I did a ton of traveling last year all over the world and the conclusion I reached was that the popular destinations are completely overwhelmed.
I guess it’s the combination of cheap flights and instagram but if you want to enjoy yourself then forget about Kyoto and Venice etc and look into some less popular and less well known places instead.
And do the rest of us a favor and don’t location tag if you do discover something great.
Instagram is a really big part of this. There are so many places that are commonly photographed, my favorite examples being Antelope Canyon in Arizona and Kinkaku-ji in Kyoto.
When you see that amazing picture, what you don't see is the crowd of 100 people behind the photographer waiting for their turn to get the same picture.
Not only is it a bad experience for tourists, but it makes the locals resentful of what should be a valuable revenue stream.
It's not clear how to fix it. Most people who travel have limited vacation time and are making a logical decision to head for known interesting landmarks. There's no travel guide for how to find that one great off-the-beaten-path spot that you'll remember for the rest of your life while still making it back to your job on Monday.
Trolltunga is a very popular travel photo. Here's some random site showing what it looks like on Instagram, and what the lineup for the Instagram photo looks like. It was pretty funny the first time I saw a crowd photo as opposed to the dozens of versions of the single traveler on the edge that I'd previously seen.
I recently did lots of traveling as well, and this attitude just boggles my mind. I got lucky on my day at the Louvre because they cleared out the whole place because a fire alarm got pulled. So I started as far from the Mona Lisa as possible, and slowly worked my way toward it. Far away from it was still amazing art, but the closer I got to the Mona Lisa, the more people I saw with their phones out snapping pictures of things that hundreds of other people were snapping pictures of. I amused myself for at least an hour taking pictures of people taking pictures of pictures. To me, the point is to stand in front of things (art, nature, architecture, etc.) and allow yourself to be awe-struck. If you want to look at it on your phone, there's no reason to use your camera to do it.
> There's no travel guide for how to find that one great off-the-beaten-path spot that you'll remember for the rest of your life while still making it back to your job on Monday.
That's pretty much what the Rick Steves books specialize in.
I was in Venice in May a couple of years ago. While the city was cool, and the typical attractions were fun to see, we were a bit underwhelmed.
We then hopped a RyanAir flight to Bari because that's where my wife's family emigrated from. Thought we'd rent a car, spend 4-5 hours hopping around Bari and then move on to Naples. We ended up spending 4 nights and completely loved the city and the whole of Puglia. It ended up being the best part of the trip.
Maybe it was just expectations were reversed, but we truly loved Bari, and could have just skipped Venice and Naples and spent more time there. Not that Venice and Naples were disappointing, but they didn't stand out at the end of the trip.
Italy as a whole was wonderful. Can't wait to go back.
I love Bari. In general, I've found the "deep cuts" in Italy to be way better than the tourist traps. I most recently spent two weeks in rural Sicily where there wasn't much to do and it was fantastic.
English works fine. Get a roaming data plan and use google translate for situations where basic english doesn't cut it. I also print out common phrases and words and try and learn a little bit of the cultural nuances (hand signals, body language etc) which always help break the ice and make communication easier / fun.
I'm in Venice right now and while there are many tourists (this city survives entirely on tourism) it's far from overwhelmed. We haven't waited in any lines in Italy as a whole -- the only real line we encountered was at the Colosseum, and that took about 20 minutes.
There are certainly places that are less busy but I wouldn't outright discourage anyone from traveling to the popular places. It's not that difficult to avoid the crowds and there are tons of things worth seeing.
You are still visiting in the off season transitioning to peak summer season with August being the worst. Go back when schools get out in North America, Europe, and Asia, then let us know how it compares. Try it again when Europe is on Holiday in August.
I went in May when schools were getting out and I could tell the difference by the end of the week. Make appointments to the popular places to avoid the lines.
There's absolutely a high season for tourists. That's what I was referring to when I said it's not that difficult to avoid the crowds; all we did was go during the off-season.
Restaurants whose clientele is mainly foreigners will often adapt their menus to what they think foreigners want, and their prices to what they think foreigners will pay. So, if you want to eat the local food as ordinary locals will eat it, and you don't want to be ripped off, then you might want to avoid places where the other diners are likely to be fellow foreign tourists.
I just visited Costa Rica last week, but it was more of a mission trip to build a well. We were in a fairly run-down town far out of the way of typical tourists (though surprisingly we still saw a few pass through!). Got to meet many locals and eat with them, probably wouldn't trade that experience for anything. When we inevitably did some more tourist-y things in La Fortuna it felt kind of weird and unsatisfying.
So if you're interested in that sort of unique experience I recommend looking up some nonprofits in need of volunteers.
Not to diminish your good intentions and the obviously profitable experiences that you've gained, but I would be hesitant to recommend voluntourism without any qualifications.
