Is There Such a Thing as “Eco-travel”?

To travel, or not to travel? That is the question in our globally-conscious eco-conscious age, and it has become a catch-22 for many. To effect global-level change, we must travel to far-flung places. But in order to get there, we must take the planes, trains and automobiles that harm the environment.

The industry has responded to this with what they call “offsets,” i.e., planting x trees for y miles flown. Whether this actually reduces the carbon footprint though, is debatable.

So does being green mean we don’t travel at all? That would certainly be taking the local movement to the extreme.

SustainableLifeMedia recently reported that outdoor gear retailer REI’s eco-travel business accounts for nearly a third of the company’s total carbon footprint. However the company stated that despite their emissions from air travel, the unit does more good than harm. For example, travel to endangered rainforests makes such areas a “tourist destination as opposed to a source for timber,” says Kevin Hagen, head of REI’s social responsibility programs. “We hope people who go to these wonderful places come away as stewards.”

It’s a solid argument. The question is: Does one kind of good make up for another kind of bad? What about travelers who are green ambassadors? Who are helping developing nations? Discovering renewable resource? Opening people’s eyes to the beautiful world they should be preserving? Politicians and global leaders who’ve been busted for their big footprints, like Tony Blair and Al Gore, are helping the world, one could argue, just in a different way. Is this offsetting? Or offputting?