(I'm not suggesting we should actually do this though. Whales are pretty amazing.)
* If it isn't human inhabited why not take it? * If it is human inhabited why not try to raise their standard of living by development and exploitation of natural resources? If there was some sort of payment for holding unspoiled environments it would have compliance and inspection issues not to mention funding and distribution. * However if it is an asset with tourism then "poaching" harms future income and they have incentive to keep it beautiful and clean for real. It may lead to some "manicuring" like removing pests and making trails but biodiversity would be far more preserved. * Those who are already developed may also have the local ecosystems as an effective "service" or amenity from quality of life. Needless to say that is a "late game" option only.
Environmentalism is always a game of trade offs period.
Tourism or all those non-vital flights are ruining our planet, along with the high consumerism, which is surely correlated to someone who go visit foreign countries
A wealthy relative recently flew from the Philippines to Tokyo and then returned again - without leaving the airport - so that she could preserve her super ultra sure miles status.
I myself have occasionally flown LHR to SFO to attend a over or two hour meeting.
We cannot continue living like this.
Ok that is crazy and that's the airlines fault for creating such a situation.
Not to mention that UBI does nothing for the pain of childbirth.
In terms of making choices, though, it is likely that taking vacations in a place that is close enough not to fly there will be more popular than not having heat in winter, not feeding your kids or abandoning the idea of getting medics.
But as someone once put it to me, if you think of the zoo as an embassy, all of the animals as ambassadors, and consider the policy impacts that come from having people carry around these positive experiences involving the animals, then the benefit of zoos is much more compelling.
I do some work with plants and diversity. There are some very confused people in my peer group who earnestly believe that changing a few acres of real estate inside of a metropolitan area is going to have a direct effect. Like somehow we could supply the entire city with food or materials on a few acres. In the interests of morale I don't tell them how terrifyingly naive that idea is.
Instead I just point out that what we are doing is more like a zoo. We're getting an idea into a lot of people's heads. They may go try to copy some of our strategies, at home or in another city, and that might eventually develop into a measurable change.
So. Is the Greater Good served by a few thousand extra tons of carbon going into the atmosphere today? Maybe, maybe not.
I do know that we have the rhetoric all kinds of wrong. If your friend is having money problems and his car is breaking down all the time, and his boss is getting agitated about his 'flakiness', do you criticize him for "spending money he doesn't have" to get a reliable car? We've been doing exactly that to politicians for years. "Oh don't fly to Copenhagen to talk about Greenhouse Gases you fuckin' hypocrite"
It's bullshit, and what's more it's scaring people into inaction, which basically classifies it as horizontal aggression. Which is exactly what the opposition wants. Stop attacking each other. If you have something to say, educate, don't shame.