$344m Antarctic rebuild a waste
Scott Base may not be luxurious, but scientists don’t care when there are so many better claims on all that money, writes Lars Brabyn.
New Zealand’s connection to Antarctica is a matter of national pride, reflecting our outstanding record of research and exploration, as well as our geographical proximity to the coldest and windiest continent.
It is therefore difficult to be a naysayer about the plans to completely rebuild ‘‘New Zealand’s home in Antarctica’’ at a cost of $344 million. However, the significant budgetary and environmental impacts of this rebuild have not been adequately addressed.
There is a tragic irony in the Scott Base redevelopment, which includes demolishing the relatively new Hillary Field Centre building, named after our most famous Antarctic explorer. In reality, most scientists spend minimal time at Scott Base, as it functions largely as a staging post for organising research camps further afield, such as the Dry Valleys.
The most important building in Scott Base for scientists is the Hillary Field Centre, which is a large (1800sqm) two-storey facility for preparing field expeditions. This building was erected in 2006 but was not internally completed until 2016, at a total cost of $10.4m. With the Scott Base rebuild, the likely fate of this multimillion-dollar building is in a New Zealand landfill.
There have been other building developments recently at Scott Base that will also be wasted, including an office area and an extension to the lounge (total cost $1.3m). Is this wastefulness what New Zealanders want from their taxes, or with respect to the environment?
The Scott Base rebuild is estimated to generate 45,564 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, which seems ill-advised given the Government’s declaration of a climate change emergency, a housing crisis, and a public service wage freeze. Many sustainable homes and jobs could be created back in New Zealand with $344m.
Details on the rebuild became public this year only with the release of the draft Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation document. The new base will occupy the same site as the existing one, which will mean that a temporary base will also need to be developed while the new one is built. This further adds to the impacts of the rebuild.
The justification for the rebuild lacks substance and is misleading. Scott Base users have not been surveyed to establish whether the current facilities are adequate.
During my 10 visits to Scott Base as a scientist, I have never heard a complaint about it. Most visitors appreciate the need to tread lightly on the environment, and do not expect hotel-like facilities.
The current Hillary Field Centre is classed as being in poor condition despite it being new, and is given the same condition rating as the old hangar, built in 1976. If that is the case, the designers and builders should be held accountable. If it is not the case, then someone should be held accountable for a misleading document. From a user’s point of view, the centre is a functional building that fulfils its purpose well.
One justification for the rebuild is the ageing ‘‘life support systems’’. These include water intake, storage tanks, and waste treatment. All this infrastructure can be upgraded or renewed without replacing the buildings. Ongoing maintenance and improvements are necessary, and there are practical solutions for all the current issues without pumping 45,564 tonnes of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
The Scott Base rebuild also includes replacing the existing Ross Island wind farm with larger turbines. The current wind farm was built in 2009, and has been designed to operate till 2030. Replacing it provides an opportunity to offset the emissions required to rebuild Scott Base.
This may seem sensible, but the wind farm could be replaced (or expanded) regardless of the rebuild. The replacement appears to be an attempt to greenwash the rebuild in relation to the significant greenhouse gas emissions associated with it. An unanswered question is why the current wind farm is not being expanded, rather than replaced.
Scott Base provides an excellent facility for science, as is demonstrated by the many projects completed to date, and can remain an excellent facility as New Zealanders continue to make their mark on Antarctic science.
The rebuild is wasteful and unnecessary. Ed Hillary would not be impressed.
During my 10 visits to Scott Base asa scientist, I have never heard a complaint about it.