Meanwhile, the new study suggests the effect will intensify in the future with continued climate change, based on computer models that attempt to project how rising temperatures would affect the Arctic's chemical reservoirs.

That echoes a report released in February by the U.N. Environment Programme and the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme. "For some POPs, climate change-induced enhancement of emissions may reduce the expected effectiveness of the Stockholm Convention" -- the international treaty that bans use of several POPs -- "resulting in releases decreasing less rapidly than targeted."

That's a concern of Hung's, as well.

"The main purpose of this paper is to raise the awareness that climate change actually has an influence on contamination," she said. "It's not as apparent as other, more visible changes. ... People need to be aware there is an effect. As we evaluate the effectiveness of the Stockholm Convention, we need to take into account the effects of climate change."

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

10 Comments

1. 1. sault 12:26 PM 7/25/11

   When Hung said, "This is a sign to us that these chemicals are indeed evaporating out of the ocean", Im sure she meant that the ice melted and the meltwater carried the pollutants into the ocean to begin with. This passage is a little confusing if you don't understand this mechanism beforehand.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. sault 12:29 PM 7/25/11

   Add in the health impacts of these newly-mobilized pollutants to the cost of fossil fuels and their burden to society becomes even larger.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. dbtinc 03:32 PM 7/25/11

   Interesting but article does not indicate any QUANTITATIVE data as to the possible impact in air and water.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. lamorpa in reply to JamesDavis 04:30 PM 7/25/11

   Please keep partisan bitterness out of places where it is irrelevant.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. Le Spaz d'Argent 04:30 PM 7/25/11

   The re-mobilization of these substances into the atmosphere, while not at all a good thing, probably poses only a small increase in risk to humans outside the Arctic, considering the ambient exposure levels in modern society.
   
   However, the infusion of these materials into the marine environment - not mentioned here - poses large risks in terms of reproductive success, immune response and longevity for marine biota, from whales to algae.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. ScienceisNotOpinion 05:48 PM 7/25/11

   "As we evaluate the effectiveness of the Stockholm Convention, we need to take into account the effects of climate change."
   
   Stockholm Convention is failing, the only logical solution is global warming? How about accounting for human nature! What if an emerging economy was cheating and still using these banned substances. Say a large economy with a track record of cheating with banned substances (who apparently helped in this study). One that has been rapidly developing the past couple decades? Due to the volatile nature of POPs they'd all end up in the poles, well away from where they were emitted, just like CO2 it would be an easy crime to commit and never get caught. It's dishonest to try and scare people because we know POPs gather in colder areas, and if warming is constant, let's say global, they'd still stick in the cooler poles. There's no quantitative data in this because POPs are impossible to track, only spot measure.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. dieselpop1 06:20 PM 7/25/11

   The ice melts regularly. If it didn't then there would have been such an accumulation that the seas would have dropped dramatically. There would need to be an ice age for there to be no melting. This is a poor hypothesis for unquantified data and more erosion of SA's reputation.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. fiddler11 in reply to dieselpop1 06:54 PM 7/25/11

   That is entirely untrue. The ice does not melt regularly, that is why we can use ice cores to go back great lengths of time when using them for measuring past conditions. Don't confuse what happens on the top layer, which is responsive to basic weather, to the lower layers which are not.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. EarthlyPowers 12:08 AM 7/26/11

   Small correction: Nunavut is not a Canadian province, it is a Territory.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. ironjustice 11:53 AM 7/28/11

    Bottled glacier water ?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this