10 of the last 10 years were the hottest on record. It’s time. I know so many people that will give lip service to the environment and then think nothing of taking multiple flights per year on the flimsiest of pretexts.
And as all too often happens, people go to poorer countries where they get waited on hand and foot, and then act like they’re doing some giant favor to the locals. All too often these tourist sights end up being an unmitigated natural disaster, not to mention locking the locals out of their own back yard.
And then they’ll turn around and claim they’re “helping the local economy” trying to justify it. It’s colonialism by another name. If they paid fair wages to the workers these vacations would become much more expensive, perhaps prohibitively so.
And wtf is wrong with you, you can’t relax in your own region? Gonna cook the planet because you can’t be happy and relax in your own hemisphere. Y’all need to chill it with the air travel!
You do realise there are other types of holiday than flying around the globe to lie by the pool in a country with cheap labour, right? I think I’ve taken like one return flight in the last 10 years (excluding work trips). My last holidays I’ve travelled to by train to other countries in Europe. My next holiday I’m travelling one way by train and one way by bike.
Dope! Ya I do realize, I suppose I could have worded it better. That sounds really nice and I hope you have a wonderful time!
I mostly only go by bus or train for a few days here or there. That still feels like imposing a burden unless I camp, which I normally only do in the summer.
Many of the local places I go to have the same problems though, seasonally overran with tourists, all homes converted to airb+b , crowds out the local economy and drive out the local people (to the benefit of the local landowners). Ideally there’d be limits on what fraction of housing can be used as short term.
But I think generally regulation of land use and property rental prices could be beneficial - another unpopular opinion. “Oh no, we can’t trust the oiks not to appoint despotic regulators, nor can we hold them to account, so it’s much better have a elite landowning upper class instread”.
it’s even worse than that: they claim environmental tourism helps the places they visit - they don’t, they raise income inequality and pollute otherwise pristine places with cruise-shit septic flush, trash and introduce all kinds of pollution (oil and exhaust).
Tourism to places like galapagos or the antarctic should be outlawed. it’s fucking gross.
Yeah, I’m not sure there is an ethical tourism. Being a tourist means being an outside viewer of another culture. Even without the financial and environmental costs, it’s still treating these people and places like zoo attractions. Of course I don’t think it’s unethical to travel and experience a culture different than your own, I don’t even think I’m against the idea of vacation. I just think that you have to be willing to be immersed in where you’re visiting. Not keeping it at arms length and behind a lens, but where it has the ability to change you and teach you something real.
I feel like you’ve redefined tourist. You can visit another culture and still participate in it respectfully with an intent to learn and be part of the cultural exchange. That’s still tourism. Why does tourism mean specifically commodifying another culture?
Yes and no. You’re right in that the dictionary definition of tourism is basically just visiting another place, no matter what you’re doing. And your second sentence I was definitely trying to allude to. But colloquially, (and maybe this is just my experience) we talk about touristy things to do and touristy attractions and tourist season and building economies around tourism. It really feels like tourism is something that is outside invading into a community and often either setting aside or commodifying the culture of the destination. Maybe there’s a different word that I can’t think of that would be more accurate to use instead of tourism, but I don’t think I’m using it in a way that’s contradictory to how I usually hear the word used. I also say all this as someone from and living in an area that attracts a lot of tourists.
I like the term “cultural voyeurism.”
Right? I don’t want people to be hermits. If I were a dictator king, everyone would get two tourism passes. Once in their 20’s, and again in their 50s. Take 6 months/a year, learn the language, and live in the community.
Only problem is in the United States to get anywhere you have to use air travel. Do you wanna go from New York to Los Angeles? Yeah, you’re flying it. Otherwise you’re taking a lot of time off from work just for the travel even by car would take you a long time.
So basically, either you’re a hermit stuck in your small section of your country or you fly.
You’ve posted in the right place.
“Hey, we don’t have an industry in our town, so how can we get people to stay and provide jobs? Hmm. If only we could attract other people to spend money here in some way…”
Or
“The locals treat locals like shit, let’s blame tourists!”
