Ethical Traveller:Catherine Mack on responsible tourism

+ Reply to Thread

Results 1 to 6 of 6

Glamping goes green in Leitrim, Ireland.

Catherine Mack enlightens us with her review of Teapot Lane Luxury Yurt Camp, an eco-venture run by Derval McGovern.
Consisting of three luxury yurts with wood-burning stoves, cast iron beds, fairy lights and lanterns, a thatched self-catering cottage, and a private bathroom with roll top bath in case you just do compost loos and outdoor showers. The yurts' showers are gas, are tankless, need no electric supply, and use a combination of mains and rainwater from the roof, and both showers and huts are concealed in huts alongside each yurt. Derval has commited to keeping her remote woodland site restricted to small numbers and at 100euro per night for a yurt that sleeps four to six this is fair sustainable tourism. It takes advantage of the local surrounding activities: Beaches of Bundoran Donegal, Sligos Mullaghmore Strand, Leitrim's Dartry Mountains surfing, riding lessons, fishing, foraging trips and guided walks.
Luxury Yurts - Teapot Lane Glamping - Yurt holidays in Ireland
Catherine Mack is author of a travel app, Ireland Green Travel available on iTunes.
Ethical Traveller

Truly ethical travel would produce little or no CO2 or other pollution. So unless you are already in Ireland, it is unethical to rent those high buck yurts. Society has gotten so used to fast, cheap transportation that they forget it is a major source of CO2.
We must go back to the days where you stayed closer to home and overseas voyages were done by sail. With gross overpopulation that exists, even the old way of using horses and other animals for transportation is too soil and water consuming, and the amount of waste produced would be another major problem.

Originally Posted by Val

Truly ethical travel would produce little or no CO2 or other pollution. So unless you are already in Ireland, it is unethical to rent those high buck yurts. Society has gotten so used to fast, cheap transportation that they forget it is a major source of CO2.
We must go back to the days where you stayed closer to home and overseas voyages were done by sail. With gross overpopulation that exists, even the old way of using horses and other animals for transportation is too soil and water consuming, and the amount of waste produced would be another major problem.

I totally agree and repect what you are saying Val, you are right, it's only truly ethical and organic if the eco camp is situated in your own country, close by to cycle or access to public transport (which will be operating anyway until we find a better alternative) and i wouldn't try encourage people to flock from across the water to it. I simply hadn't been aware myself that these type of micro local eco camps existed and i believe that poeple can try and locate a similar site near them in their own country or even set one up themselves. I simply found it an informative article and think they would be a good alternative to replace the cavaran campsite system already in place in many countries. Although its does not fix the problem of responsible tourism it's a gradual step towards it which i think people will find easier to adapt to. I appreciate your comment and i imagine i was not completely clear in my post, and i understand that it may have been misleading. I merely found it to be a great idea which i hope will spread and become a normal occurance in everyones own locality rather than hotels. Thank you for clarifying the meaning bbehind the post.

We used to eco-camp a lot. Pack it all in and pack it all out. Dig holes to use for defecation, away from streams. Use only minimal dead wood for camp fires. Not have to pay to camp in our National Forests/wilderness areas, and pay the proper fees at some parks and monuments. The places got more crowded as time went on, until it wasn't as much fun. Heavy costs, distances, and crowds ruin eco-camping.
When there are too many people, it goes from being eco-camping to being a net pollution generator. Plus it takes away the "nature" of and in a location. When it costs too much, it becomes a bummer instead of a good experience.
If only people would have gone to one child families world wide, like we did, and when we did, it wouldn't be so bad right now. The sustainable world population was around 2 billion at a decent living standard but below the US standard, living green. Now it is down to half that and decreasing. People that should know better are having too many kids, and people that don't have a clue are having too many. Governments without a clue are letting in too many, or not helping the ones they have with education about ecology and birth control.
England can only grow 15% of the necessary fruit for its people, and is being relentlessly taken over by over-breeding conquest of foreigners. Turning a once great nation into a caliphate where women have no rights and they breed until starvation sets in. Is Ireland much different??? The USA grows by 3 million a year, with a corresponding loss of 3 million acres of farms, wild lands and ranches, all from immigration of people unneeded. We are at least 6 times our sustainable level, but the places the people come from are even worse.
To ever achieve truly responsible tourism, the world has to reduce its population of humans down to a billion living green. Then the biosphere can absorb what wastes are produced, and replenish those resources used. Mind you, that figure is going down each year humans procrastinate. Then nature takes over and reduces our population for us, the hard way.

Originally Posted by Val

We used to eco-camp a lot. Pack it all in and pack it all out. Dig holes to use for defecation, away from streams. Use only minimal dead wood for camp fires. Not have to pay to camp in our National Forests/wilderness areas, and pay the proper fees at some parks and monuments. The places got more crowded as time went on, until it wasn't as much fun. Heavy costs, distances, and crowds ruin eco-camping.
When there are too many people, it goes from being eco-camping to being a net pollution generator. Plus it takes away the "nature" of and in a location. When it costs too much, it becomes a bummer instead of a good experience.
If only people would have gone to one child families world wide, like we did, and when we did, it wouldn't be so bad right now. The sustainable world population was around 2 billion at a decent living standard but below the US standard, living green. Now it is down to half that and decreasing. People that should know better are having too many kids, and people that don't have a clue are having too many. Governments without a clue are letting in too many, or not helping the ones they have with education about ecology and birth control.
England can only grow 15% of the necessary fruit for its people, and is being relentlessly taken over by over-breeding conquest of foreigners. Turning a once great nation into a caliphate where women have no rights and they breed until starvation sets in. Is Ireland much different??? The USA grows by 3 million a year, with a corresponding loss of 3 million acres of farms, wild lands and ranches, all from immigration of people unneeded. We are at least 6 times our sustainable level, but the places the people come from are even worse.
To ever achieve truly responsible tourism, the world has to reduce its population of humans down to a billion living green. Then the biosphere can absorb what wastes are produced, and replenish those resources used. Mind you, that figure is going down each year humans procrastinate. Then nature takes over and reduces our population for us, the hard way.

i think humans beings social by nature and creatures of habit its not going to change over night.In the end we all die anyway, the sun will eventually run out. We try and make the best of what we have.