Maybe it is easy being green
Environmentally-conscious travelers want companies to follow suit
Most popular |
| |||||
I arrived at this unlikely conclusion while talking with Mike Ragsdale, the “town evangelist” for a seaside community in Northwest Florida called Alys Beach. “People think being green means making sacrifices or paying more,” he told me. “That’s not necessarily true.”
Apparently, a lot of travelers feel the same way. A vast majority of them — 85 percent — consider themselves to be “environmentally conscious,” according to a recent YPartnership survey. Yet most of them now say they’re unwilling to pay a premium for being green. They expect them to be good stewards of the environment in which they operate, according to the study.
No one is saying that being environmentally responsible is irrelevant when you travel. On the contrary, it’s that being green is so important that it shouldn’t become another marketing gimmick. It should be a part of what you do every day — part of every travel company’s DNA.
That’s why green travel as we know it, with the hotel touting its use of recycled water, the airline bragging about its use of alternative fuels or theme park buzzing about its new lightbulbs, is well on its way to becoming history.
Take Alys Beach, for example. You won’t hear it use the word “green” to describe the way it went about designing and building the resort’s units. But everything from its tiles to its roofs is designed with sustainability in mind. They’re energy-efficient and built to last hundreds of years instead of a generation or two. “A few years from now, the standard roof would be in a landfill somewhere,” says Ragsdale. “And that isn’t very green, is it?”
So where does that leave you? Here are a few thoughts about traveling in a post-green world.
Don’t allow a travel company to cash in on your conscience.
Being green shouldn’t be a reference to the color of your money. But it often is. Several airlines, including Air Canada, British Airways, Virgin Atlantic and Virgin America, now offer programs that allow you to offset your share of carbon dioxide emissions from a flight — for a small fee. Sounds awfully tempting. But it’s absurd. Think about it: Would you be willing to voluntarily pay an extra $30 to your pharmaceutical company to clean up one of its toxic dumps? If anything, you would think twice before buying another one of that company’s products. Which is exactly what travelers ought to do when faced with an offset option: run to the competition. Travel companies should be offsetting their own carbon, not guilting you into paying yet another surcharge for it.
Ask why they’re “green” in the first place.
Sometimes the answer isn’t so obvious. A fuel-saving initiative might benefit the environment, but it can also help a company’s bottom line. A cruise line like Royal Caribbean, which has a fairly aggressive environmental program called “Save the Waves” probably wouldn’t have taken such actions if it weren’t for a five-year investigation that led to the company pleading guilty in federal court to dumping thousands of gallons of oily bilge, dry-cleaning fluids and photo-developing chemicals into the ocean. Also, how geographically consistent is a company’s commitment to the environment? A ship’s foreign registry allows it to avoid many American regulations. Does its greenness extend beyond U.S. territorial waters?
- Discuss Story On Newsvine
-
Rate Story:
View popularLowHigh - Instant Message
MORE FROM CHRISTOPHER ELLIOTT |
| Add Christopher Elliott headlines to your news reader: |
Resource guide


