Written evidence submitted by Tourism
Concern
TOURISM AND CLIMATE CHANGE
SUBMITTED BY TRICIA BARNETT, DIRECTOR, TOURISM
CONCERN
TO FLY
OR NOT
TO FLY?
Given the heightened awareness of the contribution
of flying to climate change, how should the ethical traveller
best manage their responsibilities to the planet? Holidays can,
if carefully managed, generate significant income for impoverished
destination countries. As such, tourism is actively promoted by
governments and international financial institutions as a means
of economic development. So what would be the consequences for
these countries if tourists decided that long-distance travel
is no longer an option? On the other hand, many destination countries
are already bearing the brunt of the impacts of climate change,
such as the rising sea levels threatening to engulf low-lying
island states such as the Maldives, and violent hurricanes that
rip through the Caribbean with increasing force and frequency.
These are ethical dilemmas that have not been much
in the public arena. Flying has featured heavily in the debate
on climate change, as has the fact that poor countries are facing
a problem not of their making. However, there has been minimal
discussion in the UK about the interplay between tourism, development
and global warming and how these should best be managed.
A FEW FACTS
Certain facts speak for themselves. Firstly,
in the long term, international tourism shows no signs of slowing
down, with China, India, Russia and other emerging economies becoming
major players. Three-quarters of British outbound tourists travel
by air. Since the 1960s, global air passenger traffic has risen
by nearly 9% per year. Air fares are around 42% cheaper today
than they were 10 years ago in real terms.
Air travel is currently responsible for emitting
700 million tonnes of carbon each year, and is growing at a rate
of five per cent annually. This amounts to about 3% of total global
emissions. Long-haul international flights cruising at high altitudes
add substantially to the problem. Aircraft pollutants released
into the high atmosphere have an enhanced greenhouse effect, and
aircraft emissions are thought to be at least twice as damaging
as ground level emissions. Short-haul flights are disproportionately
polluting because of the large amount of fuel they burn in order
to reach cruising height, followed almost immediately by a descent.
The airlines' claim that they are scapegoats
and that aviation represents a mere fraction of the problem. They
also claim to be developing new technologies to reduce their impact
on the environment. For example, British Airways aims to halve
its carbon emissions by 2050. But their reduction plans are largely
dependent on emissions-trading schemes, which are themselves problematic.
TAKING A
POSITION
Hard line campaigners argue that, with global
warming on the increase, flying to take a holiday is no longer
an option. At the other extreme are those whose position is often
embedded in their business as tour operators, who argue that we
should not just focus on flying when there is so much else that
we do which results in the emission of greenhouse gases. They
are more likely to suggest carbon offsetting flights as a way
of managing the problem. This position is supported by the UK
government through its aviation and climate change policies. They
acknowledge that travel and tourism contribute to climate change,
but at the same time support the expansion of the industry.
Somewhere in the middle are those who would like
to travel ethically and who support the rights of people living
in developing countries. They recognise that those people are
not responsible for global warming and that without alternative
livelihoods, their lives will be further embedded in poverty if
holidaymakers fail to arrive.
UNSUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS
Carbon offsetting was, for a while, considered
to be the way through this dilemma for the traveller. However,
whether carbon offsetting does anything more than making owners
of offsetting companies wealthy and appeasing our own guilt has
since been called into question. First, offsetting does not prevent
our flights from contributing towards global warming; it also
allows travellers to think that they don't need to reduce their
emissions at source. Funds raised through offsetting schemes are
not necessarily spent in the most meaningful and beneficial manner.
The consumer clearly has a role in reducing carbon emissions but
the imperative must also lie with national governments and international
bodies to take full responsibility by legislating and regulating
industry to effect the required systemic changes.
Our partner organisation in India, Equations, speaks
for many when it argues that for "fossil fuel companies and
airlines, offsets represent an opportunity to `greenwash' their
activities. Offset schemes tend to lull the customer into falsely
believing that human activity that directly exacerbates climate
change is effectively `neutralised,' with no impact on the climate.
So airline companies, which oppose aviation taxes and would never
advocate that people simply choose not to fly unnecessarily. Instead,
through carbon offset companies, they would rather present the
section of climate-conscious passengers with the option of flying
`free from concern' over the impact of their emissions. This shift
to what is essentially an unregulated and disputed form of eco-taxation
away from the company and onto the consumer has gained airline
companies an enormous amount of favourable but farcical publicity".
(Equations, March 2008).
Carbon trading is also questioned. Airline companies—like
other industries and economic sectors—are allocated a limit
for carbon emissions each year. If they go over that limit, they
will need to buy extra carbon credits from other sectors or companies
which will invest that money to improve their own carbon footprint.
Known as carbon or emissions trading, this mechanism is thought
by some to be the best incentive to finance and implement clean
technologies. The response from the South questions this. T. T.