There are obviously benefits to the people who go, but there is also potential of harm to the communities visited -- more so than just the usual tourism -- in the name of doing good. Skilled/educational trips like medical missions that provide relief and sustainable/appropriate skills transmission to providers in the local community tend to be the most positive/neutral, but efforts like helping to rebuild schools, etc. with volunteers who have no specific expertise tend to be problematic.
(issues include depriving livelihood from local builders, badly rebuilt buildings owing to lack of skill that have to be rebuilt, creating a culture of dependency, damage caused to the dignity of providers in local communities, the constant impermanency of relationships can especially affect children in the local community, etc.).
Many thoughtful missions organizations are aware of these issues and try to plan missions trips that mitigate such harm. There's a book called "When Helping Hurts" [1] that guides a lot of the new thinking in this space. Again good intentions are laudable, and we should not be dissuaded from doing good in the world, but acting with discernment and wisdom ensures that actual good, and not harm, is done in the visited communities.
My wife and I 'When Helping Hurts' last year, and I'd highly recommend it as a resource for thoughtful volunteerism. Beyond the content, I thought it had the best set of questions/exercises I've seen in a book of this kind.
Fair enough, but I wouldn't go so far as to make people afraid of trying it either, which feels like an unintended consequence of this line of thinking. The organization I went through at least worked out of the community and had experienced locals working for them who were doing most of the actual drilling.
I did that the last time I was in the Netherlands. I spent little time in Amsterdam and a lot of time in the other parts of the country. I had a great time and most of the other people I encountered were locals .
My strategy was to figure out what Dutch people visited in their own country and mimic that. That went quite well.
I volunteered at my local PBS station in high school during pledge drives. This was 2001. Rick was there once, talking about the DVDs of his show you would get if you donated. After his segment, he hung out and talked with every volunteer. None of the other hosts ever did that. Love him so much.
I read his book Europe through the back door before my second trip to Europe, around 1992. What a refreshing book, especially in a category that was (and is) dominated by publications and institutions that are invested in making you want expensive and exclusive accommodations and attractions.
He has kind of a upright earnestness, combined with a sort of Germanic devotion to efficiency ("save money by sleeping on the train"; "plan a day's activity city-hopping by integrating a few key visits with the train schedule", "roll your trousers when packing"), that some nerds would generally find appealing.
I've returned to that book several times over the years when I feel like I need an attitude adjustment about how I travel, because it's easy to fall into the habit of just booking expensive accommodations. The result can be one-dimensional.
> What a refreshing book, especially in a category that was (and is) dominated by publications and institutions that are invested in making you want expensive and exclusive accommodations and attractions.
That was mainly a problem of the US market, though. In the 1990s the American travel guide market, i.e. the sort of guides you would find in any mall bookshop, was completely dominated by Fodors and Frommers, which aimed at those with rather high budgets. So, Rick Steves could offer an alternative to that within North America. Meanwhile, however, in the UK and Australia Lonely Planet and Rough Guides were more widely available. (Not to mention some of the travel guide series in the German- and French-speaking world). Those guides opened up travel to even lower budgets than Rick Steves could.
I agree with this. I found the Rough Guides another good antidote to Froddors/Michelin - and in fact, a better guidebook than ETTBD. I don't think I remember LP guides for Europe being helpful - I thought their main forte was Asia. Maybe that impression is mistaken.
For me, the thing was that ETTBD presented, explicitly, a whole travel philosophy/attitude that I found inspiring at the time.
Weird fact: For the last ~10 years I have always watched Rick Steves' show while doing laundry (sorting and folding). The two are now inextricably linked in my head (thinking about folding socks makes me think about Barcelona), but I really look forward to doing laundry.
I like travel. I like traveling outside of the US. It undoubtedly does all sort of great things. But first you have to realize, that paid vacation isn't even guaranteed in the US, at least 1/4 of all workers get no paid vacation, and of the ones that do the likelihood that it is enough time to get to another country and back is pretty slim.
I don't see this as a criticism of Rick Steves / traveling — this highlights the need for reforms in the American labor system. People do better work when they vacation, the hard part from an institutional perspective is compensating for the absence of critical contributors. But it can be done.
Was able to get 6 nights in Japan on 4 vacation days by leveraging Thanksgiving. Told relatives I would miss Thanksgiving but attend Christmas, everyone thought that made sense. For those who celebrate and enjoy Christmas, I don't recommend missing Christmas for solo travel overseas, did that once and felt very isolated. People in the place I was visiting were celebrating their own Christmases and people I knew back home were celebrating Christmas and I wasn't there. With Thanksgiving it's likely not a holiday in the country you're visiting so everything is open and for me at least, I don't really care about missing Thanksgiving, a better version happens 1 month later.
In a similar vein, I've taken to traveling over the July 4th holiday every year now. For many people, it can be a very long weekend, or is easy to turn into an entire week+ trip. It's not really celebrated outside the US (except for maybe a bar or two, go get one drink with the expats and have fun for an hour), and I don't find the celebrations back at home to be particularly fun anymore. Plus, with the way it falls at the edge of a month/quarter/fiscal year for some, it's likely a slow time at work anyways. This year with it falling on a Thursday, you could probably take off 6/29 to 7/7 and barely miss any work.
