I agree with much of this post, and certainly with the sentiment. But I couldn't help but find one hitch with this rosy picture: say eco-turism does flourish and grow to an extent that it really can protect huge areas of wilderness. Then what about the environmental costs of getting those tourists in and out of those areas. We all know how polluting and CO2 emitting air planes are...

Seems like the last thing we need is even more people flying. Though you could argue that people will fly anyway, might as well have them fly to see a beautiful and protected forest.

Thoughts?

Diana

Great idea d.  Gore could haul out the lockbox slogan, this time for CO 2 sequestration.

My wacky Prairie National Park idea might just be more understandable as a storage site for sequesterd CO 2.

And of course tourism could add to the whole thing as well as the wind power idea out on the prairie park.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I hope so. Forgive me for being such a skeptic.

I forgot to mention anything about the carbon trading idea. I find that one fascinating. Once again, it runs the risk of being highjacked and used as a tool to make it seem like something is being done when the reality is the opposite (or like in Europe, not being used to its potential, although I do not fully grasp what happened with their cap and trade system).

However, if done correctly, this idea could address the issue of undeveloped countries saying, "Hey, you had to log your forests and mine your mountains to become the rich power you are today. Now you want to tell us we can't do what you already did?"

If it worked, these countries could benefit from their "underdevelopment" in terms of nature and wilderness by using it as an economic resource to "develop" in terms of health-care, standard of living, and the like. I also like the potential, noted by amazingdrx, for rural/urban relations.

Let's hope.

Diana

No.  Nor did Biodiv actually say that, but it seemed to follow.  But there are certainly bugs, ever hungry, everywhere.  So the point about the plight of subsistence farmers vs. biodiversity is well made.

Diana's vision is attractive.  Here, all along, I have been grumbling and growling, Jeremiahishly, against First-World types that feel entitled to their overseas vacations, and make a cute competitive sport out of claiming he/she has "been to" a less developed or very remote tourist destination before anyone else in the social circle.  And in fact, I stick with my principles: Buy less, travel less.

But if indeed eco-tourism is a (smallish) way to distribute the wealth of the First World, then we truly should be encouraged to fly away, fly away!  By all means elevate those gas-pump taxes, to subsidize Good Patriotic Earth-Loving Americans' trips to Costa Rica, Madagascar, wherever.

On "carbon off-setting": a silly, lame-brained, probably futile idea, and probably unpersuasive as a tactic to control global warming.  Nevertheless, it is a very big-hearted one.  And good-intentioned.  And that sort of thing must always be encouraged.  And meanwhile lots of tree-seeds are (presumably) finding happy homes.

By the way, are there anywhere at airports "activists," with portable credit-card machines, asking travelers if they would like to "off-set" their trip?

   A couple of weeks ago, I was watching a Chinese television program about ecotourism.  There was a nice European lady who was saying that we should really discourage unneccessary travel, such as that for tourism.

   She was visiting Beijing for a conference.

   My first thought was "Hmmm, she means she gets to travel and I don't."

   As people achieve disposable income, they often want to travel (some sort of nascent migratory urge perhaps).

   We are unlikely to get to the point where people will voluntarily stop travelling.

   So, making travel as unharmful as possible becomes important.

   Recognizing that people will fly more and more, means we can either bemoan the fact, or we can demand that research be put into making flying more environmentally friendly.

patrick

You're forgiven Diana.  Isn't that the name of the high school basketball team in Lake Woebegone?  The Skeptics?

I know it's a good idea to travel less to save energy canis, and those carbon credit schemes seem untrustworthy.  But this eco-travel idea using wind and solar has legs.

It just sounds wild and futuistic.  Really a domestic eco-tourism network using electric rental cars and buses for travel would be a pretty good thing.  A lot of retirees who would shun motorhomes might take to it.

Maybe Dave could call Gore's people about the carbon "lockbox" d.  Hehehey, they would love ressurecting that phrase?  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

In response to the article "Show me the monkey," I question the wisdom of putting all of our hopes for successful biodiversity conservation in Madagascar on ecotourism.  Madagascar is far from typical ecotourist markets and once you are here, there is little on-the-ground that will facilitate your visit.  Albeit, while some of these issues are being addressed (e.g., improving the road network and hotel infrastructure), Madagascar is far behind the upscale ecotourism markets of southern and eastern Africa.  Also, without the big game of Africa, Madagascar is unlikely to ever rival places such as Botswana or Kenya in terms of ecotourism.

A great deal of current conservation efforts in Madagascar are going toward 'community-based management.'  While these efforts are likely to hold (at least part of) the key to conserving biodiversity, all too often villagers think they will make their local protected area profitable by appealing to tourists.  Most of these areas are inaccessible and will likely never be able to attract enough people to pay for the opportunity cost of having been protected.  People clearly need more options of what to do with their protected pieces of forest or wetlands (for example, sustainable harvesting and production of renewable resources such as timber, fish, and game).

On the mention of "explosive" population growth, it seems that all too often the focus on this issue in conservation circles takes away from the bigger issues of addressing poverty and corruption in countries where rich biodiversity remains.

- Mike

    Adding another three billion people to the planet will require us to build sustainable cities in order to manage the transition through "peak people" properly.

patrick