"Approximately 100 small business owners, non-profit leaders and national park directors, most of whom are women, have collaborated to make birding in Central Perú available and affordable to North Americans. They call their group Eco-tourism Perú. Please come to Perú, see bird species and support local business.Birding in Perú makes sense. Perú is either #1 or #2 in the world in bird species, and two Andean states, Junín and Pasco, are two of the top five birding regions in Perú. There will be four organized tours between April and October in 2025. It is possible to identify some 600 species on a 15-day trip, of which 35 species are either endemic to the region or seen only in Perú.Most of these Peruvian entrepreneurs believe that their country is not well organized to fight climate change. The guide, hotelier or restaurant owner would like to meet you, learn how Flathead Audubon group is organized and share strategies to protect the environment.Importantly, these businesses are local, and your money stays in the community. Even your food is grown locally, purchased in a local market and is prepared by the hostess and her staff. Your in-country transportation is overland, meaning a closer look at the countryside and a smaller carbon footprint.There is also the affordable in-country cost: approximately $100/person/day for a group of 6-8, $1500/person for a two-week vacation. The costs are substantially less than other tours, in part because they employ NO intermediate travel company. We have found nothing comparable."
The above message was originally directed toward Audubon members, but should have a broader appeal.
Ecotourism Peru homepage, with links about birds, hiking, trekking, cycling, lodging, meals, and transportation.
Wonderful initiative.
ReplyDeleteIt is so frustrating to travel and end up knowing most of your money goes straight back out of the fun place you are and to Big Travel while the locals get stuck working very hard for minimum wage.
It is endlessly frustrating to see airbnb and vrbo being taken over by investment firms that have zero local presence.
In earlier posts, the question of our environmental fate was discussed. I recently argued that the real “low hanging environmental fruit” was not to be found so much in urban eco-tweaks, like more bike paths, but in essentially gutting our consumer appetites. Also, I’ve said that an extreme reduction in consumption of all kinds is existentially necessary in any attempt to save the biosphere–be there any hope of maintaining a home for vertebrate life, Homo sapiens included. And, apropos this post, bird life.
ReplyDeleteSo, let’s examine this post from an environmental point of view: The environmental impact of Peruvian tourism can be seen from many possible angles, but let’s look at travel miles and move on from there. A roundtrip from the center of the US to Peru is about 8,000 miles. From Europe to Peru, about 20,000 miles. Since the post is promoting tourism from North America, we’ll use the lower number. With the aviation industry average of about 50 miles traveled per gallon of aviation fuel, one RT from the US burns through 160 gallons of fuel, generating 3,200 pounds of carbon dioxide. (8,000 miles, divided by 50 MPG=160 gallons, times 20 pounds CO2 per gallon burned=3,200 pounds CO2.)
Before Covid, Peru had about 5 million international tourists per year. In 2023 the number was about 2.5 million (with the desire being to grow the number back to pre-Covid highs.) For now, we’ll just imagine the number for 2024 is 2.5 million and that, on average, international tourists flew the distance from the US, and not Europe. 2.5 million times 3,200 pounds is 8 billion pounds. 8 billion pounds of CO2. (Wow, so let’s picture all 8 billion humans each holding a one pound bag of sugar…)
Now all we have to do is try to imagine that this 8 billion pounds is not our only problem, but representative of a problem which in aggregate impact is a 14 trillion pound-per-year problem. That is, to acknowledge that 8 billion pounds is a small number in the context of 14 trillion without losing the significance of what leads to this 8 billion pound contribution, at a moment like this, because the same force (or perhaps we might say moral failure) explains much of the rest of the 14 trillion.
The invitation–“BE SURPRISED BY ECOTOURISM IN PERU”--is followed with talk of “climate change” and “locally grown food.” Food grown locally for tourists who’ve traveled, just incidentally, several thousand miles to consume these meals? Consumers consuming locavore fare while blissfully unaware that flights to Peru add billions of pounds of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere? On what part of Earth will our ecotourists be saving the planet by eating locally grown food next week?
As I’ve also said in an earlier comment or two: We’re not really serious. That’s the most serious environmental problem we have.
And, to anyone interested in making a wealth distribution argument (and I seriously doubt the poorest Peruvians ever get a shot at starting a “tourism business”), perhaps skip the flight and send your money to OxFam.
But that jet burning "160 gallons of fuel, generating 3,200 pounds of carbon dioxide." is carrying more that one person isn't it?
ReplyDeletexoxoxoBruce
No, that's a per passenger number as a share of total aircraft fuel consumption. (Industry averages are approximate and the matter is complicated due to the fact that these particular GHGs are delivered at high altitude, exacerbating their role in the greenhouse effect.) Randomly clipped from cyberspace: "A plane like a Boeing 747 uses approximately 1 gallon (about 4 liters) of fuel every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 36,000 gallons (150,000 liters). The 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters of fuel per kilometer)."
Delete