Antarctica is the center of important scientific research. However, with an increasing number of day, scientists have to leave their work to greet a group of tourists who are taking a vacation in this continent of ice. Even though their desire to enjoy this vast and beautiful landscape can be appreciated, Antarctica should be closed to tourists.

Tourists in Antarctica can damage scientific research and hurt the environment. When tourist groups come, they take scientists away from their research. The work is difficult and some of the projects can be damaged by such simple mistakes as opening the wrong door or knocking against a small piece of equipment. In addition, tourists in Antarctica can also hurt the environment. Members of Greenpeace, one of the world’s leading environmental organizations, complain tourists leave trash on beaches and disturb the plants and animals. In a place as frozen as Antarctica, it can take one hundred years for a plant to grow back.

The need to protect Antarctica from tourists becomes even greater when we consider the fact that there is no government here. Antarctica belongs to no country. Who is making sure that the penguins, plants and sea are safe? No one is responsible. It is true that the number of tourists who visit Antarctica each year is smaller compared to the number of those who visit other places. However, these other places are controlled by local governments. They have an interest in protecting their natural environments. Who is concerned about the environment of Antarctica? The scientist, to be sure, but not necessarily the tour companies that make money from sending people south.

If we don’t protect Antarctica from tourism, there may be serious consequences for us all. We might lose the results of scientific research projects. It’s possible that these results could teach us something important about the causes and effects of climate change. Some fragile plants and animals might die and disappear forever. This could damage the balance of animal and plant life in Antarctica. We know from past experience that when things get unbalanced, harmful changes can occur.

3 . A leaked IPCC draft reports, “Widespread use across millions of square kilometers globally of tree-planting and bioenergy crops could have potentially serious consequences for food security and land degradation (退化).” In other words, more massive monocultures (单种栽培) and more bioenergy crops, fueled by more fertilizers, could damage the structure of the environmental soil and its capacity to absorb carbon.

Everyone knows that to help ease the increasing climate crisis, we need to plant new trees. It’s said that the earth could support an additional 9,000,000 square kilometers of forest, potentially hosting 500 billion trees capable of capturing more than 200 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide at maturity. It would be a serious help to the environment.

Bioenergy now holds a 50 percent share of the world’s renewables consumption—as much as hydro, wind, solar and all others combined. It’s good news, but not entirely. If we consider that increasing desertification and rising ocean levels will take away more arable (可耕种的) land, we arrive at a crucial “trilemma”(三难困境). Should we use our spare soil for agriculture, reforestation or bioenergy?

Such a question would make sense in a multilateral, harmonious world, not on a planet where the richest country cancels an environment-saving agreement, thus encouraging the most tropically-forested nation to set about cutting trees.

Last year, 36,000 square kilometers of forest was cut down. Wouldn’t it be better to start by stopping deforestation altogether? Animal farming takes up 77 percent of the world’s arable land and provides us with 18 percent of the calories. Shouldn’t we cut back on global meat consumption? Modern bioenergy is already available. Shouldn’t we get rid of first-generation biofuels, which are produced from food crops?

4 . Hundreds of scientists, writers and academics sounded a warning to humanity in an open letter published last December: Policymakers and the rest of us must engage openly with the risk of global collapse. Researchers in many areas have projected the widespread collapse as “a credible scenario(情景) this century”.

A survey of scientists found that extreme weather events, food insecurity, and freshwater shortages might create global collapse. Of course, if you are a non-human species, collapse is well underway.

The call for public engagement with the unthinkable is especially germane in this moment of still-uncontrolled pandemic and economic crises in the world's most technologically advanced nations. Not very long ago, it was also unthinkable that a virus would shut down nations and that safety nets would be proven so disastrously lacking in flexibility.

The international scholars’ warning letter doesn't say exactly what collapse will look like or when it might happen. Collapseology, the study of collapse, is more concerned with identifying trends and with them the dangers of everyday civilization. Among the signatories(签署者) of the warning was Bob Johnson, the originator of the “ecological footprint” concept, which measures the total amount of environmental input needed to maintain a given lifestyle. With the current footprint of humanity, “it seems that global collapse is certain to happen in some form, possibly within a decade, certainly within this century,” Johnson said in an email.

“Only if we discuss the consequences of our biophysical limits,” the December warning letter says, “can we have the hope to reduce their speed, severity and harm”. And yet messengers of the coming disturbance are likely to be ignored. We all want to hope things will turn out fine. As a poet wrote,

Man is a victim of dope(麻醉品)

In the incurable form of hope.

The hundreds of scholars who signed the letter are intent(执着) on quieting hope that ignores preparedness. “Let's look directly into the issue of collapse,” they say, “and deal with the terrible possibilities of what we see there to make the best of a troubling future.”