To travel is being irresponsible
July 13th 2008 08:04
Category: No Category
A big question being asked this week at the traveller's forum at Wanderlust magazine online is: "What does responsible travel actually mean? Isn't all travel by its nature irresponsible in some way, ie you have to fly to many destinations? How much consideration do you give the notion of 'responsible travel' when you're planning where to go?"
It's the type of question that we all get everyday - what is being green? Even just living our daily lives is not been green because even by catching public transport you are using fuel and energy, simply cooking our meals is using energy... so the same thing applies to travel. What is responsible travel? How do you define responsible? Is it just about being green? Or does it also involve respecting local culture and their people?
A few good responses here but some bad silly ones as well, but you can also join in the debate at: goWander - The Big Question 'responsible travel'
Actually was just talking about being environmentally responsible and being green with my partner about 2 hours ago after seeing on the news that some protesters were blocking coal transport or something. I mean, fair enough we are all concerned about the environment and are looking at the main causes for climate change, but what we find that a lot of these people contradict their actions by simply just living their lives in the modern world. They would have had to get to the coal station to protest which means they would have either driven or caught public transport. That uses energy. They go home and turn on the lights and tv - that's burning coal. The clothes they wear are made in factories that probably burn coal for energy and release a lot of green house gases into the atmosphere. Where do you draw the line?
Same thing with travelling. Where do you draw the line? The first response on the discussion board was to just not travel, but then if no one travels, then we wouldn't need to have a debate on travelling and then we would go back to the closed societies as before.
Perhaps we should all live like the Amish, that would be environmental friendly....
It's the type of question that we all get everyday - what is being green? Even just living our daily lives is not been green because even by catching public transport you are using fuel and energy, simply cooking our meals is using energy... so the same thing applies to travel. What is responsible travel? How do you define responsible? Is it just about being green? Or does it also involve respecting local culture and their people?
A few good responses here but some bad silly ones as well, but you can also join in the debate at: goWander - The Big Question 'responsible travel'
Actually was just talking about being environmentally responsible and being green with my partner about 2 hours ago after seeing on the news that some protesters were blocking coal transport or something. I mean, fair enough we are all concerned about the environment and are looking at the main causes for climate change, but what we find that a lot of these people contradict their actions by simply just living their lives in the modern world. They would have had to get to the coal station to protest which means they would have either driven or caught public transport. That uses energy. They go home and turn on the lights and tv - that's burning coal. The clothes they wear are made in factories that probably burn coal for energy and release a lot of green house gases into the atmosphere. Where do you draw the line?
Same thing with travelling. Where do you draw the line? The first response on the discussion board was to just not travel, but then if no one travels, then we wouldn't need to have a debate on travelling and then we would go back to the closed societies as before.
Perhaps we should all live like the Amish, that would be environmental friendly....
| 40 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
