Feeling guilty when birding far from home (1 Viewer)

YuShan said:

I thank you for your constructive answer and I did check your link when you posted it. Sure there are good projects in there.

But the way I see it, you can never "offset" bad environmental behaviour by donating to some good cause, because it doesn't undo the damage that you are causing. These things are independent, because you can also donate to a good project without causing damage first. So in my opinion this doesn't buy you a licence to pollute. Whatever you do, your holiday remains unnecessary damage for selfish reasons. That is the part I struggle with.

Click to expand...

While I agree that there is nothing to stop you buying carbon credits for no good reason - and I would applaud anyone who did so - the question you asked was about the hypocrisy of contributing emissions for recreational birding. This becomes a question of mathematics. 10 tonnes from flying minus 10 tonnes of avoided or sequestered emissions that would not be avoided or (preferably) sequestered unless you paid for the offsets equals zero net emissions.

That does not take into account the investment you don't make in the place you don't visit.

I would suggest its possible to make a visit to an overseas birding spot that consciously takes this investment approach. Here's one vision of how that could look:

1. Choose a location where birds from your home area spend the winter or pass through on migration, thereby creating a sense of connection and intentionality about your choice of location. There would doubtless also be plenty of other species that you don't get at home that would provide the unique attraction of overseas birding.

2. When you're there choose accommodation/guides/restaurants etc with some connection/contribution to conserving the habitats your home birds depend on while in their wintering grounds or on migration. Many guides/lodges have a link with conservation and the income of visitors helps to support that work. (This was certainly true for me for several years when I worked for a conservation NGO in Hong Kong on a limited salary and supplemented my income by guiding).

3. By making these choices a critical part of selecting both the location and the vendors/service providers your " hypocritical" holiday can be transformed into a conscious decision to support the conservation of "your" birds during other parts of their annual cycle.

4. It might even be possible to find a place where you could plant the trees yourself that would offset the emissions of your flight, or, for those who have the means, to invest financially in buying the the habitat or bankrolling the businesses or NGOs that support it (a choice that is clearly not open to everyone).

5. Returning to the same location over a number of visits could serve to build relationships that provide further value and meaning, and strengthen the sense of personal connection.

6. Maybe you could write about or even arrange the (fully offset) trip for a group of birding mates and thereby increase the investment in the people and habitats that protect "your" birds.

This is not intended to be a prescriptive solution, Indeed I'm sure there could be as many variations as there are birders. Rather it is designed to show the breadth of value that might be derived by adopting a broader approach to assessing impacts and benefits of overseas birding.

Conversely, if footprint minimisation the overriding concern, then a bird feeder outside the kitchen window or bike and foot-based birding is probably the best (or only?) way forward.

Cheers
Mike

I'm in complete agreement with Mike, carbon offsetting is perhaps the best (only) way to counter the CO2 emissions from long haul flights. I personally recommend The World Land Trust, which have a range of projects, and money is going directly to conserving threatened habitats. I am certainly not one to lecture anybody on their carbon footprint, but I make other choices in life (in addition to carbon offsetting) which reduces my overall impact.
Ecotourism is big business, and not only provides training, employment and a chance to improve quality of life for local people, but also actively enables protection of wilderness areas. All of my trips have used local guides only, and I know that the money I spend in the country is going towards local communities.
It is a troubling dichotomy, but there are ways to play your part (which you appear to be doing e.g. reduced meat consumption, using public transport etc), and at least by supporting ecotourism, you can feel less guilty about your carbon footprint.
If you haven't seen it, this article may be of interest.

As I understand it, there are issues with planting trees to offset carbon used in flights. Such as what habitat is being lost to plant the trees, and that carbon uptake by young trees is not that much - more carbon may indeed may be being released. Then of course you are talking about 20 or 50 years down the line what happens to the carbon, and that there is a large time lag - the carbon you use on a flight is immediately released into the atmosphere, the offsetting happens at some distant future time (and warming happens in the meantime).

Conservation projects here and now are obviously good however. Global warming is going to happen.

Interesting that the pandemic has had a much greater effect on limiting the aero/holiday industry than anything.

dantheman said:

As I understand it, there are issues with planting trees to offset carbon used in flights. Such as what habitat is being lost to plant the trees, and that carbon uptake by young trees is not that much - more carbon may indeed may be being released. Then of course you are talking about 20 or 50 years down the line what happens to the carbon, and that there is a large time lag - the carbon you use on a flight is immediately released into the atmosphere, the offsetting happens at some distant future time (and warming happens in the meantime).

Click to expand...

