2 ms·

You are missing my point which is "foreigners aren't being ripped off just because they pay more than the locals". The locals pay for the subsidies directly or

You are missing my point which is "foreigners aren't being ripped off just because they pay more than the locals". The locals pay for the subsidies directly or indirectly. Think of it as tourist tax (charged in some countries of Europe) if that still bothers you. To your point above, I do appreciate the quality of life in Europe. However, even the most conscientious among the Europeans - the Nordics are not anymore greener than the american, it is largely a feel good window dressing.

looping__lui 7y ago
I really wish I could think of it as a “tourist tax” benefiting the needy. But I rather have the feeling “its ending up in the pockets of the rich, powerful and corrupt”. So misses the point. Prices for museums etc. ARE in fact much higher for tourists (factor 5-10x usually if I recall). In a sense the tourists probably subsidize many cultural sites for the Indian population (which is fair). The energy consumption in the US is twice as high as in Europe per capita - eyeballing the numbers I believe India is not exactly green either (rural areas without any access to electricity etc. distort the numbers unless you want to keep those people “in the dark”...) But it’s not only energy consumption - it’s also the passionate “trashing and burning of trash” that doesn’t do the Indian environment any good. Delhi, Mumbai etc. - the air has become more and more toxic over the years. I don’t want to start a “who is better who is worse” - but the “I only care for myself and nobody else” mentality affects all aspects from tourism to environment and harms the people themselves. That was the entire point.