54477Re: Eco-Tourism question
- Apr 30, 2007It doesn't matter much, but for what it's worth none of the (ostensible) responses to that Eco-tourism question I posted seemed to have any bearing on said question. The off-line stuff came closer and was more interesting.
The preamble stuff was to establish that I'm pro-tourism and untroubled by air and car travel. It was a bit wordy for some, I suppose. Since I was musing on the direction the eco/global warming movement is headed in it seemed useful to clarify that I'm not of that fraternity, I disbelieve the 'global warming' stuff Gore & co are touting. I didn't say it's wrong, just that I happen to believe it is.
I'm also unpersuaded that 63 virgins await my pleasure if I strap a few kilos of explosives to my chest and detonate it in Macy's; I'm disinclined to think the moon landings were staged on a Hollywood studio; if that Jones guy had asked me to drink the Kool Aid I'd have been the ornery guy who said no. Just a party-pooper I suppose.
But I'm sort of interested in how those who, unlike me, do believe in the overwhelming evil of anthropogenic CO2 emissions and that reducing it is the single most critical challenge facing the human race blah, blah (you know the lines) will cope with the new progression of the lobbies who are beginning to picket travel agencies and so on in Europe - we're next. If I believed that global warming/CO2 stuff and had an eco-lodge or whatever I would literally have no answer to the "stay home and save the planet" argument. I mean, how does an eco-proponent finish the sentence "the reason why it's better for the planet for you to take a jet to CR and stay at my place, rather than stay where you are is..."
This may well be going nowhere, but here's the question again. In fact I'll cut and paste.
"How do those involved in the 'eco tourism' industry reconcile the term 'eco' with people's being encouraged to fly to and tour or hang out at 'eco' places in Costa Rica, incurring the related carbon and other emissions..."
" How is flying intercontinentally and 'touring' carbon/eco friendly? As in, more carbon friendly than "stay home and save the planet"
Heck, I might be the only one interested in this seeming paradox.
There might not be a credible answer, which is what I suspect as I can't think of one. I know if I was an eco-tourism promoter I'd be nervous about the inexorable logic that's coming down the pike, and if I was an eco-nut I couldn't fault that logic. A humble suggestion is to get working on a response.
Henry seems to accept as inevitable that people are going to jet where they want when they want and that's OK with him. Me too. But if you accept that as inevitable and people's right as Henry and I seem to, given the associated carbon footprint it's a bit difficult to get on the case of Pathfinder or Ferrari drivers who also have a carbon footprint. Heck, if the latter vacation at the local lake they probably tread more lightly, carbonwise, than the Prius-owning jet-setters chowing on tofu at the old jungle sweat lodge. That has to be frustrating.
I'm for tourism, for travel, for choice. Oh, and for choosing what to believe and what not to. I love that we have the choice of both jungle cabinas and 5-star resorts. I lean to the former as a number of CRL travelling companions know, but would never presume to condescend to those who choose differently.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>