and 4.1 tonnes of carbon, not including travel to the port of departure. This is similar to the carbon emissions an average person produces in a year. Global warming caused by carbon emissions is damaging Antarctica. At the Peninsula region, glaciers and ice shelves are retreating and sea ice is shrinking, affecting wildlife and vegetation. Of course, Antarctic tourism represents only a tiny fraction of overall emissions. However, the industry has a moral obligation to protect the place that maintains it. And tourism in Antarctica can compound damage from climate change, tipping delicate ecosystems into decline. Some operators use hybrid ships and less polluting fuels, and offset emissions to offer carbon-neutral travel. IAATO has pledged to halve emissions by 2050 – a positive step, but far short of the net-zero targets set by the International Maritime Organization. Can economics protect Antarctica? Market-based tools – such as taxes, cap-and-trade schemes and certification – have been used in environmental management around the world. Research shows these tools could also prevent Antarctic tourist numbers from getting out of control. One option is requiring visitors to pay a tourism tax. This would help raise revenue to support environmental monitoring and enforcement in Antarctica, as well as fund research. Such a tax already exists in the small South Asian nation of Bhutan, where each tourist pays a tax of US$100 (A$152) a night. But while a tax might deter the budget-conscious, it probably wouldn't deter high income, experience-driven tourists. Alternatively, a cap-and-trade system would create a limited number of Antarctica visitor permits for a fixed period. The initial distribution of permits could be among tourism operators or countries, via negotiation, auction or lottery. Unused permits could then be sold, making them quite valuable. Caps have been successful at managing tourism impacts elsewhere, such as Lord Howe Island, although there are no trades allowed in that system. Any cap on tourist numbers in Antarctica, and rules for trading, must be based on evidence about what the environment can handle. But there is a lack of precise data on Antarctica's carrying capacity. And permit allocations amongst the operators and nations would need to be fair and inclusive. Alternatively, existing industry standards could be augmented with independent schemes certifying particular practices – for example, reducing carbon footprints. This could be backed by robust monitoring and enforcement to avoid greenwashing. Looking ahead Given the complexities of Antarctic governance, our research finds that the most workable solution is a combination of these market-based options, alongside other regulatory measures. So far, parties to the Antarctic treaty have made very few binding rules for the tourism industry. And some market-based levers will be more acceptable to the parties than others. But doing nothing is not a solution. The authors would like to acknowledge Valeria Senigaglia, Natalie Stoeckl and Jing Tian and the rest of the team for their contributions to the research upon which this article was based. Darla Hatton MacDonald, Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Tasmania and Elizabeth Leane, Professor of Antarctic Studies, School of Humanities, University of Tasmania This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The Independent
03-07-2025
- The Independent
Why Antarctica's tourism boom could spell disaster
The number of tourists heading to Antarctica has been skyrocketing. From fewer than 8,000 a year about three decades ago, nearly 125,000 tourists flocked to the icy continent in 2023–24. The trend is likely to continue in the long term. Unchecked tourism growth in Antarctica risks undermining the very environment that draws visitors. This would be bad for operators and tourists. It would also be bad for Antarctica – and the planet. Over the past two weeks, the nations that decide what human activities are permitted in Antarctica have convened in Italy. The meeting incorporates discussions by a special working group that aims to address tourism issues. It's not easy to manage tourist visitors to a continent beyond any one country's control. So, how do we stop Antarctica being loved to death? The answer may lie in economics. Future visitor trends We recently modelled future visitor trends in Antarctica. A conservative scenario shows by 2033–34, visitor numbers could reach around 285,000. Under the least conservative scenario, numbers could reach 450,000 – however, this figure incorporates pent-up demand from Covid shutdowns that will likely diminish. The vast majority of the Antarctic tourism industry comprises cruise-ship tourism in the Antarctic Peninsula. A small percentage of visitors travel to the Ross Sea region and parts of the continent's interior. Antarctic tourism is managed by an international set of agreements together known as the Antarctic Treaty System, as well as the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO). The Treaty System is notoriously slow-moving and riven by geopolitics, and IAATO does not have the power to cap visitor numbers. Pressure on a fragile continent About two-thirds of Antarctic tourists land on the continent. The visitors can threaten fragile ecosystems by: compacting soils trampling fragile vegetation introducing non-native microbes and plant species disturbing breeding colonies of birds and seals. Even when cruise ships don't dock, they can cause problems such as air, water and noise pollution – as well as anchoring that can damage the seabed. Then there's carbon emissions. Each cruise ship traveller to Antarctica typically produces between 3.2 and 4.1 tonnes of carbon, not including travel to the port of departure. This is similar to the carbon emissions an average person produces in a year. Global warming caused by carbon emissions is damaging Antarctica. At the Peninsula region, glaciers and ice shelves are retreating and sea ice is shrinking, affecting wildlife and vegetation. Of course, Antarctic tourism represents only a tiny fraction of overall emissions. However, the industry has a moral obligation to protect the place that maintains it. And tourism in Antarctica can compound damage from climate change, tipping delicate ecosystems into decline. Some operators use hybrid ships and less polluting fuels, and offset emissions to offer carbon-neutral travel. IAATO has pledged to halve emissions by 2050 – a positive step, but far short of the net-zero targets set by the International Maritime Organization. Can economics protect Antarctica? Market-based tools – such as taxes, cap-and-trade schemes and certification – have been used in environmental management around the world. Research shows these tools could also prevent Antarctic tourist numbers from getting out of control. One option is requiring visitors to pay a tourism tax. This would help raise revenue to support environmental monitoring and enforcement in Antarctica, as well as fund research. Such a tax already exists in the small South Asian nation of Bhutan, where each tourist pays a tax of US$100 (A$152) a night. But while a tax might deter the budget-conscious, it probably wouldn't deter high income, experience-driven tourists. Alternatively, a cap-and-trade system would create a limited number of Antarctica visitor permits for a fixed period. The initial distribution of permits could be among tourism operators or countries, via negotiation, auction or lottery. Unused permits could then be sold, making them quite valuable. Caps have been successful at managing tourism impacts elsewhere, such as Lord Howe Island, although there are no trades allowed in that system. Any cap on tourist numbers in Antarctica, and rules for trading, must be based on evidence about what the environment can handle. But there is a lack of precise data on Antarctica's carrying capacity. And permit allocations amongst the operators and nations would need to be fair and inclusive. Alternatively, existing industry standards could be augmented with independent schemes certifying particular practices – for example, reducing carbon footprints. This could be backed by robust monitoring and enforcement to avoid greenwashing. Looking ahead Given the complexities of Antarctic governance, our research finds that the most workable solution is a combination of these market-based options, alongside other regulatory measures. So far, parties to the Antarctic treaty have made very few binding rules for the tourism industry. And some market-based levers will be more acceptable to the parties than others. But doing nothing is not a solution. Darla Hatton MacDonald is a Professor of Environmental Economics at the University of Tasmania. Elizabeth Leane is a Professor of Antarctic Studies at the School of Humanities, University of Tasmania. The authors would like to acknowledge Valeria Senigaglia, Natalie Stoeckl and Jing Tian and the rest of the team for their contributions to the research upon which this article was based.
