Introduction

1The climate crisis is one of the most urgent problems the world faces. Since the Industrial Revolution, the way nation-states and societies have evolved has put ecosystems at risk, leading to an exponential growth in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The most recent and relevant global climate action took place in 2015 when 196 countries adopted the Paris Agreement at COP21, which is legally binding and has universal scope, to limit Earth’s temperature rise to 1.5°C (UNFCCC, 2015). However, most countries are not on track to achieve their commitments under the agreement, and emissions have continued to rise since 2015.

2Tourism, as a mobile phenomenon, has gained increasing recognition for its role in sustainable development, but it also generates negative impacts on the environment. Tourism is highly dependent on the mobility of people between their places of residence and tourist destinations, generating 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions (UNWTO, 2021) from airplanes, cruises, hotels, food and beverage imports, energy and water use, and garbage production, among other sources. The research provides reflections and analyses about the place of tourism in a changing environment and the factors influencing tourism mobilities until 2030 and beyond, considering the impacts of the pandemic. It identifies and describes some of the main policies and strategies within the framework of the global, regional, and national agendas to combat the climate crisis and their relationship with tourism, critically discussing the issue of the climate crisis for tourism, and analysing how tour operators (TOs) interact with climate and sustainability policies, targets, and strategies established by international organizations.

3Holloway (1992) defines tour operations as the process of purchasing separate elements of tourism products/services and combining them into a package tour, which is then sold directly or indirectly to tourists. Tour operators can be seen as entities that facilitate the creation and management of tourist experiences, which are shaped by the "tourist gaze" (Urry, 1992). This gaze refers to how tourists perceive and interact with destinations, often influenced by preconceived notions and expectations created through marketing and cultural narratives.

4The choice to focus on tour operators was based on their position within the tourism value chain as responsible for developing and organizing nearly every aspect of a holiday, which involves negotiating with a number of other tourism businesses and ultimately results in the way tourists move from their homes to the desired destination and experience their travel. Thus, the research addressed this question: How do tour operators (re)act in face of the climate crisis and policies and targets to contain it? Due to this central role in the tourism industry, the research also focused on the challenges and problems generated by the COVID-19 pandemic for these actors due to restrictions to global mobility that heavily impacted the sector.

5The research provided examples and comparisons between two countries: Brazil and Germany. These countries were chosen to provide the possibility of analysing their alignment with global climate policies and the influence on tourism practices from the perspective of TOs. Moreover, comparing a case from the Global North (Germany) and one from the Global South (Brazil) offers valuable insights into how differing historical responsibilities, economic capacities, and institutional frameworks shape climate action in tourism (Hall, Gössling & Scott, 2015). Lastly, but not least important, the role of the researcher also influenced the choice to analyse these two countries. As part of the German Chancellor Fellowship in the German capital, it was possible to have access to TOs and observe the context of the Global North in responding to these challenges, while comparing such a scenario with the researcher’s home country and the issues faced by the Global South. The research thus benefited from the unique opportunity afforded by the Fellowship to access stakeholders, networks, and first-hand experiences in both contexts.

Climate Crisis, COVID-19, and Tourism

6Until the pandemic hit the world, tourism was also heading in the opposite direction to international policies to address the climate crisis, initiatives such as the Paris Agreement. The aim of such strategies is to keep the global temperature from rising more than 1.5º C, so as to avoid more frequent and more destructive climate-related events, by cutting overall GHG emissions by 55% until 2030. And despite the climate policies and targets, tourism – with its continued approach focused on exponential growth – was on a path that would have seen its greenhouse gas emissions rise by 25% until 2030 (UNWTO, 2019). However, unprecedented restrictions to mobility reduced the number of international arrivals from 1.5 billion in 2019 to 400 million in 2020, and by 2022 the industry faced losses worth $ 2.6 trillion in export revenues (UNWTO, 2023).

7Although a strong body of literature had already being developed around the issues of sustainability, policy development, and types of governance (Bramwell, Lane; 2011; Bramwell, Higham, Lane, Miller, 2017; Hall and Jenkins, 1995; Hall, 2008; Shone and Memon, 2008), the nexus between tourism and the climate crisis has only been gaining increasing attention from tourism researchers in the last two decades.

8A non-exhaustive literature review shows that the recent focus of researchers has been on how tourism destinations face climate issues (Gössling, 2009; Hall et al. 2015; Loehr and Becken, 2021; Matthews, 2021; Ruhanen and Aishath, 2013; McKercher et al. 2014; Scott et al. 2020; Saarinen, 2012; Tapsuwan, 2015; Zeppel, 2012; Zotz, 2010); the vulnerability of the tourism industry in face of the climate change (Dogru et al. 2019; Scott et al. 2019; Hopkins, 2015; Scott, 2011); critical perspectives on sustainability policies and practices in tourism (Boluk, Christina and Higgins-Desbiolles, 2019; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2018; Weir, 2017); mobility and CO2 emissions in tourism (Becken, 2017, 2019; Becken and Shuker, 2019; Fletcher et al. 2019; Gössling and Andreas, 2020; Gössling et al., 2019; Raffaelli et al., 2022); mitigation and adaptation of the tourism sector (Scott et al. 2011; Weaver, 2011; Gössling and Higham, 2021); and how climate change is going to impact tourism in general (Grimm, 2019; Jandrey and Aumond, 2020; Pröbstl-Haider, Lund-Durlacher and Olefs, 2021; Rosselló-Nadal, 2014; Scott, 2011).

