World

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 14° London Hi 15°C / Lo 8°C

Melting snow prompts border change between Switzerland and Italy

By Peter Popham in Rome

The zones affected include areas around the Matterhorn

Getty Images

The zones affected include areas around the Matterhorn

Global warming is dissolving the Alpine glaciers so rapidly that Italy and Switzerland have decided they must re-draw their national borders to take account of the new realities.

The border has been fixed since 1861, when Italy became a unified state. But for the past century the surface area of the “cryosphere”, the zone of glaciers, permanent snow cover and permafrost, has been shrinking steadily, with dramatic acceleration in the past five years. This is the area over which the national frontier passes and the two countries have now agreed to have their experts sit down together and hash out where it ought to run now.

Daniel Gutknecht, responsible for the co-ordination of national borders at Switzerland’s Office of Topography, said “the border is moving because of the warmer climate”, among other reasons.

In Italy, the change in frontier requires that parliament approve a new law before it can happen. Franco Narducci, an opposition member of the foreign affairs committee, is preparing the bill to be put to MPs. The draft law has already been endorsed by the Foreign Minister, Franco Frattini, and is expected to become law before the end of next month. In Switzerland no new law is required to make the changes.

The zones affected include areas around the Matterhorn, the 4,478-metre-high mountain known in Italy as il Cervino. The frontier will have to be shifted between a few metres and a hundred metres, but there will be no impact on border communities as the frontier, which is more than 4,000 metres above sea level, is well above any human habitation.

The new border will address changes that have been noticeable for at least 20 years, according to Luca Mercalli, a well-known Italian metereologist and climatologist. “But the melting of the glaciers has been accelerating since the very hot summer of 2003,” he said. “That heatwave caused a lot of changes in the landscape, and many landslides resulted from the melting of the permafrost. For the first time ever the zero-degree altitude went higher than 4,000 metres, and the morphology of many parts of the mountains began to change.”

Mr Mercalli says it is not only glaciers but other points of reference used in delimiting the border that have changed their position under the impact of global warming. “In places the conventional border fixed in 1861 followed water courses, and where glaciers have melted these may have changed significantly,” he said.

The decision to redraw the border is a dramatic reminder of how seriously mountains are affected by climate change, he added. “The mountains are particularly sensitive to change. And they are also areas that teach us a lot: effects of climate change that you don’t notice in the cities are vividly apparent in the mountains. Increased incidence of mud and rock slides, caused when soft ground previously covered by permafrost is exposed to rain, is only the most dramatic consequence.”

The redrawing of the borders brings together the geological and geographical experts of two countries which have adopted drastically different approaches to global warming. In Switzerland the government has been fully aware of the problem for years, and is actively engaged in reducing atmospheric pollution and energy use to minimise human impact on the atmosphere. In Italy, on the other hand, scepticism prevails. The Berlusconi government threatened to veto the EU Energy and Climate Package last October, and Italy is among the worst-performing states in the Climate Change Performance Index.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Peter Popham - first with the news
[info]liam_ohuigin wrote:
Tuesday, 24 March 2009 at 07:34 pm (UTC)
This was reported on BBC Radio 4 last week, so you're a bit behind the pace Mr P. In fairness to you, I suppose getting Amanda Knox's step-father's views on the murder case into the newspaper, unmediated by any analysis or independent research on your part, had to take precedence.

Such is my suspicion of you these days that if this story hadn't been reported on Radio 4 I'd have suspected that you'd got it wrong yet again.
All happened before
[info]ptstroud wrote:
Tuesday, 24 March 2009 at 07:59 pm (UTC)
Some months ago saw the recovery of bodies from beneath the melted alpine snow and ice that had been in place for thousands of years. Proving it has been much warmer than now in the Alps. Certainly it was warmer long before gas guzzlers and coal fired power stations.
Re: All happened before
[info]merdencore wrote:
Tuesday, 24 March 2009 at 09:38 pm (UTC)
And your point is? The current scientific consensus is about MAN-MADE GLOBAL warming through C02 and other gases, not just warmer REGIONAL temperatures due to factors such as solar activity, the earth's orbit, etc. You do realise that the scientists have taken these factors into account in their analyses - they are not idiots. See the Royal Society's coverage of these issues: http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229
Re: All happened before
[info]calum100 wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 09:56 am (UTC)
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/the-available-evidence-does-not-support-fossil-fuels-as-the-source-of-elevated-concentrations-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-part-1/

It would seem the latest scientific research does not support the assumption that fossil-fuel emissions result in higher global concentrations of CO2. It would appear that man-made CO2 is highly localised, and as such is readily absorbed locally.

So whatever is increasing CO2 globally must have a NATURAL cause.

The conclusion is obvious there is no such thing as "MAN-MADE GLOBAL warming".

