Lion of the Blogosphere

Tourism has huge carbon footprint

https://inhabitat.com/global-tourisms-carbon-footprint-is-four-times-bigger-than-we-thought/

For the first time, researchers have quantified the carbon footprint of global tourism around the world – and their findings show that tourism’s impact is roughly four times greater than previously thought. The research, led by the Integrated Sustainability Analysis supply-chain research group at the University of Sydney, accounted for all components of the tourism industry, from travel to souvenirs. The group found global tourist activity is growing faster than international trade and already accounts for one-tenth of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

I’m not saying that I believe in the global warming propaganda, but I bet that white people who are the biggest consumers of international tourism are disproportionately democrat-voting SWPLS who believe in climate change and Al Gore. These people made fun of Sarah Palin because she had never gone on any international vacations. They hate Trump for being “anti-science” yet they continue to spew massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the air so they brag about their visits to exotic countries. Shame on their hypocrisy.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

May 7, 2018 at 4:24 PM

Posted in Bobos

42 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Lion, you’ve been on a tear lately. Good work.

    Andrew E.

    May 7, 2018 at 4:30 PM

  2. Working class people can’t take globe-spanning vacations like SWPL lefties because they can’t afford it and proles have family obligations that preclude foreign vacations.

    Oswald Spengler

    May 7, 2018 at 5:22 PM

    • I know a few working class people who took international vacations to all included resorts in Mexico. Probably not what you had in mind.

      Ivanthegrozny

      May 8, 2018 at 12:14 AM

  3. Divorce is also bad for the environment

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/03/AR2007120301797.html

    but swpl types rarely acknowledge this and will obsess over recycling (which, arguably, has a negligible environmental impact) and ‘overpopulation.’ My sister’s wacko environmentalist in laws nearly disowned them when they had a 4th child. Meanwhile they live in a massive home (just 2 people) travel constantly and made their money off aeronautics manufacturing. lol

    toomanymice

    May 7, 2018 at 5:38 PM

    • Has this level of cognitive dissonance ever existed in world history? I doubt it because world culture has never had such an anti-humanist sanctimonious bend to it. It’s a unique Christian Western phenomenon arising out of its industrial decadence.

      A Dilettante

      May 7, 2018 at 10:06 PM

  4. You know what else increases the carbon footprint? Immigration. Never hear about that either.

    Asf

    May 7, 2018 at 5:47 PM

  5. What’s really funny is that global warming conferences are typically held in person and not via video link.

    But anyway, the vast majority of Leftists don’t seriously believe in global warming just like the vast majority of Christians don’t seriously believe that they will burn in hell if they sin.

    fortaleza84

    May 7, 2018 at 6:16 PM

    • I think the better analogy is with Calvinists rather than Christians in general. Leftists believe themselves to be an elite that can travel abroad and leave big carbon footprints because they’re elite. Just like Calvinists believe themselves to be the elect who are saved unlike everyone else.

      Tom

      May 7, 2018 at 10:53 PM

  6. It is hard to agree, but flying half the world away to take a dip in the same ocean you have next door and eat something that tastes marginal because it was not Americanized or worse eat at the same good old McDonald’s makes very little sense.

    My Two Cents

    May 7, 2018 at 6:22 PM

    • I think people would be stripped of their SWPLdom for traveling to a foreign country to eat McDonalds. And you’re wrong to say that McDonalds is the same in every country. McDonalds actually incorporates all kinds of local changes to the menu.

      Magnavox

      May 7, 2018 at 10:06 PM

      • McDonalds was very popular in Kiev and Odessa. It was packed with young people too. The menu was altered for the local tastes but the core menu was still available. My double cheeseburger tasted exactly the same. In fact, while dining there, I saw a little boy and his mother eating and thought that this was the same experience I had when I was a boy. Then I realized McDonald’s is the single greatest food concept to come out of the USA.

        And you too would eat at a McDonald’s after being served lard on a piece of bread for the past week.

        Ivanthegrozny

        May 8, 2018 at 12:19 AM

  7. Interesting in light of this:

    “A study by Cornell and the University of Michigan researchers found that those “highly concerned” about climate change were less likely to engage in recycling and other eco-friendly behaviors than global-warming skeptics.

    Published in the April edition of the Journal of Environmental Psychology, the one-year study broke 600 participants into three groups based on their level of concern about climate change: “highly concerned,” “cautiously worried,” and “skeptical.”

