Antarctica is being visited by more than 100,000 tourists. The effects on the environment, such as black carbon from cruise ship funnels, will also increase with the number of tourists.
Over 100,000 tourists will head to the ice as the summer sun finally arrives in the Southern Hemisphere.

They will brave the two-day journey across the notoriously rough Drake Passage below Patagonia to the polar continent of Antarctica on one of the more than fifty cruise ships.

Antarctica was only visited by 15 tourists on two yachts during the COVID summer of 2020–21. However, tourism is back, and it is more popular than ever. The number of visitors this season is up by more than 40% compared to the most populous year prior to the pandemic. So, will all these tourists harm what is frequently regarded as the planet’s last untouched wilderness? No and yes. The business is run well. Wild places are frequently rediscovered by vacationers upon their return. They actually spend very little time on the continent or its islands, which is surprising.

However, environmental impacts like black carbon from cruise ship funnels will also increase as tourism grows. It is possible for tourists to carry invasive microbes, seeds, and other species on their boots and clothing. This problem will only get worse as ice melts and new areas of bare earth are created. Additionally, cruise ships are not particularly polluting.

How was Antarctic tourism made popular?

In order to resupply research bases on the South Shetland Islands, the first tourists boarded Chilean and Argentine naval vessels in the 1950s.

Dedicated icebreaker expedition ships began venturing even further south toward the end of the 1960s. The industry began to grow in the early 1990s as former Soviet icebreakers became available; around a dozen companies offered trips at the time.

How does it appear today?

The majority of tourists visiting Antarctica travel to the relatively accessible Antarctic Peninsula on small “expedition-style” vessels. After getting there, they can go on shore excursions or take a zodiac boat ride to see icebergs and wildlife up close. Visitors can kayak, paddleboard, and take the polar plunge, which is a short plunge into subzero water.

Accommodation, food, and other services are provided aboard ships for the majority of tourists. Over three quarters of visitors never stand on the continent.
Those who do visit Antarctica typically do so for short periods of time rather than spending the night.

Some tour operators offer overland excursions into the interior of the continent using temporary, seasonal camp sites for more daring tourists. A resolution against permanent tourist facilities was recently adopted by Antarctic Treaty nations, and there are no permanent hotels.

Some businesses have started offering more daring activities like scuba diving, underwater trips in submersibles, mountaineering, and heli-skiing in response to the growing number of tourists.

Is tourism to the Antarctic sustainable?

Some advocacy groups have raised the possibility that the effects of the boom in Antarctic tourism cannot be sustained. The Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, for instance, contends that cruise tourism may increase environmental stress that is already significant due to climate change.

The snow has a higher concentration of ship exhaust black carbon, which absorbs more heat and causes snow to melt in tourist areas.

Additionally, ship traffic poses a threat of introducing invasive species via hitchhike into the fragile marine ecosystems of the Southern Ocean.

Including, but not limited to, emissions of greenhouse gases. Tourists who visit Antarctica have a higher carbon footprint per person than cruise ship passengers due to the continent’s remoteness.

Naturally, these effects extend beyond tourism. Even though there are significantly fewer environmental costs associated with scientific expeditions, scientists and support staff spend significantly more time on the continent.

There is a need to plan for the future because Antarctic tourism is not going away. Are sustainable cruises an oxymoron? Many people think so.

The cruise industry’s sheer size has resulted in mass tourism in new places and excessive tourism in others. This has caused unacceptably high levels of crowding, disrupted the lives of locals, repurposed local cultures for “exotic” performances, caused environmental damage, and increased emissions from fossil fuels.
Even though Paris had almost 20 million visitors in 2019, 100,000 tourists a year are relatively insignificant in comparison to global tourism standards. However, only a few months per year are spent in ecologically highly sensitive areas.

Except for the local wildlife, there are no residents to disturb, and there is also no host community to protest if visitor numbers become excessive.

Nonetheless, robust safeguards are in place. Tourism operators based in those nations are required to apply for permits and adhere to stringent environmental regulations in accordance with the Antarctic Treaty System, the set of international agreements signed by nations with an interest or presence in the Antarctic.

Before setting foot on the ice, tourists are required to follow rules like disinfecting their boots, vacuuming their pockets, and maintaining a certain distance from wildlife in order to avoid introducing new species.

The governing body for Antarctic tourism, the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators, has memberships for nearly all Antarctic cruise operators.
As part of IAATO’s efforts to make the industry more climate-friendly, operators are required to report their overall fuel consumption for the first time this year. In order to cut down on carbon dioxide emissions, some operators are now using hybrid vessels that can run for short periods partly on electric propulsion.

Coming back from the ice: The ambassador effect Recently, renowned travel writer Pico Iyer wrote about his experience in the world’s deep south. He stated that the visit “awakens you to the world’s environmental concerns… you go home with important questions for your conscience and radiant memories.”

It’s not just Iyer. Antarctic ambassadorship is the industry term for this widespread response. As would be expected, tourism operators emphasize this as a benefit.

Is it true? That is up for debate. Mixed results have been found in studies examining the connection between environmental behavior and polar travel.
Enjoy the experience if you’re one of the tourists visiting Antarctica this summer, but exercise caution. Use this knowledge to make well-informed choices regarding your activities both while you are in Antarctica and once you have returned safely to your home country. Remember that no trip south is free of environmental costs. Is it dangerous for Antarctica’s ice and ecosystem that tourism has returned?