I spent the Christmas holiday solo split between Zurich/Dublin/Amsterdam a few years ago and i can not agree more. A lot of shops were closed, i knew nobody, and felt very isolated as a result. I spent a lot of time on the phone with friends back home. The open air Christmas markets in Zurich were wonderful, though!
>Was able to get 6 nights in Japan ... For those who celebrate and enjoy Christmas, I don't recommend missing Christmas for solo travel overseas, did that once and felt very isolated. People in the place I was visiting were celebrating their own Christmases
I'm pretty sure Japan doesn't celebrate Christmas. So if you don't care about celebrating it, or would really like to just get away from all the Xmas hoopla (esp. if you're single; Christmas is a terrible time for single people, and suicide rates go way up at that time of year), Japan seems like a great place to go. Stay away from the European countries though.
I prefer traveling over holidays, although I not alone since I'm with my wife. We have often seen places in their much more natural state. Plus, there is a whole host of other things to do since it's typically winter. Ice skating in Budapest and then going to a steam bath was a great experience.
Heh, I like Paris in November/December. No tourists. Their poor approach to HVAC is a non-issue. And I can deal with the week of overcast because I have clear skies before I leave and after I return to N. America.
For many people, 1 of the 2 weeks you get allotted is going to be spent with family in some capacity, which really gives most people 1 week each year to decide what to do for a vacation. 1 week to travel to europe and back is a tough sell.
I wish we could decarbonize long distance travel. I would love to see more of the world but I can't justify contributing to climate change for such a trivial thing. I can limit emissions by doing smaller trips with bike, bus or train locally, but oceans present a problem.
A round trip transatlantic flight from New York to Berlin emits 2.4 metric tons of CO2e per person.
The UN says global emissions per capita needs to drop to 1.5 metric tons/year by 2050 if we have any hope of keeping to a 2C temperature rise this century.
I wonder if there's any hope of electric planes hitting the energy density needed for commercial airlines, or algae based plane fuel taking off. I would even use a slower or more expensive mean of travel if it meant the emissions were drastically reduced.
This sort of hyper-sensitivity to any negative effects of your actions is absolutely paralyzing, as you clearly demonstrate.
It will keep you from enjoying anything. People believe they shouldn't have kids because "there's too many people". Or spend the $10 on a reusable bottle of water they are going to lose instead of buying the $1 and giving $9 to your cause of choice (charity, church, weed for the homeless).
The only way to really go zero-emissions, which would really benefit everyone (I guess, by this logic) is to just off yourself.
But I'd argue that you could do more good, have more potential to solve these problems you are concerned about, by exposing yourself to things outside your comfort zone. Other places, people, cultures, great works of art and engineering, and rich experiences.
All of the planes you ride on are going to fly anyway, get out there and get it!
Ethical consumption is a lie, and individual environmentalism is a ploy to redirect the conversation away from the incredible waste/pollution of industry and commerce.
Consider Nestle taking tens of millions of gallons of water from drought-struck California for $524 a year, even as residents are urged to cut back their water consumption.
Hmmm, so if consumers stopped buying or using a certain product/service that produces a lot of pollution, then industry/commerce would still keep right on ahead polluting the exact same amount. Interesting thought.
Consider consumers buying millions of gallons of water from Nestle when they could just drink tap water...
I think what you mean to say is not enough people care about ethical consumption to reduce pollution to the level you think we need to be at. We should instead regulate industry so that it doesn't depend on individuals making ethical decisions with their consumption, because most of them won't. Perfectly reasonable position, but you don't have to say it like there's some vast evil conspiracy out there.
There is a balance to be found in lifestylism. I wouldn't call it hyper-sensitivity. You can't be perfect, and your lifestyle isn't going to disrupt global systems that facilitate most of the worlds problems, but there is something to be said for reducing your negative impact on the world.
It feels gross to have a smart phone or computer built with conflict minerals (they all essentially are). It feels gross to have more than affordable clothes assembled in sweatshops. I'm not the one setting up these systems but it feels gross to benefit from them. Don't tell people to ignore those feelings, ignoring them is alienating.
Also, I think if you off yourself the carbon in your body will eventually be emitted? :P
> All of the planes you ride on are going to fly anyway, get out there and get it!
This is just plain bad reasoning, for obvious reasons.
It is not “hypersensitive” to care about the CO2 impact of air travel. In fact it is a large blind spot for many otherwise progressive-minded people. These travel shows genuinely espouse progressive principles of learning from other cultures and yet almost never is there any mention of the significant CO2 impact. All the little things you might do throughout the year to lower your impact and get to where we need to be in 12 years are easily wiped out by just one plane trip. It’s good to talk about it.
