Sounds crazy doesn't it? But the list as provided by Independent Traveller makes for interesting reading.
There is "an ethical dilemma for travelers looking to see the world without harming it."
Can't disagree with that at all.
"Can the benefits of travel outweigh its environmental impact? What questions should you consider when deciding whether to visit an endangered destination? And if you do decide to travel, how can you minimize your environmental footprint?"
Good questions ..... not too many answers provided though!
I'm sure that there are a lot more places on our little planet that they could have considered, but perhaps they should have included Bangladesh too?
1 comment:
The ad banners of such as the Observer are a tad too packed with such concerned visitation rights, and can often jar with the editorial lecture next to them on how bad the bottle of water you might be drinking is. How that stacks up to a round trip to a far-flung outpost (where I rather suspect you will have to drink bottled water, at least until it ceases to be commercially viable to purchase) I am seldom sure.
I had noted a quote by a BBC journo recently which I feel I can now share just in this context:
'The appeal of Ecuador is growing all the time, thanks to it being just just 2hrs flight from the Galapagos Islands, now very popular as an eco-tourism destination'.
'Just a 2-hr flight' indeed.
'What's that you say!? A glacier calving in Newfoundland???! Book me on the first 747 and helicopter to share the consequences of 'our' actions immediately!!!'
Post a Comment