this thread might fall vaguely into the CO2 debate, but really i'm meaning it from a different angle...so please lets stay on the topic
there was a radio announcement today that i think 1 in 5 of us in the uk have planned this year to travel locally on holiday this year, and a significant percentage have cancelled holidays involving flying due to worries over carbon emissions from aircraft.
what worries me is this...there has been little debate so far as far as i can see, over the type of holiday that one might choose to go on.
there is a lot of plain evidence around the world that tourism provides a seriously important income, especially in developing nations, and is a very real alternative to potentially destructive alternatives such as logging and mining and such eco tourism operations provide protection by default over illegal activities which damage the same. where would the great african national parks now be if it weren't for tourism?
ok i'm all for taxing people who want to swan off to x-riviera twice a year to tan their tattoed, flabby backsides, and drink beer until they fall over in the pool, but isn't there a potentially dangerous side effect to labelling everyone who gets in an aeroplane an "eco leper"
I agree completely Mark. I started thinking about eco-tourism (and got into photography) based on what you mentioned - a trip to African national parks. I, personally, have no problem with flying. I'm no expert though, and haven't read much on the pollution caused by airplanes (as opposed to cars, or livestock, or heavy industry).
Perhaps some numbers might be in order? Seems to me that the airline industry would be a very small part of the total carbon emissions. I think it would be very difficult to quantify how much emission you prevent by providing tourism dollars compared to what you used to go on the tour though. That's what it would take to prove out what you're saying. Maybe someone else can help...
I agree with you. But it is never black and white, is it? As you say, not only does tourism provide a positive impact on local economies but in some cases it actually provides much needed protection for wildlife and their habitat.
I worked for a whale research group on the St. Lawrence River for many years. The whale watching industry not only provided additional and alternative employment but it supported the entire local economy. As far as I know, no one ever got rich doing whale research. Whale research groups often have to resort to different means to support themselves, such as inviting tourists to participate in their research programs for a fee. Most often the goal of whale research is to create a better understanding of the animals and their habitat with the long range goal of protecting and preserving both. Tourism in this case would seem to do both.
I have also been on the water many times and have seen solo whales being loved to death by tourists. Situations like 1 whale and 20 plus boats are not uncommon. It is in the best interests of the whale watching industry to make sure their own operations do not have a negative impact on whales or their habitat and for the most part, the operators are very aware of that. It is very difficult to measure the impact that whale watching has on whales either positive or negative.
I was a lecturer on ships in Antarctica for many years. It was that same ship based tourism industry that was in many ways responsible for forcing Antarctic research bases to clean up their acts. Yet, a ship could run aground and cause environmental damage. I have been on ships when it has almost happened. And I know of other ships that have hit rocks. As far as I know there wasn't any significant impact to the environment in those cases.
I know of research that has been done to measure the impact of tourists on penguin colonies. The penguin colony that did not have any visitors had more impact from predators such as Skuas and Kelp gulls. As I recall, the heart rates of penguins exposed to tourists did not vary significantly from the heart rates of the penguins that did not have visitors (false eggs with monitors were placed in nests to measure heart rates).
Near the end of each voyage to Antarctica, one of my colleagues would raise significant amounts of cash by holding an auction. The money was donated to the save the albatross program. http://www.savethealbatross.net/
Now I conduct photography tours to the Falkland Islands. Partial proceeds from every tour we operate are being donated to The Falkland Islands Conservation Trust. http://www.falklandsconservation.com/index2.html
I pretty much guarantee that everyone participating in our program comes home with an even greater love of nature.
I strongly believe that by allowing people to interact with nature that they will be instilled with a love and a desire to protect the same. How can we expect people to care and protect something they have never seen or experienced?
Andrew Wenzel
http://www.natureviewstours.com/
It gets complicated at times on figuring out what is best for the environment. I ended up installing a Brazilian hardwood deck (Ipe) because it was environmentally friendly to take lumber from South America in a managed forest. The reason it is environmentally friendly is because it shows the local people the value of the forests over the slash and burn techniques. I guess its better to lose just a few trees rather than the entire forest with all the other flora and fauna present.
Absolutely, I agree, even though this might sound I'm applying "double standards"...
From my previous posts it might be evident that I'm a strong proponent reducing CO2 emissions. However, there are people that cross the atlantic ocean twenty times a year due to business, or fly to some town just for shopping for a weekend. Compared to that, one flight a year isn't much. I think everybody deserves a great holiday once a year.
In addition to that - if the environment is to be protected, people (and I'm not talking about nature photographers, but the "big" western public) need to realize just how beautiful this planet is, and what is lost when nothing is done. So in the end, a holiday trip to the Great Barrier Reef or the Namib Desert might not be very ecological when looking at CO2 emissions, but if it inspires people to do their share to protect the planet, this "investment", so to speak, will be recovered later.