> Taking the bus instead of the car to work will "pay for" like 4 cross-continental trips a year.
Only if you want to maintain the same levels of unsustainable CO2 output. That's totally unacceptable. We need to get to as close to zero emissions as we can as fast as we can, which means taking mass transit to work, living closer to work, and not flying so much.
> Driving the same trip is 2500 pounds - more than 4x.
Not if you do it in an electric, sustainably powered car (or better yet train).
Where do these numbers come from? Google gives me the car being roughly equivalent with a single passenger. If these numbers are referring to a family of 4+ in one vehicle then it passes muster, but that's a big caveat.
Like other people have said, there is a balance to be found. There's certainly a middle ground to be found instead of "I don't like the Prius so I'm going to buy an F150." Assuming no significant externalities, the more sustainable choice is also the more inexpensive choice so that's a benefit. Choosing air travel also isn't all-or-nothing, for example traveling to Cartagena from the continental USA is much less miles and carbon emissions than Phuket. Last, air lines will adjust the frequency of their routes long term so voting with your wallet matters.
> People believe they shouldn't have kids because "there's too many people".
This is true though. There are too many people on the planet, and you shouldn't have kids if it aligns with you beliefs.
Luckily, countries are already headed in that direction (fertility rates below replacement rate) [1]. But we should do more with carbon tax funds to further incentivize this outcome.
Not wanting to be overtly political, but this was in today's news. If those beliefs lead to trends, fertility rates might not lead to one's desired outcome if others don't believe:
"According to the General Social Survey data, 41 percent of Democrats are without a steady partner, compared with only 29 percent of Republicans. Black Americans are more likely than white Americans to not have a steady partner: 51 percent vs. 32 percent, respectively."
"In racial or ethnic terms, America’s “Baby Bust” is kinda, sorta, a little bit racist: it’s hammered Native Americans and Hispanics particularly hard, and hit even African Americans harder than whites generally, and certainly harder than non-Hispanic whites." [1]
Are Republicans going to have more kids than Democrats? I have no idea, Paul Ryan has had three and says he's "doing his part" [2]. The trend downward in fertility rate across the board is still obvious.
Excuse me? Everything I've ever read shows that Hispanics are having more kids than any other demographic. They might decrease that after immigrating to the US and becoming more assimilated, but even so they still lead the pack, and non-Hispanic caucasians are projected to become a minority in 2-3 decades IIRC.
"Results from the 2010 Census showed that racial and ethnic minorities accounted for 91.7% of the nation’s growth since 2000. Most of that increase from 2000 to 2010—56%—was due to Hispanics."
"The changing profile of the nation’s youngest residents also stems from the fact that some groups, especially Hispanics, have higher numbers of children than do non-Hispanic whites."
"Among Hispanics, the total fertility rate is 2.4. For non-Hispanic whites and for non-Hispanic Asians, it is 1.8."
"In 2014, blacks and Asians gave birth to almost 17 percent more children than the national average, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Hispanics gave birth to 32 percent more than the national average."
So, in summary, why are you posting obvious falsehoods? There's plenty of data showing that your assertions are plainly wrong. This was all from a very quick Google search, one of them being the government's own census site. There's tons more.
I absolutely agree with you, which is why I would never alter my life creation activities for environmental concerns. If humans wanted to fix our energy issues we could make a serious push (perhaps 5% GDP) towards nuclear technologies.
I'm not suggesting we remove agency (yours or otherwise), but there are people out there that will accept cash to not have children. Efforts like that should be pursued as long as its entirely voluntary, as not having a child is one of the most impactful actions someone can perform to reduce damage to the planet (we're pushing limits at 7.53 billion people already). Economics is a powerful incentive.
Regarding nuclear, I'm not going to beat a dead horse in this thread.
Long-term, I'd like to see anti-aging therapies really work out so that human lifespans are greatly extended, along with contraception and fertility technologies perfected so that people only have kids when they're really, really ready for them (probably after age 50).
As for nuclear, I'll beat the dead horse: we don't need it (at least fission). We need more renewable power, especially solar, since 1500W/m^3 hits the Earth's surface all day long. We just need to figure out how to make solar panels in a more environmentally-friendly manner (better recycling of their materials, etc.), and deploy them in more places, especially in places where they don't have negative effects, such as on rooftops, over highways, etc.
Then, we need to figure out how to have humans live in a more environmental manner, by increasing density. If most of the population lived at the density of Manhattan or Tokyo, we wouldn't have all these complaints about humans taking up too much land area.
The problems associated with overpopulation can be solved with technology and policy, if we really want to.
If no, then I applaud your sacrifice; preach it, brother. Spreading awareness and sensitiivty is critical.
If yes, then we get into the nasty business of setting goals and priorities. Or, rather, the nasty business of having our priorities set for us. Or can you see an achievable path that doesn't lead to a green coat of paint on the status quo?
