Tourism in Antarctica: Edging Toward the (Risky) Mainstream

I made an oath to myself not to go on any of these adventure trips. We- people- are spoiling what has been until recently unspoiled. I am very happy looking at nature shows on TV or in films that let me see the splendor of the natural world. We must take as personal our responsibilities to keep our earth healthy. First hand experience is nice, but at what price? We can do much better as stewards of our planet, our countries, our cities. We should all volunteer not to go.

Hey New York Times... So what is it you've been telling us to do? I cannot understand the hypocrisy. Follow the ways of Greta Thunberg and reduce our carbon footprints or burn fossil fuels traveling the globe in accordance with recommendations from your "Travel" section?

We must put an end to these trips and cruises. I never understood why organizations like National Geographic, The Nature Conservancy, universities for their alumni, .... promote this kind of travel. Are people really not able to think of better uses for their time and money? These activities so damage our environment and our ability to live here safely.

On a ridiculously over populated planet where most people live on less than 10$/day, there are a few hundred million rich, mostly westerners who can use their disposable income to see what remains of the natural world. Who can blame them? There is a lot of talk, but basically no substantive action on the causes of the deterioration of the planet. So I think most people say if it’s not going to be around much longer why shouldn’t I see it? We are not going to control our numbers, most of whom are destroying their part of the world just trying to stay alive and the rich, indolent, wasteful rich aren’t going to change their lifestyle so why wouldn’t you want to “see it before it’s gone”? Long term planning and sacrificing now, for a better future, is not in our DNA it would seem. Anything the tour operators do to mitigate the local effects of their operations will be more than cancelled out by the tourists lifestyle and the 82 million plus more humans that will be added to the billions here now next year. All the hand wringing and wailing of people like Greta make for nice photo ops, but change nothing. By the time nature corrects the problem, as it inevitably will, most of the natural world will be permanently gone.

The increase in popularity of the Antarctic, in addition to its beauty, is the human morbid desire and eagerness to be the last to see the last existing animal species (last male northern white rhinoceros, last tortoise named Lonesome George, the last Vaquita porpoise, etc), last corral reef, last glacier, ... before they are gone or destroyed. Those who can afford to travel to see pristine environments before they are destroyed - in part by their own actions - reminds me of the movie "The Freshman" where the rich feast on the last of an endangered species.

Ten years ago I went on a three week Antarctic cruise. It was and still is one of the major highlights of my life. It was a profound experience and I think about it everyday, grateful for how fortunate I was to be able to go. The ship had about 140 passengers, was very comfortable, had a great crew, well organized excursions, and some real adventure. The folks on this trip were very interesting in themselves, well educated and accomplished. There was great appreciation for the experience. The zodiac trips were not easy and while genuinely exciting, there was real danger from weather, difficult terrain and animal life (a previous trip that season had cost a tourist his life from an unhappy seal). It was very expensive and worth every cent. Which brings me to the article and the comments. I do think that the nontourist presence in Antarctica is where the real danger of intrusion exists, but this does not lessen tourist responsibility. I also think that the tourist trips have brought the importance of the area to general knowledge in ways which might not be the case if only scientific bases were allowed. While not many people will be able to have this adventure, it should not denied to all.

spreading like a virus: monkey see, monkey do virus. It's already crippled Everest.

I'm surprised this article didn't mention the new polar code that goes into full effect January 2022 and should, in theory, put an end to the huge drive-by cruises that Holland America, Celebrity and Princess offer. Unless these companies retrofit their existing ships (which seems unlikely), they'll no longer be going to Antarctica. Also, there's not much mention of the positive effect the treaties have had on wildlife in Antarctica, helping to bring back seal populations (and protecting whales and penguins) that were decimated. It's easy to say, "These treaties don't do anything and when nations get involved, bad things happen," but that has not been the case in Antarctica over the last 50 years. Also: There can be no doubt that Antarctica's most-serious problems don't come from within--meaning a small amount of tourism--but from the damage being done to the climate in other parts of the world.

No. Ridiculous. Its time to stop indulging bucket-listers and prohibit wasteful, nonsensical travel to places like Antarctica and the Galapagos Islands. Humanity has got to refrain from despoiling every place on the planet with its presence. These places need to be reserved for the animal inhabitants only, and left undisturbed by humans.

2 1/2 words: Don't go.

If you are rich enough to indulge in a practice that deteriorates this amazing natural world, you are rich enough to put your money and energy into fighting global warming and human-caused planetary destruction. Do it - or shame on you.

