Eco-Sacrifice?

Eco-tourism is a great idea, in theory. In practice, however, it is hard to argue that anything that endorses and/or demands flying can better the environment. While our interconnected world is unarguably benevolent on the larger scale, it also puts an undeniable strain on our environment. If there are ways to travel that do more good than harm, I am not privy to them. Anything close I can think to would be the exception, not the rule.

In light of both rich country visitors who give little thought to the environments of the places they travel and the British public per the article, a seeming feeling of negligence is inherent. I attribute this not to human apathy, but to a genuine lack of awareness. Even for the environmentally conscious, it is difficult to hold on to good eco-friendly habits when trying to explore a new place; to soak up as much of one's surroundings in as little time as possible. Vacation generally triggers a breaking free from mundane tasks of daily life. Unfortunately, environmental considerations are not exempt.

Depending on the plausibility of fairly immediate technological advancements, the environmental harms associated with flying should tweak the price of a trip to some extent. Albeit on a much smaller scale, the issue is reminiscent of the one raised in Bill McKibben's "Maybe One". Despite undeniable proof of the environmental degradation that a large population causes, it is absurd to expect the human race to change one of their most base and innate functions. Similarly, despite knowledge of the environmental cost of flying, people cannot be expected to forego flying, seeing loved ones, enriching their own lives, for the sake of the environment. This is aptly exemplified in the article. Understandably, people would rather part ways with their daily habits than their ability to fly as means of impacting the environment less. It is one thing to place the environment before minor daily conveniences and personal sacrifices, but another to deny existing relationships that are contingent on being able to fly.

I think the best approach, then, is finding a way to discourage--but not keep people from--flying. In my opinion, people are most likely to respond to economic incentives. At present, there are simply limited alternatives to flying. Affordable, low carbon alternatives do not exist. The article mentioned a government plan for a new high-speed rail network for short-haul flights. I think this would be largely effective. While it is unfair to ask people to revert back to not flying whatsoever, it is fair to ask them to avoid it when they can. Some places in the world are simply inaccessible without flying, however, many short-haul trips--Florida, for example-- are habitually flown due to lack of convenient options. I believe economic incentives to utilize technologies that are still fast and convenient over flying could counter this. Ed Miliband makes a stringent point in the article, commenting: "I don't want to have a situation where only rich people can afford to fly." Indeed, economic incentives should not take it to levels that would make it impossible to fly. A minor hike in prices, though, would a) make people at least give more consideration to each flight and b) allow more money for technological advancements to find efficient alternatives.