> The only way to really go zero-emissions, which would really benefit everyone (I guess, by this logic) is to just off yourself.
Your decomposing body will release nitrates, methane and all sorts of other toxic crap into the air and groundwater. Not to mention the resources consumed in building a casket and your permanent occupation of landspace even after death. Graveyards are all-around terrible for the environment.
Cremation is a little better but emits a ton of greenhouse gas. Burning formaldehyde and mercury is bad news, not to mention the environmental destruction involved in extracting the natural gas needed to do it.
Even going into space and launching yourself into the sun has a tremendous environmental cost.
Everything we do produces emissions. The closest one can come to a zero-emission death might be a sky burial.
That's not a great rebuttal, as you will always die regardless, so all of the things you just mentioned would happen even if you didn't kill yourself.
Killing yourself is absolutely the best way to help the world if your biggest concern in life is global warming and the only way you know how to help is by limiting your own consumption / CO2 production.
Of course, you shouldn't kill yourself, because there are many other, much better ways to help the environment than limiting personal consumption.
Arguably the best way would be to help push for more nuclear power.
As an alternative, you could offset your carbon emissions. If this site can be trusted, $1 = 1 tree = 21.7kg CO2 sequestered per year: https://onetreeplanted.org/
So for $111, you can fly once a year without a net carbon impact. That's so small relative to the cost of the flight you could do it every time you fly.
The tree needs to grow to maturity to sequester the CO2 and when it dies be replaced by others. If you have ever gardened you will be aware that planting of x seedlings results in less-than-x mature plants.
At least one of the comments is saying you worry too much, but I appreciate your worry and wish other people would worry more, not less.
And one of the comments suggested that you can offset your carbon impact by paying someone to plant trees. I'm not seriously considering that for the next time my wife and I fly anywhere... And possibly just to offset our yearly carbon footprint anyhow.
It's completely within our technology to generate jet fuel in a carbon negative way (bringing it back to neutral after burning). Actually there are multiple methods to do it. They all cost more, especially because they're in small-batch proof of concept mode. Scaled up they would likely cost just a little bit more than our current fuel costs; but I view this as a completely valid way of folding in externality costs back into alignment with the direct economic activity of air travel.
Social investment (via government or other channels) into accelerating developments like this is why people need to get political to shift how the default decisions get made.
Sailing is great if you don't mind (extremely) slow travel. I bought an 8m from 1972 for about 2 months' worth of rent and have since moved with it from the UK to (nearly) Spain.
I did it for different reasons than you, but it sounds like it might be a nice fit. Although now that I've said that, there are admittedly another set of environmental problems from the anti-foul paint, so perhaps it's just trading one issue for another.
I would say, see the world while you still can. Your individual carbon impact either way makes zero difference, and aviation is responsible for 2% of human carbon dioxide emissions. We're either going to solve this problem on a grander scale than everybody riding bikes, or the world you currently have a chance to see is not going to be around much longer in its present form.
The main reason I would disagree with such a personally limiting view of the world is that the world is so complex and ever-shifting that this sacrifice (even if you convinced a significant amount of people to join) ultimately cannot be measured in its impact.
There are other things limiting travel is affecting, such as reducing the amount of income to the countries travelled to that otherwise really need it. But I can't really measure that to any significant degree either.
I think it's important to be rational about what will or won't have an impact on the global problem. People want to have a sense of personal agency, but pretending that individual choices like reducing travel, turning the thermostat down and not eating meat will have any impact is actually counterproductive, because they create the false impression that measures short of massive retooling of our economy can make a dent in this problem.
I'm not saying those are bad choices, or that there are not other ethical arguments for them. But let's be clear-eyed about the drastic level of structural change required to stabilize (let alone reduce, let alone get to net-negative) CO2 emissions.
(And anyone who chose to have children is automatically disqualified from talking about individual carbon impacts.)
Agreed that individual action is always drowned out by society and global policy, even if global emissions are caused by summing up billions individual decisions.
Ultimately my problem is it is hypocritical to have concern for climate change while jetting around the world.
Eventually I would like to get into green and cleantech and hopefully contribute to a bigger impact on emissions than a single lifetimes worth of actions ever could.
If you're looking for a good role model, I would point to John Baez, a wonderfully gifted mathematician who has changed course mid-career because he thinks this is the most important problem facing humanity: https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/about/
It's certainly true that any individual's actions and choices are unlikely to make a significant change, but if we are willing to justify not making individual sacrifices based on that then we're already in the wrong frame of mind to make progress towards a solution.
Still, emissions from planes are a tiny percentage of global output. Individuals should not share the burden if it's a handful of companies polluting the Earth.
You can also offset your footprint by buying land and planting trees. With some handkerchief math you'll be able to fly without any worries.
And if all the people flying do that? Is there enough land and will they have sequestered enough CO2 to meet the 12 (now 11.5 year target)? What about if more people embrace their right to travel to expand their minds?