That last thing is a very important point. Even if you offset 100% of your CO2 sometime in the future, you are not getting back what you had before. There are a few strong positive (= self-enforcing) feedback loops in play.

For example, melting ice cover that reduces reflection of sun energy causes even more warming, more ice melting, even less reflection, etc. Another one is melting permafrost that releases massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere that during it's lifetime (few decades, before it decays into CO2) is ~80x more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

So even if you go back to the previous CO2 level, you will end up with a permanently higher global average equilibrium temperature. Based on current climate models.

Ries said:

Ah, this was the thread I was remembering: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=381955

Click to expand...

Hi Ries... your words in that thread were very prophetic...

Ries said:

I think in the future we'll see a contraction of our "big open world".

Click to expand...

Well caught, but I was thinking about other reasons for it. Right now, to be honest, if this crisis doesn't change capitalist regimes and general greed attitude in man, we'll be experiencing a backlash in about 5 years: surging economies and even more worldwide travel than before. Let's just hope they can get new plain propulsion tech developed by then... And (can't find the right English word right now) EU rail system, oh wait; standardized i.e. same electric and rail systems, and fast trains connecting major cities directly so train travel can be upped a nudge on EU level (and everywhere on the world of course). Sadly big fuel corps are blocking the first (electric plain propulsion) and local govts scared of EU slowing the second...

lmans66 said:

I hear what you are saying...... and yes, I feel that same guilt once in awhile. But I look at it that I am an activist for the environment. If there were no birders or responsible hunters or people who enjoy hiking and kayaking etc, where would we be?

Without the people who enjoy nature, there would be little left or it would be polluted beyond recognition or fit for life, birds, humans or whatever.

So the very nature of being a birder, is that of being an activist in some manner. I donate to the local reserves and like and collectively, all of us donors add our voice to protect the environment.

So no....no guilt....but just knowing that I appreciate nature and find myself at peace in nature.

Click to expand...

Well said. I feel no guilt either. In several weeks we will be flying to Mexico for a birding trip. The plane we board is going to fly, full of tourists headed to the Cancún beaches, whether we get on it or not. But we will be paying a local birding guide and supporting ecotourism and the economies of places that depend on birders. So actually we are doing a net good by travelling, something that would not happen if we didn't go.

People would do well to be realists. The planes are going to fly regardless of what a handful of birders are doing. The best thing we can do is use it as a vehicle to support the places that are striving to make ecotorism viable. What is better: a plane with 150 beach bums or a plane with 150 beach bums and 2 birders that will supporting the local ecologically-friendly communities? If your answer is "no plane at all is better", then good luck with that pipe dream in today's world. In a perfect world you are correct, but you'll never convince those 150 folks that want their Cancún vacation. So while I totally sympasize with the big picture that the OP is getting at... I think you are looking at it wrong, from a practical POV, IMHO.

Imagine what would happen to a country like Costa Rica if there were no more flights there. How much incentive would remain for them to maintain their exquisite ecosystems? Would I rather get there using a carbon-neutral method? Of course. Is it realistic or even possible to do so today? No.

We have birded every continent except Antartica and have no intention of stopping, nor stopping our support for world birding and the local economies that benefit from our visits.

Jasonbirder said:

You could twitch the length and breadth of the country week in week out for rarities for the emissions of a single long haul flight...so perhaps you've got it the wrong way round?

Click to expand...

Sure, but going to see some lost warbler hanging out in a city park isn't really going to do much for that species. Going and seeing that bird in its home territory is providing an economic incentive for the locals that the bird in question matters, and maybe they should protect the habitat it lives in.

Just hunt down some articles right now about what is going on in East Africa...people are already expanding grazing and so forth to make ends meet, with Covid drying up tourist revenue that is pretty much the only reason the locals allow many of these species exist.

I think the positive effect of global birding tourism is overrated, as per effect on global species/diversity threatened. Sure there are some places which so much thrive on some rare species, cumulating enough to create nature reserves to protect those and other species, but will that weigh up against the effect of birder's ecological footprint let alone that of all current civilisation? When planes keep flying on kerosine, and cars on fuels, (also to give birders their nature experiences and life lists) and the soil and ground are being depleted, the long term effect of decline in ecosystem diversity will still proceed and be irrevocable.

The only time I feel guilty, is when surrounded by shoeless children in rags who then return to the literally, mud huts in which they live. I see the same kids, fetching water in improvised containers, they have no chance from the day they're born and it's a pure fluke down to where you're born.

I'm an ordinary many of ordinary means by developed World standards and yet I may as well be a millionaire compared to these people, this disparity is obscene in the 21st century.