9Of particular interest are the debates proposed by Sheller (2018, 2020, 2021), through the combined concepts of mobility justice and climate issues. Another aspect of the discussion on the nexus between tourism and the climate crisis is the “growth paradigm” promoted not only, but in particular, by this sector (Gössling, Hall, Peeters and Scott, 2010). Nearly every report, policy paper, or document developed by associations, companies, governments, and researchers about tourism hails or mentions its economic importance to the global GDP or to specific regions and destinations. Becken (2019) explains how different stakeholders reinforce this notion of infinite growth within the sector by arguing that more tourism means more development and a better quality of life for residents of tourism destinations, especially those in poor countries. However, the links between higher tourism participation in the economy and welfare improvement is not as straightforward as promoted (Hollenhorst, Houge-Mackenzie and Ostergren, 2014).

10Although still predominant, the “business-as-usual” approach in the tourism sector has been increasingly criticised by researchers and practitioners. For some, the pandemic provided an opportunity to redefine what success means for many sectors, and particularly for tourism. However, the economic impact for companies and tourism destinations is a setback for more sustainable approaches and an impediment to challenging the logic of growth, once the perceived “survival mode” reduces the leeway, time, and human capital afforded sustainability across the sector.

11Therefore, one could argue it is high time to reconsider tourism’s paradigm of growth as a measure for success and focus on accelerating the transformation of this activity to a sustainable and fair one (Gössling, Scott and Hall, 2020). The question is, of course, how can an industry so reliant on the movement of people reduce its environmental impacts?

12Certain developments in recent years have increased awareness for better choices and prospects in the tourism sector, such as the Tourism Declares a Climate Emergency (TDCE) program. Launched at the beginning of 2020 soon after the pandemic was declared, the initiative was developed by volunteers from the tourism sector who partnered with tour operators, associations, and academics who focus their work on sustainable and responsible tourism. Meanwhile, the Glasgow Declaration for Climate Action in Tourism was launched in November 2021 during COP26. Some of the pledges created by TDCE were brought to this declaration, such as developing a climate action plan within 12 months of signing it. The declaration’s objective is to align the sector to reach the goal of halving emissions by 2030 and achieving net zero no later than 2050 (One Planet Network, 2021).

13The commitment to more concrete actions seems to have increased among stakeholders in the tourism sector. Nevertheless, the bottleneck for tourism when it comes to emissions is related to mobility, especially for long-haul destinations. Before the pandemic, the distribution of travel was already uneven and mostly concentrated between a hypermobile elite (Peeters et al., 2019), with ten countries receiving more than half of the global outbound tourists (Becken, 2019). With the pandemic’s impacts, the uneven distribution of mobility might well have been exacerbated, and tourism’s geography might increasingly change with the impacts of the climate crisis.

14Finally, the place of tourism during two concomitant crises – the pandemic and the climate emergency – seems increasingly complicated and vulnerable. There has been a growing recognition of such problems by governments, companies, and associations, but proper action continues to be far from what is needed to avoid the problematic scenarios predicted by scientists.

15Although what is proposed so far could lead to fewer negative impacts by the sector, how to deal with mobility-related GHG emissions for tourism remains an open question. Usually, the answer is either reducing or offsetting emissions, while key stakeholders maintain a perspective of growth. From this perspective, the next section proposes a discussion on mobility issues under the New Mobilities Paradigm (NMP) and how such a field can help to unveil questions on mobility justice and the politics of mobility within the nexus of tourism and the climate crisis.

Mobility research, tourism mobilities, and climate change

16 The place of tourism in the context of climate change is increasingly contested, difficult to foresee, and open to criticism. With its interconnected and complex value chain, made up of airlines, tour operators, travel agencies, accommodation providers and destinations, the key question for this industry lies in its capacity to apply measures to reduce emissions and other environmental impacts. For tourism, there seems to be a growing low-carbon awareness and agreement to alternatives among stakeholders of the sector; however, whether this “will result in a paradigm shift remains to be seen and is unlikely to be within the control of tourism stakeholders themselves” (Becken, 2017: 847) given that the source of most of tourism emissions comes from air travel, a form of mobility upon which the sector is highly dependent.

17In Climate Change and Society, Urry claims “the ‘social’ should be positioned at the heart of both why climates are changing and of policies concerned with developing low carbon alternatives” (p. 48) and that low-carbon systems will only become significant if low carbon lives become fashionable on a global scale (Urry, 2011). This requires a reconfiguration of the Politics of Mobility (Cresswell, 2010) in its “movement, meaning, and practice” given that various modes of mobility have always been part (and in certain terms, the consequence) of existing governance structures, histories, power relations, and embodied experiences (Nikolaeva et al., 2019).

18Given the current global agenda to tackle climate change, which depends on the capacity of reducing GHG emissions in multiple sectors, in particular those related to transportation, the politics of mobility presents a framework for analysing such proposals and enquiring how they will affect society, once “any meaningful consideration of transition must also entail a consideration of the politics of mobility transitions, including questioning the relationship between an individualised ‘right to move’ and how collective social needs are mediated through mobilities” (Nikolaeva et al., 2019: 349).

19Climate change threats to society are many and varied, but especially concerns the current politics of mobility, as it interferes with the many socio-technical systems that “are culturally shaped and politically governed by mobility regimes that govern who and what can move (or stay put), when, where, how and under what conditions” (Sheller, 2018: 19). The almost insurmountable task of dealing with the climate crisis means that governments and institutions often tend to revert to technical solutions, using existing economic or governance structures that “often lead to a focus on human practices as individualistic, market-based and calculative, and thus generate responses to climate change based on individual calculation to change behaviour, new technologies to fix the problem and developing markets for novel ‘green products’” (Urry, 2015: 46).

