Red, Green & Blue: Eco-Tourism or “Green” Colonialism?
You know, just 10 years ago, few vacations sounded as thrilling to me as an "eco-vacation." Maybe two weeks in a rustic part of Costa Rica on the lookout for wild scarlet, green-wing and blue-and-gold macaws squawking in the trees, flocking to claylicks or just soaring through the warm, moist tropical air from one spot to another. Or, though I’m not the cold-weather-type, cruising along the Alaskan coast to drink in the astounding, other-worldly beauty of natural blue ice 10 stories high, majestic snow-capped peaks and, possibly, even the rare thrill of spotting a polar bear doing its thing in the wild.
But now, a decade later, I’m far more conflicted. Yes, eco-tourism has helped lift many marginal or struggling indigenous communities out of poverty or hopelessness. Even in parts of the developed world, such as the Florida coast where I live, tourism brings a bounty of dollars and, as a result, a more-vibrant, liveable community for the locals as well. But a travel-based economy is a double-edged sword.
Even beyond the negative echoes of colonialism and cultural arrogance some types of travel might conjure up, there’s a far darker aspect to eco-tourism today: the possibility that sincere, well-meaning travelers who seek only to benefit a fragile environment or a developing community are actually causing, in the long term, more harm than good. Primate groups managed so as to be viewed more conveniently "in the wild" are stressed to the point of infanticide, while the very notion of "global-warming-based tours" seems nothing less than perverse. Plus, the whole notion of offsetting the carbon emissions damage of your vacation has, I think, been fairly effectively discredited: there’s no free lunch and there’s no carbon-free globe-trotting either.
So what’s the answer? I’m not sure. Few experiences are more illuminating than a first-person glimpse into an exotic, even threatened, locale, and such encounters can go a long way toward encouraging those with means to help make meaningful changes for those without. But the thought of cruise ship after cruise ship anchoring off the coast of Greenland to let travelers watch ice sheets melt is, to me, abhorrent. Rather than taking a strong stance here, I’m more interested in hearing how others view this environmental Hydra facing the world’s most privileged.
What’s your take?
Tags: climate change, colonialism, developing countries, eco-tourism, global warming, Red, Green and Blue, tourism, travel
Posted in:
- Uncategorized
July 17th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Great points Shirley!
I think that for the most part people who want to do trips like this are environmentally responsible though.
I’m not sure of the break-down but I would guess air-travel is generally the biggest piece of the environmentalist’s responsibility dilemma. But what about the good will value of the inspiration that such vacations bring to people? That must be considered in the formula.
My wife and I went to Port Douglas in Queensland, Australia for our Honeymoon and it was very inspiring. We were able to visit the rainforest and dive on the Great Barrier Reef and this was an amazing experience where the locals were tremendously protective of their environment and despite the cynicism about tourists (everything is ‘deadly’, you know) they were very happy to have us.
I would say though that we were quite inspired by the environmental beauty and it has contributed very much to our environmental responsibility today. [I don’t really drive a Hummer… that was a joke].
Anyway, what do you think?
July 17th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Besides, I think tourism provides us with the resources to help save nature from itself… I snapped this shot on my latest trek to the South Pole:
July 17th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Those darned polar bears! LOL!!!
You’re right, Jimmy: the most problematic part of eco-tourism for me is the getting-there part — i.e., air travel. It consumes a tremendous amount of fossil fuel and emits equally tremendous amounts of pollution. And, as George Monbiot (I know, one of your favorites!) unfortunately explained in "Heat," air travel is also one of the most difficult sectors of our economy to shift to alternative, clean, renewable energy sources.
But I agree with you: most people who seek out eco-tours are likely to have a far more environmental mindset than the average traveler, and are looking to learn from the experience and help better the locales they are visiting. And there’s no question their dollars benefit, for the most part, the people — and therefore, as a result (sometimes), the plants, animals and habitats — in those locales.
My first impulse was to suggest taking a cruise ship instead of an airplane for eco-travel, but it turns out that shipping is also terribly polluting (not to mention, much slower). So I guess I’d urge eco-travelers to explore the possibility of getting to their destinations by train, if possible — though that’s not likely for most places. Last time I checked, there was no rail service between here and the Galapagos!