There's a place in the world for tourists. It's called Branson. It's in Missouri, and it's the only place tourists should be allowed to visit.

When do we start drilling for oil, gas, coal, diamonds, or lithium? 2030? 2040? 2022?

To my knowledge, there are no Antarctic peoples. So you can't argue that tourism helps any economy, only the tour operators. Where is the economic sense for Antartica? The photo of rich tourists in spa/pool says it all. Some things should be left alone.

At least they won't be oiling up with sunscreen and then jumping in the water to cool off.

I made two voyages to McMurdo Station as First Officer of the USNS Southern Cross (Captain Bjorn J Werring) in 1983. For a professional Mariner and navigator, those were the voyages of a lifetime. I hear that things have changed, in 1983 we had to break our own ice to get into the Ross Sea and spent 15 miles behind an icebreaker (USCGC Polar Sea,. IIRC) to get to the ice pier at McMurdo. The Third Officer and I brought our motorcycles and conducted the only know motorcycle reconnaisance of the route from McMurdo to Scott Station. There we were greeted with great comaraderie, but less so when we returned to McMurdo. I missed the flight to Amundsen-Scott at the pole because we broke the gooseneck pin at #5 fwd port boom and I spent the day repairing that. I would go back to Antarctica in a second ... if somebody paid me!

"the education and experiences that they offer their guests outweigh the negative impact of the carbon emissions associated with the trip." So delusional. Be the last to see it before it is gone (by way of negative impact of carbon emissions). Do any of these people ever consider a simple ethical test to govern their behaviors: what would be the impact if everyone did it?

In the 13th century Marco Polo set off for China with his father and returned decades later with fantastic tales of a place hardly any westerner had ever traveled and his fellow countrymen were astonished. We read travel memoirs, we read the travel pages, and we book trips to places we’ve heard or read about or seen a documentary of, because of the wonder and excitement not because of a ‘list’. Want to see rhinos before they are poached to extinction? Want to gaze on Everest and feel the wind in your face and be awed? These urges are not different than the village boy setting out for parts unknown for the sheer heart-pounding thrill of it. How will you keep them down on the farm once they’ve seen Paree? But hordes of humans taking thousands of selfies while standing on ancient rock carved walls, or walking on delicate and fragile land while crushing the plants underfoot, is unfixable. Lament the passing of our golden age of travel. Swarms of tourists and the machines that carry them around during their two-week vacay won’t be regulated. And even if every NYT reader vowed never more to roam, what about the millions who don’t make the same vow? Harm will be done because human beings in all their many busy brains want want want to see taste smell touch feel the very earth they live on. Damages will occur. Animals will die off. Environments will be fouled. Photos will be posted on Instagram.

Hard to envision a positive path forward for such a commercial venture, save one that could benefit an already fragilized milieu. This once preserved environment is today coming apart at the seams before our very eyes. In a good part due to the conjoined action of global warming and the many insidious ways in which a greedy faction of mankind, over the recent years, has enabled itself to drill and harvest fossil energies in long considered off-limits territories. Now, opening the floodgates to mass tourism may be the last stroke to ultimately assist in pushing things over the deep end. Direct implications of mass tourism via cruise ships seen crisscrossing the region won't wait long to be felt on a larger scale. Mass tourism, in general, runs counter to the notion of environmental preservation. Instead, it will further derail the ecosystem as myriads of industries pledge at increasing their foothold. Meanwhile, the so-called overseeing institutions will be, if it's not already the case, unable to keep things in check and even less track down reckless behaviors on the part of tour operators who disregard most basic environmental safety regulations for as long as it doesn't directly interfere with their line of business. Overall it appears that both geographically polarized icecaps won't be much longer be able to buffer this latest spurt of human predatory behavior on its land.

There is no place on Earth like Antarctica. The sheer scale and expanse of the landscape there is breathtaking. The nature and diversity is equally remarkable and so far the wildlife does not have a learned fear response to people. It is a unique time to visit before it changes and before the international agreements change. Then again, in doing so we alter it irreversibly by the very act of visiting. If you go, you are on your own for real medical emergencies. There are ships doctors but they are limited in the scope of care they can provide, and evacuation is nearly impossible. Shackleton and his crew may have the greatest survival story and degree of grit of all time, which becomes apparent after just a few hours in that remarkable part of the world.

