A surge in adventure tourism and cruises to the Antarctic, with over 122,000 visitors to the polar region in 2024, is raising questions about sustainability among environmental experts, with some calling for a ban on Antarctic travel to help safeguard its fragile ecosystem.
Pollution, disease, snow melt, and global warming
One of the main problems is that there are no environmentally-friendly ways for masses of visitors to reach the Antarctic. The vast majority arrive by cruise ship, and even though the ships that serve Antarctic routes are usually smaller vessels than elsewhere around the world, every single arrival brings inherent risks. Ironically a rule stating that no more than 100 cruise passengers are allowed to land at any one time means larger boats circle back for more than one landing, increasing pollution and footfall.
Besides threatening the isolated ecosystem of the continent, through the risk of bringing in non-native seeds, species on clothes and boots, and even viruses such as avian flu, humans also bring other existential hazards to Antarctica.
The black carbon brought to Antarctica by human traffic such as helicopters, planes, ships, and lorries, as well as diesel generators, is turning the snow and ice in the polar region dark, meaning it melts faster. University of Santiago de Chile researchers have estimated that every single visitor to the region wipes out 83 tonnes of snow each. That’s in addition to the carbon emissions generated by the average visitor: 5.44 tonnes of CO2 emissions per passenger all going into the global warming pot.
With global surface temperatures at record levels for a number of years now, scientists have already said the first snow free day in the Arctic could occur by as soon as 2027 and noted an alarming decline in sea ice in the Antarctic. The resulting change in Earth’s weather patterns, sea levels and climate could be catastrophic.
Last chance?
It is easy to see then how some types of travel to the Antarctic, such as for weddings, could be argued to be self-indulgent. However, others suggest that calls for a ban on Antarctic tourism are not only counterproductive, driving even more people there under a “last chance to go” mantra, but also potentially damaging to partnerships that have been built up over time between researchers and some tourism operators.
Quark Expeditions, for example, run small trips and “actively collaborate with researchers and conservationists by welcoming them onboard our vessels and facilitating their access to some of the most remote areas of the Arctic and Antarctic,” the company’s head of sustainability Lyndsey Lewis claims. In another example, partnerships with Penguin Watch, allow scientists to “conduct vital fieldwork and gather invaluable data that advance our collective understanding of these fragile ecosystems.”
Travellers seeking to minimise the negative effects of their polar adventures could prioritise companies like Quark, or even find other ways to lessen their footprint, such as travelling by sail boat rather than diesel, or boarding cargo ships rather than planes, to reach departure points, but the bottom line is, for now, clear. Adventure travel to the poles is contributing to the disappearance of the very landscape visitors want to see.