20Recently, however, a growing number of researchers and activists have been calling for measures that tackle climate change on a different basis, with a focus on social justice. Within the NMP, this approach is situated at the intersection of mobility and justice. In Theorising Mobility Justice (Sheller, 2018), the author proposes the concept – which derives from broader climate justice approaches – as a “new way to think across the micro, meso, and macro scales of transitioning toward more just mobilities” (p. 17), from the bodily, to the street, to extended urban, national, and planetary scales.

21Therefore, mobility justice can be applied to critique regimes of mobility that incentivise unequal relations, from urban problems and the built environment to the questions of gender, race, colonialism and neocolonialism, and onward to global issues such as migration, energy use, and ecological problems. This approach is particularly useful to investigate the global agenda for climate change and question whether its proposals for transition to more environmentally sustainable and socially just mobilities are effective.

22The concept of mobility justice with respect to tourism in the context of the climate crisis and the pandemic can be a fruitful way to unveil dimensions not previously investigated or that can benefit from deeper discussions. In Mobility Justice and the Return of Tourism After the Pandemic (2021), Sheller proposes an approach that reveals “how travel and tourism are constituted by mobility regimes that have deep historical roots (…) and that continue to deeply impact climate injustice, social injustice and environmental injustice today” (p. 19). At a moment when tourism faces pressures from multiple crises, rethinking its paradigms and how its recovery should take shape through the prism of social, environmental, and mobility justice could shift the sectors’ policies, meanings, and practices.

23In that sense, the idea of “commoning mobility” and “commoning tourism” has been introduced in recent studies of low-carbon mobility transitions (Nikolaeva et.al, 2019; Sheller, 2018, 2021). Commoning means shifting from the individualistic perspective to the collective good, bringing a shared responsibility and governance by societies and communities. It connects with some of Bærenholdt’s ideas on governmobility, “a concept more apt for understanding the self-government of people, governed through mobility, in more dynamic and relational ways” (2013, p. 28).

24The pandemic brought to light several vulnerabilities in the tourism operating system, which based on the discussion thus far call for its reconfiguration. The New Mobilities Paradigm points to a number of ideas, concerns, and proposals that open possibilities of envisioning a tourism sector characterized by greater social and climate justice, especially through the concepts of mobility justice and regenerative and reparative tourism (Sheller, 2021). However, there seems to be a divide between those who support such ideals and those who acknowledge these issues but see the economic aspects as more relevant (usually regarded as the “business-as-usual” approach) and prefer to rely on technology-based solutions to deal with tourism’s negative impacts. Based on this discussion, one is led to wonder how such debates are unfolding in a more practical way within the tourism industry, especially in such a pivotal moment generated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methodology

25This research analysed how tour operators in Brazil and Germany (re)act in face of the climate crisis and the agenda of actions to prevent an ecological breakdown. Thus, the research is structured in order to analyse the scenario of the international system dealing with multiple crises and describes the influence on practices of mobility and tourism, both key elements in formulating the goals associated with reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

26Under the umbrella of the New Mobilities Paradigm (Sheller and Urry, 2006), politics of mobility (Cresswell, 2010), mobility justice, and climate justice (Sheller, 2018, 2020, 2021) served as conceptual tools to unveil the relationships brought about by the climate crisis in conjunction with the COVID-19 pandemic and the global sustainability agenda for tourism mobilities. Furthermore, for global climate policies to work they have to be adaptable and involve a range of actors, most notably from the private sector – as in the case of tour operators (TOs).

27The research has a qualitative methodology, relying on document analysis and case study methods. According to Silva et al. (2009), document analysis refers to an analysis of various documents produced by human beings, in which case official documents are used and available on the main channels and websites of institutions, such as the United Nations and the European Union and the governments of Brazil and Germany.

28According to Urde, Greyser, and Balmer (2007), although simple objects can be the focus of a case study, the advantages of this method are best demonstrated when studying complex and dynamic phenomena, with a specific context for the researcher to get involved in order to reach a true understanding of the range of variables and their relationships. Hence, this research path was chosen because it provided specific tools for the analysis of a set of complex processes at an international level that have ramifications in different areas, including mobility, tourism, and the climate crisis. As highlighted by Tasci, Wei, and Milman, "the case study method can be instrumental especially in the area of ​​research on inaccessible, unique or complex phenomena such as innovative strategies, best sustainability practices or complex tourism products with many stakeholders" (2020: 2). In this phase, two techniques common to case studies were used for data collection: surveys administered using questionnaires and interviews.

Data collection

29Given its exploratory character, this study relied on an inductive approach in order to collect data. Given the challenges to conducting research during the pandemic, two stages of data collection were carried out in order to reach a reasonable number of tour operators and gather enough qualitative data to foster not only a debate but also a comparative analysis.

30The first stage was the development and administering of an online survey with TOs from Brazil and Germany, conducted via the QuestionPro platform. The survey questions, which can be found in detail in Appendix A, were built based on the literature review conducted to develop the previous sections and organized on the basis of Dolnicar’s (2013) theory and evidence-based guidance on designing appropriate survey questions.

