From the swivellin' chair...

The Maldives are sinking. Visit now? Photo credit: AhmedZahid

Global warming has opened up a new travel niche known as climate tourism.

Climate tourists travel to places which are seeing the effects of global warming in a visible way. That includes glaciers in the Arctic Circle, or the Maldives, both of which are threatened by climate change and could, if temperatures keep rising, disappear.

On the other hand, tourists are also starting to flock to places like the Svalbard Islands, which have global warming to thank for their evolution into a popular tourist destination. As The Herald puts it, warmer temperatures have taken "the harsh edge off the environment and (make) the area increasingly attractive to holidaymakers."

Ironically enough, this new brand of tourism perpetuates global warming. Planes and cruise ships release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The extent to which that results in global warming is debatable, but an obvious ethical question does arise:

Does any potential benefit of climate tourism outweigh its negative aspects?

If Technorati's Where's the Fire? is anything to go by, global warming is one of the hottest topics on the web - right up there with Britney Spears' shaved head and the death of Anna Nicole Smith. People on the web really know what's important in life, don't they?

But back to global warming.

Much has been said about the environmental impact of the aviation industry. Though flights only emit 2% of greenhouse gas emissions, the number of flights has steadily increased over the past few years. The introduction of low-cost airlines has made flying an affordable way of getting around, putting overseas travel within reach of people who previously could ill afford it. And just last week, the EU and US outlined plans for an "open skies" deal. As prices become more competitive, that means we could see up to 26 million more passengers crossing the Atlantic by plane. More passengers, more flights, more greenhouse gas emissions.

It's enough to make some people lament the very introduction of budget airlines. As Travellerspoint member Niels (bentivogli) puts it:

The concept of pricefighter airlines has done incredible damage to the environment by bringing regular flying in reach of the masses. Personally, I think that if you go fly, you should bleed financially. That's about the only thing that makes the average consumer think twice.

On the opposite end are people like Darren Cronian from Travel Rants. About the UK government's move to increase air passenger duty earlier this year, he writes:

I feel that increase in taxes isn’t going to solve anything, all it’s going to do is widen the gap between social classes, and end low cost flights as we know it.

No doubt. Imposing higher taxes on flights means that the poor can't afford to fly, while the rich just pay the tax - turning overseas travel into a luxury of the elite.
But should those with less wealth be the ones to bear the burden of global warming? Or does the responsibility to combat climate change rest elsewhere?

The environmental consequence of travel and the travel industry is something that the world is becoming much more aware of. How do we respond? Is our globetrotting justified when you consider that each flight we take will damage the environment?

There's no easy answer. A forum discussion last June highlighted many members' views.

For those of you who are concerned about the environmental impact your travel is having, Peter also added a bunch of links to carbon emissions offsetting programs run around the world. There are programs listed for the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and Brazil.