It's both good because it creates opportunity and provides opportunity to a new class of traveler but it's bad because it expands the number of people who can travel and thus negatively impact the environment.
Not much different from wanting to eliminate poverty from the world, however, we know full well a middle class person had greater impact on the environment. They consume more goods and waste more.
It's neither good or bad but something we must keep in mind as we can't wish the consequences away.
Mobility and consumption don't need to be correlated. If the middle class family is away on vacation, they can relinquish their home for the duration and obviate the need to build big hotels. That's a lot of saved embodied environmental costs! While a bit extreme: That means you could bulldoze all hotels to make open green spaces since their vacant rooms are unnecessary.
It's similar for automobiles. Take a look the overall carbon footprint for automobiles. Last time I looked it up, at least 1/3 of the car's lifetime carbon footprint was due to initial manufacturing -- for an asset that (as a personal automobile) has sub-1% utilization. Share the car, and we have fewer cars and tolerate >30% more individual travel for the same net carbon footprint.
Travel and the increase in travel does add environmental pressures. One must get somewhere one way or another (and increased travel means more train or plane passengers). You're also buying things to adapt to the destination's weather, etc. It all adds up.
Also, at the destination, more people puts pressure on the ecology there. Imagine everyone being able to afford going to Antarctica, or let's say, the Grand Canyon or Mt Fuji. It's be environmentally disastrous. We'd eventually have to regulate access as is currently done for places like Antelope canyon.
Comments
It's both good because it creates opportunity and provides opportunity to a new class of traveler but it's bad because it expands the number of people who can travel and thus negatively impact the environment.
Not much different from wanting to eliminate poverty from the world, however, we know full well a middle class person had greater impact on the environment. They consume more goods and waste more.
It's neither good or bad but something we must keep in mind as we can't wish the consequences away.
Mobility and consumption don't need to be correlated. If the middle class family is away on vacation, they can relinquish their home for the duration and obviate the need to build big hotels. That's a lot of saved embodied environmental costs! While a bit extreme: That means you could bulldoze all hotels to make open green spaces since their vacant rooms are unnecessary.
It's similar for automobiles. Take a look the overall carbon footprint for automobiles. Last time I looked it up, at least 1/3 of the car's lifetime carbon footprint was due to initial manufacturing -- for an asset that (as a personal automobile) has sub-1% utilization. Share the car, and we have fewer cars and tolerate >30% more individual travel for the same net carbon footprint.
Travel and the increase in travel does add environmental pressures. One must get somewhere one way or another (and increased travel means more train or plane passengers). You're also buying things to adapt to the destination's weather, etc. It all adds up.
Also, at the destination, more people puts pressure on the ecology there. Imagine everyone being able to afford going to Antarctica, or let's say, the Grand Canyon or Mt Fuji. It's be environmentally disastrous. We'd eventually have to regulate access as is currently done for places like Antelope canyon.
That is exactly why one can almost always laugh when reading about a company's mission to make the world a better place. Better to whom?