Pictures to reflect on though these kids at least have shoes, taken at Mabira, Uganda.

Agree that birding is a relatively small niche, but wider nature tourism is not - consider the whole safari experience in Africa, India and Sri Lanka, whale and dolphin watching all round the world, the ecolodges of S and Central America and Borneo, the Great Barrier Reef, Bear watching from Canada, to Belarus to Japan, snow leopards in China and Ladahk, staying on organic farms in wilder places like Eastern Europe and Tasmania etc etc etc.

Consider further that "sustainable" tourism demands local/organic food, solar power, and appreciation of local culture and the positive contribution of such tourism can be highly significant. If you travel like this you help to create demand for sustainable economies which might not be supportable by local demand.

It's all worth remembering that travel is getting greener - fuel consumption for cars and planes per kilometre is dropping, as is the carbon content, more places are reachable by convenient high speed trains, airports and hotels are setting targets and sourcing green power in pursuit of the Net Zero by 2050 agenda. There is also no question that the massive expansion of the global middle class is leading to more airports, airlines hotels and cruise ships, and that care is required to sift the quality from the greenwash.

In my mind this thread comes down to ideology. If carbon guilt is your principal driver then none of the rest matters - but you should probably still offset as life is just impossible without some sort of carbon footprint.

If you want to enjoy your birding overseas and take an intentional approach to creating value through the choices you make the opportunities to do so are becoming easier and easier.

With due respect to Andy's point about witnessing abject and seemingly irreversible poverty, I would suggest that neither is "wrong". What I do think is that simply feeling guilty / hypocritical is, frankly, a bit lazy, when the opportunity to take positive action in either direction is out there for the taking.

Cheers
Mike

MKinHK said:

Agree that birding is a relatively small niche, but wider nature tourism is not - consider the whole safari experience in Africa, India and Sri Lanka, whale and dolphin watching all round the world, the ecolodges of S and Central America and Borneo, the Great Barrier Reef, Bear watching from Canada, to Belarus to Japan, snow leopards in China and Ladahk, staying on organic farms in wilder places like Eastern Europe and Tasmania etc etc etc.

Consider further that "sustainable" tourism demands local/organic food, solar power, and appreciation of local culture and the positive contribution of such tourism can be highly significant. If you travel like this you help to create demand for sustainable economies which might not be supportable by local demand.

It's all worth remembering that travel is getting greener - fuel consumption for cars and planes per kilometre is dropping, as is the carbon content, more places are reachable by convenient high speed trains, airports and hotels are setting targets and sourcing green power in pursuit of the Net Zero by 2050 agenda. There is also no question that the massive expansion of the global middle class is leading to more airports, airlines hotels and cruise ships, and that care is required to sift the quality from the greenwash.

In my mind this thread comes down to ideology. If carbon guilt is your principal driver then none of the rest matters - but you should probably still offset as life is just impossible without some sort of carbon footprint.

If you want to enjoy your birding overseas and take an intentional approach to creating value through the choices you make the opportunities to do so are becoming easier and easier.

With due respect to Andy's point about witnessing abject and seemingly irreversible poverty, I would suggest that neither is "wrong". What I do think is that simply feeling guilty / hypocritical is, frankly, a bit lazy, when the opportunity to take positive action in either direction is out there for the taking.

Cheers
Mike

Click to expand...

Bearing in mind that I'm not Bill Gates Mike, where am I being lazy and please identify the opportunity for action that I missed?

andyadcock said:

The only time I feel guilty, is when surrounded by shoeless children in rags who then return to the literally, mud huts in which they live. I see the same kids, fetching water in improvised containers, they have no chance from the day they're born and it's a pure fluke down to where you're born.

I'm an ordinary many of ordinary means by developed World standards and yet I may as well be a millionaire compared to these people, this disparity is obscene in the 21st century.

Pictures to reflect on though these kids at least have shoes, taken at Mabira, Uganda.

Click to expand...

I feel the same way Andy (good illustrative point).

Personally I’d worry about being too idealist in thinking that eco-tourism is always going to have some sort of trickle down effect to the populace of developing/underdeveloped countries in some destinations, regardless of whether the object of the trip is to watch Big Cats or small birds. One only has to visit Calcutta or Luxor to see the disparities in wealth between the rich tourist spots providing hotels, shops and restaurants to ‘wealthy’ Western tourists and people (mostly kids) literally begging on the street round the corner.

