6 ms·

I think it's not just tourism, it's traveling in general. We need to stop taking the car or the plane like it's nothing for the environment, and taxes are the o

by vfc1 7y ago

I think it's not just tourism, it's traveling in general. We need to stop taking the car or the plane like it's nothing for the environment, and taxes are the only way, we can't rely on people's common sense. A single roundtrip from New York to Los Angeles a year offsets the combined effort of going vegetarian and recycling for example - https://shameplane.com/?fromCity=New%20York&fromCode=JFK&toCity=Los%20Angeles&toCode=LAX&roundtrip=true&typeofseat=3 https://shameplane.com/?fromCity=New%20York&fromCode=JFK&toC... I've gone to many of those places: The Egypt Pyramids, Paris, London, Austria, Amsterdam, Crete, Cuba, Japan. After a while it becomes all the same, it all feels like a tourist trap everywhere you go, most likely because it is. Seeing natural wonders like the canary islands, it's probably still worth it, but visiting man-made cities with their tourist trap monuments? No thank you.

wsc981 7y ago
Nice, let's tax travelling like crazy, so it's only an option for the elite / wealthy people.
- theli0nheart 7y ago
  So, it's ok to trash the environment, as long as you have money to burn? And, for what it's worth, travel is already pretty expensive and taxed like crazy. If you can take a week long vacation to Europe and don't think you're elite and/or wealthy, I have some news for you. :)
  - vfc1 7y ago
    It's still not OK, but it's probably the only practical solution for preventing the Earth from warming above 2 degrees, which the latest science says we only have 12 years to prevent. I don't think even with taxes we can prevent it to be fair, it's going to get ugly. But I for me I've stopped traveling as my kids are now still small, and I don't plan on resuming it once they grow up, at least to visit man-made cities. Flying across the globe just to visit a tourist trap monument like the Eiffel tower is just not worth it, neither for the experience or for the environmental impact. But the idea of traveling is still very romanticised and associated with wealth and status, so I don't think people will stop doing it anytime soon unless some measures are put in place. As for the elites, quite frankly I think things private jets should be literally forbidden due to environmental impact.
    - notJim 7y ago
      I don't think a huge carbon tax (as would be needed to change over to renewables quickly enough) is as realistic as it sounds to the technocratically-minded. If you tell people they can't visit their family who live across the country a couple times per year, they will vote you out of office. Look at the huge negative reaction to fuel taxes in France and the UK. Here in the US, we've got a lovely climate-denying party that is already structurally favored to win anyway. I think you instead need to combine a strategy of making it more expensive in progressive ways with building more infrastructure and finding technology to support low-carbon travel.
- skybrian 7y ago
  Other options include waiting lists and lotteries. However, they don't provide the revenue to maintain tourist infrastructure. I guess you could combine both with something like a lottery ticket?
hartator 7y ago
> I've gone to many of those places: The Egypt Pyramids, Paris, London, Austria, Amsterdam, Crete, Cuba, Japan. You can’t be flexing about the place you’ve been while making the point of travelling doesn’t matter.
- asdkhadsj 7y ago
  Eh, I disagree. At least, in the absolute you pose. I don't need to invalidate the opinion of drug users who advise against it. I think there is merit in "I did X, it wasn't worth it". Though, perhaps we read the Parent's message differently.
  - hartator 7y ago
    Drugs have a negative connotation though. It’s more like eating out while making a point about this shouldn’t be done. Then listing all the fancy places you’ve been to.
- mattlutze 7y ago
  Seems to me if you want to say that touristing has a point of diminishing returns, there's nothing wrong with providing a first-hand account.
- buboard 7y ago
  OT, but flexing means bragging?
  - hartator 7y ago
    Yeah it’s a slang for showing off or bragging.
  - wasdfff 7y ago
    Picture the musclebound jock showing off making each pec move independently, but for any topic.
nullwasamistake 7y ago
IMO this is an elitist point of view. Taxing will only serve to make travel a luxury for the elite, as it once was. The only reason tourism has increased so much is because it's become affordable to the middle class. The economy will adapt. There will be more tourist destinations to cancel out the increased crowds, with time. Flying is a great way to travel in an environmentally friendly way. It's far less wasteful per mile than driving.
- adrianN 7y ago
  How many people drive thousands of miles in a single day for a one week holiday?
- ilovepeppapig 7y ago
  Flying is environmentally friendly? That's a bold statement
  - nullwasamistake 7y ago
    Fuel is a huge airline expense so people are packed into an aluminum can at maximum density. It's public transit, except the seats are nearly full at every stop. Fuel economy is about 75 mpg per passenger. This is nearly twice the average mileage as busses, and better than nearly any other realistic form of travel https://afdc.energy.gov/data/mobile/10311 https://afdc.energy.gov/data/mobile/10311 (Other sources give 75mpg for airline average but this may be for a full plane) It's a huge misconception that flying is a wasteful means of travel. It's practically the most efficient means there is
    - ilovepeppapig 7y ago
      Interesting that buses are so "unfriendly". But it probably makes sense if most of the times they cruise with nearly no passengers. Thanks for the info.
    - notJim 7y ago
      These data, and your broader argument seem to ignore that rail travel can be relatively easily converted to renewable energy, while flying (so far) cannot. Aviation alone would consume 25% of our 2050 carbon budget.
ajconway 7y ago
Can clean-electric cars and planes help with this? A world-wide hyperloop network, perhaps? Not sure if "just add more taxes" is the solution to everything.
- adrianN 7y ago
  Sure they can help with this. The problem is that we have ten, maybe twenty years to radically change how we generate and use energy. That's not enough time to build a world-wide hyperloop network, or electric jumbo jets.
aivisol 7y ago
I do not understand how Canary Islands are less of a tourist trap than, say Cuba? Granted, there are no volcanoes in Cuba but that does not make it's nature less interesting. And tourism in Canary Islands is definitely much higher developed industry than in Cuba.
buboard 7y ago
> and taxes are the only way, we can't rely on people's common sens We can, many people are already campaigning against air travel, and this is a new (2019) thing . > I've gone to many of those places: The Egypt Pyramids, Paris, London, Austria, Amsterdam, Crete, Cuba, Japan. After a while it becomes all the same, Yeah, see, everyone wants to get to that point where they ve seen enough that "everything becomes the same". You wouldn't say the same if you hadnt been to any of them.
scarejunba 7y ago
We tax carbon and you lose your pet before I lose my holiday. You lose your foreign fruit, your meat, and maybe you even lose the chance to bring children into the world. But I’m carbon negative every year, so I get to fly. And I’ve been to those places too and it looks like you missed out on something. I really don’t feel like they were anything alike.