31Therefore, the survey was organized based on the following components:

1. Tour Operators (rater)

2. (Re)actions (abstract attributes) and their specific reactions to

   1. The climate crisis and the pandemic.

   2. Climate policies that directly or indirectly address tourism and mobility.

   3. Targets to reduce CO² emissions.

   4. Social and climate justice issues

3. Climate change and global, regional, and national policies (abstract focal issues). The components of these abstractions:

   1. IPCC report

   2. Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goals

   3. European Green Deal

   4. National Climate Policies

32Since the research deals with different aspects of climate change, the survey goal was two-fold: first to reveal tour operators (re)actions to the phenomena per se and their consequences, and then to investigate their responses to policies and targets to contain the problem, which are more connected to technical aspects of emissions reduction, but still impact other dimensions. Thus, the first section focused on their perceptions of the climate crisis (e.g. “considering the scale below, how would you rate the threat level to your business in relation to the climate crisis?”) and then the second was focused on their knowledge of/interaction with climate policies and how they react to the statements provided concerning climate injustices and inequalities.

33Following Dolnicar’s (2013) suggestion of using bipolar constructs when investigating overall attitudes, the survey provided agree/disagree options for constructs based on open statements (e.g. "how do you react to the statements below?") and bipolar scales to constructs focused on assessing their level of knowledge/reaction to more directed statements (e.g. their level of knowledge of climate policies and the level of contribution of certain statements to reducing climate injustices/inequalities), ranging from -2, -1, 1 to 2. The choice was made not to provide a zero in the middle of the scale, as to avoid evasion or any tendency to use middle answer options.

34The survey was conducted during the period of 18/11/2021 and 19/12/2021, having been distributed via official channels of representative tourism organizations in Germany and Brazil (newsletter, emails, and social media posts) and provided the questions in the German and Portuguese languages. A total of 28 tour operators completed the entire survey (Germany n= 18; Brazil n= 10); however, most questions gathered a total number ranging from 31 to 35 TOs who, for reasons unknown to the researcher, did not follow all steps to conclude the survey. Thus, when presenting the results, the tables include different n values for Total Responses, Response Brazil and Response Germany.

35The second stage of data collection was conducted through face-to-face and online in-depth interviews, over the period of October and December 2021. The interviewees were invited based on their role within the organizations, which were selected based on their seniority level (e.g. C-level or managers), scope of work, and relevance to the subject. A total of six expert interviews, three from each country, were conducted with key actors, such as large tour operators (2), small-size tour operators (2), and representative associations (2). The interviews were conducted in Portuguese and English, lasted from 40 minutes to an hour, and were recorded for later transcription and analysis with the qualitative software MAXQDA. Three close-ended (with option to explain why) and seven open-ended questions were asked of each interviewee, which allowed them to explore and share information according to their capacity and comfort level . Finally, an agreement to keep the data confidential was reached to secure the interviews; thus neither the companies/organizations nor the interviewees will be referred to by their real names. The small tour operators are referenced as TO1 and TO2, and the large tour operators as TO3 and TO4, while the two representative tourism associations are named TA1 and TA2 (Table 1). For comparison purposes, TO1, TO3, and TA1 are from Brazil, while TO2, TO4, and TA2 are from Germany.

Table 1. Categorization of interviewees

Interviewee	Company size	Country	Codification
Tour Operators	Small	Brazil	TO1
	Small	Germany	TO2
	Large	Brazil	TO3
	Large	Germany	TO4
Representative Associations	-	Brazil	TA1
	-	Germany	TA2

36It is noteworthy that there is an intentional focus of research on tour operators and representative associations (as they provide a privileged view about TOs), opting not to involve the “final end” of the tourism chain: tourists. However, it is understood that the results of this work may open new paths for research, as the results generate a long-term agenda that also depends, to a certain extent, on a general change in consumption behaviour. Thus, the role of tourists and their influence as agents in the dynamics of the climate crisis may be an interesting future development of this research.

Limitations

37Despite using two complementary data collection mechanisms, namely, an online survey and in-depth interviews, the relatively small number of participants has certainly proved to be a limitation of this study. Although the pandemic has shifted the lives of many professionals to the home office sphere, a phenomenon that some argue could facilitate the arrangement of online interviews, there were difficulties in getting replies and confirmations from many tour operators, even when they were suggested by their representative associations. Many of them rejected an interview either by claiming they did not know enough about the topic (which was not a precondition to participate) or did not have time to be interviewed. The exploratory perspective of this research means that it would have benefited from more interviews, but the strategy to conduct expert interviews with directors from tourism associations, which represent a large group of tour operators, may have helped achieve a level of confidence in the data collected.

38The online survey also faced limitations, given that this method naturally relies on the willingness of respondents to dedicate time, energy, and attention to answering the questions; nevertheless, given the strain the sector was facing, the number of participants – however limited – still provided useful data.

Findings and discussions: how do tour operators (re)act to the climate crisis and the policies and targets designed to contain it?

39This research project was designed to further our understanding of how market actors such as tour operators from two major inbound and outbound tourism destinations and their associations react to climate policies, by acknowledging that this group has an important role to play and responsibility to shoulder when it comes to dealing with questions concerning sustainability, environmental protection, and social issues. Tour operators and tourism associations from Brazil and Germany were asked questions about how they perceive climate change, with the pandemic effects part of the perspective, and regarding their level of knowledge and (re)actions to the climate policies discussed in the previous sections.

40Notwithstanding the differences between the two countries, many tour operators from both nations recognized that the climate crisis represents a threat to their businesses. This was the first question asked both in the online survey and during interviews, as it provides a first reflection by participants and helps pinpoint the assessment of these actors while allowing for evaluations on whether such concerns translate into concrete plans, such as adapting their operations to reduce emissions.