Or
“We don’t want your kind around here! Go back to your own country!”
Or
“Can’t do shit about the actual polluters, let’s bully some random people instead!”
… You got your shit backwards. Tourists exist because they’re needed or wanted. And the arguments you use are in the same vein as the current US administration. Kick out all the unpleasant elements and make x country great. No clue what happens to the people actually living there until the country becomes great though.
I completely agree
And I’m hypocritical, because I have traveled extensively
Most people, and that includes myself, won’t even enjoy what is available in their own region
How does it make sense to go on a trip to Banff to go skiing, when there’s a slightly smaller mountain 45 minutes away that you just won’t bother going to? There’s 7000 museums in every city; There is natural beauty all around… go!
Go these places first, and once you’ve exhausted what is available next door, then expand horizons
It is. Among other things, in some popular places tourism caused rents to go through the roof. Now local people can barely afford to rent a flat.
This is why i only go to Hotels / hostels in vacation. Airbnb was a nice idea in the beginning but Turned out to be horrible for cities.
And a tip for Hotels and hostels. Maybe do the search with booking hostelworld and co but book via the Website of the place you want to stay. Booking and hostelworld take 20% of the hotels of the price you pay for a night. They can do this because they can threaten the ho(s)tels to not appear in their List anymore and no one will find them then. They are evil too.
Im taking a train instead of a plane this weekend. I am flying on my return leg, but it’s a start to building comfort with travel by train.
Out of curiosity - are you USian, OP? How you describe vacation sounds utterly American to me.
Why can’t people abandon cars and use bicycles and public transportation to go around? Compared to cars pollution, flights are a drop in the ocean. I fly multiple times a year, but I don’t own a car.
Idk. I haven’t owned a car in 12 years, and haven’t flown for even longer. And tourism accounts for 8% of carbon emissions, whereas cars are coming in at 16%.
Skip burgers for a week. Congrats, you did more than skipping your weeklong vacation
Interesting idea…
tl;dr it’s probably more like 1-6 years of burgers.
That’s a total of 3.6-6.1 kg of CO2-equivalent per burger.
This says New York to London:
is equivalent to 587 kg CO2e
So round trip would be 1174kg.
1174/6.1 = 192
1174/3.6 = 326
So you need to not eat 192 - 326 burgers.
The first source says Americans eat 1-3 burgers a week, so you might need to skip 2-6 years of burgers to equal the same pollution as your air travel.
New York to Florida would be 1-3 years, roughly.
You’re multiplying the amount of CO2 dramatically. That is the amount of CO2 for the entire plane, not calculated per passenger. Emissions are always calculated per passenger for different methods of transportation, otherwise you’re multiplying the output by potentially hundreds.
Edit: I think I’m wrong. I’m getting different results saying those numbers are actually closer to the per passenger number. I’d have to do the math but it’s definitely more than a burger by a long shot, just from a logical calorie conversion.
Thanks for double checking the math. The source I got the air travel emissions from says:
All calculations are for the carbon emissions per passenger on the flight (one-way).
These numbers jive with what I have seen elsewhere but I didn’t check my sources too closely.
I know screen shots from googles shitty AI isn’t the best but…
You’d have to eat a whole shitload of hamburgers to get close to intercontinental air travel. Congrats
Also maybe we should skip the burgers too. Veganism is probably the way to go.
Your argument is equivalent to someone complaining about animal cruelty while eating a cheeseburger prepared by a 10 year old slave.
I’m not OP, but I don’t see the analogy. I’m that daft. Could you please elaborate?
I don’t get it either. Maybe they’re decrying labor practices in US meatpacking plants? How there’s underpaid child migrants working in them. And beef is also terrible for the environment.
Like a whataboutisim, like get off that high horse because this also terrible practice exists too so quit whining about your thing.
Idk best I can make out. Still a terrible retort if that’s what they mean.