    The “highly concerned” cluster was “most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions, whereas the ‘Skeptical’ opposed policy solutions but were most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors,” the researchers concluded.”

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/7/climate-skeptics-more-eco-friendly-global-warming-/

    The report isnt available so we cant tell if they screwed up the analysis. And they are social science types so they did probably screw up.

    But these two articles together would argue that we need a major behavioral adjustment on the left of the spectrum.

    Lion o' the Turambar

    May 7, 2018 at 6:26 PM

  8. You’ve combined a couple of my pet peeves in this post. Not only do I despise environmentalists who constantly spout about global warming while doing nothing personally. But I also despise people who travel excessively. It’s usually liberal women. Not always but usually. And they’re annoying.

    https://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/23/19-travelling/

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/travel/2016/08/10/most-travelers-today-are-women-and-industry-may-finally-catching/MrBBK7ZqAt13VqT6Kp50PJ/story.html

    destructure

    May 7, 2018 at 6:44 PM

    • “But I also despise people who travel excessively. It’s usually liberal women. Not always but usually. And they’re annoying.”

      Slutcations. They’re on the prowl for anonymous and accountability-free mystery meat sexcapades.

      hard9bf

      May 8, 2018 at 4:51 PM

  9. Leo and his private jet!

    rivelino

    May 7, 2018 at 7:06 PM

  10. “I bet that white people who are the biggest consumers of international tourism are disproportionately democrat-voting SWPLS”

    What’s more is that it costs something like $3,000 – $5,000 to actually save the life of a black person living in a sub-Saharan African country by donating to an underfunded charity like the Against Malaria Foundation. Most SWPLS I know spend somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000 per year on vacations. Summer in wherever-the-fuck is almost always worth more than a black life.

    Horace Pinker

    May 7, 2018 at 7:20 PM

    • if money could save africa then I think it would have already done so.

      Clay

      May 7, 2018 at 10:37 PM

  11. Lion, you need to travel. You haven’t seen anything in your life and that’s a waste. I don’t understand why you don’t do it. I mean, you haven’t event been to Israel or to Italy so what kind of person are you?

    Mates, how about us sponsoring Lion for a trip abroad? If 50 people chip in to the tune of $50, he is good to go. I can’t stand him rotting away in NYC.

    Yakov

    May 7, 2018 at 9:48 PM

    • Why would Lion go to Italy? He got out of Staten Island to avoid guidos. I doubt he’d want to visit a whole country full of them. Cue JS now to pipe in with the comment that Lion won’t visit the “shithole” parts of Italy but the superior north part of the country with its artists, writers, musicians, and Italian SWPL types.

      Then again, Lion could get lucky with some hot Italian babe, so why not……….? Italians are known to be great lovers.

      maryk

      May 7, 2018 at 11:57 PM

      • A Mediterranean supremacist who dislikes Nordic Whites thinks Southern Italy is a craphole, because of the Norman Viking invasions. The Normans also invaded what is today England. Does anyone see a connection?

        JS

        May 8, 2018 at 9:17 AM

  12. Pollution is a collective action problem. SWPLs want to address it collectively and if we addressed it the way there would be less of this kind of tourism and fewer carbon emissions. That’s the basic truth of the situation but you’re all so desperate to feel smarter than scientists and other with elite education credentials that you jump on this irrational line of criticism.

    Only an idiot thinks collective action problems can be solved through individual action and only idiots think that people advocating for the former are hypocrites for not engaging in the latter. But I’m pretty sure SWPLs come ahead even in terms of individual carbon footprint because urban, childless, carless, vegetarian, etc. people do have small carbon footprints even if they do more jet travel. Jet travel of course being a form of mass transportation.

    Magnavox

    May 7, 2018 at 9:54 PM

    • Don’t forget that white conservative have lower iq than white liberals.

      leopard

      May 8, 2018 at 3:50 AM

    • “Pollution is a collective action problem. SWPLs want to address it collectively and if we addressed it the way there would be less of this kind of tourism and fewer carbon emissions.”

      Then why do these Liberal Whites make a big show of driving electric cars?

      fortaleza84

      May 8, 2018 at 5:57 AM

      • In part because of a government subsidy and in part because of the status associated with it in their culture. Both those things are collective. The fact that their culture values international travel as well as reducing carbon emissions doesn’t make them hypocrites.