41However, as Table 2 shows, 57% of respondents of the online survey have assessed the level of threat either as very low (17%) or low (40%), although this number is especially influenced by German TOs. Given the difference in the number of respondents, there is little leeway for comparisons, but the contrast between the assessment of Brazilian and German TOs is nevertheless noticeable and may be indicative of broader North-South conflicting positions on the issue.

Table 2. Climate crisis assessment

Variable	Metric	Total Responses	Response Brazil	Response Germany
How do you assess the threat level to your business in relation to the climate crisis?	-2 (very low)	17%	17%	17%
	-1 (low)	40%	17%	52%
	1 (high)	34%	58%	22%
	2 (very high)	9%	8%	9%
	N=	35	12	23

42All the interviewees, however, shared similar views about the threat level in relation to the climate crisis. Most mentioned concerns especially with the effects that climate change has on their “products”, namely the tourism destinations themselves.

43For small-scale tour operators, the impacts on destinations are definitely an issue, but there is also a concern with changing consumer behaviour and the prices of air travel in relation to GHG emissions from airplanes.

“It is high, because most of our offers are with flights and well… this depends on consumer behaviour, but the flight is a product that while it doesn’t become neutral in emissions, it will have to be more expensive, and this has impacts on the business, for sure” (TO2, small enterprise, Germany, emphasis added).

44The online survey sought to explore the tour operators’ reactions to a changing world, facing multiple crises, through a list of statements covering questions focused on reforming tourism in the face of its climate impacts, the economic benefits of tourism in contrast to its negative consequences, and issues pertaining to climate justice and pandemic recovery. Such statements were conceived based on the discussions presented in the previous sections (e.g., the recovery versus reform debate generated by the pandemic).

Table 3. From your organization’s perspective, how do you react to the statements below?

Variable	Metric	Total Responses	Response Brazil	Response Germany
a. Tourism must return to pre-pandemic levels as soon as possible to restore its economic benefits.	Agree	74%	75%	74%
	Disagree	26%	25%	26%
b. The pandemic has increased awareness within the tourism sector about the climate crisis	Agree	66%	58%	70%
	Disagree	34%	42%	30%
c. Tourism should be reformed, to avoid its negative impacts on the climate and vulnerable communities	Agree	80%	92%	74%
	Disagree	20%	8%	26%
d. Tourism’s economic benefits compensate for its negative impacts (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions)	Agree	57%	50%	61%
	Disagree	43%	50%	39%
e. Tourism operations contribute to climate change, which disrupts the lives of those least responsible for causing the climate crisis	Agree	57%	42%	65%
	Disagree	43%	58%	35%
f. Sectors and countries that have contributed the most to greenhouse gases and other forms of pollution should be responsible for restoring the atmosphere and addressing environmental impacts as soon as possible	Agree	80%	83%	78%
	Disagree	20%	17%	22%
g. Every tour operator should recognize its role in contributing to socio-environmental impacts and develop actions to reduce them	Agree	89%	92%	87%
	Disagree	11%	8%	13%
	N=	35	12	23

45The vast majority of respondents seem to support the idea of tourism returning to pre-pandemic levels as soon as possible, despite such a position conflicting with the statement that tourism should be reformed to avoid negative impacts on the climate and communities, a contention with which 80% of participants agree. There is also a conflict between acknowledging that tourism operations contribute to climate change and agreeing with the statement that tourism’s economic benefits compensate for its negative impacts, a stance later discussed in more detail as it was also mentioned on other occasions during the interviews.

46When it comes to statements more directed at tour operators’ role in the climate crises, there seems to be a disparity between Brazilian and German TOs in recognizing tourism’s contribution to climate change. In the case of Brazilian TOs, 58% disagreed with the statement “Tourism operations contribute to climate change, which disrupts the lives of those least responsible for causing the climate crisis,” but 92% agreed with a similar statement that “every tour operator should recognize its role in contributing to socio-environmental impacts and develop actions to reduce them.” This might indicate the limitations of such a method to collect certain reactions to climate change, which will vary according to the level of knowledge, engagement, and interest, especially in a sector that only recently started to actively deal with the topic.

47Thus, the way these actors respond to policies to address the climate crisis may indicate how they currently interact with these policies and to what extent they intend to incorporate certain practices to support the sector’s climate goals. Table 4 shows the tour operators’ level of knowledge in relation to the global, regional, and national policies and targets to address the climate crisis, which on average tended to be low. Tour operators from Germany demonstrated more familiarity with the climate agenda, which may be a result of the country’s political landscape in 2021 with an election campaign that featured the climate crisis at the centre of the debate, amplified after devastating floods hit the states of Rhineland-Palatinate and North Rhine-Westphalia, destroying homes and taking hundreds of lives (DW, 2021).