In addition, one has to account somehow for the corruption of local (and national) government siphoning off international aid or locally generated profits so even if local economies are supported by a tourist financed eco project, is there any reason to think similar problems won’t exist in response to any successful economies generated as they do on a national scale? In less developed areas and rural areas, tourism (including eco) can also further enhance disparity of wealth between those who own or work in facilities provided for tourism and those who have no stake in it. Round the corner from the plush eco-lodge are kids still running around in bare feet or hunting rare primates for bush meat or everywhere you go, is one accosted with people begging? I think any kind of tourist can get quite a sanitised experience of a country/region simply because they don’t live there and because it’s in the interests of local people to give them a santised view to encourage them to return.

Holiday developments can also drain local resources and damage local habitat as greater demand for high quality water, sewage drainage, rubbish disposal, food outlets and increased electricity provision is expected by those paying for high end eco-holidays.

I think eco-tourism works on a number of levels, not least in that it increases awareness of the needs of conservation, increases the passion for wildlife that will support it and the facilities are generally more sustainably developed. I also think where eco-projects are supported by tourism it can be beneficial for local fauna or flora. But I also think it’s important to see it in the wider context of equality and protection of the global environment and realise in many cases the majority of ‘local’ people will not benefit by increased tourism and in some instances nor will the local habitat as increased infrastructure is developed in response to tourist interests. Not all ‘eco-tourists’ are happy sleeping in woollen tents and walking or riding a bike everywhere or squeezing 10 people into a 6 person off-road vehicle and even the most hardened resolve of ‘devoted’ eco-tourists can falter in the face of constant power cuts in thunderstorms or waiting 5hrs for a bus to the next village. All of this leads to further development of infrastructures for a tourist trade that many of the local people in rural areas may not benefit from financially , nor be able to afford to stay or eat at any of the hotels and restaurants.

Just to add - having read many trip reports in BF over the past few years, I can probably count on one hand, those who travel and live in such a way (not withstanding flights to get there) on foreign birding trips that genuinely fall outside the general ‘high-end’, ‘eco-lodge’, ‘hotel’- based, restaurant-based holidays and where their footprint once abroad is comparatively low.

Actually I was agreeing with you Andy. I have absolutely no answer for how to deal with that. My apologies if that was not evident in what I wrote.

Cheers
Mike

Here's a link to a BirdFair talk on this topic, which (to me at least) gives a fair representation of the issues.

https://virtual.birdfair.org.uk/index.php/saturday-ideas-for-ethical-wildlife-travel-by-dan-brown/

Cheers
Mike

I can't help but think of the saying 'do as I say, not as I do', when I hear people like this talk, he travels for a living! Just looked at his twitter page, he's always out and about and certainly, his own carbon footprint, will not be insignificant.

I'm fairly sedentary for most of the year, don't run a car and when I take the bus here, they run on bio fuels. My carbon emission is almost certainly, nowhere near, the almost 10 tons per year, said to be the UK average per person. My wife too, works from home so I'll wager that as a household, our combined emissions are lower than most other, single persons, anywhere.

On this basis, forgive me if I continue to enjoy my one, annual trip to wherever it is that I feel like going.

Deb Burhinus said:

I feel the same way Andy (good illustrative point).

Just to add - having read many trip reports in BF over the past few years, I can probably count on one hand, those who travel and live in such a way (not withstanding flights to get there) on foreign birding trips that genuinely fall outside the general ‘high-end’, ‘eco-lodge’, ‘hotel’- based, restaurant-based holidays and where their footprint once abroad is comparatively low.

Click to expand...

Call anything 'eco' these days and watch the price tag soar! These places are for the wealthy to console themselves that they're doing their bit, despite having three cars in the household and probably several holidays per year.

Seems weather doesn't even allow me one vacation this year. Yeah, sitting in a tent listening to wind and rain, no thank you. Bummed out by weather-cursed me (beautiful when working, terrible when holiday, each year again), too poor and stubborn to get into filthy tin cans like the rest.

Ries said:

Seems weather doesn't even allow me one vacation this year. Yeah, sitting in a tent listening to wind and rain, no thank you. Bummed out by weather-cursed me (beautiful when working, terrible when holiday, each year again), too poor and stubborn to get into filthy tin cans like the rest.

Click to expand...

Get some seawatching hours in: bad weather is a bonus for that! :t:

John

birdboybowley said:

If we stopped breeding there would be no need for any habitat destruction of any kind....

Click to expand...

This is the right answer. Frankly when people who have children shame me for my flights, I just laugh now. We do not need more billions of people, having children at this situation is the ultimate act of selfishness. I am not going to live my life as a hermit in order to "offset" the fact that most of the planet mistakenly thinks that they are rabbits.