Exactly. I have quite a few friends who regularly fly/travel to these scenic ocean/river systems, but will absolve themselves of concern because they're using some 'reef safe' sunscreen when they dip in to the water. Greenhouse gas emissions are always someone else's fault. Industry, diesel trucks, etc etc.
They're also the same folks that attack Airbnb and gentrification at home, but are the first to jump on to the Airbnb moneyed expat lifestyle when traveling.
At this point, it's not even worth the time to debate.
You could make a compelling argument that no one with any real power would care about the reefs if they weren't regularly visited by relatively wealthy tourists that have at least some connection to those in power and the broader public. Yellowstone wouldn't exist without people like John Muir. Travel helps people connect with the physical world and the people who inhabit physically and culturally remote places.
I've heard this used as the line of thinking for why we still have zoos as well. To help conservation. If animals are out of sight and out of mind then they're out of my concern. So, let's keep the zoos to keep wild animals on top of mind, and hopefully around a little longer.
let me indicate that most scientists work on these animals are working in zoo -- only they know how to cure, take care and saving wildlife in this world.
In the sense that they destroyed most megafauna within a few centuries of arrival? Or in the sense that modern hunters are now regulated so they don't drive their choice species extinct?
No, he means people like Roosevelt. The North American megafauna that went extinct all died off at the end of the Pleistocene during a period of rapid warming, it isn't know how much humans contributed in North America.
Interestingly, some of the more effective environmental activist organizations are groups that started to protect the outdoor recreation activities of wealthy people. Trout Unlimited is a good example.
This feels like a corollary of the concept of "Voting with your wallet", which is a debatable concept at best. Individual actions in the face of corporations like airlines and airbnb won't affect the company. It's only going to negatively impact your life. Working on systemic change is the answer.
There are a thousand examples of companies evaporating for exactly that reason.
'Systemic change' doesn't mean anything in reality. You can't destroy a national economic model and just replace it any more than you can make people spend money where they aren't going. Economies rely on travel and so travel has subsidy.
During 2020 no one flew anywhere and the airlines were smashed with losses. That's not sustainable for any real length of time. If individuals cared to stop flying, they would and airlines would be bankrupt in 2-3 years. No amount of subsidy can maintain those organizations without broad customer support. The soviet infrastructure decline of the 80s is a perfect example of that process in action
in the sense that it's impossible to enact in a coordinated fashion without something cataclysmic like a plague to push the group action.
Yeah, no one flew in 2020 -- they were concerned with their own personal well-being while being told from every existing outlet that there was a virulent pathogen that may end their life.
How, pray tell, do you recreate that kind of action? You could cry wolf about some global disaster, but eventually the listening ears will get tired of reacting.
Reef-bleaching isn't a "you're going to die from a deadly virus in several weeks" concern, it's a "think of generations after you" concern -- and historically we as humans tend to stick our heads in the sand when confronted with issues like that; we'd prefer to have luxury ourselves than save it for later generations.
I agree. The "rat race" is a competition with other humans. "Keeping up with the Joneses".
For every person saying "I'll not fly" or "I'll buy an efficient car" there are many more who'll be happy to take their spot on the plane or buy the 2000+kg SUV gas guzzler.
The only way to properly shape things is to change the rules of the game.
"Tragedy of the commons" only workaround thus far is a central body to limit individuals in the interests for all.
I understand your argument, but I disagree with your premise.
The idea that we, each, are the responsible party in this equation is ill founded. Companies have been pitching the idea that we need to be accountable to prevent disaster so that they absolve themselves of the responsibility. We are not the problem even with all the planes. That's the pitch and you are out in the wild trying to further their work for free.
Industrial pollution is orders of magnitude greater than consumer pollution. So, force the populace to adhere to a contrived austerity and continue with the profits.
I have certainly seen the very same people express concern about gentrification but then will also go out of their way to book airbnb or airbnb-style accommodations for travel because it feels more authentic than a hotel.
Right. Everyone could simultaneously choose to never travel and it might make a romantic, but not actually impactful dent in the climate apocalypse story.
Exactly. I have quite a few friends who regularly fly/travel to these scenic ocean/river systems, but will absolve themselves of concern because they're using some 'reef safe' sunscreen when they dip in to the water. Greenhouse gas emissions are always someone else's fault. Industry, diesel trucks, etc etc.
They're also the same folks that attack Airbnb and gentrification at home, but are the first to jump on to the Airbnb moneyed expat lifestyle when traveling.
At this point, it's not even worth the time to debate.