Re: All happened before
[info]merdencore wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 09:25 pm (UTC)
One article published by one author in a (not exactly top of the line) journal does not make a consensus. I'll let readers draw theire own conclusions based on the overwhelming body of published data and evidence rather than the odd exception.
Re: All happened before
[info]warmingnut wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 10:17 pm (UTC)
The reason for CO2 based climate change is simple physics.
To all of you who took physics: CO2 has an absorption line in the infrared.
Read no further.
To those of you who have not taken physics, here is my explanation.
When the sun (visible light) shines on anything but a reflective surface, some of it gets converted to heat. This of course heats up the surface and some of the heat escapes as infrared radiation. (See: hold your hand over a hot frying pan.)
This radiation is invisible (infrared) but still contains a lot of the energy supplied by the sun.
This infrared radiation if radiating off a horizontal surface will head straight for outer space.
The problem comes in if the ray (or quantum) of infrared encounters a CO2 molecule.
The molecule will absorb it, where it pushes an electron out of orbit. After a short period of time the electron will drop back into orbit and the molecule will radiate a quantum that is equal to that absorbed (for a balance of energy).
So infrared quantum headed for space now is being reradiated in an unknown direction. Which means that there is a probability that it will head back to earth warming it?
Simple huh.

Re: All happened before
[info]calum100 wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 10:10 am (UTC)
................but there is no HOT SPOT in the atmosphere, repeat no HOT SPOT, the very mechnism that is required to support the AGW hypothesis.

After 50 years of looking and measuring by weather balloons and satellites the conclusion is simple, no HOT SPOT means there can be no man-made global warming.

The only way a failed hypothesis can exist under criticism is to turn it into dogma, and article of faith. All AGW proponents are doing is preaching the party line - parrot fashion - an obedient and unthinking response.

No wonder more and more people are rejecting environmentalism, where it is now a sin to be human.
Re: All happened before
[info]canadastan wrote:
Saturday, 4 April 2009 at 05:53 am (UTC)
Good point on the hot spot.
It would be one of the markers that show that the AGW theory is correct, but the evidence is simply not there.
AGW is a theory that is sadly lacking in evidence, which explains the reasons for the religious fervour that replaces scientific argument.
This golden calf won't hunt, to mix a metaphor or two.
Re: All happened before
[info]barny_rubble wrote:
Friday, 27 March 2009 at 01:44 pm (UTC)
warmingnut. What utter nonsense! You have just described the mechanism for ultraviolet absorbtion. In infrared absorbtion the molecule vibrates or rotates to the tune of the absorbed radiation. Now, as a scientist with a pHD in absorbtion spectroscopy I find it rather difficult to ignore the obvious IR absorbtion from water vapour in the same region. .........oh, and next time you spout off, get your physics straight!
Re: All happened before
[info]arthur_ide wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 04:07 pm (UTC)
A blog is not "the latest scientific research" nor does it include actual scientific statements or endorsements. Jennifer Marohasy is no expert and the blog is not respected in scientific circles. It merely iterates what those who write think. Go to real scientists, read real scientific journals, and you will note a dramatic difference.
Ummm?
[info]tallise wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 10:22 am (UTC)
I may be thick, but I don't understand why the border has to be changed just because snow/glacier lines have changed/are changing. This article doesn't enlighten me!
Re: Ummm?
[info]theelectrician wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 02:00 pm (UTC)
For many years, the border has been marked on a surface consisting of ice and packed snow. That surface has now gone (melted or washed away) so they need to agree on where to stick the new border signposts.

For Italy and Switzerland, who are good neighbours and have a border running across a mountain with no inhabitants and no significant activity there, this is an academic exercise with a few technical difficulties. When the ice starts to melt on the India/Pakistan/Tibet border there will be all kinds of arguments about who owns what.
Re: Ummm?
[info]tallise wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 03:54 pm (UTC)
Many thanks; NOW I understand.
Yes, given that the borders are not really agreed today even, I can see that there will be horrendous problems on the IPT border.
Re: Ummm?
[info]tallise wrote:
Monday, 30 March 2009 at 12:51 pm (UTC)
Many thanks - interesting!
What a brilliant idea!
[info]zil115 wrote:
Friday, 27 March 2009 at 10:44 am (UTC)
I wonder if some would be conquerors thought of this in the past?

"Unfortunately Global Warming, Plate Tectonics, and other Global Anomalies have forced us to change our borders. From now on our border will move 500km to the south and 200km to the north. As a result the mineral and oil rich regions here and here will now officially be part of our great nation."
Willful ignorance
[info]arthur_ide wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 04:04 pm (UTC)
The arrogant stupidity and vain unwillingness to accept reality has long been a hallmark of Italy's Berlusconi--so out of touch with climate change and global warning his ignorance is equal to that of Northern Ireland's ecological minister who swears there is no greenhouse gases or threats to the environment. One must censure the Italian people who keep this politician in office at the expense of the world and its inhabitants, and place them with the Northern Irish who tolerate their hapless leaders.
Loss or Gain is selfishness
[info]famulla wrote:
Tuesday, 12 May 2009 at 12:52 pm (UTC)
Is it because of the boundary drawn for the sates is diminishing as the military built up is growing or is the global warming getting all sacred and some want to others to take care of the CO2
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla


Most popular in Europe

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date