Carbon footprint and mass tourism

Going around the world isn't great for my carbon footprint, I admit. While things are pretty good at home thanks to our hydroelectric power and my electric car, here I'm happily contributing to global warming, even though several of my flights are offset. Should I have stayed away? I asked myself the question, but not for very long.

Here's my reasoning: I love to travel, and should I deprive myself of that when many countries, Americans first and Canadians second, are dragging their feet on implementing a real ecological shift? The example that comes to mind is insulating a house as much as possible while leaving a section of wall completely exposed to the elements. My sacrifice of stopping traveling would have no impact on the planet, although I am doing my best in a small way.

Air travel is a major polluter, and competition between countries means that fuel is taxed little or not at all, making flights affordable. A perverse effect of this is that, in Europe, trains are less competitive for medium and long distances.

Significantly increasing fuel taxes would have a substantial impact on reducing air traffic, but this would have major consequences for many people. The wealthy and very wealthy, who contribute exorbitantly to emissions, would be little or not at all affected. However, mass tourism would be severely impacted. At one end of the spectrum, the middle class in the north would have to travel less, and in the south, the livelihoods of those who depend on it would be jeopardized. Here in Malaysia, it's the second largest source of income. In French Polynesia, it's the largest. It would also complicate the lives of people living in remote areas of Quebec.

The lower middle class's resistance to environmental policies has become a driving force for the right wing in our democracies. This is understandable; their lifestyle, based on cheap energy, would be severely disrupted. It's a challenge that must be met.