This is the same reason I disagree with animal rights groups that want to ban animals in zoos or in the circus (with some exceptions, e.g. dolphins). If a child has never been impressed by a tiger or lion, why should they care about what happens to them or their habitat?
ok i'm all for taxing people who want to swan off to x-riviera twice a year to tan their tattoed, flabby backsides, and drink beer until they fall over in the pool, but isn't there a potentially dangerous side effect to labelling everyone who gets in an aeroplane an "eco leper"
Unless you/we can trully justify your trip as part of a real environmental program (either working on one or reporting on issues) your/our photo trips are not different from a "sun & beach" trip to x-rivera, regardless of taking pretty pics of birds or getting drunk and falling in the pool.
enrique, your comments hits the nail fairly on the head, and is what really got me thinking about this issue when it was heard on the radio here that we are ALL to face heavy taxation
on air travel to try to prevent as much air travel from going on.....
which seemed unfair as i get knobbled on the tax, whislt every time i fly, it's because i have to do work on our marine conservation in ecuador, or to keep my image library stocked up
in at splashdown direct (UW film) or the NHM (stills) where's the fairness or justification
in these taxes? this just further makes me feel that such so called green taxes are to fill government coffers and arent really designed with the bigger picture in mind.
mark
Posted by John W. Wall on May 20, 2007 at 10:53 AM
At least one airline owner, Richard Branson, is taking CO2 emissions seriously and is taking helpful steps. One of them was to simply change the way planes taxi on the runway, which saved not only CO2 emissions and fuel, but $$$. Maybe if you have to fly, you could at least fly Virgin.
Maybe I don't get it, but are emissions really being cut by not flying a few thousand miles, or are those emissions just being largely replaced by alternate activities like driving and keeping the AC on and taking the kids to soccer practice.
I always come back to the same thing - people consume energy which in turn creates emissions. The type of energy consumed may vary, but unless one is extremely conscientious in altering their behavior, they are simply more likely to change the form of energy consumed rather than actually reduce it significantly, and, consequently, emissions are not likely to be significantly reduced.
I'm all for doing my/our part to reduce emissions, but as long as the population is growing at the alarming rate that it is, we should expect emissions to grow comensurately.
People = emissions. Ultimately, there's only one way to influence the right side of that equation.
Posted by Kent Staubus on May 25, 2007 at 10:10 AM
My thinking is that the carbon deal is the thing I will have the least effect on. Even if I were to fly on a commercial airliner every day for the rest of my life, it would have no impact. The plane is going anyway. OTOH, far fewer people visit these more remote places. There, I do have a measurable impact. The trees and habitat are the most important thing. I believe it is essential to do what we can to provide economic incentive to the local populations to save these remaining forests and wild areas. We do that by showing that an intact forest has real value. I worry about losing the great forests, but I don't worry about something like airline travel. As for taxes, taking away our money significantly takes away our freedom. I resist it and won't vote for politicians who want to increase taxes.
Kent, I don't agree with you when you say that you taking an airliner is not having an impact because the plane is flying anyway. If everyone thinks that, indeed, it will be true. But if more people would think twice about if taking that plane is really necessary, there just might be more empty seats in that plane so that the airline will select a smaller type for that particular connection, or they might even lower the number of flights. If enough people think that, each and every one of them does have a considerable impact.
And when you do need to take that flight, you could always consider offsetting your CO2 emissions. There are several good initiatives out there that will offset your CO2 by investing in sustainable energy. For my flight from the Netherlands to Canada and back to work on a project to raise awareness about natural values in the Canadian Rocky Mountains (controversial because my CO2 footprint is potentially quite big for doing that), I have selected www.nativeenergy.com.
I agree (mostly) with Rick on this one. Reducing the number of people is the best way of reducing consumption/emissions/pollution. Unfortunately, we (in the U.S.) have abandoned the zero population growth model of the 1970s, and while the rate of population growth has declined, we (as a nation) are still growing. I find it fascinating that in the U.S. you need a license to drive a car, but anybody can bring a child (or a dozen) into this world?!
If the solution to pollution is dilution, we need to start by diluting our population.
Discussion
11 replieshi all,
this thread might fall vaguely into the CO2 debate, but really i'm meaning it from a different angle...so please lets stay on the topic
there was a radio announcement today that i think 1 in 5 of us in the uk have planned this year to travel locally on holiday this year, and a significant percentage have cancelled holidays involving flying due to worries over carbon emissions from aircraft.
what worries me is this...there has been little debate so far as far as i can see, over the type of holiday that one might choose to go on.
there is a lot of plain evidence around the world that tourism provides a seriously important income, especially in developing nations, and is a very real alternative to potentially destructive alternatives such as logging and mining and such eco tourism operations provide protection by default over illegal activities which damage the same. where would the great african national parks now be if it weren't for tourism?
ok i'm all for taxing people who want to swan off to x-riviera twice a year to tan their tattoed, flabby backsides, and drink beer until they fall over in the pool, but isn't there a potentially dangerous side effect to labelling everyone who gets in an aeroplane an "eco leper"
am i the only one who's thinking this?
mark
Perhaps some numbers might be in order? Seems to me that the airline industry would be a very small part of the total carbon emissions. I think it would be very difficult to quantify how much emission you prevent by providing tourism dollars compared to what you used to go on the tour though. That's what it would take to prove out what you're saying. Maybe someone else can help...