I know we’ve both come to a similar conclusion about the questionable worth of buying carbon offsets for things like travel, but do you see any way to make something like that more meaningful? Maybe one day set aside in every eco-tour to do something like plant mangroves in threatened swamps or help shore up eroding coastlines in the Arctic? At least that way travelers could know first-hand they had done something to benefit the places they visited.
Just mulling ideas on the fly, but what do you think?
July 17th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
I think it’s a lot like responsible dieting, Shirley. If you are good and eat your veggies and don’t go overboard on portions then a slice of pecan pie with Sunday dinner is just fine.
What is life without pecan pie?
Viktor Frankl, I believe it was, broke our existence down into two basic categories: 1) A higher abstract quest for meaning and purpose. 2) And an immediate quest for stimulation and fulfillment. An environmentalist can live in the world of abstract idealism without touching or affecting nature at all; but isn’t a low-impact direct infusion of that which we choose to protect sometimes necessary to sustain us and the cause? Might our soul be incomplete if we always sacrifice for our ideals and never indulge in them?
July 18th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Absolutely true: as with education, inspiration from nature arises best from hands-on, real-life interaction. I would hate to live in a world where we could only experience icebergs, rainforests, mountains and historic architecture virtually, whether through books, video or virtual-reality software. (Though, sadly, I’m afraid we’re headed in that direction with creatures like polar bears and habitats like the Amazon rainforest.)
But are there better, more environmentally responsible ways to enjoy those interactions? What do you think about the idea of encouraging eco-tours to include a day of giving back to the areas they visit (beyond, obviously, the money these tourists bring), whether it’s planting trees, distributing mosquito nets, setting up a village solar power system, or something else? Would that be a better slice of pecan pie than eco-travel alone?
July 18th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I think that would be a great mind-set for an environmentally responsible eco-tourist, Shirley.
As for the offsets… if it’s a trip you are going to make anyway then what do you think about contributing offsets to a well vetted organization? I’ve always looked at them as a way to assuage guilt for unchecked indulgence but in this context it seems a bit more reasonable.
What do you think?
July 18th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
I’m fine with offsets if they work as advertised, which — in all too many cases we’ve seen — they don’t always. Still, if you’re taking an eco-trip with the goal of helping the environment you’re planning to visit, you might be able to do that (AND assuage your guilt) by contributing offsets to, as you put it, a well vetted organization.
Now, what about eco-tourism based on seeing what we ourselves have wrought (i.e., watching Greenland’s ice sheets slip into the ocean bit by bit)? Is that as legitimate a trip as one to see the Amazon or the Great Barrier Reef? Or is it simply a more expensive version of rubber-necking at an accident? To me, the idea of taking a trip to watch the Arctic melt conjures Everclear’s “Santa Monica”:
“We could live beside the ocean, leave the fire behind, swim out past the breakers, watch the world die.”
July 18th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
I expect watching ice sheets melt would be like watching grass grow… not that there’s anything wrong with that.
As far as "…seeing what we ourselves have wrought…" I guess since I believe we live in an improving world I can’t really agree with the premise; but if you need a dose of guilt just go to any zoo, or nature center, or aquarium. They are a great source for a never-ending lecture on how horrible ‘man’ is to mother earth.
I fear that an unintended consequence to all of this environmental awareness of late is a real surge in an industry trying to capitalize on it and that on net is probably doing more harm than it is good.
We will all be fine though. Overall I think it does boil down to just a slice of pecan pie with Sunday dinner. As long as we are generally responsible and as long as proper incentives are arranged to nudge society in the correct direction I think history teaches that it will all work out for the best.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
The justification in these comments is sad. Travelling for leisure is nothing more than selfish hedonism - and there’s nothing wrong with that. But please don’t tell me that you’re less selfish and less hedonistic because you’re educated about the environment and an “eco tourist.” It’s as bad as the holier than thou attitudes held by those into “voluntourism” - or should that be “poverty tourism”? Green colonialism indeed. And yes, it’s trendy. Ugh.