I can. You can. My mate can. That's three of us. But if we all follow Rick Steves's suggestions and all fly to Bali to broaden our minds then there is a bit of a physical limit. Isn't there?
For a first world individual, highest impact is not heating/cooling or skipping on transcontinental flights. Meat production globally has a non trivial emissions output but for a first world individual, diet is maybe 10% of footprint. Without Hot Air book goes through these calculations.
Still, planting 1000 trees and making sure they exist for 40 years makes your footprint invisible.
I would imagine that most people would find it easier to not start travelling than to give up meat: but the most likely outcome is that they will do neither. Because all this will be solved by flying nuclear cars which will be the only transport used by the people that have not emigrated to Mars.
I get this recurring dream of a retrofuturistic world where intercontinental travel serviced by nuclear-powered ocean liners. For nonproliferation reasons, there's only a handful companies operating them, one for each theatre. It takes ~4 days to get across the Atlantic, so some amenities are inspired by cruise ships, but optimized for less crew. It's an intriguing dream, but in our current world the economic and regulatory barriers around nuclear propulsion for civilian use make it impractical. More on this later.
I believe economic forces and regulations will be the primary drivers of changing modes of transport, so if it makes economic sense to keep operating jet fuel aircraft, that will be an option for those who can afford it and don't have misgivings about it. But for planning and resilience, there's value in envisioning how a world with very limited jet fuel air travel would look like, and whether portions of its role ought to be taken over by other modes of travel, or if societies merely need to adjust to its loss.
Our world's globalized economy greatly depends on the movement of goods and sometimes people, but for goods, the pace of water transport is often good enough, coupled with its much lower cost per amount and time. Much of this transport uses some of the lowest grades of fuel you can get from fossil oil. To change this, the price of these fuels would have to soar or the fuel would need to be banned. Let's suppose this extreme case comes and fuel oil is no longer an option. A rapid migration to nuclear propulsion for merchant fleets is both politically untenable and economically improbable. Solar/battery propulsion doesn't have the energy density, which leaves wind-like propulsion as one of the only contenders, with the others being simply higher grades of hydrocarbons like gasoline and compressed gas. One's carbon-free, slow, and presents a significant change in show ships are built, while the other needs changes only to the engines, fuel lines, and fuel tanks, re-uses existing industrial expertise, and maintains the pace of travel -- but isn't carbon-free. Which one do you think companies would chose?
I'm too far away from planes to know, but it's interesting that you can break it down into steps with different requirements & significance. Cruise requires energy density while takeoff requires power density. Additionally, takeoff, being close to the ground, doesn't have that multiplier effect that high-altitude emissions do.
So, what I'm really intrigued by is the thought that you could takeoff with chemical fuel and cruise with electric or fuel cells.
Or, as you mention, there's always syngas. That might be the holy grail that saves us from ourselves.
I appreciate Rick Steves and always enjoyed his shows.
But reading recent posts on HN about how tourists are ruining Europe (and other places) makes me wonder if his message has become obsolete.
After all, air travel contributes to climate change. And I for one do not relish jumping on the QM2 - which surely burns fossil fuels - to spend two weeks (one week each way) traversing the Atlantic.
Perhaps ruining specific parts of Europe, but I think it’s unfair to say tourists have ever ruined an entire country or even city. Usually there’s just small easily avoidable areas if you don’t want to deal with crowds and overpriced food. That said I will never travel to Rome, the Bahamas, or Paris unless forced.
> Usually there’s just small easily avoidable areas if you don’t want to deal with crowds
I recently visited Madrid, a city I lived in nearly 20 years ago. What struck me was not just the suffocating crowds of tourists in the very center of the city compared to back then. I also found that what used to be quiet residential neighborhoods (after all, they lack any particular sights) now had a distinct amount of tourists walking around with suitcases or backpacks – I assumed that AirBnB was now spreading tourists throughout the whole city.
For the ones in local neighborhoods, as long as they're not overcrowding the place, or committing crimes or something, you have to remember that all those tourists are pumping money into the local economy. They're eating food at the local eateries, they're paying for transport (probably helping fund the local public transit), they're giving money to local homeowners who then spend at least some of it locally and hopefully pay some extra taxes, etc. I fail to see how this is a problem, unless it's just too many of them of course.
>AirBnB has priced locals out of their own housing markets. Just ask Venice.
AirBnB can be good and bad. I used AirBnB in Germany last year because the hotel rates in Nuremberg were ridiculous because it was tourist season; I stayed at a private home, in an extra bedroom that used to be their kid's room (now moved out). It was a great experience: I saved a bunch of money, I got to see a small town outside the main city that I otherwise wouldn't have seen (not really much to see there, but it was good seeing someplace "normal" that tourists never see), and I got to talk to the homeowner with his broken English and my broken German. I wouldn't have had an experience like that in a hotel, and there was no negative effect on the housing for locals since I was only renting an unused bedroom, not a whole house. This, to me, is what AirBnB is really supposed to be about.
