Ruff
Two birds in one.
If folks are burning petrels in their travels, I'm a'gin it!
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Tom Gullick: 9,000+ (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Richard Klim
- Start date
If folks are burning petrels in their travels, I'm a'gin it!
Valéry Schollaert
Respect animals, don't eat or wear their body or s
Hi there,
I agree so much with this, that I myself created a agency based in East Africa for birding and safari. HOWEVER -yes, there is a but-, it depends how we do tourism.
Birds, forests and national parks cannot survive with twitchers only. Twitchers generally come for one shot, or a short second one to clean up a few missed species during the first trip. They usually stay short time in visited place, and don't really care on "eco" side of ecotourism. Therefore, they don't complain if hotels give them many plastic boxes, bags and cutlers for pic-nics, they don't care neither if insecticides are used in they room and they hotel, they don't try to avoid the use of a big and old diesel engine that is seldom stopped during the journeys, they don't ask for local and organic food and they eat a lot of meat.
They are exceptions, but generally speaking, twitching has a big environnemental impact (negative I mean), and very little suppport in bird protection. Only a few % of the budget is really going in local conservation.
When we balance those impacts, especially if indeed we consider also the flights, when speaking on "regular" twitchers, we are largely below 0 - negative is the result and no long term conservation will exist this way.
But they are many other ways of travelling, birding and even twitching. All companies have to do with what is available in the country, but a trip can be positive in term of impact of things are well prepared.
Among the details I do with my company, that is very possible in Uganda where I live.
-We use local, mostly organic food coming with no plastic packaging.
-We use reusable boxes, bottles, cutlers, etc for all picnics
-We buy water in large, reusable cans, and people can fill (free) they bottle of water
-We have a fairly low consumtion petrol engine in our car that can be stopped anytime
-I have my own vegetarian restaurant, and the food is so good that after having eaten there, several clients consider reducing meat!
-We produce nature-friendly soap and cleaing/washing products for our restaurant and office (and personal use), and process to sale to hotels and lodge is on the way.
- Our itineraries are not covering millions on kilometers, favouring deeper visits in fantastic places instead of flying over the country for a long list.
Still we have nice lists, and some "à la carte" trips are actually "regular" twitwing, but I see that our strategy is more and more successful, people are enjoying more they holidays, they ask for more and come several times in the same country(ies), not just to add ticks, but to enjoy a deeper contact with nature, have better photos of nice bird, and so on.
In conclusion, I think ecotourism is the best way of protecting the tropical natural wonders but efforts MUST be made by all organisers as well as travellers to insure an impact that is really going in the good way of conservation. It might be the case in Ecuador and Panama, but in East Africa we are far from this. I remember a trip to Tanzania where whe had all our material for picnic. When we asked the lodges in National Parks to use this instead of their usual non-reusable plastic stuff, and we explained why, they all said "you are the first ones to ask for that"! :C
Attachments
Nightranger
Senior Moment
A classic example of Birforum. 3Start off congratulating Tom on reaching 9000 species, move on to travelling birders encouraging conservation efforts, a bit of ( well deserved ) abuse, climate change, a pop at the RSPB and ending up with taxation. Brilliant :t:
Chris
:t: I noticed that even before I posted. Just to clarify though, it is not a pop at the RSPB insomuch as having an agenda but a criticism of one particular repetition because the RSPB are not alone. The WWT also randomly repeated the same mantra in a recent Internet film and as MJB it may well be the lack of taxation on aviation fuel but it should be correct that the conservation organisations make clear what they are saying because as this thread shows, some people genuinely believe air travel is a greater evil than any other CO2 source.