Table 4. Level of knowledge about climate policies and targets

Variable	Metric	Total Responses	Response Brazil	Response Germany
Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals	-2 (very low)	14%	8%	17%
	-1 (low)	43%	75%	26%
	1 (high)	34%	17%	43%
	2 (very high)	9%	0%	13%
Targets necessary to limit warming to 1.5C by 2030 (e.g., reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels)	-2 (very low)	14%	25%	9%
	-1 (low)	43%	58%	35%
	1 (high)	34%	17%	43%
	2 (very high)	9%	0%	13%
Target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050	-2 (very low)	29%	42%	22%
	-1 (low)	40%	50%	35%
	1 (high)	23%	8%	30%
	2 (very high)	9%	0%	13%
United Nations Tourism Organisation’s Glasgow Declaration for a Decade of Tourism Climate Action	-2 (very low)	37%	50%	30%
	-1 (low)	31%	33%	30%
	1 (high)	26%	17%	30%
	2 (very high)	6%	0%	10%
National Climate Policies (Brazil’s National Police for Climate Change/Germany’s Federal Climate Change Act)	-2 (very low)	37%	50%	30%
	-1 (low)	46%	50%	43%
	1 (high)	11%	0%	17%
	2 (very high)	6%	0%	9%
	N=	35	12	23

Tour operators also expressed critical views and some of the challenges they perceive when assessing global climate policies, whether by expressing “a lack of understanding of how to break with an entire economic structure that has been set up over the centuries” (TO1, small enterprise, Brazil) or by describing “the challenge not only for tour operators but also for politicians to communicate to people/consumers that tickets and transport that depend on gasoline will have to be more expensive” (TO2, small enterprise, Germany).

48Respondents’ overall lack of knowledge about these policies, however, was also reflected in their responses to the questions aiming at assessing companies’ commitments and climate action (Table 5).

Table 5. Assessing TOs commitments and climate action

Variable	Metric	Total Responses	Response Brazil	Response Germany
Has your business made any climate commitments based on the Paris Agreement/SDG’s, European Green Deal, Climate Change Act, etc.?	Yes	9%	8%	8%
	No	91%	92%	92%
Does your business currently have a climate action plan or policy?	Yes	17%	8%	22%
	No	83%	92%	78%
Is your business measuring emissions from your tourism operations?	Yes	9%	0%	13%
	No	91%	100%	87%
Has your business set an emission reduction target by 2030?	Yes	14%	0%	22%
	No	86%	100%	78%
	N=	35	12	23

49Although there is a high level of recognition of the climate crisis in terms of their business operations, only 3 out of 35 companies have made commitments aligned with the global and/or national climate agendas, while 6 TOs declared they have a climate action plan or policy. As a result, only a small group among the participants measure the emissions generated by their operations and have set emission reduction targets aligned with the 2030 agenda. This might be a result of what McKercher et al. (2014) identified when studying tour operators’ reactions to the climate crisis, as these businesses’ role as intermediaries in the tourism distribution system makes them feel powerless when confronted with suppliers and consumers who show little interest in these issues when doing business or planning a trip.

50Such a view is shared by TO3; however, the large tour operator points to a change in such a position.

“The operators... they used to say ‘hey, we’re service providers. The hotels and the airline companies have to be concerned with this issue; we only resell the product; we don’t have a fleet of planes or buses.’ But now there’s a new understanding and a tendency to look into the future; the company understands that it has a shared responsibility and that we have the power to exert a strong influence on the supply chain” (TO3, large enterprise, Brazil, emphasis added).

51Movements such as the Tourism Declares a Climate Emergency and the Glasgow Declaration might incentivise more tour operators to develop and implement climate action plans, but the challenge to involve these actors, which are mainly small and medium enterprises, proved to be difficult during the pandemic. Large tour operators, on the other hand, seem to have used their resources during the pandemic to develop new plans and positions regarding the climate crisis and their role as big companies in the sector.

“In our new sustainability agenda, we say we also want to be net zero by 2050, so we support this goal. And within this we have to do whatever we can to achieve some goals faster than maybe others, but the big goal remains to first of all become net zero by 2050 and also start the journey towards becoming a circular business, which has implications for a lot of processes within the company” (TO4, large enterprise, Germany).

Such plans by large tour operators could prove beneficial, shifting the industry towards better practices, as they tend to exert a major influence over suppliers and stakeholders with whom they interact. Indeed, both tour operators seem to recognize their “scale and size as an industry leader to push for more sustainability in the business” (TO4), but such a role is still seen as a business strategy, and further research is needed to assess whether the sustainability targets set by large operators could result in benefits to the environment and communities in the destinations with which they work. After all, pressure from political and economic spheres can push tourism companies to act as good corporate citizens. However, taking part in actions to limit global warming to 1.5ºC raises not just technical challenges, “but also profound questions of ethics and values, including the responsibility we bear towards future generations, and attitudes to climate change risk, including who will be most affected” (Hall et al., 2015). Thus, the final section of the online survey sought to collect the tour operators’ reactions to statements with respect to their contribution to reducing climate crisis injustices from the point of view of the tourism sector (Table 6).

Table 6. How do you rate the statements below with respect to their contribution to reducing climate crisis injustices/inequalities?

Variable	Metric	Total Responses	Response Brazil	Response Germany
a. Recognize and reduce tour operators’ impacts on the climate	-2 (very low)	13%	25%	5%
	-1 (low)	35%	58%	21%
	1 (high)	35%	17%	47%
	2 (very high)	16%	0%	26%
b. Develop climate action plans and implement them to achieve emissions reductions targets	-2 (very low)	23%	42%	11%
	-1 (low)	29%	33%	26%
	1 (high)	35%	17%	47%
	2 (very high)	13%	8%	16%
c. Consult local communities on the forms of tourism that benefit them the most	-2 (very low)	19%	25%	16%
	-1 (low)	29%	33%	26%
	1 (high)	29%	25%	32%
	2 (very high)	23%	17%	26%
d. Change tourism’s focus to a regenerative-based activity, to reduce socio-environmental impacts on the destinations	-2 (very low)	29%	33%	26%
	-1 (low)	32%	33%	32%
	1 (high)	35%	33%	37%
	2 (very high)	3%	0%	5%
e. Avoid offering products reliant on heavy fossil-fuel consumption associated with long-haul flights, cruise ships, and other modes of transport	-2 (very low)	32%	50%	21%
	-1 (low)	23%	33%	16%
	1 (high)	29%	17%	37%
	2 (very high)	16%	0%	26%
f. Develop and offer more sustainable options that are attractive to customers and beneficial to local communities	-2 (very low)	13%	17%	11%
	-1 (low)	19%	25%	16%
	1 (high)	39%	58%	26%
	2 (very high)	29%	0%	47%
g. Recognize and eliminate climate injustices and inequalities generated by tourism operations	-2 (very low)	19%	42%	5%
	-1 (low)	23%	17%	26%
	1 (high)	42%	42%	42%
	2 (very high)	16%	0%	26%
	N=	31	12	19