by vfc1 7y ago

wsc981 7y ago

Nice, let's tax travelling like crazy, so it's only an option for the elite / wealthy people.

theli0nheart 7y ago
So, it's ok to trash the environment, as long as you have money to burn? And, for what it's worth, travel is already pretty expensive and taxed like crazy. If you can take a week long vacation to Europe and don't think you're elite and/or wealthy, I have some news for you. :)
- vfc1 7y ago
  It's still not OK, but it's probably the only practical solution for preventing the Earth from warming above 2 degrees, which the latest science says we only have 12 years to prevent. I don't think even with taxes we can prevent it to be fair, it's going to get ugly. But I for me I've stopped traveling as my kids are now still small, and I don't plan on resuming it once they grow up, at least to visit man-made cities. Flying across the globe just to visit a tourist trap monument like the Eiffel tower is just not worth it, neither for the experience or for the environmental impact. But the idea of traveling is still very romanticised and associated with wealth and status, so I don't think people will stop doing it anytime soon unless some measures are put in place. As for the elites, quite frankly I think things private jets should be literally forbidden due to environmental impact.
  - notJim 7y ago
    I don't think a huge carbon tax (as would be needed to change over to renewables quickly enough) is as realistic as it sounds to the technocratically-minded. If you tell people they can't visit their family who live across the country a couple times per year, they will vote you out of office. Look at the huge negative reaction to fuel taxes in France and the UK. Here in the US, we've got a lovely climate-denying party that is already structurally favored to win anyway. I think you instead need to combine a strategy of making it more expensive in progressive ways with building more infrastructure and finding technology to support low-carbon travel.
skybrian 7y ago
Other options include waiting lists and lotteries. However, they don't provide the revenue to maintain tourist infrastructure. I guess you could combine both with something like a lottery ticket?