I worked for a whale research group on the St. Lawrence River for many years. The whale watching industry not only provided additional and alternative employment but it supported the entire local economy. As far as I know, no one ever got rich doing whale research. Whale research groups often have to resort to different means to support themselves, such as inviting tourists to participate in their research programs for a fee. Most often the goal of whale research is to create a better understanding of the animals and their habitat with the long range goal of protecting and preserving both. Tourism in this case would seem to do both.
I have also been on the water many times and have seen solo whales being loved to death by tourists. Situations like 1 whale and 20 plus boats are not uncommon. It is in the best interests of the whale watching industry to make sure their own operations do not have a negative impact on whales or their habitat and for the most part, the operators are very aware of that. It is very difficult to measure the impact that whale watching has on whales either positive or negative.
I was a lecturer on ships in Antarctica for many years. It was that same ship based tourism industry that was in many ways responsible for forcing Antarctic research bases to clean up their acts. Yet, a ship could run aground and cause environmental damage. I have been on ships when it has almost happened. And I know of other ships that have hit rocks. As far as I know there wasn't any significant impact to the environment in those cases.
I know of research that has been done to measure the impact of tourists on penguin colonies. The penguin colony that did not have any visitors had more impact from predators such as Skuas and Kelp gulls. As I recall, the heart rates of penguins exposed to tourists did not vary significantly from the heart rates of the penguins that did not have visitors (false eggs with monitors were placed in nests to measure heart rates).
Near the end of each voyage to Antarctica, one of my colleagues would raise significant amounts of cash by holding an auction. The money was donated to the save the albatross program. http://www.savethealbatross.net/
Now I conduct photography tours to the Falkland Islands. Partial proceeds from every tour we operate are being donated to The Falkland Islands Conservation Trust. http://www.falklandsconservation.com/index2.html
I pretty much guarantee that everyone participating in our program comes home with an even greater love of nature.
I strongly believe that by allowing people to interact with nature that they will be instilled with a love and a desire to protect the same. How can we expect people to care and protect something they have never seen or experienced?
Andrew Wenzel
http://www.natureviewstours.com/
From my previous posts it might be evident that I'm a strong proponent reducing CO2 emissions. However, there are people that cross the atlantic ocean twenty times a year due to business, or fly to some town just for shopping for a weekend. Compared to that, one flight a year isn't much. I think everybody deserves a great holiday once a year.
In addition to that - if the environment is to be protected, people (and I'm not talking about nature photographers, but the "big" western public) need to realize just how beautiful this planet is, and what is lost when nothing is done. So in the end, a holiday trip to the Great Barrier Reef or the Namib Desert might not be very ecological when looking at CO2 emissions, but if it inspires people to do their share to protect the planet, this "investment", so to speak, will be recovered later.
This is the same reason I disagree with animal rights groups that want to ban animals in zoos or in the circus (with some exceptions, e.g. dolphins). If a child has never been impressed by a tiger or lion, why should they care about what happens to them or their habitat?
Basil
Unless you/we can trully justify your trip as part of a real environmental program (either working on one or reporting on issues) your/our photo trips are not different from a "sun & beach" trip to x-rivera, regardless of taking pretty pics of birds or getting drunk and falling in the pool.
thanks everyone for the comments so far.
enrique, your comments hits the nail fairly on the head, and is what really got me thinking about this issue when it was heard on the radio here that we are ALL to face heavy taxation
on air travel to try to prevent as much air travel from going on.....
which seemed unfair as i get knobbled on the tax, whislt every time i fly, it's because i have to do work on our marine conservation in ecuador, or to keep my image library stocked up
in at splashdown direct (UW film) or the NHM (stills) where's the fairness or justification
in these taxes? this just further makes me feel that such so called green taxes are to fill government coffers and arent really designed with the bigger picture in mind.
mark
I always come back to the same thing - people consume energy which in turn creates emissions. The type of energy consumed may vary, but unless one is extremely conscientious in altering their behavior, they are simply more likely to change the form of energy consumed rather than actually reduce it significantly, and, consequently, emissions are not likely to be significantly reduced.
I'm all for doing my/our part to reduce emissions, but as long as the population is growing at the alarming rate that it is, we should expect emissions to grow comensurately.
People = emissions. Ultimately, there's only one way to influence the right side of that equation.
Kent in SD
And when you do need to take that flight, you could always consider offsetting your CO2 emissions. There are several good initiatives out there that will offset your CO2 by investing in sustainable energy. For my flight from the Netherlands to Canada and back to work on a project to raise awareness about natural values in the Canadian Rocky Mountains (controversial because my CO2 footprint is potentially quite big for doing that), I have selected www.nativeenergy.com.
If the solution to pollution is dilution, we need to start by diluting our population.
Jeremy