52Some statements seemed to have divided the tour operators, with 52% of participants rating the statements “recognize and reduce tour operators’ impacts on the climate” and “consult local communities on the forms of tourism that benefit them the most” from high to very high, while 52% and 55% rated “develop climate action plans and implement them to achieve emissions reductions targets” and “avoid offering products reliant on heavy fossil-fuel consumption associated with long-haul flights, cruise ships, and other modes of transport” from very low to low, accordingly.

53Unsurprisingly, the participants tended to support the market-friendly statement “develop and offer more sustainable options that are attractive to customers and beneficial to local communities” with 68% rating it from high to very high. Moreover, 58% rated “recognize and eliminate climate injustices and inequalities generated by tourism operations” from high to very high but, curiously, 61% rated the statement “change tourism’s focus to a regenerative-based activity, to reduce socio-environmental impacts on the destinations” from low to very low.

54There were differences on how TOs from Brazil and Germany perceived these statements, with a tendency of the Brazilian participants to rate the statements from very low to low with the only exception being the market-friendly option. Most German TOs, on the other hand, rated the statements from high to very high, apart from changing tourism’s focus to a regenerative-based activity. Once again, although the number of participants might not be enough to generalize broader views within the countries, the different approaches to such discussions between the two groups may be indicative of their countries’ level of commitment to and debate about climate policies.

55The interviews proved to be an opportunity to explore some of the debates pertaining to climate justice and (tourism) mobility justice, proposed within the scope of research to unveil questions beyond the technical aspects of the climate agenda. Thus, interviewees were asked how they face the need to change or reduce mobilities that are highly dependent on fossil fuels but also were queried concerning what responsibility they think their organizations have in addressing climate crisis injustices/inequalities.

56There was a similar focus by all interviewees from Germany in their answers when debating the questions pertaining to mobility.

“Well, as an association we have to organize a process and to debate with all of the stakeholders of the industry, because we need them all. One of the core projects to reduce emissions involves the mobility sector, and that’s difficult because you need technologies, you need a plan to implement these technologies. For the aviation industry you need a modern fleet, but you also need technical developments such as sustainable aviation fuels” (TA2, German tourism association, emphasis added).

“For example, the incentive for an airline is to buy new planes, because the newest plane generates less emissions and this is good not only for the reduction of carbon but also in terms of fuel costs, right? Modern planes consume less fuel than old planes; this is a cost factor for an airline” (TO2, small enterprise, Germany, emphasis added).

“We are working to transform our aviation business to become more sustainable by reducing emissions, using sustainable fuels, and then in the future using new technologies. But getting the infrastructure in place and all of these things is not something we can do on our own, so that is really industry initiative” (TO4, large enterprise, Germany, emphasis added).

57Mobility-related discourse reflects the notion of “austere mobility” (Nikolaeva et al., 2019), as the tour operators and the representative association focus on questions of efficiency to reduce emissions and costs. Such incrementalism, characterized by technological-based solutions, many of which are not available on a large scale or have not been invented, may however lack the efficiency proposed when it comes to reducing resources (Becken, 2019). It also raises questions about when such technologies would substantially reduce GHG emissions and if such reductions would be enough to achieve climate goals.

58The same pattern of response was identified in the discourse of a large tour operator from Brazil, especially in relation to air travel and the financial sustainability of the sector.

“This is a topic that raises the issue of shared responsibility of an entire sector, right? As important as the topic is, if it is not economically viable, I doubt that companies in the sector will make this a priority in the short or long term. So, we need clear policies, also encouraging industries to have renewable solutions that are smarter from a sustainable point of view, as well as economically viable” (TO3, large enterprise, Brazil, emphasis added)

59When asked about the responsibility of the sector with respect to climate injustices, most respondents shifted the attention to the supposedly positive aspects of tourism, which follows the neoliberal narrative of economic and social development for tourism destinations.

“I think the answer to this question is quite complicated, because travel not only means, for example, negative impacts for Indigenous people, but also a lot of very positive results that we have to keep in mind. Tourism can be a game changer in the sense of improving societies, offering the possibility of positive development on a personal level as well as for societies as a whole. So we have to keep the balance between seeing the effects on climate change and so on, while also considering all the positive effects tourism is bringing to bear in a lot of societies and economies” (TA1, Brazilian tourism association, emphasis added).

“Tourism cannot be seen only in this way... at this level of climate issues and impacts. Tourism has enormous importance in other areas... economic and social, for example” (TO2, small enterprise, Germany, emphasis added).

“It is in the interest of the company to have functioning communities and an intact environment because that is what people want… that is what people come for and that is what they expect from a holiday when they’ve paid for it. And that is how it translates into opportunities for the communities as well. And yes, we’re dealing with this… but this doesn’t merely reflect the “social responsibility” aspect; it is in the interest of the business to [adopt environmentally sound practices]” (TO4, large enterprise, Germany, emphasis added).