hartator 7y ago

> I've gone to many of those places: The Egypt Pyramids, Paris, London, Austria, Amsterdam, Crete, Cuba, Japan. You can’t be flexing about the place you’ve been while making the point of travelling doesn’t matter.

asdkhadsj 7y ago
Eh, I disagree. At least, in the absolute you pose. I don't need to invalidate the opinion of drug users who advise against it. I think there is merit in "I did X, it wasn't worth it". Though, perhaps we read the Parent's message differently.
- hartator 7y ago
  Drugs have a negative connotation though. It’s more like eating out while making a point about this shouldn’t be done. Then listing all the fancy places you’ve been to.
mattlutze 7y ago
Seems to me if you want to say that touristing has a point of diminishing returns, there's nothing wrong with providing a first-hand account.
buboard 7y ago
OT, but flexing means bragging?
- hartator 7y ago
  Yeah it’s a slang for showing off or bragging.
- wasdfff 7y ago
  Picture the musclebound jock showing off making each pec move independently, but for any topic.

nullwasamistake 7y ago

IMO this is an elitist point of view. Taxing will only serve to make travel a luxury for the elite, as it once was. The only reason tourism has increased so much is because it's become affordable to the middle class. The economy will adapt. There will be more tourist destinations to cancel out the increased crowds, with time. Flying is a great way to travel in an environmentally friendly way. It's far less wasteful per mile than driving.

adrianN 7y ago
How many people drive thousands of miles in a single day for a one week holiday?
ilovepeppapig 7y ago
Flying is environmentally friendly? That's a bold statement
- nullwasamistake 7y ago
  Fuel is a huge airline expense so people are packed into an aluminum can at maximum density. It's public transit, except the seats are nearly full at every stop. Fuel economy is about 75 mpg per passenger. This is nearly twice the average mileage as busses, and better than nearly any other realistic form of travel https://afdc.energy.gov/data/mobile/10311 https://afdc.energy.gov/data/mobile/10311 (Other sources give 75mpg for airline average but this may be for a full plane) It's a huge misconception that flying is a wasteful means of travel. It's practically the most efficient means there is
  - ilovepeppapig 7y ago
    Interesting that buses are so "unfriendly". But it probably makes sense if most of the times they cruise with nearly no passengers. Thanks for the info.
  - notJim 7y ago
    These data, and your broader argument seem to ignore that rail travel can be relatively easily converted to renewable energy, while flying (so far) cannot. Aviation alone would consume 25% of our 2050 carbon budget.

ajconway 7y ago

Can clean-electric cars and planes help with this? A world-wide hyperloop network, perhaps? Not sure if "just add more taxes" is the solution to everything.

adrianN 7y ago
Sure they can help with this. The problem is that we have ten, maybe twenty years to radically change how we generate and use energy. That's not enough time to build a world-wide hyperloop network, or electric jumbo jets.

aivisol 7y ago

I do not understand how Canary Islands are less of a tourist trap than, say Cuba? Granted, there are no volcanoes in Cuba but that does not make it's nature less interesting. And tourism in Canary Islands is definitely much higher developed industry than in Cuba.

buboard 7y ago

> and taxes are the only way, we can't rely on people's common sens We can, many people are already campaigning against air travel, and this is a new (2019) thing . > I've gone to many of those places: The Egypt Pyramids, Paris, London, Austria, Amsterdam, Crete, Cuba, Japan. After a while it becomes all the same, Yeah, see, everyone wants to get to that point where they ve seen enough that "everything becomes the same". You wouldn't say the same if you hadnt been to any of them.

scarejunba 7y ago

We tax carbon and you lose your pet before I lose my holiday. You lose your foreign fruit, your meat, and maybe you even lose the chance to bring children into the world. But I’m carbon negative every year, so I get to fly. And I’ve been to those places too and it looks like you missed out on something. I really don’t feel like they were anything alike.