Ecotourism

Note: I wrote this earlier in the term and forgot to post it. 

One of the fastest growing travel industries is ecotourism.

What is Ecotourism?

Is it simply an effort to make traditional tourism less damaging? Maybe just another case of greenwashing? Or is it something else all together?

Let's face it, traveling can have a huge impact. Air travel contributes to ummm... a shit ton of global warming, and many mega-resorts do a poor job of being sensitive to the local culture and ecology.
What's more, many of these resorts look like they could be in any number of tropical locations. They provide a highly generic experience designed to make tourists feel comfortable and safe in a new place, and many tourists don't even venture out of the confines of the resort.


Here's a typical resort in Cancun Mexico:

How are eco-resorts different?

First of all, these properties are usually designed with local culture, architecture, and ecology in mind, often with input from the people living nearby. Efforts are taken to use environmentally-friendly construction materials and to design buildings for maximum energy and water efficiency. Employees are paid living wages and some are even included as part-owners. Customers are treated to a highly customized experience, with regionally inspired food, interaction with locals, and low-impact outdoor adventures. Rather than being buffered from reality, ecotourists are encouraged to engage and learn about the prevalent environmental, social, and political issues in the places they are visiting.

One of my favorite experiences was an eight-day trek with Mountain Lodges of Peru. The trip began in the Incan capital of Cusco, and we were transported to an active trail in the Andes. We hiked a few miles to the first of four lodges where we were treated to local food and beverages and introduced to our guides, both of Quechua descent. Guides were careful to educate us on local etiquette and religious customs so that we could have the smallest negative impact possible. We continued to walk several miles a day for the next 6 days, through cloud forests, high alpine tundra, and deep jungle, making sure to pay our respects to Pachamama along the way.

The money brought in to many resorts is used for a wide variety of positive impacts, from education to species conservation, in addition to economic growth and voluntary wealth redistribution (yeah, i said it). Travelers often become invested in the places they visit and become voices for the oppressed and disadvantaged, with many even choosing to return and contribute in impactful ways. 

Not everything is perfect in eco-tourism. Many resorts are more talk than action when it comes to sustainable practices, and air travel still has a major impact. Some even exploit the locals in the name of ecotourism. But it's a start, and much less damaging than giant cruise ships and megaresorts, and many eco resorts are doing amazing work.

Posted with Blogsy

Money

In previous posts I briefly wrote about money as a tool and happiness as an end goal. I spoke briefly with Alex and Rachel of Community Sourced Capital today about our relationship with money, and how a zero-interest loan to a familiar business helps establish the idea that a monetary investment need not be about generating a monetary return, as long as there is a tangible benefit.

Unfortunately our economic system has become one which is focused on producing the most monetary wealth possible, regardless of the impacts. We use measurements like GDP, GNP, the Dow index, and the national debt to tell us how healthy our economy is, but the problem is that these measure none of the things that really matter to happiness or wellbeing. Just as disturbingly, by focusing on these numbers we start to conflate a means with an end.

If we look at money at a basic level, it is simply a tool for satisfying human needs. On Wall street, CNBC, and in much of pop culture, however, money is seen as an end in and of itself, or as a tool to make more money. The idea is that money will somehow solve all of our problems (personal and national) if we can just get enough of it, and that government's job is to help create as much monetary wealth as possible, and to keep it safe.

The right wing would have us believe that the government is overstepping its bounds insofar as it prevents the rapid accumulation and protection of wealth, and the left argues that we should tax the rich because economics is a zero-sum game. What if we could develop a new (old) attitude that both sides could buy into, in which money is put in its rightful place as not good or evil, but a tool among tools?

Check out this video for a wonderful take on money:

A new way forward?

I would argue that we should begin to measure our country's success in other ways:

-Number of people with meaningful employment
-Crime rates
-Environmental health (air, water, ecology)
-Mental and physical health of the population
-Education levels
-Lack of household debt
-Equality

What if these were our national priorities? I would argue that some of the money that has been tied up for so long in wars, wall street, and company coffers might begin to flow toward meaningful purposes. I even think that many (but not all) of the wealthy might choose to start using their wealth for social good and even allow themselves to be taxed at a higher rate, if it were to satisfy important national priorities.

Is this possible, and what would it take? Are people so tied up in their own self-interest that we cannot get there, or could a concerted effort of propaganda, social networking, and relationship building take us in a new national direction, in which the common good is placed above abstract measures of wealth, without sabotaging individual freedom?

I'd love to hear your take!

To Kill Fast Fashion

The recent garment disaster in Bangladesh has brought to light the plight of garment workers in the way recent school shootings brought gun control to the forefront. Hundreds of people died in the collapse of a clothing factory that provided miserable wages and horrible conditions to workers producing cheap clothing for Walmart, Mango, Joe Fresh, and other major brands.

Something I was thinking about quite a bit before this disaster was the proliferation of "fast fashion" retailers. H&M, Zara, Uniqlo, Old Navy, Target and others design and sell low-cost clothing that is meant to be worn for a season and thrown away (or recycled) shortly thereafter (kind of like Ikea does for furniture). Vast amounts of clothing end up in landfills, having used huge amounts of water to produce. Styles change rapidly to respond to the latest runway trends and keep ahead of consumer tastes, so the quality doesn't really need to be high, since it will be out of fashion within a year. It seems ironic to me that a company like H&M which is devoted to high volume, low-cost fashion would claim to be sustainable.

I believe it is time for a return to high-quality, long-lasting clothing. Not to pat myself on the back too much, but right now I'm wearing a Banana Republic shirt I've owned for 6 years, a 3-year old pair of Sperry Topsiders, a ten year old leather jacket, and a pair of shrink-to-fit Levi's that I only need to wash every couple months, and I think I look pretty sharp! Admittedly, I'm not sure about the conditions in which these were produced, but at least I know I'm not contributing to poor working conditions and water-intensive production methods more often than I need to. I've certainly given into the temptation to binge at Zara, H&M and Target once or twice, only to be disappointed with the quality when the crotch blows out or my tie unravels, whereas when I've chosen to buy a high-end item or two it has generally lasted long enough to get a bit of money at a thrift store a few years later. What's somewhat ironic is that I probably end up spending less money in the long if I choose a few high-quality items that I really like.

Of course, I'm a dude, and I can get away with a small wardrobe (how many girls do you know who wear the same pair of jeans every day for months at a time?) But my point is that we need to apply the "reduce, reuse, recycle" ethos to our clothing, and that might mean paying a bit more for something that was ethically produced and of high quality, and wearing it for longer than a single season.

The big question is, what will it take to take this mainstream? Must we have international regulations on apparel production to kill the fast fashion lifestyle, or can it be consumer-led? I'm not sure, but I'm going to do my best to be conscious about my consumption habits, and the more of us doing this, the bigger impact we can make.

What you can do:
-Buy American when you can afford it (beware of Saipan-produced clothing though)
-Pay more for high quality, well made materials
-Wash clothes less often and hang dry when possible so they last longer
-Limit your purchases to items you'll actually wear, and that might stand a chance of staying in style for more than a month
-Get your clothes tailored or repaired before you give up on them
-Dress up quality staples with unique accessories from a thrift store
-Buy a pair of raw denim jeans and beat them to shit. This is the ultimate in slow fashion. They'll look better than anything off the shelf. Before and after pic of such a pair: