Recently in Green debate Category

There's much talk of sustainability as ABTA holds its Travel Convention, and the big piece of news on that front is the next stage of Forum for the Future's Tourism 2023 project.

The sustainability charity has unveiled four possible futures for the travel industry should it fail to take action. There's also a 60-odd-page report to digest (pdf, 7MB).

So while you're mulling over its projections add this to the mix: global oil production could peak in the next 10 years, according to the UK Energy Research centre.

Ach, plenty of time...

So the dust has settled on Travel Rants vs the ABTA Travel Convention, which saw the popular consumer blog arguing that the event should be held in the UK.

Both Kevin at Travolution and I argued from the opposite position. What did I take from it all?

What I stand by

If you happily fly, and don't intend to stop, I fail to see what you gain from ABTA 'setting the example' of not flying.

Nor do I accept that flying to a travel event is morally worse than flying for leisure. Both do damage, neither is strictly speaking necessary; the fact that one is more fun is irrelevant.

We could push this point further: holidays account for a vast number of flights per year, while travel events account for a number so small it is almost negligible.

The important point is that both holidays and travel events suffer if confined solely to the UK.

What I think it comes down to

Based on the above, we are in this rather familiar position: we all derive benefits from flying, and don't want to give it up. But we accept that it does damage.

Where do we go from there?

We must talk about mitigating the effects of flying, and not demand the travel industry leads the way to a stay-at-home world none of us wants to live in.

In one of my comments I said, "leading by example means demonstrating that sustainable travel is possible." I think this points towards some common ground.

What I concede

Replying to a comment on this blog, I went further:

If the argument was whether these events could look for more innovative ways to mitigate their effects on the environment, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

It's the job of the industry to demonstrate that travel can be force for good, and you don't make that point by staying at home. However, I do think you could argue that the industry isn't making that point well enough.

And a pat on the back

My final reflection, and the nicest: I liked the way the debate on Travel Rants was conducted.

I always do - Darren's a good host - but this was a particularly hard-fought debate, and its politeness in the face of strong disagreements does Darren and his readership great credit.

Here's CNN reporting on the environmental campgainers who descended on the new terminal in a 'flashmob'.

Nice bit of agitprop (even if flashmobs are sooo 2006, daahling) but I think it was the least of BA/BAA's worries...

Nathan Midgley, web producer

The National Caravan Council has launched a new web site to promote the green credentials of caravan holidays. Hmmmm. I am not convinced, but I did visit the site - greencaravanning.com - and found that driving a large car and caravan from London to Malaga does compare favourably with alternative forms of transport in terms of emissions. However, my youth was spent on caravanning holidays so the thought of driving to Malaga at 50mph is not a good one.

Most of the caravans I see on the road tend to be pulled by gas guzzling 4x4s carrying two - usually older - people at most. How environmentally friendly is that?

Martin Couzins, online editor

Running through the cruise blogs I posted about yesterday, I found this story about Hapag-Lloyd Cruises's Hanseatic crossing the Northwest Passage.

That's the semi-mythical channel between Canada and the Arctic - once a holy grail for explorers, who knew it would allow shipping to travel from Europe to Asia without the treacherous slog round Africa.

It is navigable by icebreakers, and The Hanseatic is apparently one of few passengers ships able to make the journey (this is its seventh trip).

But all that could change. The ice that normally covers the Northwest Passage receded to an unprecedented extent this year:

Image: NASA Earth Observatory

(When will I get tired of free satellite images? Try never.)

This will be exciting news for armchair explorers, but rather less thrilling to the environmental lobby.

Nathan Midgley, web producer

In Travel Weekly August 24 our aviation reporter Ian Taylor penned an interesting analysis of public attitudes to the environment in light of a survey by Defra.

The survey of 3,600 adults found that people are prepared to pay to mitigate the environmental impact of flying, much as they are prepared to pay more for environmentally friendly products.

The challenge for the trade is to put offset options in front of consumers when they purchase the holiday. That way they can fly without guilt.

Isn't that called a win win situation? Do readers think they would offset their emissions if it was made part of the booking process?

Martin Couzins, online editor

I'm not aware that bike sharing is taking off in the UK - although car sharing is ... albeit slowly.

So, could boat sharing be the next big thing

Looks like our Dutch friends can’t stop sharing. What next after boats?

Martin Couzins, online editor

Travolution editor Kevin May tells a good tale from an event he attended last night. The government's tourism minister Shaun Woodward refused to provide details of his own carbon footprint despite asking Kev for his.

Makes a mockery of the government's insistence on us all keeping a hawk eye on our carbon footprint - especially in the week environment secretary David Miliband launched the government's carbon calculator.

Good work, Kev. Keep it up.

Greenpeace was out in force at London City, Manchester, Edinburgh and airports this morning, offering passengers the chance to trade in their evil, planet-throttling domestic flight (boo! hiss!) for a cuddly train ride (aaaawww).

Good to see the complicated matter of carbon emissions tackled with such subtlety - Qatar Airways and US Airways, who just put in orders for Airbus's new, more fuel efficient A350, should hang their heads in shame. What good will that do?

Anyway, marauding around a terminal in fancy dress puts the environmental group in uneasy company - back in January EasyJet did the same thing to protest air passenger duty rise.

There will be inevitable disagreement about which protest was the more noble, but one thing is clear: propagandists everywhere are realising that there's no audience more captive than a check-in queue...

Below Brian Hordon expresses amazement at the growth predicted for British tourism spend - a total of 40.6% over the next five years.

But of course it isn't just us Brits who are demanding more travel. Research by the World Travel and Tourism Council puts global growth at 4.3% a year for the next decade.

Great news for the industry, and as the Times travel supplement argued on Saturday tourism can foster both economic development and cultural understanding. (The paper is a partner of this year's Responsible Tourism Awards.)

Unfortunately there are downsides. Even if we forget carbon emissions for a moment, the 'economic development' can come at the cost of local ecosystems, and the 'cultural understanding' at the cost of local heritage and tradition.

In the same Times supplement Fiona Sims complains that we too often travel to far-flung places only to ignore local cuisine in favour of imported European-style grub; and this week the BBC will screen a film on tourism's troubling environmental impact on Hawaii.

It's timely, then, that WTTC's Global Travel and Tourism Summit (Lisbon, 10 - 12 May) will take the problems of growth as its theme, asking:

Is it really possible for the industry to bring useful change to people's lives, to their communities, and to global society? Can we identify where this has been achieved - or is the industry stronger on rhetoric than reality?

There's further reading and a chance to discuss the issues on the summit's web channel.