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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Add comment