        Magnavox

        May 8, 2018 at 12:50 PM

      • “in part because of the status associated with it in their culture.”

        Ok, and the status comes from being seen to be doing environmentally conscious activities on a personal level.

        So there are two possibilities here:

        (1) Liberal Whites put value in engaging in environmentally conscious activities on a personal level.

        (2) Liberal Whites DON’T put value in engaging in environmentally conscious activities on a personal level.

        If (1) is true, then Liberal Whites are hypocrites for engaging in lots of international travel. If (2) is true, the Liberal Whites are hypocrites for driving electric cars. Either way they are hypocrites.

        fortaleza84

        May 8, 2018 at 5:51 PM

      • You can value something without devoting your whole life to it. Liberals value travel and they value being environmentally conscious. Are they hypocrites for not maximizing the amount of travel they engage in?

        Magnavox

        May 8, 2018 at 6:14 PM

      • I see many liberal women who DO maximize the amount of travel they engage in.

      • “You can value something without devoting your whole life to it.”

        Sure, and if the only steps you take in support of that value are those which (by some strange coincidence) enhance your social status, then it’s reasonable for outsiders to conclude that your true motivation is to enhance your status.

        Put another way, your most recent rationalization could be used to explain away virtually any hypocrisy at all.

        fortaleza84

        May 8, 2018 at 9:09 PM

    • Good rational reasoning, Magna! You know, I’ve heard it from communists, who opposed donating to charity. Poverty, they would say, is a systemic problem. Helping a few poor saps doesn’t do anything for the masses. The worse they are off, the closer they get to revolting and making things better for everyone, charity is actually a bad thing.

      There are like millions of all sorts of sea creatures that get washed out on the shore and you can’t help all of them, but that one individual turtle that you throw back into the sea, for that turtle it’s its whole world.

      Yakov

      May 8, 2018 at 6:05 AM

    • Interesting. So you see no hypocrisy in the Leo and Al Gore types who live lifestyles that expend far more CO2 than the average American, but preach that the average American has to change his CO2 expelling ways?

      Mike Street Station

      May 8, 2018 at 6:20 AM

      • The rich will always emit more CO2. That’s the way capitalism works. Currently that’s because other commodities such as oil have dollar costs associated with them but also happen to produce CO2. With a carbon tax, the CO2 itself would also have a direct cost associated with it. No matter what the rich are going to consume more and have more status than the rest of the population. This is something that conservatives defend in almost every other circumstance.

        Magnavox

        May 8, 2018 at 12:48 PM

      • You’ve basically avoided my point, which ISN”T that the rich emit more CO2, but that they do so while criticizing the release of much lesser amounts by the regular folk.

        Mike Street Station

        May 8, 2018 at 6:53 PM

    • CO2 isn’t pollution, my friend — it’s plant food.

      Just because five science-illiterates on the Supreme Kourt declared plant food a pollutant don’t make it so.

      hard9bf

      May 8, 2018 at 4:52 PM

      • The hydrocarbons are gone. We will be burning much less coal and oil and natural gas in the decades ahead because we are simply running out of them. Policy about burning stuff is irrelevant because we are just about out of things to burn.

        The other layer of ridiculousness is that the global climate is clearly turning into a cooling cycle. The CO2 warming models were total nonsense. Sunspot activity is crashing and we just had record lows all over the place. Nothing the carbon-phobes predicted has panned out for 25 years. The model is clearly garbage.

        But even if it weren’t a garbage model, it wouldn’t matter, because we’re out of cheap hydrocarbons just about now.

        bobbybobbob

        May 9, 2018 at 12:22 AM

  13. Liberalism (as defined by SWPLisms) is an emotionally based ideology. It has no logical consistency and therefore hypocrisy does not register.

    Ivanthegrozny

    May 8, 2018 at 12:10 AM

    • Wrong. SWPL liberalism is consistent:

      Anything that maligns or harms white men of normal sexuality is a Good Thing.

      hard9bf

      May 8, 2018 at 4:53 PM

  14. in australia the biggest supporters of our nominally enivornmentist oriented party, the greens, tend to live in live in inner city areas. not only are they the biggest consumer of tourist services as you say, it’s been found that inner city occupiers are bigger consumers and have a more severe environmental footprint:

    https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/11/high-density-living-worse-environment/

    “In a revelation that challenges the long-held assumption that it’s more efficient to reside in a vertical village than a horizontal one, the three-year US study shows that apartment dwellers consume more energy, spend more of their time travelling and use their cars more.

