Skip Navigation

Should we all travel less?

Travel Forums General Talk Should we all travel less?

Page

Last Post

1. Posted by Peter (Admin 5808 posts) 10y

Following on from the debate, 'Should Americans travel more?', I'd like pick up on a new co-operation by Lonely Planet and Rough Guides to encourage people to travel less. Or at least not by plane.

The initiative springs from a growing concern over the negative environmental effect of air travel. Generally their advice boils down to 'travel less, but go for longer', with an emphasis on getting around by train rather than plane. And carbon offsetting is put forward as a way to apease your guilt.

This article in the Age goes into it in some more detail. Guide to saving what could be lonely planet

Is it time we, travellers, face the music?

2. Posted by danalasta (Respected Member 519 posts) 10y

Quoting Peter

Following on from the debate, 'Should Americans travel more?', I'd like pick up on a new co-operation by Lonely Planet and Rough Guides to encourage people to travel less. Or at least not by plane.

The initiative springs from

a growing concern over the negative environmental effect of air travel

. Generally their advice boils down to 'travel less, but go for longer', with an emphasis on getting around by train rather than plane. And carbon offsetting is put forward as a way to apease your guilt.

This article in the Age goes into it in some more detail. Guide to saving what could be lonely planet

Is it time we, travellers, face the music?

if we link air travel to tourism, then tourism development germinates special ecological problems not encountered in other types of economic activity. The environmental resources exploited for tourism attract tourists for various reason...cultural, recreational and educational interest, to name a few. The modern tourism's most paradoxical trait is its capacity to destroy those attributes which attract visitors in the first place. Well-known economic analyst and futurologist Herman Khan described the rapidly expanding tourism (blame it on the air travel!)as "..next only to atomic power in its potential for environmental destruction". Mass tourism has brought in its wake many ecological and environmental pollution problems...

In fact Dr David Suzuki raised this issue of air travel & its destructive effect on the ozone at the PATA Conference in Bali 1984 (I think) when the theme was Ecotourism Our Heritage...Ecotourism since then has come a long way...ironically destroying the environment along the way!!!!

My two cents worth!

dana

3. Posted by Odysseas (Full Member 1359 posts) 10y

Haha! YES!

The fact is to review the meaning of the word "traveling".
Don't take plane,you'll see much more,enjoy much more,travel much more.
You don't pollute,and you keep travelling longer!

So,can somebody tell me,why do they still sell some flight tickets?

4. Posted by magykal1 (Travel Guru 2026 posts) 10y

Yes - I'm guilty of this one, but I agree. The sheer number of cheap flights in Europe and Asia now is staggering.

5. Posted by Sam I Am (Admin 5588 posts) 10y

Quoting Peter

Following on from the debate, 'Should Americans travel more?', I'd like pick up on a new co-operation by Lonely Planet and Rough Guides to encourage people to travel less. Or at least not by plane.

The initiative springs from a growing concern over the negative environmental effect of air travel. Generally their advice boils down to 'travel less, but go for longer', with an emphasis on getting around by train rather than plane. And carbon offsetting is put forward as a way to apease your guilt.

This article in the Age goes into it in some more detail. Guide to saving what could be lonely planet

Is it time we, travellers, face the music?

In all honesty I'm a little sceptical of this being a co-operation between Rough Guides and Lonely Planet trying to promote travelling less, which they take to mean travelling longer, but flying less. Naturally both these companies would agree with this as they both stand to gain from more guidebooks being sold when people travel for longer and fly less (this typically results in the kind of travel that both these companies make their money off of). And both being commercial entities, is this initiative taken because they really believe in travelling less or because they simply want to increase their profit? If they were really so serious about this, why not stop selling flights on their sites?! Or even better, put enough money up every year to offset their own CO2 footprint from printing millions upon millions of guidebooks in paper!!

Having said that, aside from what might be these two companies real reasons for promoting this, I applaud the idea put forth by Climate Care. As with most structures of this kind, you have to have a certain amount of trust in how they fund their projects (ie. does 10% of the money donated end up actually reducing CO2, or is it 40% or higher?). They mention 10% goes to a Ltd. which provided them with money in their start up phase but does that stop happening when the initial outlay costs have been covered or will the Ltd. end up making money off of this in the long run? They also mention 60% going to the projects and 'their management' in 2004 (this in itself means that 30% went to covering staff and office costs). Knowing a few directors and managers myself, does this mean that of that 60%, 50% goes to covering expensive directors and managers or is it less?

All in all, it's already clear that 40% of the money paid does not go directly to offsetting your CO2 output, which is what people are actually paying to do. I don't like that kind of math unless it's clear from the get go that that's what is happening (ie. in big bold letters alongside the payment field that of the 10 dollars you are donating, 6 will go to projects and their management)!

I'd rather see more people take their own responsibility here and try doing things themselves to offset their CO2 output. Or governments taking more responsibility and offering bigger tax incentives to companies etc.

Anyway, I do applaud the incentive!

6. Posted by Clarabell (Travel Guru 1696 posts) 10y

The ins and outs of this issue are obviously pretty complicated. But as far as the flying thing is concerned, I think the increase in really short flights is worrying. Why would you be flying from, say, liverpool to london.

All those discount flights have a lot to answer for.

We live in a world where its all about MONEY NOW, never mind the future that our kids will have to deal with.

7. Posted by Peter (Admin 5808 posts) 10y

Quoting Sam I Am

In all honesty I'm a little sceptical of this being a co-operation between Rough Guides and Lonely Planet trying to promote travelling less, which they take to mean travelling longer, but flying less.

Yeah, it's an easy line to preach when you aren't restricted by 2 week vacations. It's one of those 'do as we say, don't do as we do' kind of situations. Really, if they're serious about the environment, they should print their guidebooks on recycled / unbleached paper.

And on a side note; it's a lot easier for someone in Europe to consider the possbility of going to other countries by train than it is for someone in Australia

8. Posted by Twinkle (Travel Guru 1112 posts) 10y

Yes, I am also guilty of this...those cheap airfares are just too enticing!!!Eventually I have a plan where I want to do a Peter Moore type of trip as I would love to travel right around the world using any transport other than planes..it would be amazing.I do feel gulity about using something which is so detrimental to the environment but sometimes I think its just too easy to take the "easy way out". I have a friend who has boycotted airtravel all together and I really admire her as right now shes on an incredible trip around the middle east then down into Africa and all this stemmed from her boarding a bus in London and she still hasnt used a plane at all and shes now in Syria!!!

9. Posted by SeeTheSky (Respected Member 558 posts) 10y

somethin to think about. im mad hippie, and i know im a mad hippocrite becuase i travel so damn much. i try to walk and ride a bike as much as possible, but i end up having to do long distance travel alot. ho humm good post pete, ill have to put some thought into it.

10. Posted by Gelli (Travel Guru 2457 posts) 10y

What is this air travel thing you are all talking about, anyway...?

Rich (British, maybe 80 odd countries later, and currently in Vietnam without ever having been on a plane in his entire life )