Nightranger
Senior Moment
A cracking post raising a number of additional points but I think it is true to say that the need for aviation travel would be generated with or without eco-tourism. I am not making a case for the support of eco-tourism so much as making the case against the half-truths being promoted within conservation circles. I think all these things (and any form of holiday that involves travel) must be a matter of individual conscience but better to have all the facts rather than what some organisations decide they want us to believe.
angusmcoatup
Paul
Yep, a good and informative post. I've felt uncomfortable about some of my trips and have been trying to improve my green credentials recently. More companies like Valerys would be a boon.
MJB
Well-known member
Nightranger;2780054.... some people genuinely believe air travel is a greater evil than any other CO2 source.[/QUOTE said:On the other hand, all major sources of CO2 should be reduced through coherent approaches; there's no point in saying 'we won't if they won't' (the school playground take).o
MJB
Johann Sebastian Bach
Well-known member
On the other hand, all major sources of CO2 should be reduced through coherent approaches; there's no point in saying 'we won't if they won't' (the school playground take).o
MJB
I absolutely agree.
Twitching harms our delicately balanced environment.
So does driving to work; having a bath every day; using pesticides; taking the contraceptive pill; not taking the contraceptive pill; and eating lots of meat.
Valéry gives us a model for eco-tourism; we could all do well to adopt these principles in our daily lives.
Together, we can make a difference and have a world to hand on to the next generation.
Peter
Whats all this carbom footprint malarky anyway. CO2 is the least of our worries. CO2 has a greenhouse value of 1 if I remember correctly. What about cattle producing methane? gh value=4 or the cfc's that were banned in europe? Where is this technology today? has it moved to other regions were it is not controlled? Having just visited Namibia, not just to increase the carbon footprint but to seekout and photograph, its wonderful biodiverity, I learned that through tourism, including hunting I might add, the quantity and number of species of wild things, has increased from near extinction, in many cases, around the 1850's to what there is today. Obviously this has brought wealth and environmental impact to Namibia, so while numbers of individual species are returning to what they were pre colonization, so is the methane production increasing. Ever been to Cape Cross?, then you get the picture. The important thing is that the carbon dioxide levels that we are producing are being managed quite well by the oceans. Is there really global warming? or is just a shifting of local mean temperatures? What about the Melankovic Kroll Effect (spelling?) solar activity.. need I go on?
MJB
Well-known member
I take your points about Namibia, Andy, and it's a useful perspective to remember for local and regional levels.
However, what research sources make you think that these various aspects of CO2 production and absorption haven't been considered and reconsidered by the many research organisations involved in climate research and the effects of climate variation and change?
It's a serious question, because I would very much like to find published peer-reviewed material that calculates that the effects of such sources have been hugely under-estimated, and how that would refute the numerous studies that have revisited these aspects.
MJB
LabradorDuck
Well-known member
Given the amount of news coverage I've seen of cattle-produced methane in relation to global warming, I'm sure the models take it into account. "Cow burps" make for funny news stories, but other than that it usually only comes up in the context of "Cows burp methane, so there's no point in regulating CO2." Most of what I've heard, though, is on the side of CO2 being the bigger concern because there's so much more of it; also, methane converts into CO2 fairly quickly once it enters the atmosphere (removing oxygen in the process, which I've heard implicated in the Permian mass extinction), while CO2 accumulates. IIRC, water vapor is an even stronger greenhouse gas, but the amount present means it affects things even less than methane.
I can't quote anything scientific, and its been a while since I did any relevant study, but it seems to me that various governments, especially around europe, are using the phrase "carbon footprint" as an excuse, ultimately to find an excuse for taxing something else.(carbon quota trading for example) Similarly the number of companies that claim to be carbon neutral, the German Post, for example, is claiming exactly that, with its huge fleet of vehicles, and large number of sorting offices across the country, how and where are they balancing their emissions? I do remember that in the 1990's the computer models that were being used to predict global warming came under quite a bit of criticism at the time. Maybe, and I bow to you far better scientific knowledge,(not difficult, I know) the more recent models and studies have proven more accurate than previously. I admit I made some unqualified sweeping statements, but most comments regarding greenhouse gases were actually more like questions to add to this discussion, where hopefully, those more learned than I, would choose to add a more uptodate, accurate and balanced argument for or against the carbon footpint arguement in the original article.
Ruff
Two birds in one.
CO is known to plants as "yummy fast food." Just ask a tree.
And I guess the billions-strong herds of bison, antelope, and so on in North America and Africa didn't breathe back in the times of the ice ages and interglacials. Because otherwise, you would swear they had no net effect on global climates.
But the main thing to do regarding CO is to start taxing volcanoes.
And I guess the billions-strong herds of bison, antelope, and so on in North America and Africa didn't breathe back in the times of the ice ages and interglacials. Because otherwise, you would swear they had no net effect on global climates.
But the main thing to do regarding CO is to start taxing volcanoes.
MJB
Well-known member
Fair dos, Andy; I wasn't getting at you. The trouble with media comment on this subject is that very few now have science correspondents, and those that do often don't have correspondents with scientific qualifications. Also, most of the media is owned by people whose management style could perhaps best be described as having a political agenda. I've lived in Germany, too, and visit Germany and Austria often. Their popular media seemed obsessed with royalty (despite them being republics!), fashion and showbiz/pop music trivia to a greater extent than here in UK, but they still have more than a few heavyweight correspondents, perhaps because people with doctorates in science and engineering are regarded as people of status in society (Herr Doktor Ingeniuer is commonly seen on brass plates and headed paper). If you would like to discuss such matters and would like popular references, just PM me.
MJB
A2GG
Beth
Maybe I'm reading some of these posts incorrectly, but are people still doubtful of human caused climate change/warming? Are there still people who think it a 'conspiracy' or a 'hoax' ?
because there is a strong scientific consensus about this:
http://www.iop.org/news/13/may/page_60200.html
p.s. Congrats to Tom Gullick...remarkable achievement !
because there is a strong scientific consensus about this:
http://www.iop.org/news/13/may/page_60200.html
p.s. Congrats to Tom Gullick...remarkable achievement !
MJB
Well-known member
I'm just fed up the crap we are spoonfed by the media, politicians and certain companies. I've a small amount of probably out of date knowledge and I would like to hear scientific debate instead of sour grapes, perhaps on Tom Gullick's amazing achievement and its implications. I don't know why, but I expected a more rational accolade from BB.
chris butterworth
aka The Person Named Above
The start of wandering off into the anthropogenically induced climate change, or not, was the amount of flights mega-listers take to build up their totals. Pardon? 90%, at least, of the flights taken were scheduled flights, flights that were going to their destinations even if the birders weren't on them. I know some will now claim that there are too many flights, that we should be cutting back. Which ones though? Holiday flights? Fair enough, but most holiday destinations are in places that rely on the income from visitors ( never mind, they can go back to being peasants ). Business flights? Now this is something that could be looked at. There is absolutely no need to go swanning off around the globe for 'meetings'. That's what the internet has capacity for. Anything else? What's the point of flying a couple of hundred people at a time to Nth. America, Europe, Australia? Stick them on ships and carry far more per journey. It'll take 6 weeks to get from UK to Australia? Tough. All of a sudden we have to start thinking of which nations can we cut out of physical contact with the rest of the world. Who's going to tell them? Welcome to the Balkanisation of the entire globe - and the wars breaking out all over because of a scarcity of resources. Cloud cuckoo land? If anyone can show that this is not, possibly, a viable scenario then speak up now.
Chris
Chris
Chris
Chris
A2GG
Beth
I hear you Andy...I don't think Tom Gullick should be picked on for using air transport to bird. For the reasons Chris pointed out, it's misguided. I've always said (and I told a skeptical friend not too long ago) to get info on global warming from science magazines/journals and scientific sources, not pundits on tv, politicians, etc.
Thanks Annabeth, I replied to the BB article and made my comments about ecotourism there
