Global Wandering
Some industries, namely the auto and power sectors, have borne the brunt of global scrutiny over our wanton carbon emitting ways. This accountability is entirely justified but also allows other, equally egregious activities to skirt by with only mild admonishment. Despite recent attention paid to the airline industry's fossil fuel-dependent business model, the entire travel industry continues to dance around the issue of climate change. It's as if global warming is simply another consideration, along with the quality of the hotel and the type of rental car, in planning a vacation. Given the circumstances, you can understand the industry’s “rearranging the deck chairs” mentality; a full recognition of the implications of climate change on leisure travel would empty the tour buses and ground the cruise ships. Instead, we get lighthearted discussions of the consequences of our leisure travel, like this piece from the Chicago Tribune:
The fact is that most of us aren't going to forgo travel. If you're reading this issue, you, like us, probably count travel just behind food and water as a life necessity. And so we find ourselves in the familiar realm of compromise, in which we make realistic choices, paying slightly more for a hybrid rental car, for example, in an attempt to assuage our guilt at having single-handedly contributed one ton of carbon dioxide in the course of our cross-country flight. Or we give in to temptation and book a slightly extravagant room equipped with 400-thread-count sheets, comforted by the knowledge that the hotel uses only environmentally sound cleaning products and washes everything in cool water, rather than energy-guzzling hot.
I feel much better about the future of the planet after reading this contorted rationalization. After granting absolution to all of its readers, the Tribune proceeds to highlight a few supposedly eco-friendly trips, including this trip to rural Maine where the author spends as much time in the car as outside. According to fawning travel writers, who are blindly allowed to contradict the environmental conscientiousness of the editors that employ them, as long as you consume plenty of high end organic food, all of the carbon emitted during your trip is excused.
The occasional travelers who read the travel section of the local papers are saints compared to the absurd collection of eco-tourists profiled by the Wall Street Journal. Melting polar ice caps and warming temperatures near the Arctic Circle have opened up destinations formerly inaccessible to mortals. And who is taking advantage of the opportunity to visit formerly ice-bound locales? Why environmentalists, of course. An entire cottage industry has emerged to allow people to witness the visible signs of global warming. According to the Journal, travel to the arctic has increased by 50% over the past 15 years, up to 1.5 million tourists annually. The damage to the environment involves more than simply travel related emissions; visitors are trampling native vegetation, conflicts between people and polar bears are increasing, and the threat of an oil spill by a cruise ship is all too real. Anne Patrick, a Massachusetts schoolteacher who has visited Antarctica and Greenland and was interviewed for the article, expresses the self-absorbed hypocrisy of these tourists quite well: “I have a curiosity about these places, but going there to see them causes more damage. How do you come to grips with that? I don't have an answer."
Actually, she does have an answer. She just doesn’t like it. The answer, of course, is to not go. Grappling with the causes of climate change poses difficulties not because we don’t know what to do. The difficulty is in saying no. Leisure travel is the ultimate discretionary activity. Forgoing a trip to the arctic or even a vacation to the tropics poses no threat to one’s livelihood or well-being. Yet, we can’t imagine a world without the freedom to travel to the remote corner of the world of our choosing. No wonder we can’t get people to take the bus to work or bike to the store. The travel guides and articles do us all a disservice by linking glamour to vacations in the Maldives and penury to weekend hiking near home. And they reinforce the notion that you can't get anywhere interesting on bike or foot. You just need to know where to go and, more importantly, how to get there. Overnight bike camping trips, otherwise known as S24Os, are a prime example of a non-traditional getaway light on environmental impact. Travel writers might not like the change because they would lose out on the all expense paid globetrotting and would have to get a little exercise in the process. The benefit, of course, is that the absence of tourists would make our most fragile regions once again worthy of the word "remote."
Comments
This post really rubbed me the wrong way, probably because:
1) I don't have any emotional or spiritual attachment to my car...but I do have a very visceral attachment to travel (especially international travel);
2) There is a certain reductio ad absurdum element to this argument that doesn't necessarily apply to some of the other criticisms you have made regarding our car-centric culture. Whether you like it or not, there is simply no substitute for visiting "The Last Supper" in person or walking on the Great Wall of China. Yes, we could reduce a lot of airline pollution if no one visited China or Italy, but this argument could be made about just about anything we human beings do that doesn't involve a subsistence existence (hence the reductio ad absurdum element).
I like you much better when you argue for the benefits and/or possibilities inherent in many of your arguments dealing with a shift in our habits. However, some of our habits are what make us human (and what makes Western civilization superior) and I wouldn't want to ever give them up. Visiting exotic places and experiencing high art and culture up close and personal are non-negotiable for me.
Posted by: Jeff Singer | September 28, 2007 1:11 PM
While I have sympathy for your point of view, your argument is no different than that of a driver defending his SUV. It reflects your personal preference. Leisure travel is not some innate need. It's a luxury and one which is often used to signal status. In this regard, the industry markets travel in ways similar to the auto industry.
We're all curious about other cultures and lands, but we have a responsibility to balance that curiosity with a respect for the environment. One globetrotting trip can negate a year of carfree living or renewable electricity at your house. We no longer have the luxury of being so cavalier about travel.
Posted by: Patrick | October 3, 2007 11:56 AM