Translations of this page:

Photo Comparisons

We took old postcards and made a side-by-side comparison with recent photos. To view a comparison, either:

Select an area on the maps of the Alps or simply flip through each of the glaciers in the list of comparisons.

Maps of the Alps All comparisons of the glaciers

3-stage comparisons

Below is one of the first 3-stage comparisons made: Pasterze (Austria), Rhone-Glacier, Trift-Glacier, Roseg Glacier, Gornergletscher (Switzerland) and Adamello-Glacier (Italy)

You will find more photos on glaciers and climate change in the articles, Climate Change and The Consequences.

The latest photos stem from the massive image archives of the Gesellschaft für ökologische Forschung e.V. (Society for Ecological Research), which has also made many other comparisons. Historical photos came primarily from collections of old postcards kept by the Gesellschaft für ökologische Forschung e.V.. For many of the others, we are grateful to the Schweizerisches Alpines Museum Bern (Swiss Alpine Museum in Bern).

We are sorry, but the photos are not available for private use. Those interested must request the photos via e-mail or by fax and pay a fee. Each comparison set has its unique order number starting with the digits 11-. Interested in other environmental issues? Take a look through our photo archives.

© Copyright notice:

Copyrights protect all textual material and images on our Website. Any unauthorized commercialization of such material is forbidden. For any other uses of such material, you require the consent of the Gesellschaft für ökologische Forschung e.V. (E-Mail to info@oekologische-forschung.de). By using our textual material or images, you accept our Terms of Business (AGB).

A recent incident of interest:

We get requests, often anonymous ones, for our society’s photos from promoters of atomic energy. If we know who they are, we refuse to supply photos, but unfortunately, their intentions are not always known. That is why we consider it necessary to make the following statement, although this should really be superfluous in light of the long-lived criticism of atomic energy:

Both the German and international nuclear power industries are now trying to present themselves as protectors of the climate. They aim to spread the message that their highly risky business is environmentally friendly – in order to gain broader acceptance. They offer such information via the www. klimaschuetzer.de portal. They have lengthy promotional ads, for instance: The Unterweser nuclear power plant, annual output: 10 billion kWh, CO2 footprint: zero.

This is wrong and an intentional falsehood. Each nuclear power plant must be built, operated, and sometime or other decommissioned – which is inherently extremely difficult. The legacy is thousands of tons of irradiated materials requiring handling. Besides, mining, processing, and transportation of the basic raw material, uranium, are expensive. The radioactive atomic waste is something that still has no solution. This waste needs to be stored safely for hundreds, if not thousands of years – saddling uncountable generations to come. The numerous accidents worldwide should also not let us forget that atomic energy is the most dangerous form of power production.

Electricity represents a relatively small part of our energy supply. We can produce power with regenerative forms of energy that are truly environmentally friendly. In the areas of transportation and heating, there is major room to curtail the use of fossil fuels. In future, one could certainly make a big dent in replacing atomic power though sparing and intelligent use of energy.

Therefore, nuclear power is still environmentally unfriendly, highly risky, irresponsible, and unacceptable.