The vast majority of AirBnB listings now are managed properties. You can still find a family renting out a spare room, but that is gradually disappearing and ever less what AirBnB is about.
I don't take it that way. In terms of "broadening your horizons" it's easy to travel and not connect with the local culture. You're just a tourist, window shopping into the lives of the local people. Strolling through with your selfie stick to earn social credibility on the Gram.
That said, I think people who enjoy Rick Steves would also be the type to make an effort to get the authentic experience. Could be my own projection.
The examples the tweeter gave like 'reading' as just really poor substitutes for travel, especially if you're a white, English-speaking, west-coast person like the tweeter.
Reading the opinion column of the New York Times will probably close their minds further than open it up.
Hanging out with other people who are wealthy/liberal enough to make it to and live in San Francisco will also do the same. Amplify the echo chamber rather than break it down.
I grew up in India and the Middle East in a very different sociocultural background with different values than the west coast, liberal, tech-elite culture I live in now and I find many of the people around me now have a much narrower world-view despite their education and 'reading'.
The tweet began with a premise. If the premise for travel is “broadening your horizons” then the assertion is that there are far cheaper, more accessible ways to do that than hopping on a transatlantic jet and spending a week in a foreign place. There is a real conversation to be had about the impact of tourism on local ways of life and local economies (both in good ways and bad).
If the premise for travel is “because I want to”, then by all means go ahead...
It’d be helpful if people thought a bit more about what other people are saying and were more charitable about interpretations instead of finding the first reason to get mad.
What if I want to broaden my horizons by visiting the ancient ruins of Rome, Persia, etc? Or going to observe Mountain Gorilla in Biwindi?
> It’d be helpful if people thought a bit more about what other people are saying and were more charitable about interpretations instead of finding the first reason to get mad.
I'm not mad - I just think it was a stupid, self-back-patting point.
1. She stated it was her opinion. She’s not forcing you to do or think anything.
2. Her assertion was that she thinks it’s overrated, costly, and inefficient. You did nothing to address those points.
If you think travel can be cheaper at achieving the premise, is not overrated at achieving the premise, or that it’s a more efficient ways of achieving the premise of “broadening horizons” than alternatives then that’s a relevant conversation. If you can effectively make those points then we’d have a real conversation on our hands.
Saying it’s “stupid, self-back-patting” is not productive and misses the point entirely.
1. Yes. And I'm allowed to have opinions on other people's opinions.
2. Yes, and that is what I take issue with, and yes, I did address the point. She says that it is 'overrated, super-inefficient way to "broaden your horizons"', and I said that there is more than one way to broaden your horizons than to talk to people who live far away from you, such as going to historical locations or natural settings.
Then pack your selfie stick and have yourself a time! I'm not saying there's a right way to travel. The tweet suggested there's more economical ways of "expanding your horizons" than being a chronic tourist. Given the cultural diversity in my own backyard I think the statement is more empowering than gatekeeping.
The best part is his journal called High Notes, in which he writes his deepest thoughts while being stoned.
“Make a rug with vacuum marks, so it always looks freshly vacuumed.”
The article also touches on how his obsessiveness has hurt his relationships. Including how he snapped at his children for not wanting to power-travel like he does.
We live in a time where international air travel has become ridiculously cheap relative to domestic travel. I regularly see roundtrip flights between SFO and Singapore/HK for ~$600 and RT flights between US and Europe for ~$400 or so, but expect to pay at least $650 to go between SF<>NY and even $350 just to go between SF and LA sometimes.
Point is, it's never been cheaper to travel internationally. Enjoy it while it's still true.
It's not just that: everything in the US is ridiculously expensive now, so it doesn't make sense to travel domestically at all for me any more. I can stay in very decent hotels in western Europe and Japan for $50/night, but paying that much in America would put me in a rat-trap. Eating out (hard to avoid when traveling) is much cheaper in Europe in my experience. And ground transport is far cheaper in other countries.
America is just plain overpriced. The only thing that's harder about international travel is that so many people don't speak English in other countries, but that's also part of the fun of it.
Yup; I stayed in a rented room (AirBnB) in Vienna with a few software developers in their 20s, 25 euro a night. Their penthouse apartment directly overlooked the Danube. I couldn't believe what a deal I stumbled upon, but then I found some of the clean budget hotels (Ibis or similar) were like 45 euro a night. In a major European city!
My first intro to Rick Steves was when his soothing yet excited voice guided me through the Louvre via his iPhone app. Ever since then, and time I'm in a new place in Europe, I always look for one of his guides. He's helped me through places like Vienna and Budapest. I'm glad he exists.
Not sure about unpopular US departure cities but if one is flexible and waits for deals then it’s doable to find cheap fare even outside of a flight hub.
I used to pay ~$1500 CAD from Ottawa, Canada to Manila, Philippines. Now that I’m aware of deals and have a flexible schedule/remote-work-policy I scoff at any trip with the same itinerary that’s > $800.
You're right about those tips. It is totally possible to travel and keep the budget from getting crazy. That's the kind of stuff the wife and I do every year (BTW, I highly recommend Bologna).
A lot of folks, however, aren't comfortable with putting themselves out there into an airbnb (or equivalent) and fending for themselves with local markets and transport. It's really not that hard (depending on where you go and your tolerance for embarrassment and alienation), but there's definitely a language and cultural barrier that needs to be overcome or worked around.
I think that Rick Steves, in his unique way, makes a lot of people feel more comfortable with getting out there. It really is so much better to travel without a tour company mediating the experience.
Actually he's refreshingly frugal. Public transit + inns + hiking is cheaper per day than a lot of parts of the US, and competition among the low cost carriers means that you can find roundtrip tickets from some American cities for <$600 in the summer and <$300 in the winter (emphasis on some -- NY, SF, Newark, Fort Lauderdale).
It's certainly not inexpensive to do intercontinental travel, that's for sure. But Steves' thing is all about doing it more affordably.
> Above all, Steves told us, do not be afraid. The people of the world are wonderful, and the planet we share is spectacular.
I've done a small splash of international travel. But in my career I've been lucky enough to be exposed to people from lots of places in the world, and I've drawn the same conclusion. When people here in the US ruminate about global events and foreigners I wonder if they've ever really met any. Because you very quickly draw the conclusion -- "Hey, these people aren't very different at all -- they have family and friends and they go to work and care about their family and friends just like me!"
I've traveled with money, and I've traveled when I'm broke. Both are enjoyable, but I got more "broadening" experiences by traveling when broke.
For example, in the mid 90s we went to the Dominican Republic for a week, and we were oh-so-broke. We stayed in a hut (actual hut) behind a friend's house; we borrowed their bikes to go to town to buy groceries (including food items where I had no earthly idea what they were); we cooked on a tiny alcohol camp stove (and when it ran out, we discovered that the alcohol it used was a bottle of rum). We saw nothing that was a tourist destination; it was all "just folks." ...and we got a huge amount of understanding about what it meant to live in a poor country without resources.
I've also stayed in 5-star hotels in Paris and indulged myself for a week falling into every tourist vortex. That's perfectly fine, too, because it's okay to appreciate beauty. However, you appreciate it _better_ when you know its context and history; I highly recommend Rick Steves _Europe Through The Back Door_ because it gives us Americans a better sense of European history, not to mention how it affected art, architecture, etc.
Mind you, Steves' travel guides are rarely my favorites. He's not a foodie, and I regularly choose destinations based on what I can eat. And he's opinionated, which I appreciate, until we disagree on those opinions. (He's meh on the Black Forest, and it's one of my favorite places.) Then again, I'm not his target audience. I think he's a treasure nonetheless.
One of the very best travel guide series is those books by Anton Krotov and friends written in Russian. While these travelers have gradually become pretty bourgeois and fans of posh train travel (which allows them to guide also ordinary holidaymakers), they spent many years traveling the world by hitchhiking, sleeping in mosques, etc. on absolutely tiny budgets (like 0–5€/day). Besides writing travel guides for the Russian-speaking market, they also do their fair share of public-speaking visits to small towns to encourage young people across the USSR and Eastern Europe to set out traveling even if they have little money.
Today if you come into contact with shoestring travelers in South America or Africa, you find that a lot of them are Russians and Poles. Their comparative poverty didn’t stop them from traveling transcontinentally, and it has always puzzled me that some comparatively better off Americans complain they can’t indulge in their wanderlust dreams due to lack of money.
You need some money, sure. But, it's not nearly as expensive as most people think. Rick Steves is also all about frugality where possible. His one exception is if spending money will save time, as time is the most valuable thing we have.
If you live in the US, we are living just past the golden age of credit cards rewards...I've not paid for a personal trip (flight or hotel) for maybe 6 years and travel a lot.
Step 2 for people with passports issued by developing countries: Allocate a month to visa applications, interviews, biometric checks, gather documents and letters, then take a mini vacation to a city that has consulate services for the target country, to convince them you are not a liability or future illegal immigrant.
I try to travel with friends each year, but the core issue for most of us is, even with PTO, a few weeks of overtime is needed before or after the trip because work can't wait, and our colleagues cannot absorb our work. Speaking of our colleagues, many haven't taken vacation in years and let their unused PTO roll over and eventually expire!
Even with the seemingly-extra work (and overflowing email inboxes) I think it's important to walk away. You need to let the creative well refill, or you burn out.
I guess it’s the combination of cheap flights and instagram but if you want to enjoy yourself then forget about Kyoto and Venice etc and look into some less popular and less well known places instead.
And do the rest of us a favor and don’t location tag if you do discover something great.