deleted by creator
Yeah, I’d be quite surprised to see large increases in tourism anywhere in a +4° world…
Antarctica and the north pole will likely see a significant rise in tourists/refugees, no?
Don’t kid yourself. The north pole will just be an incredibly boring bed of dead water like any other ocean by then and Antarctica will likely be just a bunch of rocks, possibly leaking gas that was trapped under ice for millions of years. At least there will be some nature in scandinavia to look at through a big window in an air conditioned cruise ship.
Antarctica will likely be just a bunch of rocks,
Wouldn’t that take quite a while? As far as I understand it humanity will get centuries or even millenia of an ever rising sea level. That’s gonna be fun.
Well yeah, there might be some exceptions. But in a 4° world, economic collapse is very likely, and tourism would be one of the first industries to die out. Antarctica has no soil to speak of, so not exactly a good place to settle. The most northerly lands will indeed be interesting to settle in at some point, though I wonder how long the adjustment period would be (e.g. as long as the permafrost is melting, the ground will be unstable)
We need to curb mass tourism, not displace it.
Imagine traffic jams to get into Scandinavia while the Côte d’Azur burns.
I’m picturing the people sipping their martinis in the Arctic circle
I think there will be a time where the polar circles are going to be the only habitable place on earth
We did have temperatures like 8 degrees higher then today. It means rainforest covered large parts of the world. However the North European plain was also covered in water, which is a slight issue.
We’ve had much-warmer temperatures on Earth, but outside of when humans were around.
https://www.climate.gov/media/11332
If you’re in Europe, 90°F is ~32°C and 50°F is 10°C.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
Throughout Earth’s climate history (Paleoclimate) its climate has fluctuated between two primary states: greenhouse and icehouse Earth.[1] Both climate states last for millions of years and should not be confused with glacial and interglacial periods, which occur as alternate phases within an icehouse period and tend to last less than 1 million years.
Earth is now in an icehouse state, and ice sheets are present in both poles simultaneously.
A “greenhouse Earth” is a period during which no continental glaciers exist anywhere on the planet.[6] Additionally, the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (such as water vapor and methane) are high, and sea surface temperatures (SSTs) range from 28 °C (82.4 °F) in the tropics to 0 °C (32 °F) in the polar regions.[7] Earth has been in a greenhouse state for about 85% of its history.[6]
We can live in even the warm areas of an Earth like that, but it’d be an Earth that’s warmer than humanity has ever experienced.
That’s pretty close to this summer
I kind of like, how the EU predigts that Hamburgs city marketing remains totally shit, even when it is in the region most profitting from climate change tourism. Seriously Hamburg gets half as many international tourist as Krakow, which has half the population. Even Düsseldorf gets more tourists and it is a third of the size and honestly significantly uglier then Hamburg.
Düsseldorf and Hamburg are popular for very different reasons though. When I went to Düsseldorf it was because of Little Tokyo. I wanted to eat some nice Japanese food.
When I go to Hamburg it’s because it is a beautiful big city but I usually go for nothing in particular.
I just feel like Hamburg is not well located for tourism. Düsseldorf/Köln/Bonn are at least very close to France, Holland, Belgium, etc
Hamburg is also quite rich. It used to have the same GDP as Berlin with half the population. Hence fostering tourism wasn’t a priority. But I guess with the harbor losing value (the harbor is quite a bit inland and the river Elbe that leads to it isn’t deep enough if ships continue to get larger) and Berlin actually becoming the largest German economic center, that’s going to change.
Hopefully the tourists stay within reasonable distance of their home and avoid planes, flying/international travel is way too destructive to be so normalized.
Like taking a round trip from Copenhagen to Tokyo and back emits something like 7x the amount of CO2 a typical danish person emits in a whole year.I totally agree with your statement, however, the data seems wrong. A Copenhagen-Tokyo roundtrip emits 2.7t of CO2 (myclimate.org) and the per capita emissions of Denmark are 5t of CO2 per year. So the trip amounts to half the yearly emissions, which is still significant though.
Especially in the context of the article and Europe, flying is of course even worse, since many alternatives exist.
Generally the per capita emissions should be around 0.6t to stay within the planetary limits. So yeah, flying really isn’t great in any way.
Ah my bad, you’re right, seems the source I was looking at last time was incorrect, but yeah that’s still a lot of CO2
IRC it’s roughly equivalent to the amount of CO2 emitted by a cat during its lifetime.
Sorry Mr. Purrsalot. Daddy needs a holiday. Don’t worry, it’ll be over soon.
Europe is relatively small so there will be realistic alternatives to planes, like overnight trains (hopefully they become more mainstream)
Yeah I hope we get a lot more high speed trains!
Bad news for spain, they rely heavily on tourism
On the plus side, maybe this will be a bit more economic incentive for the countries affected not to drag their heels on climate control.
deleted by creator
There’s only 10% of the world’s population living in the southern hemisphere so that’s not a big surprise.
deleted by creator
Other aspects of climate change have massive economic consequences too, but most are relatively long term and thus easy to ignore.
Exactly.
Also I’m not sure this is factoring the appetite of tourists for the mosquitoes that define much of the summer months in the Nordics
deleted by creator
The Italy shoe is turning into a Louboutin.
I like that an increase of 4 degrees has a large increase in the Dutch beaches… but they would be mostly sea probably
In a battle of man vs sea, never bet against the Dutch.
The region that would benefit most is West Wales, in the United Kingdom, where there would be increases of almost 16%.
Huh.