Thank you for this article. I wish people would leave this fragile region alone and consider the impact they are having by going there as a tourist. There is just too much at stake, and as tourism increases, so does the damage to the environment and to wildlife. If people really care about it, they should think twice about going there for their vacation.

Wanting to go is a no brainier. Anyone who has an interest in science or nature or history would rightly be drawn to either polar region. I've wanted to go to Antarctica since I was a child living on the equator. Whether to go is a complex decision for all of the reason in this article. A classic "First World problem" and not an option for most of humanity. Most difficult of all is grappling with the implications of having been there. I was on the Antarctic Peninsula on the warmest day in human memory. Overall the trip was exhilarating and inspiring; that day was heartbreaking. I had prepared more than a year beforehand, reading and learning geology, ecology and history. Those of us who have been to Antarctica are still relatively few. We share an obligation to reflect on what it meant to be there and to share our experiences. We all know that Antarctica must be preserved. In service of that goal, I can't prove that there is greater virtue in being an Antarctic scientist versus a globetrotting environmentally conscious Instagrammer. I am neither. But I suspect humanity needs them both to speak out on behalf of a place that has no natural human constituency.

First there will be the visitors, then some nations will decide that there are natural resources there that are valuable. This in turn will provide governments of the industrialized world and big businesses that they have a right to exploit theses resources. This will hold true as global warming makes the Antarctic more hospitable at least during the 6 months of sunlight. In the end, the Antarctic will either be divided by nations or fought over for "valuable resources". It is inevitable

Tourist and cruise ships are not the only “visitors” to Antarctica. There are many bases and many research and military vessels. They often get a free pass when glaring eyes look down on the continent. Tourism is easy to point a finger at, however they have a strong impetus to play by the rules.... their business depends on the place remaining pristine. Thus the high level to which I have watched expedition vessels operate is quite impressive. Meanwhile I have watched military members disembark onto shore and disregard Treaty guidelines for proximity to animals. I have watched military and other non tourist personnel enter closed and protected areas. Often they do so through lack of knowledge about the fragility and protections in place. Similarly cruise operators go to great lengths to limit invasive visitors, with vacuuming, inspecting and disinfecting after each landing. This is not implemented across the board by non cruise visitors. Finally look at clusters of research stations. Personnel often get overly close to animals, with clear disturbance and the impact of permanent structures is great and can have a much larger impact on the environment - construction, wastes generated, humans living on the land (as opposed to a ship) So it’s easy to point the finger in one direction but I urge the reporter and readers to look at ALL visitors to Antarctic not just tourists.

Antarctic tourism is one of those things that, with however much regret, those who can afford it must cross off their lists. It's simply not good for the environment in so many ways.

Cruise ships completely changed the character of parts of Alaska. I doubt anyone will do anything to prevent the same happening to Antartica. Enjoy the Penguin stew!

Wow, I thought tourism was more controlled. I went on a small ship two years ago. I am a frequent traveller; this trip is at the top of my list for its beauty and also the sense of fragility: we may lose this. So who I am to say that people shouldn't go? Perhaps the ATS could learn some lessons from the protectors of the Galpagos.

If tourism is the golden goose, it is also the one that fowls its own nest. The nest is the entire planet. We're fouling it up for ourselves and future generations with our over-consumption of everything. Enough already. Just stay local. Visit a state park, visit your local museum, start a garden in your backyard. All this running around as tourists is ruining the earth.

It looks beyond beautiful but I’ll not go to such a fragile place.

Not too long from now, Antarctica will likely become desirable real estate. What happens then?

I fear this will ultimately not end well. As with any place on earth that holds unique and significant beauty, the Antarctic will become a must see selfie opportunity. As explained, because there is no real international governing body that is backed by lawful regulation, what was once a trickle of tourists will soon become a flood. The tourism industry will ensure that as more and more people sign up for these cruises, the costs will gradually become more affordable, allowing a self-perpetuating increase in opportunity and commercialism. There were no real surprises to this article and the dangers that loom with having such a tourist invasion, until the very end, when the term "penguin cuddling" was brought up. Dear Lord... The Eagles sang nearly 40 years ago and it still holds true: "You call someplace paradise, kiss it goodbye."

I find it appalling that these large vessels are permitted to "plow through frigid waters" at speeds absolutely guaranteed to harm wildlife. Personally, I made plans to take a plane to St. George Island and get on a boat with 9 crew and 10 passengers, roughly. I cancelled when I learned of the damage tourism is doing to the last remaining vestige of pristine world. To see a whale with slashed across their back and sides is heartbreaking and these massive cruise ships need to be stopped. Must we overtake and ruin everything? It is disgusting.