Sreekumar from the National University of Singapore and co-founder
of Kerala Tourism Watch writes: "It was with great pain and
bafflement that the developing world received the news of the
European Union's decision to enforce carbon trading. The market
argument has been overstretched and it fails to address the issue
of social justice in any satisfactory manner. It helps legitimise
increased exploitation of southern energy sources by the North,
a strategy that clearly smacks of neo-colonial economic subjugation."
(Contours No.3 Oct-Nov 08). In addition, bio-fuels, first welcomed
as a possible alternative to fossil fuels, have become a traumatic
contributor to the rising costs of food, as land has been turned
into massive agri-businesses that feed no one and contribute to
the loss of bio-diversity. Neither carbon trading nor bio-fuels
are sustainable.
DEPENDENCY ON
TOURISM
Tourism Concern has always challenged the "monoculture"
approach to tourism growth that leads to a precarious over dependency
on what is a highly fickle industry. However, until more balanced
ways of bringing in revenue have been established, it's important
to hear what people living in the developing world have to say
when we make our decision to fly or not to fly.
Fei Tevi from the Pacific Conference of Churches
in Fiji recognises the fragility of small islands, particularly
low lying ones. The impacts will be disastrous on the islanders.
He is, however, also well aware of the fact that earnings from
tourism contribute substantially to GDP. The tourism industry's
World Travel and Tourism Council estimate that by 2018, tourism
will be worth 80% of GDP in Antigua and Barbuda, and account for
95% of all jobs. This will be the highest dependency on the planet.
The Caribbean is already the most tourism dependent region in
the world, constituting 31% of GDP. The transition to another
economic sector that would generate similar income returns to
tourism is something that Tevi thinks the bigger countries can
consider. A better strategy for the low-lying coral atoll countries
is to develop new policies that will lead to reduced emissions
in the destinations themselves. (Contours, Thailand, Oct-Nov 08).
Felix Finisterre of St. Lucia argues that, since
the removal of preferential trade tariffs for bananas—previously
St Lucia's main export crop—his Caribbean island would face
mass unemployment without tourism. Although tourism in St Lucia
is not typically characterised by fair wages and exemplary working
conditions, the consequences, if tourists stopped coming, would
be disastrous. Alternative livelihood options are extremely limited.
The island is non-competitive in manufacturing and export, even
for inter-island and regional trade.
What are the choices for countries such as St
Lucia? Not only does tourism create employment in both the formal
and informal economy, but it opens up opportunities for linkages
into other sectors, not least the environmental sector. Tourism
helps to conserve the environment and opens up new sites and attractions
for livelihoods. Tourism is the best guarantee of environmental
conservation—loss of the industry would result in over exploitation
of St Lucia's natural resources, including forests and fisheries,
as people search for alternative means of subsistence.
In particular, the British and European market
is critical to St Lucia, providing 30% of annual visitors. On
average, European visitors stay longer than their American counterparts,
thereby contributing more to the economy, Finisterre argues that
the loss to the tourism industry, should British and European
visitors decide not to travel so far because of global warming,
would result in the loss of vital government taxes and, to put
it simply, "social chaos".
A SUGGESTED WAY
FORWARD
Tourism Concern does not believe that to simply
stop flying is the solution, as this would destroy the livelihoods
of many people who depend upon tourism for an income. However,
we are committed to promoting a responsible and sustainable approach
both at home and while visiting other people's countries on our
holidays.
Governments should be doing so much more. They must
take urgent steps to devise and implement conventions, protocols
and resolutions to reduce climate change. International agreements
should include fuel taxes for aircraft, and governments must commit
to limiting aviation growth while investing in sustainable energy
technologies.
The tourism Industry lags behind many others
in recognising its responsibilities in relation to climate change
and the environment. It has an enormous carbon footprint. It consumes
huge quantities of water and energy and fails to manage its waste.
It must reduce its climate footprint and seek out and invest in
alternative, sustainable energy technologies. It has to invest
in a sustainable future.
National Destination Governments must recognise
the imperative of legislating to reduce energy and water consumption
in tourism establishments. They too must look to investing in
renewable energy and developing mitigation and adaptation projects.
Every organisation involved in tourism has a
responsibility to work towards change.
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Most of us can do more to cut our own personal
emissions—both at home and when we are away.
Tourism Concern supports people in destinations to
get a better deal from tourism. We have never suggested that we
should not travel. But we do have to do it better: forget weekend
trips to New York for shopping, or a long weekend to Dubai for
the fun of it! When we do go we should go for as long as can and
we should go less frequently. One big trip a year—maximum
if we are flying. Even better, if we want to travel far-a-field,
this would be one long-haul holiday every alternate year—maximum.
And, when we get there, we should treat it with respect and ensure
that our hosts feel pleased that we have come. We should all do
what we can to use public transport where possible, limit water
use and switch everything off in our room when we are not in it.
We all have the responsibility to do everything we can to balance
our presence there on an environmental front—including telling
the hotel manager how important the environment is to us and that
the little red button maintained permanently on their televisions,
really ought to be switched off.
| 
