Green Holidays

.

We all think that all ‘green’ and ‘eco’ travel definitions are around about the same: but no!

A friend of mine recently got a book called ‘The Ethical Career Guide’ out of the local library only to be surprised by what was in there.  There was no mention of conservation or the environment, and global warming was not even touched on.

Why?  Well ‘ethical’ always refers to working with people to create equality as well as supporting communities and cultures – it doesn’t really have anything to do with the natural world.  So an ethical holiday isn’t necessarily a green holiday or even eco friendly!

So I have put together a simple definitions article for the main words we use to define our holidays and travel so you can be sure to focus on the best one for your requirements and prefered areas of interest.

Ethical Travel:
“Travel to any location that includes offering respect and courtesy to local people, as well as thinking about the long term effects of your actions for the communities that you visit.”

So for example, ethical travel would include supporting the community you visit financially by using local services and buying local goods – and at a reasonable price.  It would also look to not exploit natural resources – or local people, and includes not offering gifts or money to ‘begging’ children but to the places that will benefit the children most, like schools and local groups.

Responsible Travel:
“Travel to any destination in the world – including cruises, luxury villas, skiing and volunteering – can be ‘responsible’ if they can prove that they care about the people they come into contact with and their culture as well as their surrounding environments and it’s wildlife.”

For example, if you travel to a ‘responsible’ African safari lodge, you would expect it to be run by or employing local people and spending some or most of it’s profits and time on helping protect the surrounding wildlife for the future. 

It doesn’t matter if you have to fly across the world to get there and only stay for 3 days (although longer stays can help communities more) - it is what you are supporting while you are there that counts.  And if it is a big step away from mass tourism – it is ‘responsible’.

Eco Friendly Travel:
“Travel to destinations with the intention of reducing your overall impact on the environment, including the avoidance of many of the usual destinations, modes of transport and travel products.”

For example, we know that flying creates higher than average emissions and cruises create more than their fair share of waste – so the eco friendly traveller would try to travel using other means, or would use these modes of transport more wisely by staying in the destinations longer or choosing a more eco friendly company to use.

Eco friendly travel would also include not using products that can damage or put undue stress on the environment they are visiting, so would try to use biodegradable toiletries, wash clothes less, eat local foods rather than expect locals to import things 1000′s of miles in, take all rubbish home with them if no recycling exists and not buy products made from endangered resources – or animals!

This type of travel would also look at certain destinations that are being overcrowded or exploited with the end result of the area/destination/beach/local community being degraded, overused and ultimately destroyed.  Mass tourism destinations would be among the places to avoid, although something could be said for keeping all the ‘sun-seekers’ in one place!

Green Travel:
“A type of travel that includes both using modes of transport which reduce or limit the environmental impact of getting from A to B as well as limiting environmental damage while preserving natural resources and reducing pollution and excessive waste.”

Although quite similar to the Eco Friendly Travel definition above, Green Travel really focuses on self control while travelling – enough sometimes to not even travel in the first place!  Eco Friendly looks at still taking a trip but looking for less damaging alternatives – whereas green travellers might look at taking a different trip entirely.

Walking through fields or woodlands off the main footpath wouldn’t really bother any other type of traveller – but a green traveller would think of the potential for localised damage – for example trampling on rare plants or invading areas used by courting mammals and birds.

The Result:
Well, as you can see there is a fair amount of overlap with these definitions, but some are more social and others more environmental.

Yes – the 2 are sort of linked up anyway as if the community are supported they will take better care of their environment, however many travelers want to see the direct link to their personal beliefs and their actions.

For example an eco friendly traveler would take pride in buying all the most chemical-free, animal-friendly, waste reducing and natural products they can to take with them to visit a local community - whereas a social traveler would take more pride in helping a community to support themselves for the next 20 years whether their shampoo was biodegradable or not!

And a responsible traveler wouldn’t mind flying in to a remote mountain lodge on the other side of the world to support a 5* business built up, owned and run by local people – whereas a green traveler would possibly choose to go camping 1* in a nearby woodland with their local scout group teaching them simple field-craft techniques for free!

