Sustainable Development in a Changing Climate - International Development Committee Contents


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.





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 3 June 2009