I just returned from an Antarctic cruise (22 days, San Antonio, Chile to Buenos Aires). My experience reveals the article to be quite accurate. I agree with most of the comments. Passengers were always advised to be keenly aware of preserving the environment. The temp was never below 35 degrees F. The scenery was magnificent. I would like to return but having read the article & comments I will not do so.

Antarctica should not be a tourist destination at all. When I was a Navy photographer there fifty years ago, our ( Navy) mission was to provide logistical and strategic support for the U.S. Antarctic Research Scientists gathering scientific data. Both the scientific researchers and the Navy respected the environment as best we could in performing our work. It was something that was cherished by those fortunate enough to experience this unique place. It is like no other continent and for that reason is special and should be preserved and kept as pristine as humanly possible. If you want to see glaciers and ice bergs visit Greenland or Alaska and penguins can be viewed up close at many zoos.

Antarctica used to be on my travel list. I love the beauty of arctic regions and wanted to at least set foot on every continent. I’ve recently reconsidered. Climate change is having a real impact on Antarctica – earlier this month the temperature was reported at nearly 70 degrees there, a possible record. Huge pieces of ice break off regularly and penguin colonies are declining. Cruise ships, which are highly polluting and the only reasonable way to visit the area, only make things worse. My desire to travel to Antarctica was driven by vanity and I now believe that the best way to appreciate certain fragile places of natural beauty is to leave them alone.

While it may be slow to reach consensus on issues such as tourism management, the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) and its Consultative Parties have proved time and time again to reach effective and long-lasting agreements on matters of concern. The consensus building needed to achieve such agreements ensures that all Treaty Parties are onboard and will adopt and enforce these measures through the continuing free exchange of information and cooperative oversight. The ATS has shielded the pristine Antarctic environment from mining and fossil fuel extraction, sustainably managed Southern Ocean fisheries, promoted peace and scientific endeavor across the continent, and is widely regarded as a model in international environmental law. I am confident that this eminent body, which shares common interests in the Antarctic Zone, will do whatever is necessary to ensure tourism does not adversely impact the environment in Antarctica to any significant extent.

Having just been to the Antarctic with Hertigruten this past January this article brings to light some of this issues that everyone thinking about making the journey should consider. Temperatures have been significantly higher this season. I was lucky enough to camp on the peninsula (after winning a lottery on the ship), but the cruise after us was entirely unable because there was not enough snow or ice at any of the spots that were permitted. I fear that as this happens companies will push father into untouched areas to give people what they expect given how much most of these cruises are. Landings at places like Port Lockeroy have become glorified gift shops. Our ship even brought in the merchandise available for sale to us! At the same time, most of the cruise ships that do make landings partner with researchers who study the same environments that people explore recreationally. Free passage is given to organizations to conduct counts of penguins and whales for instance. Still these are commercial cruises: the scientists are not given priority and the research conducted is dependent the number of guests and size of the vessel they are on. Furthermore, I have issues with the thought that in order to protect a place, people have to see it and go there themselves. If you’re considering going, think about your motives. If ticking off the 7th continent is your impetus for going...re-evaluate. And if you’ve been before, be thankful that you’ve gone and don’t go back.

Two questions: - Perhaps I'm totally mistaken, but weren't there some negotiations about 10 years ago to cap the number of tourists in Antarctica? - Doesn't the Antarctic Treaty have an expiration date of some sort? How might that affect tourism and other commercial activities in Antarctica?

The more the pristine regions of the Earth are visited, the more pollution is brought there. And in these days of coronavirus epidemic it is better not to travel, to stay put, and adhere to Psalm 37:3, "dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed".

Yet another ego-dependent industry that depends entirely on bragging rights for wealthy participants to take home to dinner parties. Some people are just not satisfied with a gentle walk in the woods in a beautiful place.

Hmm. I wonder why people want to travel to such exotic, far-off locations? Maybe because of endless travel stories about such exotic, far-off locations? Let me add that I resent the arrogant finger-wagging tone of such articles, which seem to be thumbing their noses at more affordable ways to visit such destinations. Rich people aren't the only ones who should be allowed to travel to far-flung places around the world. So if it's environmentally hazardous for hordes of tourists to visit Antartica, no one should be allowed to visit Antartica for mere pleasure.

The picture of tourists with the penguins made me want to cry.