Melting snow prompts border change between Switzerland and Italy
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.
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.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Comments
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, given that the borders are not really agreed today even, I can see that there will be horrendous problems on the IPT border.
"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."
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla