AddictedToTravel.com

You are not currently logged in.

Travel Forums


Antarctica Options
charlie
Posted: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:10:52 PM
Rank: Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 6/12/2007
Posts: 17
Points: -446
Hi there. I have seen many programmes on Antarctica and it looks absolutely amazing and is definitely on my wish list of places to travel to. But......is it a place that we should avoid under the environmental argument or is it better to still go, but only with good guys who take care of all those issues? Anybody know what the current opinion is?
CliveVal
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2007 4:56:40 PM

Rank: Newbie
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/2/2007
Posts: 2
Points: 6
GO! GO! GO!!!

There may be damage done to the environment, but some scientific bases now keep their areas tidier as a result of tourists visiting. There are strict rules on landing to reduce the impact. We learned that at Port Lockroy, where tourists are allowed on only half the island, the penguin population has increased on THIS side, because scuas threaten them less.

You will return an ambassador for antarctica.
hlbbartlett
Posted: Sunday, October 28, 2007 8:52:20 AM
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Member

Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 2
Points: 6
The arguments for and against visiting Antarctica are vast. As Clive says above, you can't help but have an effect by visiting (even if on the face of it the effect seems positive) and it probably is one of the last pristine environments remaining on earth. On the other hand, as with a number of other parts of the world, the tourism $ prevents alternative activities either due to direct need for land for tourism or an increased knowledge and interest in the area. The boats really do seem to work together so that they only visit a certain set of places, aiming to leave the rest to the scientific researchers, if that.

The good news for me was that on board most of the boats, there are lecture series which the majority of visitors partake in. The most lively lecture by far for us was a seminar on Antarctica's future and the effect of tourism. By entering into debate directly with the people providing the tours, your voice can immediately be heard and have effect. And, further, the big cruise ships (the ones with black tie, casinos and few lectures) still seem to have the same restrictions on stopping and number of passengers getting off so they can't do any more damage than anyone else.

In terms of tours, I can highly recommend MV Polar Star. It's a smaller boat (circa 100 passengers max) and is an ice breaker which means that you can generally get in further. The thing the websites don't tell you is that if you are on an ice breaker, the hull is more rounded and hence the ship rolls more in the open ocean so if you go for one, make sure it doesn't have 11 storeys as you will definitely feel the effects. That's where the Polar Star sems to have got it right! Plenty of lectures on board, lots of stops, cosy atmosphere, very comfortable but certainly still expedition cruise rather than cruise cruise.
Carlwelsby
Posted: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:17:28 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Administration

Joined: 6/22/2007
Posts: 59
Points: -17
Hi,

This got me thinking about carbon-offsetting schemes. These are in the news at the moment as not being all they should be and I wondered if anyone had any views? Is it just conscience-salving or actually really worthwhile? Is it worth offsetting carbon emmissions if a massive part of what you donate ends up going in some company's pocket.

There's a thought provoking article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6912336.stm but what do you all think?

Cheers
Steve
Posted: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:18:39 PM

Rank: Newbie
Groups: Member

Joined: 11/21/2007
Posts: 7
Points: -79
Yes, Carl, I've also seen there is a big debate about all of the different pros and cons of carbon offsetting at the moment.

When I flew to the Galapagos Islands recently I did offset my flights online with the approach that a small contribution is better than no contribution at all. I just hope it does a small amount of good and wasn't all swallowed up in admin costs or ineffective projects.

On the Galapagos Islands there were several organisations looking for donations to help fund their conservation projects, which I also contributed to. Maybe my money would have been better spent by offering the same amount directly to these local charities – at least I could be sure it would have gone directly to the area I was visiting.
Stuart
Posted: Monday, December 03, 2007 7:14:04 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member , Moderator

Joined: 6/25/2007
Posts: 34
Points: 102
One of the original questions raised in this Forum related to the environmental impact of travelling to Antarctica.

The recent sinking of MS Explorer has brought this question to the forefront of people's minds, and is being discussed by several organisations Antarctica.

A particularly concern is the increasing number of big cruise ships (rather than small expedition vessels) operating in the area. Indeed, within the last 12 months, the Golden Princess became the largest vessel yet to sail in Antarctic waters, with an incredible 3,700 people on board. This raises several serious environmental and safety concerns.

If anyone is keen to travel to Antarctica, it is strongly recommended that they do so with members of the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO), who follow strict guidelines for safety and the environment, on board the smaller ships that are ice strengthened and have experience in operating in polar waters.

You can read more about the current environmental concerns with voyages to the White Continent in the Antarctica Blog on this site.


Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS