There was a conference recently, in Madrid, organised by the World Tourism Organisation, entitled the first International Congress on Ethics and Tourism. This report shows that though there are a great many words and worthy statements about ethical tourism, little has actually been achieved, partly due to the rapid rate of growth. There are very few case studies of successes. The Code for Ethics has often been little more than a marketing ploy. A few interesting sections are highlighted below.
Ethical travel writer Catherine Mack went to Madrid for Vision to find out the tourism politicians take.
Ethics is a word I have always been encouraged to avoid when writing about sustainable tourism. It is one of those words which makes people nervous, having seen many company directors, tourist board executives and travel PRs turn a funny colour when you mention the E Word. Few even know of the existence of the World Tourism Organisation’s (WTO) Global Code of Ethics for Tourism, endorsed by the UN in 2001 and publicly available on the UN website (http://tinyurl.com/6c3sqvh.
Ten years have passed since then and yet last week saw the first ever International Congress on Ethics and Tourism, organised by UNWTO, in an attempt to get the E-message out there again. Or more likely, deal with the fact that ten years later most people in the tourism industry are still not prepared to incorporate ethics into the core of their business practices. Ten years of denial is a long time, so was a day and a half of presentations and debate going to convince those with the purse strings and policy documents to feel the fear and do it anyway?
Joan Mesquida, Secretary General for Tourism and Domestic Trade of Spain brought everyone quickly to the point at the opening ceremony, warning governments and ‘big operations’ that, in these hardened times “a race for figures to the dearth of quality will benefit nobody. More ethics mean more development”. Admitting that The Code of Ethics had, in the past, been accused of just being a marketing ploy, now was the time to “bring principles into practice”, adding that “People talk about Fairtrade, but shouldn’t we talk about Fair Tourism?”
Pedro Ortún, Director, DG Enterprise, European Commission was quick to point out the actions taken towards ethical developments within the Commission, such as the EDEN or European Destinations of Excellence awards which this year celebrates successful rehabilitations of former industrial facilities. Having seen the success of its Irish winner this year in situ, the Great Western Greenway, a walking and cycling trail following a disused railway line through some of County Mayo’s most stunning land and seascapes, I was able to recognise the importance of the EU promoting sustainable tourism projects of this calibre.
Ortún also promoted the Commission’s Calypso Project, a social tourism venture inspired by the Code of Ethics which aims to encourage and fund out of season tourism by making holidays more accessible for four specific groups of tourists: senior citizens, young people, disabled and low income. Set up in 2009 it also aims to strengthen the idea of European citizenship. It was at this point that I craved some feedback from people working at grassroots level to tell us whether these projects are proffering the desired results for hosts and guests alike.
Centre stage throughout much of the event was Taleb Rifai, Secretary General of UNWTO. As the generous and wise host of this event, he was clearly someone who never shies away from the Ethics word, and was keen to show that ethics in tourism had somehow lost their way over the last ten years, due perhaps to the phenomenal growth of the industry. For Rifai, the answer was simple: “It’s all about people, and if we do not keep that in mind and lose focus of what this is all about, this [travel] becomes a meaningless human activity”.
He invited delegates to “discuss the issues frankly and openly” in order to avoid us creating “irreversible damage”. Reminding us that “The development of tourism belongs to the people of a country” he encouraged representatives of the tourism industry to “assume the high moral grounds and give an example to other sectors on how we will build and forge a better and more promising world for the generations to come”. You can see my video of his speech on Youtube.
These inspiring words had us on the edge of our seats waiting for the ‘people’ to talk, but sadly the day continued with more high level dignitaries, academics and Ministers who, despite embracing the principles being discussed, gave few examples of actual change within the tourism industry over the last ten years.
Those leading the field in terms of actions speaking louder than words included Freddy Ehlers, Minister of Tourism of Ecuador who told us that young people have no faith in organisations like the UN, nor do they believe that democracy and justice exist in the world, with Ehlers brave enough to admit “I have seen that sometimes this is the case. There is a difference between what people say and what they do, and the problem is getting worse”. At this some people shifted nervously in their seats, but many more people cheered in support.
There are few Ministers of Tourism around the world who, like Ehlers, would admit that “Tourism pollutes. Nobody is quoting the figures on this and we need a White Paper on tourism’s environmental footprint”. Not letting human behaviour off the hook either, he added “The problem lies in human greed. Greed rules the world, and up until recently the European and US model was sold to us as the one to follow”.
Quick to show that his words were being acted upon, he announced that four days previously the President of Ecuador banned all casinos and gambling houses in Ecuador, and has also limited the consumption of alcohol at certain times of the day, both of which will have a big impact on tourism. And with 200 indigenous communities hosting tourists in Ecuador, he is intent on promoting tourism with a conscience (not words you hear during too many Ministerial speeches) concluding that “If we don’t change, we won’t change the world”.
Kathleen Speake, Executive Director of ECPAT International was also one to lay her ethical cards on the table. As head of this important global network of organisations and individuals working together for the elimination of child prostitution, child pornography and the trafficking of children for sexual purposes, she shocked us all with statistics such as the fact that over three million children are exploited by people who travel for sex tourism purposes. She highlighted the work of ECPAT whether it be providing shelter and counselling, lobbying local government for increased policing and arrests, or training hotels and other tourism organisations to be aware and act against this abhorrent side of tourism.
In addition, Speake was making the most of her visit to enlist many of Spain’s leading tourism companies to sign ECPAT’s Code of Conduct for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation in Travel and Tourism, an initiative funded by UNICEF and supported by the UNWTO. One of these companies is Spain’s Meliá Hotels International, whose Vice President, Sebastián Escarrer was brave enough to admit that “Whether we like it or not, our industry has this connection”.
The importance of accessibility, as part of social and responsible development in tourism, was highlighted by Jesús Hernández Galán, Director of Universal Accessibility, Fundación ONCE, who stressed that “To talk about accessibility is to talk about rights, but the rights of access are contravened in subtle ways…people don’t stop us from travelling, but bad design often prevents us. Good design capacitates – bad design decapacitates”.
He appealed to the industry to ensure that the whole tourism chain is made accessible, including websites, transport, hotels and activities and to create an ethos where all staff are trained to deal with people with disabilities and their carers. With no other organisation dealing with accessibility to this extent anywhere else in the world, and with 80 million disabled people in Europe alone, his message was loud and clear, that the industry was not only missing the point, but also the business opportunities. Again, as Rifai pointed out earlier, tourism must be about people.
“We have serious doubts about the effectiveness of some of the things we have talked about this morning” announced José Maria de Juan, Vice President, European Alliance of Responsible Tourism and Hospitality (EARTH). His target was micro projects, such as community businesses in South America, which are “incapable of working together” and yet all wanting a piece of the pie. He stressed that there was lack of continuity in funding of initiatives, meaning that many floundered before they had even got started properly. “Don’t fund projects and then just let them sink. Often the funding stops before people even know about them”.
Not surprisingly, Erika Harms, Executive Director of Global Sustainable Tourism Council, an organisation which seeks to introduce its criteria for Sustainable Tourism around the world, by building an international membership of global stakeholders in tourism, also stressed the need to “come together” with one international standard. Good words and well-timed but with, sadly, few concrete case studies for delegates to learn from.
In fact, lack of inspiring case studies and ‘results’ were what many delegates felt short changed on by the end of the Congress.Plenty of words, good feelings, and international communication. But surely ten years on was the time to show off some of the results.
Even a whole session on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) brought more words than actions. Hiran Cooray, Chairman of the Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA) said that “Ten years later nothing much has happened” because “there is nothing in the balance sheet to measure that [ethics]” and “Chief Executives won’t be rewarded for planting trees”. He also said that tourists are not willing to pay extra for ethical practices, which in a discussion about corporate responsibility, not tourist responsibility, seemed to be missing the point.
Norberto Latorre, President of the Hotel, Restaurant, Catering and Tourism Trade Gorup (IUF), a trade union man, added, “CSR cannot be left solely in the hands of private enterprise, as it needs to go further than ticking boxes and meeting legal requirements…It’s social dialogue which makes CSR credible”.
Representatives from leading tourism companies Thomas Cook Group and IBERIA were also given the stage to share CSR stories, with the former listing many areas of concern such as air emissions, water scarcity and land access, but choosing not to back up with any significant steps they have taken to combat these.
Berta Valverde, Publicity and Corporate Sponsorship Director of IBERIA talked about its extensive program Mano e Mano, responsible for transporting humanitarian aid around the world, offering international and national volunteering projects, as well as its transit of computers to those in need in association with IT sector leader Amadeus.
Taleb Rifai closed the event by stating that “There is nobody who is not here who should be here”. Sadly, however, most of the real “people” in tourism who Rifai was talking about during his opening address were unable to have a chance to be there, either through lack of funding or awareness, in order that their voices and stories could also be heard, shared and, ultimately, supported. For generations to come.
Now is the time to start planning for a new economy, not dependent on growth
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 23rd August 2011
How much of this is real? How much of the economic growth of the past 60 years? Of the wealth and comfort, the salaries and pensions which older people accept as normal, even necessary? How much of it is an illusion, created by levels of borrowing – financial and ecological – which cannot be sustained? Go to Ireland and you’ll see that even bricks and mortar are a mirage: the marvels of the new economy, built on debt, stand empty and worthless.
To sustain the illusion, we have inflicted more damage since 1950 to the planet’s living systems than we achieved in the preceding 100,000 years. The damage will last for centuries; the benefits might not see out the year. Ireland, again, points a withered finger at the future. Among other iniquities, the government forced a motorway through the Gabhra Valley, part of a site – the Hill of Tara complex – comparable in its importance to Stonehenge(1). It was both an act of wilful vandalism and a notice of intent: no consideration would impede the economic miracle. The road hadn’t opened before the miracle collapsed.
Once our needs had been met, continued economic growth did most people few favours. During the second half of the growth frenzy, unemployment rose, inequality rose, social mobility declined, the poor lost amenities (such as housing) while the rich enhanced theirs. In 2004, at the height of the longest boom the United Kingdom has ever experienced, the Nuffield Foundation published this extraordinary finding: “Rises in mental health problems seem to be associated with improvements in economic conditions.”(2)
Now, bar the shouting, it’s over. Last week the Wall Street consultant Nouriel Roubini, one of the few who predicted the financial crash, spelt out the fix we’re in(3). Governments cannot afford to bail out the banks again. Quantitative easing can no longer help, nor can currency depreciation. Italy and Spain will be forced, in effect, to default and Germany won’t pay out any more. The successful capitalist reached this striking conclusion. “Karl Marx, it seems, was partly right in arguing that globalisation, financial intermediation run amok, and redistribution of income and wealth from labour to capital could lead capitalism to self-destruct”(4).
Nor can the current economic system address the environmental crisis. Its advocates promised that economic growth and environmental damage could be decoupled: better technology and efficiency would allow us to use fewer resources even while increasing economic output. Nothing remotely like it has happened. In some cases there has been a decline in resource intensity, which means a lower use of materials per dollar of economic output but higher overall consumption. In some cases – such as iron ore, bauxite and cement – even this hasn’t happened: resource use per dollar has risen(5).
So far governments have responded to the renewed crisis of capitalism by frantically seeking to invoke the old magic again, to start the engine of creative destruction once more. The means to do so no longer exist. Even if they did, they would only delay and enlarge the underlying problems.
But now, in the wake of the English riots and faced with possible collapse, we are at last beginning to talk about the issues ignored while the illusion persisted: equality, exclusion, the feral rich and the discarded poor and, in WH Auden’s words, about “what the god had wrought / To please her son, the strong / Iron-hearted man-slaying Achilles / Who would not live long.”(6)
The most hopeful sign that politicians might now be prepared to ask the big questions was the presence, in Ed Miliband’s pile of holiday reading, of Professor Tim Jackson’s book Prosperity Without Growth(7). link It’s a revolutionary text, now two years old, whose time has come(8).
It points out that the financial crisis was caused not by isolated malpractice, but by the systematic deregulation of the banks by governments, in order to stimulate economic growth by issuing more debt. Growth and the need to encourage it is the problem, and in the rich world it no longer bears any relationship to prosperity.
Jackson accepts that material well-being is a crucial component of prosperity, and that growth is essential to the well-being of the poorest nations. But in countries like the UK, continued growth and the policies which promote it undermine prosperity, which he defines as freedom from adversity or affliction. This means, among other blessings, health, happiness, good relationships, strong communities, confidence about the future, a sense of meaning and purpose.
But how do you escape from growth without tanking the economy – and our prosperity? Under the current system, you can’t: when growth stops, it collapses. So Jackson has begun developing a macro-economic model which would allow economic output to be stabilised. He experiments with raising the ratio of investment to consumption, changing the nature and conditions of investment and shifting the balance from private to public spending, while staying within tight constraints on the use of resources. He finds that the redistribution of both income and employment (through shorter working hours) is essential to the project. So is re-regulation of the banks, enhanced taxation of resources and pollution, and measures to discourage manic consumption, such as tighter restrictions on advertising.
His system is not wholly different to today’s: people will still spend and save, companies will still produce goods and services, governments will still raise taxes and spend money. It requires more government intervention than we’re used to; but so does every option we face from now on, especially if we try to sustain the growth illusion. The results, though, are radically different: a stable, growthless economy which avoids both financial and ecological collapse.
From now on, as the old dream dies, nothing is straightforward. But at least we have the beginning of a plan.
2. The study was later published in the academic press: Stephan Collishaw, Barbara Maughan, Robert Goodman, and Andrew Pickles, November 2004. Time trends in adolescent well-being. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Volume 45, Issue 8, pages 1350–1362. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00335.x http://bit.ly/oa4c0M
Tourism Studies and the Social Sciences (Paperback)
by Andrew Holden
“… we talk of the tourism industry as being in the business of selling daydreams within a culture of consumerism, and of tourists fulfilling motivations and fantasies through participation in tourism…. “(Page2)
“….thinking of tourism in the context of contemporary consumer culture is the best way to understand it; as an extension of the commodification of life. Tourism can thus be interpreted as a form of consumerism, having similarities to buying a car or clothes.” (Page 51)
Consumerism describes the culture of spend, spend, spend – a trying to find your way to happiness mentality – even if you do not have money to spend. It is the belief that the more stuff you have, the happier you will be.
It is commonly described as “keeping up with the Jones’s.” The Jones’s are the people that have money than you, or you perceive that they have money and they have the stuff you want. You know the nice big house, or the more expensive car, the foreign holidays and the high priced clothing that you cannot afford.
In reality, can you ever keep up with the Joneses? Probably not. There will always be someone with a bigger house, more expensive car, more trips to destinations to brag about, and more expensive clothes.
If you let it, keeping up with the Jones’s can use all of your time and money to get more stuff, and have more expensive experiences.
However, it is hard to resist the power of consumerism. Every day, we are flooded with messages to spend, spend, and spend. Apparently the average American sees 3,000 ads and brands and products every day. Somewhat less in the UK – but still a lot for anyone who reads magazines or newspapers, watches TV or goes to the shops.
You begin to think that everyone drives big expensive cars. Everyone has weekend city breaks and several flights per year, whether on holidays or for work. Everyone, that is, but you. You may begin to think that everyone lives in big glamorously decorated homes, just like the people in adverts on TV, and jets off to their second home in Spain or a winter sun break in Thailand. You compare yourself and life to what you see on TV and somehow conclude that you are missing out and not living at the same level as most people. And if you don’t visit all those places, and see them for yourself, you are not a fully formed person, and certainly not a dynamic or interesting one.
Today the Jones’s do not just live next door, they live on the internet, where you can just about see anything that can make you feel not normal. There is so much stuff to want, and so many places that are sold as “must see before you die” destinations. Need to tick them off in order to keep up in the well-travelled stakes.
The people behind the ads for the trendy stuff, the glamorous destinations and comfortable airliners want to make money out of you, and not just you but your children too. In fact, they want to get to your children, so your children will pester you into all manner of purchased, including destinations like ski trips, trips to Disneyland, trips to watch football and other sporting fixtures, or the Olympics.
Some of these products being pushed by the endless advertising benefit you and you need them, and some you do not. You need loads of products, but perhaps not absolutely everything you might be persuaded to want. Occasional trips abroad are fine. Getting a new outfit every two weeks, the very latest purchase of techno gizmos, or five trips abroad per year looks a bit like manic consumption, and the triumph of hedonism over reality. Or a bit too much uncritical absorption of adverts and consumer hype. Some of the unnecessary things that the adverts persuade you to buy limit what you have to give and save for the benefit of your family now and in the future.
Many marketers use a selling strategy that focuses on a person’s insecurities. They appeal to the way other people will see you, and how they will judge you. They make you feel you are being left behind in the consumption race, and we have to have it all, and we have to have it now – because we’re worth it.
That’s why advertisements are so powerful. They tap into your fears, especially the fear of being judged inferior to others. Imagine not being able to hold your own in a conversation about the cost and the originality of your summer holiday destination.
To reduce advertising pressure, we need to take some time to really look and view all the adverts we see, including the holiday and flight ads. By taking the time to really view and question them, we can see how they are trying to manipulate us – and get us to part with our money.
It would seem that being aware of marketers’ manipulative messages would strengthen our ability to just say no. The problem is that you and thousands or millions of other people are seeing the same spend, fly, spend, fly messages over and over and over again. So much so that they appear to define what is normal, and desirable. However seductive, exciting, adventurous or exotic the holiday offering is, we are probably just being manipulated into parting with our hard earned cash for a standard consumption package – in the same way we are sold everything else.
see also
BBC World Service
Consumerism:
In this special series of programmes on consumerism, the BBC World Service travels the world to uncover how we spend, what we spend and why we spend. Is it true that we now equate personal happiness with material possessions? And, if so, who is responsible for promoting this way of thinking?
The Psychology of Consumerism compares consumer trends around the globe and explains what they can tell us about the mindsets of different countries – taking an in-depth look into the various issues, we hear about how consumerism can become a political statement, how new shoppers cope with a developing economy, and what affect it has had on the divide between rich and poor.
Sell, Sell, Sell finds out what goes into making a successful marketing campaign. How do agencies manipulate the public in order to convince them what to buy and why?
Each year billions of pounds are spent on advertising in an attempt to influence our decisions and to persuade us to spend more.
In a series of discussion programmes, the BBC talks to a wealth of experts including advertising agencies, market researchers, designers and psychologists from all around the world – finding out why advertising is such a massive global business.
The BBC World Service travels to Japan, Germany, India and Botswana and discovers that what you buy is increasingly defining who you are or who you would like to be. But what drives us to want to consume and does it make us any more fulfilled?
Our consumption of air travel is just one part of the whole consumption-focused way in which we now live. Buying a flight or a holiday is just another consumption choice, with the money being used for that rather than some other purchase. Delightful as flying is, and however much we love our holidays, the unfortunate fact remains that air travel is a particularly effective way in which to cause a large amount of carbon to be produced on your behalf, in a short time. With that in mind:
25.3.2011 (Ethical Consumerism)
One of the tenets of reducing our impact in the environment is to ‘Reduce, reuse, recycle’ – so we should first try and reduce the amount we consume, then reuse things as much as possible, and finally recycle everything we can.
With the market share of Fairtrade products growing ever larger, and ethical consumerism as a whole on the rise, it would appear more and more people are embracing the alternatives to conventionally produced products. While this is of course a good thing, the most ethical choice we can make as a consumer, is not to consume at all. When I say ‘at all’, I mean that we should consider whether or not we truly need to buy the product in the first place – buying ethical goods and services is great, but only buying essential goods and services is better.
Ultimately, if we are to create a sustainable future for our societies, by reducing the negative impact on the environment, people and animals, we need to change the way we consume. This behavioural shift should not just be from unethical to ethical, but from thoughtless, needless consumption, to thoughtful consumption of only those goods and services we require.
So let’s reduce our consumption, reuse whatever we can, and recycle where possible…and when we do need to buy something, make sure it’s as ethical as possible.
(It’s a long way off yet, but an event worth participating in, and promoting, is the Buy Nothing Day, which this year takes place on the 26th November)
At present the rate of consumption is increasing at an alarming rate, that is, todaypeople often wish to increase their buying and spending power and buy more products so they can keep up with others. Because of this huge, continuosly increasing consumer demand, the planet itself has been out of balance for many years , and this imbalance is now showing itself in the form of climate change. Climate change and its resulting effects will continue to worsen and is the first sign of what is expected to become an environmental disaster around the year 2025 (Mia , 2007). There are two main effects of consumerism on the environment namely: environmental degradation and pollution.
….
In conclusion , environmental degradation and pollution are the two main effects of consumerism on the environment .Our high rate of consumption and the rapid growth in production of goods and materialism result in environmental devastation. It is important that the planet’s worsening environmental crisis is taken seriously and action is taken to make adequate changes. Special attention should be paid to the demand for natural resources generated by unsustainable consumption and making the required lifestyle change to reduce global pollution.
27 August 2005 (Scotsman) Yes, it is old. But worth reading ….
By JENNY HJUL
Summer, in the official sense, is over in Scotland, most of the schools have gone back and even the parliament will be opening its shutters next week, after a 16 (or thereabouts) week break.
All that we have left are the traces of our tans and the tales, or perhaps I should say fables, to trade at the water cooler. It used to be called postcard-speak, the brief but heavily embellished précis of the summer holiday: “The sun’s shining, the sea is blue, the beaches are white and empty, the locals are friendly.”
No-one would doubt your word because a) until quite recently it was possible that no-one you knew had been where you had been, and b) being on holiday was exotic enough in itself, details were irrelevant.
Now, of course, we’re all away all the time and to truly impress our friends we must try much harder. There is no point in saying, “Oh, we went to France”. Everyone can go to France. What you have to say is, “Oh, we stayed with our friends … in France”, which immediately sets you apart a bit as someone who not only travels abroad but knows folk there.
Even better is, “Oh, we were in our house … in France, in the south actually”. If said insouciantly this will irritate people. If you like, you could add, “We really bought it for the winter”, which suggests you are not tied to a job and, therefore, are of independent means.
But if you can’t afford to dabble in the French property market there are other ways to invoke envy in your friends.
Pools, for instance. When we returned from our annual jaunt (to France, as it happens, with friends) I bumped into a neighbour. “You look brown,” she said and I beamed and seized my cue.
“We were in the pool every day … you should see my nut-coloured children.” Soon she would and there’d be no escaping the fact that we had enjoyed unfettered access to a private swimming pool for a fortnight.
I tried this one out on another friend, but she wasn’t listening. She was complaining about the “daily” who did the laundry at her holiday house. If you have a daily on holiday you will definitely also have a pool and probably a boat, too. There is a sliding scale of superiority with pools, as with everything.
The other day I bumped into my Canadian friend, who’d been home for the summer. I asked her the obvious.
“Yeah, it was great,” she said nonchalantly. “The girls swam in the lake every day, dived off the pier, caught fish, which we barbecued on the beach, hung out with their cousins, water-skied, rode the rapids, you know, that kind of thing.”
“Yes,” I wailed, I knew. They had re-enacted Swallows and Amazons with a couple of scenes of Deliverance thrown in. Exciting or what?
Before I had a chance to recover, one of my daughters received a postcard from Australia. “We’ve been swimming with whales and snorkelling on the Barrier Reef,” wrote her friend, who is too young for postcard-speak and so, I had to conclude miserably, was telling it as it was.
The card showed an aerial view of Sydney harbour dotted with the tiny white triangles of hundreds of sailing boats. They had almost certainly been sailing, then.
“Can we go to Australia instead of France next year,” the daughter asked simply, as if she were requesting pizza instead of pasta for supper.
I was about to launch into the “you are so spoilt” lecture when the phone rang. It was her godparents who had recently arrived back from their log cabin in the Smoky Mountains.
We wanted to hear about the elk-spotting, the chipmunks, the red wolves and the high bear density. It was vicarious long-haul one-upmanship: even if we hadn’t been to the Smoky Mountains we were very close to people who had.
Later, though, I began to worry seriously about the indigenous tourist industry. How could our flora and fauna compete with an International Biosphere Reserve? How could our skies ever be so glossy, our suns so warm, or our environment so abundant?
Then I came across a family who had been to Harris, and then another lot who had been to Mull. Their tans were deep, their children freckled and content, and their bank accounts healthy. The weather had been “brilliant” and the beaches deserted. These holidays were, they sighed, the best they could remember.
How annoying is that, a wonderful summer and no second mortgage to come home to. A holiday so frugal (yet fun-filled) that already they have booked and paid for the next one, which will be both extravagant and indulgent – “Just Eriskay this time but we’re off to Whistler in spring”.
One mother told me at the start of this year that she had organised her family’s trips 12 months ahead: Easter in Venice, May bank holiday at Euro Disney, mid summer in the west country, October in Crete, and the following February in Courchevel.
What, I murmured, not going anywhere at Christmas?
New report says we must embrace a basic future to survive
By Jonathan Owen
Ditch the dog; throw away (sorry, recycle) those takeaway menus; bin bottled water; get rid of that gas-guzzling car and forget flying to far-flung places. These are just some of the sacrifices we in the West will need to make if we are to survive climate change.
The stark warning comes from the renowned Worldwatch Institute, a Washington-based organisation regarded as the world’s pre-eminent environmental think tank.
Its State of the World 2010report published this week outlines a blueprint for changing our entire way of life. “Preventing the collapse of human civilisation requires nothing less than a wholesale transformation of dominant cultural patterns. This transformation would reject consumerism… and establish in its place a new cultural framework centred on sustainability,” states the report.
“Habits that are firmly set – from where people live to what they eat – will all need to be altered and in many cases simplified or minimised… From Earth’s perspective, the American or even the European way of life is simply not viable.”
Nobel prize winner and microfinance expert Muhammad Yunus, writing in the foreword, describes the report as calling for “one of the greatest cultural shifts imaginable: from cultures of consumerism to cultures of sustainability”.
Almost seven billion people are demanding ever greater quantities of material resources, decimating the world’s richest ecosystems, and dumping billions of tons of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere.
And any actions taken by governments, or scientific advances to deal with climate change, are doomed to failure unless individuals get back to a basic way of life, concludes the report – which recommends things like borrowing books and toys from libraries instead of buying them, choosing public transport over the car, and growing food in community gardens. In addition, all products should be designed to last a lifetime and be completely recyclable.
A seismic shift in thinking is needed, according to senior researcher Erik Assadourian, project director of the report: “Making policy and technology changes while keeping cultures centred on consumerism and growth can only go so far. To thrive long into the future, human societies must shift their cultures so sustainability becomes the norm.”
But the report’s findings were attacked last night by Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. “Let’s face it, by 2050, the combined population of China and India alone will have grown to three billion. By then, most Chinese and Indians will have adopted an urban lifestyle. This… makes demands for radical curbs in consumerism and CO2 emissions utterly unrealistic.”
People need to be persuaded of the benefits of tackling climate change, rather than be presented with a “defeatist and doomsday scenario”, according to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). “Questions around consumption are not so much about the rate of it, but the fact that the full environmental impacts are not yet fully reflected in what is consumed… until environmental impacts are fully factored in, we need behaviours and/or production methods to change,” said a DECC spokes-man.
Consumer spending on “green” goods from Fairtrade food to eco-friendly travel grew by almost a fifth over two years despite the economic downturn, figures reveal today.
The ethical market in the UK was worth £43.2bn in 2009 compared with £36.5bn two years earlier – an increase of 18% – according to the Co-operative Bank’s annual Ethical Consumerism Report.
The annual report has been compiled since 1999 and analyses sales data for sectors including food, household goods, travel and ethical finance.
Spending on eco-travel and transport has motored by 23 % from £2.2bn to £2.7bn.
Ethical Traveler’s annual list of the world’s best ethical destinations in the developing world, ranks Argentina, Chile, Lithuania and Poland in the top ten for the second year running.
The magazine, which focuses on how travellers can enjoy exploring without having an impact on their environment, [sic] said that it hoped the best of the best list would inspire travels and shed light on the concerns that countries face trying to balance best practices with challenging economic realities.
To compile the list, it conducted a study of developing nations from around the world, benchmarking each using categories such as Environmental Protection, Social Welfare, and Human Rights which are taken from third party sources and its own research.
This year, six new destinations made their way onto the list – Barbados, Costa Rica, Dominica, Latvia, Palau and Uruguay, along with the four countries who were featured in the 2009/2010 edition.
For the second year running, Ethical Traveler omitted Asian countries from the list, criticising the region’s poor human rights record and lack of a strong environmental policy.
Unlike last year when South Africa, Ghana, Namibia and the Seychelles were judged to be in the world’s top ten, no African countries were included in this issue, with the magazine saying that this was “because of serious violations to the basic human rights of their citizens”.
Even South Africa, riding on a wave of tourism goodwill from the World Cup, failed to secure a place because of the eviction of vulnerable people from their houses and an increase in sex trafficking.
Suriname, meanwhile, was removed after the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination urged the country to ensure legal acknowledgement of the collective rights of its indigenous peoples, while Belize was dropped due to government seizure of land, high profile corruption and emerging child sex tourism.
While admitting that none of the countries on its new list is perfect (including Barbados and Dominica where homosexuality is criminalised), Ethical Traveler hopes that travelers will use the list when planning their 2011 journeys.
“By visiting the countries mentioned here, we ‘vote with our wings’,” said the editorial, “sending a signal that travelers are aware of where their money is going, and willing to support nations that care about the environment, human rights, and the global community.”
The Developing World’s 10 Best Ethical Destinations
Argentina *
Barbados
Chile *
Costa Rica
Dominica
Latvia
Lithuania *
Palau
Poland *
Uruguay
[Admittedly, some of these destinations are not so far from the USA, as from Europe]
Ethical Traveler is a nonprofit organization, founded to &lquot;empower travelers to change the world.&rquot; We seek to use the economic clout of tourism to protect human rights and the environment.
According to the World Tourism Organisation ( http://unwto.org/en ) currently around 800 – 900 million people travelled internationally each year, and the figures are rising. International tourism (excluding domestic tourism)is worth around US$ 500 billion and growing despite a world recession.
Unregulated tourism development is continuing to devastate environments, degrade cultures and destroy traditional livelihoods.
*[cf. article below says the global airline industry was worth$429.9 billion in 2007].
———-
However another estimate is that:
Global tourism worth US$ 8 trillion in 2008: WTTC
6.3.2008 AFP
BERLIN – GLOBAL tourism is expected to be worth almost eight trillion dollars (5.2 trillion euros) this year, up 3%, as the economic outlook dims, World Travel and Tourism Council said on Thursday.
In 2007, tourism spending grew 3.9% but this year, US economic problems, high fuel prices and concern about climate change could temper growth, the WTTC said in a study presented at the Berlin tourism fair.
At the same time, tourism, which is widely believed to be the world’s largest single industry, ‘is expected to generate close to eight trillion dollars in 2008, rising to approximately 15 trillion dollars over the next 10 years,’ the WTTC said.
‘Continued strong expansion in emerging countries – both as tourism destinations and as an increasing source of international visitors – means that the industry’s prospects remain bright into the medium-term,’ WTTC president Jean-Claude Baumgarten said in a statement.
Chinese tourists were forecast to exceed Japanese and Germans this year to move into second spot behind citizens of the United States, the council said.
‘Even in countries where economic growth slows, there is likely to be a switch from international to domestic travel rather than a contraction in demand,’ it added.
The tourism sector, which employs around 240 million people worldwide, should create another 6 million jobs this year.
By 2018, tourism spending is expected to grow by an average annual rate of 4.4%, the WTTC said.
In economic terms, the WTTC anticipates that tourism will have a global value of US$ 10.8 trillion by 2018, almost double its present worth.
The UN’s World Tourism Organisation reckons that, by 2020, the number of travelling tourists will approach 1.6 billion, double the number in 2008.
Those directly employed by tourism worldwide will rise from 238 million in 2008 to 296 million, or one in every 10.8 jobs, by 2018.
The USA will build 720,000 new hotel rooms over the next ten years, and a further 432,000 will be built in Asia over the same period.
By 2018, tourism is projected by the WTTC to be worth 80% of the GDP of Antigua and Barbuda, with 95% of all jobs on the two islands expected to be related in some way to tourism – the highest dependency on the planet.
Yet the WTTC predicates these figures on the price of oil staying at around US$ 130 a barrel – previous, higher figures were based on US$ 103 a barrel.
The director of Tourism Concern feels that the consequences of unabated tourism will be grim, from the point of view of damage to local society and economy of the areas being developed for tourism.
Despite the WTTC projections, most observers argue that travel can’t continue in its post-war vein. ‘International arrivals can’t grow at the same rate, simply because, in the long term, the price of flying will go up with the cost of fuel,’ says Justin Francis, managing director of responsibletravel.com. ‘In effect, we will wind the clock back 20 years to the days before cheap flights, when we all took one long summer break and perhaps one other holiday.
A spokesperson for ABTA said ‘The £15 return flight to Milan is unsustainable – they can still do it for now with clever marketing, but its days are numbered”
“‘Travel per se is good. Some things, such as massive fuel consumption if the world is running out of oil, aren’t good. These two things don’t have to be linked. “
There’s a widespread acceptance within the tourism industry that whichever direction aviation goes, the nature of tourism is going to change. ‘The growth of tourism has been fuelled by increasing prosperity, longer holidays and cheap fuel.
The general consensus is that the responsible tourism sector will benefit from our changing travelling habits
And yet, at the heart of responsible, or indeed, any form of travel, lies a quandary. Tourism can provide huge benefits for local economies, particularly in developing nations; flying may be part of the problem of climate change but to cut it out – either on moral grounds or because high fuel prices make it unaffordable for the majority – would have hugely negative impacts on those communities. Can this ever be resolved?
Tourism Concern’s director, Tricia Barnett. “We need to find a middle path. We just have to find better ways of taking our holidays – not going to Dubai for three days or New York for shopping when the pound is strong against the dollar”. This could potentially pose a long-term threat to tourism with a conscience. “There’s a chance that the whole responsible tourism sector could be derailed if the prevailing view is that the most important thing to do is to stop flying,” says Francis. 2I suspect it’s going to be an everlasting sticking point.”
“Does the good for local communities and job creation and local environments that can come from tourism be outweighed by the carbon cost of travelling there?”
And do we care? Most evidence from major opinion polls suggests we talk a good game about climate change but can’t kick our kerosene habit. ‘Ask anyone if they care about climate change or don’t want their holiday to mess up a destination and of course they’ll say yes,’ says ABTA’s Tipton. ‘But when push comes to shove, we find people will always vote for a holiday abroad over a soggy break in the UK.’
The emergence of China and India as major international tourism players, as with their economies in general, appears, on the face of it, to present huge challenges for global travel. Does the capacity exist for aircraft and fuels, and can the world’s coastlines and beautiful places cope with what could amount to millions more visitors?
According to the Pacific Asia Travel Association, tourism in that region is expected to soar, with nearly 500 million visitors arriving by 2010, generating US$ 4.6 trillion in revenue.
According to the WTTC, China is set to provide more than 100 million visitors for other destinations by 2018, as well as employing 98 million people in its internal tourism industry.
China’s tourism sector is projected to grow by an average of 8.8 per cent a year for each of the next ten years and be worth US$2.1trillion by 2018.
While huge changes may take place in the nature of holidays, the number of British tourists will remain broadly static, estimated at 46 million holidays a year into the medium term, according to ABTA.
———-
see also
The Global Airline Industry will reach a value of $711 billion in 2012, forecasts New Report
Report Buyer, the online destination for business intelligence for major industry sectors, has added a new report which offers guidance to the global airlines industry.
The report, &lquot;Airlines: Global Industry Guide – Transport and Logistics&rquot; ……..includes detailed data on market size and segmentation, textual examinations of key trends and competitive landscape, and profiles of the leading companies, providing expert analysis on a global, regional and country basis.
Key information in the report includes:
• The global airlines industry grew by 11.3% in 2007 to reach a value of $429.9 billion
• In 2012 the industry is forecast to have a value of $711 billion, an increase of 65.4% since 2007
• The industry grew by 5.6% in 2007 to reach a volume of 2,076 million passengers
• In 2012 the industry is forecast to have a volume of 2,362 million passengers, an increase of 13.7% since 2007
• The domestic segment dominated in the global airline industry and accounted for 1.4 billion passengers in 2007, equivalent to 66.5% of the industry’s overall volume
• The Americas region is the largest airline industry in the world accounting for 51.1% of the global industry’s value
George Marshall, the author of the Climate Change Denial website, is amazed – as are so many of us – by the schizophrenic nature of our society. This is frequently manifested by utterly conflicting messages being advertised beside each other.
As noted in my posting before last (‘Up in Lights") it is the juxtapositions of images and messages that are often most enlightening about our mass confusion and denial – I call them juxtaphotisions. Here are three crackers that really require little additional comment.
These two posters were sitting alongside each other outside Bristol Parkway station in June (Many thanks to Phil Insall of Sustrans for sending me this. Click on the photo to see it in full detail). It reminds me of that famous depression era photograph of unemployed black people queuing for soup under the poster of a smug white family in a car and the caption "there’s no way like the American Way).
I have a particular loathing for this Ford Galaxy poster in any context – how pathetic that kids are plugged into video monitors whilst the countryside rolls by outside. Could someone please subvert this poster and paste images of countryside onto the tv screens to highlight the full irony?
Next: magazine racks in which different worldviews and versions of reality come into direct and vivid contrast. (This is from a magazine stall in Mid Wales earlier this year and nicely contrasts an apocalyptic image from a climate change special issue of Geographic with adjacent magazines that droolingly promote high carbon living (click on the photo to see more detail). In this case I find the different images of drought and water particularly striking – the world can bake whilst the rich bathe in their penthouse pools (echos of Solyent Green).
Information about climate change exists in our society as little oases of truth surrounded by a vast sea of lifestyle marketing and counter messaging. Is it any surprise that it is so hard to develop and then maintain a belief in this issue? These magazines present climate change as just another lifestyle and consumption choice, and, when presented like this, is it any surprise which version of reality people choose ? Be honest, which version of reality would you prefer to live in?
Finally- one I’ve posted before, but it’s so good that it can stand a repeat. It’s from The Guardian website and illustrates the deep confusion of the liberal media. Normally they keep issues compartmentalised- climate disaster on the environmental pages, electronic gadgets on the lifestyle pages, luxury travel in the travel supplement (and where more apt for a denial break than Dubai?) and economic growth on the business pages. But ads, driven solely by the need to grab attention, have little time for such pleasantries.
We see so many of these juxtapositions in our daily lives that we take them for granted. We need to have them taken out of context to see their dissonance clearly. Art often selects images from the wider world and, by isolating them in a neutral gallery space, creates new meaning and interpretations. If I was an installation artist, I would see this as a very rich seam of inspiration.
PLEASE SEND ME YOUR OWN IMAGES OF BIZARRE JUXTAPOSITIONS TO GEORGE (-AT-) COINET>ORG>UK WHEN I HAVE A GOOD SET I WILL POST UP A NEW ITEM
Obsession with economic growth and the greed of financial speculators are destroying efforts to conserve the world’s diminishing resources.
British and French speakers from radically different backgrounds, and with sharply contrasting styles, found themselves singing an unlikely political duet at the Lyon environment forum. Big business, they said, must be stopped from “asset stripping” a failing planet.
Andrews Simms, the policy director of the New Economics Foundation, said the “oil-fired” obsession with growth amounted to “treating the biosphere like a business in liquidation”.
Eva Joly, a former French investigating magistrate who once specialised in uncovering corruption in big business, accused hedge funds and off-shore financial havens of encouraging “destructive speculation in hard-pressed resources” including oil, water and land.
The flamboyant Mr Simms amused a mostly French audience at the Lyon Sustainable Planet Forum by illustrating his talk with lurid metaphors.
“A hamster doubles in size each week until about six weeks old, then slows,” he said. “If it didn’t, on its first birthday you would be facing a nine billion tonne hamster that could eat in a day all the corn produced in the world in a year.”
So much, he suggested, for the argument that economic growth, consuming ever larger amounts of finite resources, was the “natural” condition of humanity.
He was joined in a debate on how to preserve the world’s resources by Ms Joly, who first came to France as a Norwegian au pair. She went on to become a feared judicial investigator and then an MEP. She is regarded as the likely candidate of the French environment movement in the next presidential election in 2012.
Compared to Mr Simms, Ms Joly’s style was dry and factual: still more magisterial than political. She said that there was an often neglected new threat to third world resources from the “constant appetite of hedge-funds for new forms of profitable speculation”. Now that the bubble in the property market in the developed world had collapsed, she said, speculators were turning to natural resources and concealing parts of their profits in off-shore accounts.
Mr Simms made a broader argument. He said the world could no longer afford to pursue an economic model based entirely on competition and growth. Mankind must break the “vicious cycle” which assumed that greater wealth and consumption always equalled greater happiness. We would have to seek alternative approaches, based on principles of “equilibrium” – such as “cooperation” and “symbiosis – which were as much present in nature as raw competition.
“If lucky, he said, “we have we 75 months, until the end of 2016, before the accumulation and concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere make it more rather than less likely that global average surface temperatures will rise 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels – critically this is the level around which climate-driven environmental dominoes fall unpredictably.”
And yet, the world was hesitating to save itself, he said. “We have submitted control over our own environmental destiny to a set of economic ideas that parade as if they were unquestionable, natural laws.”
Can the world live with the pace of economic growth? Time to find out
Michael McCarthy reports from the Sustainable Planet Forum in Lyons
It used to be the biggest question, but now it seems to be the forgotten question of the environment movement: can economic growth continue indefinitely? And this weekend it’s going to be brought back into the spotlight at a major international gathering co-sponsored by The Independent.
For three days from today, politicians, environmentalists, writers and thinkers from Britain, France and Italy will gather in the French city of Lyon to debate the idea of “A Sustainable Planet”. Sustainability: that’s the forgotten issue which until a decade ago was the green movement’s major concern. Can we provide for our needs now, in the present generation, without ruining the prospects of the generations of the future?
It’s absolutely central, yet in recent years environmental campaigners seem to have become entirely preoccupied with global warming, to the extent that the environment movement has more or less morphed into the climate change movement.
This is perfectly understandable, as the climate threat is a terminal one. But it does mean that some other vital green issues have been shifted into the background, such as the worldwide threats to wildlife, and the question of sustainability and sustainable development, which ultimately is concerned with economic growth.
Economists may think of growth as endless, but the fact is that the Earth is finite, and sooner or later, as the human population soars towards nine billion, limits will be reached.
In fact, in some areas, such as the exploitation of fish stocks, they have been reached already. Can we go on like this? In the Sustainable Planet Forum, which has been organised by the The Independent, the French newspaper Libération and the Italian daily La Repubblica, we will be examining the proposition in depth with more than 150 participants in three days of debates, opinion and exchanges.
French speakers known in Britain include the openly gay mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delanoë, who beat Boris Johnson to the idea of free bikes in London, and will speak about cities facing up to the environmental challenge, Jack Lang, the former culture minister, who will debate the idea of “Who benefits from creation?”, and Yann Arthus-Bertrand, the photographer who, in recent years, through his aerial photographs of threatened landscapes, has become France’s best-known environmental champion, a sort of cross between David Attenborough and Jonathon Porritt.
Eight of Britain’s leading environmental thinkers will be taking part: Caroline Lucas, leader of the Green Party and Britain’s first Green MP; Porritt, who until last year was chairman of the Government’s green advisers, the Sustainable Development Commission; Lord Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, the lobby group for organic agriculture and food; Tom Burke, the Government’s green adviser; Tony Juniper, the leading green writer and campaigner; Andrew Simms, the policy director of think-tank the New Economics Foundation; Peter Ainsworth, the former Tory shadow environment secretary; and Myles Allen, leading climate scientist at the University of Oxford.
These individuals have vast experience of environmental campaigning: three of them are former directors of Friends of the Earth (Burke, Porritt and, most recently, Juniper), while one (Lord Melchett) is a former director of Greenpeace. All of them are passionately concerned with the idea of “A Sustainable Planet” but they will all highlight different aspects of it.
Porritt’s attack on the belief in growth is particularly acerbic. He will tell the conference: “The all-pervading disconnect from the physical reality of what is going on in the world becomes more and more surreal. Cotton prices hit a 15-year high. Emissions of greenhouse gases continue on their relentless upward trajectory. The price of wheat soars as crops are consumed by fires in Russia or devastating floods in Pakistan. Oil prices edge higher as more and more business leaders warn of the growing risks of ‘peak oil’. Fisheries around the world report declining catches. Water scarcity affects the lives of hundreds of millions. And the competition for land and access to raw materials intensifies as China goes on a buying spree in Africa, South East Asia and South America.”
Porritt also challenges other environmental and social campaigners, saying: “Millions of environmental campaigners seriously believe that we can mitigate climate change, slow the loss of threatened species and habitats, manage chronic water and resource shortages, and put an end to over-fishing and continuing soil erosion, whilst sticking with pretty much the same kind of economic growth that brought these natural systems to the edge of collapse in the first place. In all honesty, they’re mad.”
Juniper will be saying that we have to work with business, but a great deal needs to be done to make business “think ecologically”, and Ainsworth will be giving a practical politician’s view and saying that growth cannot be discarded, as it is what too many people want, but we have to find was of mitigating its effects.
In three other illuminating talks, Burke will be arguing that we do not need nuclear power to fight global warming, Lord Melchett that there is no future for GMOs, and Dr Allen that we need less government in the battle for the climate (Dr Allen’s contention is that the way to solve the problem is to make carbon capture and disposal mandatory as a condition of mining or importing fossil fuels – rather than endless government initiatives).
The British green movement is thus coming together to address once more the somewhat forgotten issue of sustainability, and we consider these contributions so significant that we will be publishing them in full in a special supplement to The Independent next Wednesday. In the meantime, we will be reporting from Lyon on the three days of environmental debate, exchanges, and, as the French like to say, “engagement”.
Michael McCarthy
see also
Leading article: Answers needed at Lyon conference
24.9.2010 (Independent)
There are are still large sections of the general population determined to stick their heads in the sand rather than confront the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is not some vague hypothesis but a grim present reality. But the world’s leading scientists are convinced. So much so that, in many ways, concern for the environment has largely become concern about climate change. In one sense this is quite right, for the tipping point to avert disaster is coming rapidly upon us, if indeed it is not already here. There is no more urgent issue for action, international, national and local.
But this apocalyptic preoccupation has a downside. It has displaced debate on other issues about how we best live on this planet with a lighter footprint, about how we provide for the needs of today without storing up an ever-accumulating bill to be paid by our children and grandchildren.
A decade ago, the big ecological issue was how we can live sustainably. Today it has become the great forgotten question.
To bring it back into the spotlight The Independent, along with our French and Italian counterparts, the newspapers Libération and La Repubblica, is sponsoring a three-day brainstorm which begins in Lyon today. It brings together politicians, environmental scientists and heads of business from across Europe to debate the present and future of our planet.
Some of the conversations that will take place are philosophical. Are there any universal values? Should we stop the rich from getting richer? Does religion make us better environmentalists? But others are very specific. Can we do without nuclear power or genetically modified foods? Is there a threat to our drinking water? How can we improve the carbon footprint of towns?
Other debates will question the roles and special interests of particular social and geographical sectors. How can businesses be more environmentally friendly? Is corporate social responsibility a sham? Can we find well-being at work? What future for retired people? How can we reconcile the social and environmental interests of the rich and poor worlds? Will the West’s looming age of austerity be good or bad for the environment? Is economic growth the answer or the problem?
The solutions on offer may not be simple. Some may even be mutually contradictory. But declining to face up to questions of competing rights and priorities would lead us down a road to oblivion. That is why we will be reporting in detail on the outcomes of the Lyon discussions in the days to come.