60The replies from TA1, TO2 and TO4 summarize some of the discussions concerning the tourist gaze (Urry, 1992) and how tourism destinations are seen as “places to play” (Sheller and Urry, 2006), also reinforcing a neoliberal logic of opportunities for communities. Furthermore, it reflects the utilitarian discourses of sustainability as a business strategy and of competitiveness (Hall, 2019), as opposed to an ethical responsibility or values-oriented approach. Although none of them denied the sectors’ responsibility when questioned about its responsibility in addressing climate injustices, the strategy to emphasize the positive aspects of tourism point to a lack of vision about the current and future multi-layered impacts the activity may generate and that may be exacerbated by climate change. It reflects a dichotomy that is rather common among tourism professionals, who tend to escape criticism by shifting the attention to tourism’s numbers and role based on a particular view of sustainable development.

61A similar position was expressed by the large tour operator from Brazil (TO3), but TA1 and TO1 diverged from the solely market-based views and shared more ample concerns when dealing with climate injustices.

“You don’t yet come to a product meeting and find that climate is priority number 1, okay? Of course, we know that this is also within the sustainability framework, but the sustainability theme is not 100% in all products” (TO3, large enterprise, Brazil).

“We do need to look at this, because it will generate impacts on cities… I have no doubt that the lower social classes, together with people who are already discriminated against, will suffer an even greater impact from all of this” (TA1, Brazilian tourism association, emphasis added).

“When I sell an air ticket… the emissions from the airplane are guaranteed; they don’t depend on the customer, nor on me; a much bigger change will be required that we hope to help make happen” (TO1, small enterprise, Brazil, emphasis added).

62Sheller and Urry (2006) state that the NMP not only focuses on accounting for the level of speed and liquidity of certain areas, but also on identifying the degree of concentration that creates connectivity and centrality for some places and disconnection and exclusion for others. The authors claim that mobility levels and rights are unequal and distorted, and economic and political influences are examples of constraints that may establish and limit circulation. This is particularly relevant for tourism and tour operators, given that the sector works with and depends on the connectivity and fluidity of tourism mobilities. Therefore, by connecting mobility studies to the climate crisis, it is possible to question what would happen when certain tourist destinations lose their attraction due to limitations and/or friction caused by climate change.

63Many of the interviewees demonstrated a concern with tourism-dependent countries, which faced economic hardship due to restrictions of tourism mobilities and, consequently, have become immobile. Given the potential implications of climate change for such locations, and the pandemic experience, one could argue that certain destinations could soon be avoided for simply no longer providing a suitable environment for mobile people in search of leisure and rest. In other words, such destinations could become places not to play, places not in play.

64Similar studies have also identified the paradox discussed here between expectations that could perpetuate current high carbon systems, while trusting future transport technology to achieve more sustainable solutions (Moraglio, 2018; Fletcher, Longnecker and Higham, 2019). However, the low-carbon transition needed to avoid such a scenario may require a new politics of mobility (Nikolaeva et al., 2019), which is not, in general terms, aligned with the current position of tour operators.

65As Urry (2011) argued, the developments during the 20^th century borrowed from future generations and, since there is no such thing as a free lunch, the 21^st century’s biggest challenge lies in transforming such a system. In order to change the role of tourism in reinforcing this system, there is a need to reimagine its practices and its future, with a “holistic theory of mobility justice [that] can help draw connections between transport infrastructure, tourism practices, bordering processes, and questions of sustainability and regenerative economies that cross regions and scales of governance” (Sheller, 2021: 1446). Thus, the concept of commoning, which has been advocated by researchers in recent works about low-carbon transitions and sustainable tourism (Nikolaeva et al., 2019; Sheller, 2021) could bring more ethical practices to tourism under the aegis of a “tourism commons.”

Conclusion

66Given the importance of the private sector for tourism governance and implementation of sustainable practices, understanding the different actors’ perspectives from Brazil and Germany – two major inbound and outbound tourism destinations – on issues ranging from climate goals to social, environmental, and mobility justice may be useful in unveiling positions that could benefit from more critical discussions. It may also generate further debates on how the tourism sector could reduce knowledge gaps and incorporate certain concepts in its policies and practices, to support climate change adaptation (Scott, Lemieux and Malone, 2011).

67The companies who participated in this research seem to focus on the paradigm of growth and the economic benefits of tourism, which means they still operate under the assumption that they are helping to generate a greater good in the end, mainly through an economic perspective, despite their current and possible future climate impacts. This might threaten the sector’s climate ambitions to reduce its carbon footprint, especially as the pandemic’s mobility restrictions become a thing of the past.

68Finally, the challenge seems to be how to bring concepts of mobility justice, communing, and regenerative forms of tourism (in harmony with other activities) to the centre of tourism policies and practices. As questioned by Sheller (2021) “rather than simply limiting or ending tourism, can we imagine such a form of commoning tourism, that is committed to equity and the public good?” The current scenarios may require an extra effort by researchers to bring such options to businesses, policymakers, and various other organizations (Gössling and Schweiggart, 2022). This research initiative was an attempt to combine different views, from the realm of policy, academia, and the market, with respect to the current problems society is facing with the climate emergency. The debates highlighted here and the methodological scope could be used for future studies to expand the investigation into how tour operators and other actors within the tourism industry react to the climate emergency, the most significant crisis humanity has ever faced.