So, it is your choice really as to which of these you choose to be like when planning your next vacation, because sometimes they will take you to totally different places!

Did you know that Cruising was worse than flying for carbon emissions and general waste?

I mean flying is still best avoided, but if you fly to the Caribbean for a cruise I think you would win the prize for the most carbon used for a 2 week vacation!!!

Some calculations would go as far to say that taking an engine powered boat from London to Naples would produce 7 times the amount of carbon as a flight between the 2 cities. Even on a direct route, it is still worse per passenger – the QEII would create about 8 times the amount of carbon as an equivalent flight to New York – that’s around 700kgs of carbon dioxide emissions per person on board more than flying there!

That really is a huge difference considering how much stick the airline industries get for their pollution – you rarely hear an ocean-going luxury cruise ship getting picked on, do you?

It’s not just carbon either:
A flight to Mexico for example, from the UK only takes around 11 hours. In that time passengers on board a standard plane have eaten breakfast, watched a film or 2, slept for a few hours or read a good book then eaten dinner. And you are there. Well, what else can you do crammed into those tiny seats with a steward/stewardess almost constantly in the aisles selling you stuff for over-inflated prices.

However, on a cruise ship which could take several days to head straight to Mexico across the Atlantic Ocean they don’t all just sit still.

The idea of a cruise ship is that the journey is part of your holiday, and it needs to be a pleasant experience. It is basically a holiday camp on water. Hotel rooms, a choice of restaurants, theaters and entertainment, stores galore, a pool and even a mini golf course. And all these things generate waste – a lot of waste.

Apparently there are restrictions on how the ships dispose of this waste, but unfortunately it’s not great news! According to the International Maritime Organisation (a UN body) ships are allowed to dump waste and untreated sewage straight into the sea – as long as they do it ‘at least 12 nautical miles from shore’!!!!

To me, this is outrageous. To think that anyone aboard a cruise ship or other ship in fact, thinks that it is ok to dump anything into the water is unbelievable. It’s just like a land-based hotel driving it’s rubbish to the beach and leaving it there. It doesn’t disappear on land or in the sea - so don’t drop litter anywhere.

And raw sewage directly into the sea is a disgrace. I think we are all aware that the tides and the winds move things around the world otherwise we wouldn’t have invented sailing ships and animals and plants wouldn’t have been able to colonise new lands – so where do they think this ‘poison’ will go? Are they 100% sure it won’t affect wildlife in the water, seabirds and the people, animals and plants on the coasts of the world?

Selfish Travelers?
Being so self-sufficient, these cruise ships are actually like all inclusive holidays resorts. Everything you could possibly need is on-board and even though you stop fleetingly at several islands and ports here and there, you no doubt don’t contribute any real money to the communities you visit.

Yes, a few trinkets might change hands or a piece of pottery, but there will be no lasting effect of your visit – just a poor town waiting for the next ship to come in and flood their stores and markets with loud, greedy tourists. And a ship refusing to visit a port or changing course for a sick passenger could mean disaster for the local people who miss out.

And when you do go to port somewhere exotic, you probably won’t sample their foods, their culture or their lifestyle – and it really isn’t worth learning their language for the 4 hours you are in their country, is it?

Guests on a cruise ship aren’t really ‘tourists’ they are day-trippers on a box ticking tour. Been there, been there, been there. Not experienced that, lived there and learned this.

Conclusion:
To be fair, I would rather someone flew to a continent or country and spent 2 weeks or more there, spoke a few words of their language and lodged in locally run accommodation than just jumped around from place to place not really doing anything of any use to anyone.

And knowing now that cruising is so much worse for the environment in the first place, why not give fliers a break and start to impact more on the damage cruise ships are doing to the world, the seas and the countries they visit.

I know that every little bit helps, but if you can stop the most damaging first, then you make a bigger impact – and much sooner There are around 300 ships damaging our planet at the moment – and I think we should stop that from expanding. Don’t you?