    “The findings are a little surprising to us all,” says Dr Anthony Wood, executive director of the Chicago-based Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), a research professor in the college of architecture at the Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, and co-author of the landmark report.

    “We’ve all grown up thinking that urban density and verticality is a good thing but there has never been a study that has really looked at this in any detail; they’ve all been generic studies, based on large sets of generalised data. So we thought we should undertake a more focused study to prove it. And the results have been quite the opposite to those we thought we would find.”

    The study, Downtown High-Rise vs Suburban Low-Rise Living, minutely examined the lifestyles, movements and energy bills and usage of 249 households living in high-rise towers in the city of Chicago. At the same time, it collected the equivalent data for 273 households residing in houses in the suburb of Oak Park, 11 kilometres from the CBD, and compared the two.

    The outcomes, released on Tuesday at the annual international CTBUH conference this year being held in Australia, were staggering.

    Downtown high-rise residents were found to consume 27 per cent more electricity and gas per person than the suburban residents, and on a square metre of space average, they consumed 4.6 per cent more.

    Despite the fact that some of the energy use in high-rise was from the lifts in buildings and common lighting, pools and gyms, suburban homes have a far greater surface-to-volume area, with high ceilings, unattached walls and large roofs, and most of the houses in the study were large, wooden-framed and, on average, 98 years old.

    In terms of embodied energy – the quantities and specifications of materials used in the construction of both types of housing – high-rise fared even worse. The project found that high-rise buildings required 49 per cent more embodied energy to construct per square metre, and a stunning 72 per cent more on a per person basis…

    High-rise residents were also found to own more cars (0.6 cars per person as against 0.5 in the suburb) and travel longer distances in them, 9 per cent further per year…

    On the plus side for city centre high-risers, they were discovered to use less water – 73 per cent of the water used in suburban households, they took fewer separate journeys a year (92 per cent of those taken in the suburbs), and they walked and cycled nearly three times more.

    One factor that may have skewed the findings is that high-rise city residents were generally older than those in the suburbs with an average age of 51 compared to 31.8, and were wealthier.”

    i think you can attribute this to differences in income levels to a degree, but it’s funny to see that high density living doesn’t really ameliorate personal environmental impacts that much relative to suburban living.

    james n.s.w

    May 8, 2018 at 4:20 PM

    • I am not surprised. I wrote something like this 13 years ago.

      Low-rise apartments in suburban areas (like in Florida!) are probably the most economically efficient ways to live.

    • I didn’t click the link but I’m betting this study is dumb. The reason suburbia is horrifically inefficient is infrastructure and logistics, and the energy to support all that. Household electric bills are going to be a rounding error.

      The sewage systems, water lines, road maintenance, gas lines, and trucking to supply stores use way more energy out in the burbs. Cities are where they are because of energy efficient rail and barge transport.

      If you go over to strongtowns.org they have a lot of data showing how most suburban development doesn’t even pay for itself. These lower density suburban areas are built out on a ponzi model where the eventual maintenance costs of the infrastructure 35 years out cannot possibly be matched by reasonably expected tax revenues. Maintenance of existing infrastructure has been covered by fees and taxes from newer developments. Well, this plan is reaching its logical conclusion in a lot of places already. Exurban/suburban Municipalities will be going bankrupt all over the place.

      bobbybobbob

      May 8, 2018 at 10:02 PM

  15. It’s very simple:

    White men invented the carbon-spewing internal combustion engine.

    White men of normal sexuality are awful, they should all be dead. Literally.

    Belief in globalclimatewarmingweatherdisruptionchange is just another avenue for expressing one’s hatred for white men.

    White Genocide Party (AKA Democratic) policy stances make perfect sense if you ask yourself one question: Does X tend to harm or malign white men of normal sexuality? If the answer is yes, then the WGP supports X. If the answer is no, the WGP opposes X.

    hard9bf

    May 8, 2018 at 4:47 PM

  16. Pleased to hear it. My wife and I are going on a tour to Israel next month. We had an exceptionally cold winter here in the Upper Midwest, so we’re doing our part to warm things up.

    I’ll believe that AGW is a problem when people who say it’s a problem start acting like it’s a problem.

    Black Death

    May 8, 2018 at 6:02 PM


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: