|
socialclimber
Oct 10, 2006, 12:26 AM
Post #1 of 18
(15295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2001
Posts: 1163
|
Global warming, ever increasing tourist numbers and an infrastructure stretched to breaking point, all add up to an impending ecological disaster in the Khumba Valley say conservationists. But close the Earth Mother to tourism and it will spell economic disaster for thousands of Nepalese, say the Sherpas. The Guardian reports
|
|
|
|
|
dynoho
Oct 10, 2006, 1:00 AM
Post #2 of 18
(15295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2006
Posts: 285
|
So much for leave no trace.
I understand that when it become a matter of life or death, people will not be concerned with packing out every fuel/oxygen bottle, etc. Economics would suggest that if the controlling governments would increase the permit fees, they could thin the crowds to the filthy rich and the corporate sponsored (including those trekking to the base). Edited to add: This will minimize the impact of deforestation and contamination to the water table.
If/when the governments care enough about their resource, they will use those fees appropriately. Sherpas will become Park Rangers/Housekeepers to supplement lost income. They may be the only ones willing and able to repair the damage.
|
|
|
|
|
josephgdawson
Oct 10, 2006, 1:09 AM
Post #3 of 18
(15295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2004
Posts: 303
|
Who gives a rat's ass what 'conservationalists' think? They are reactionaries and kooks.
|
|
|
|
|
ter_bee
Oct 10, 2006, 1:31 AM
Post #4 of 18
(15295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 20, 2004
Posts: 418
|
interesting. all conservationists are reactionary kooks?? or just the ones who said this? do you have an actual argument for this, or are you just a reactionary?
|
|
|
|
|
zuegma
Oct 10, 2006, 1:38 AM
Post #5 of 18
(15295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2006
Posts: 125
|
i agree with them. Everest has become a tourist attraction and it is no longer that big of a thing when a person summits the mtn. having cyber cafes and restaurants on the way up the mountain seems to defeat the purpose of going to everest. when i go outside to climb/hike/camp it would piss me off to have a cyber cafe right next to my campsite, it takes away from nature
|
|
|
|
|
kman
Oct 10, 2006, 1:58 AM
Post #6 of 18
(15295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2001
Posts: 2561
|
In reply to: Who gives a rat's ass what 'conservationalists' think? They are reactionaries and kooks.
What a moronic thing to say. :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
mushroomcloud_2
Oct 10, 2006, 2:36 AM
Post #7 of 18
(15295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2005
Posts: 276
|
Has anyone here climbed Everest?
I would like to hear there point of view....
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Oct 10, 2006, 2:49 AM
Post #8 of 18
(15295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
What if the government were to outlaw littering. Couldn't the Sherpa's than charge an additional fee to haul the trash out?
As far as the trash thats already in place, again, the government charges an extra amount to each person coming into the country, then they pay out this tax to the locals to clean up.
Seems like they have enough of a wanted commodity, and enough rich people that want to summit that they could get away with charging for the use of there resource.
|
|
|
|
|
socialclimber
Oct 10, 2006, 12:55 PM
Post #9 of 18
(15295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2001
Posts: 1163
|
Rubbish on the mountain appears to be a less important issue than deforestation and water table contamination ( directly related to tourist numbers) and the increasing lack of water due to global warming. No amount of extra tax will adequately offset these problems.
|
|
|
|
|
socialclimber
Oct 10, 2006, 12:58 PM
Post #10 of 18
(15295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2001
Posts: 1163
|
Rubbish on the mountain appears to be a less important issue than deforestation and water table contamination ( directly related to tourist numbers) and the increasing lack of water due to global warming. No amount of extra tax will adequately offset these problems.
|
|
|
|
|
keinangst
Oct 10, 2006, 1:00 PM
Post #11 of 18
(15295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 1408
|
Conservationists aren't the kooks, you're probably thinking of environmentalists. IMO, the former are for LNT and "reasonable" use of natural resources, while the latter are reactionary and think humans basically have no part in nature. That's the best summation I've heard so far. They are definitely not one and the same.
I'd be all for forcing parties to pay for cleanup after their trip is over. Either pack it out or pay up to have someone else do it!
|
|
|
|
|
ridgeclimber
Oct 10, 2006, 10:52 PM
Post #12 of 18
(15295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2005
Posts: 163
|
Don't make blanket generalizations when you don't have the right information. They're not exactly the same, but calling environmentalism radical is silly and the sort of comment that belongs in an earlier and less enlightened era.
From Merriam Webster
Environmentalism:
In reply to: advocacy of the preservation, restoration, or improvement of the natural environment; especially : the movement to control pollution |
|
|
|
|
fancyclaps
Oct 10, 2006, 11:23 PM
Post #13 of 18
(15295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 23, 2005
Posts: 210
|
I know it is a semantic issue but:
Conservation ethic: An ethic holding that humans should put natural resources to use but that we have a responsiblity to manage them wisely. This point of view was originally articulated by Gifford Pinchot.
Preservation ethic: An ethic holding that we should protect the natural environment in a pristine unaltered state. One of the original advocates was John Muir who was instrumental in getting Yosemite made into a national park.
Now an environmentalist by definition is someone who does environmental advocacy/volunteering. They do not necessarily support the preservation or conservation ethic. In fact there are big debates among environmentalists about which ethic is better. The vast majority of environmental activism isn't chaining yourself to a tree or getting in front of a whaling ship. Even when those tactics are employed it is only to bring attention to an issue. And yes, when certain issues come up environmental groups tend to be very vocal about it. That does not make them reactionary, it simply means that they are advocating a certain point of view. So if you are going to make vague generalizations, at least make vague generalizations using the right terminology.
Everest presents the essential problem with most tourism; it has a tendency to destroy the object of desire. Without a change in the mindset of tourists, we will gradually destroy all of the natural wonders the we find so compelling to visit. The problem is that the stupid people outnumber the responsible leave-no-tracers. :?
|
|
|
|
|
kahuna3602
Oct 11, 2006, 11:10 PM
Post #14 of 18
(15295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2001
Posts: 318
|
This is all well and good but this argument is only valid from the Nepalese side and would impact only the Nepalese, who maintain higher standards (and costs) than the Chinese. You are completely kidding yourself if you think the Chinese will bow to conservationist pressure.
|
|
|
|
|
rhonius
Oct 12, 2006, 5:45 PM
Post #15 of 18
(15295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2003
Posts: 136
|
One of the problems with the rubbish issue in the Everest Region is that there really is no place for it. There is no infrastructure for its disposal even in the cities. It is not like in the states where u can pack it out and have it disposed of properly
|
|
|
|
|
krusher4
Oct 13, 2006, 3:52 PM
Post #16 of 18
(15295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2005
Posts: 997
|
We have all seen the pic's Everest it's a pile of garbage. Why are people dying? Maybe because any Jack-nut with 60k can pay to be dragged up the Mnt. you see photos of these guys clearly stumbling around and steping on fixrd lines. But, we are slowly destroying the whole planet so why should some Mnt. in a far off land be any concern of Americans? We have our malls to shop at; and drive our Big SUV's as commuter cars so we look like were making lots of money.
|
|
|
|
|
thespider
Oct 13, 2006, 4:18 PM
Post #17 of 18
(15295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 471
|
We are very concerned with our planet, at least some people are. We should take care because we do have limited natural resources. However, the earth is a lot bigger than any one of us and the changes it makes will affect us a lot more than the changes we make that are affecting the earth.
We should try to follow leave no trace, but when we don't, we clutter the surface with our garbage. It will not affect the earth as much as it will affect our view of the earth.
How can we tell what is good or bad about the earth? We are still young in our existence. Maybe someday we will have to find another planet to live on, but until then we must agree to pick up after our own-selves and teach others to do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
Oct 14, 2006, 1:42 AM
Post #18 of 18
(15295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
In reply to: Who gives a rat's ass what 'conservationalists' think? They are reactionaries and kooks.
Perhaps you have conservationists confused with environmentalists. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
|
