I read an article the other day about how certain landmarks will disappear and how we have little time left to look at them. The reasons are many, but they all have to do with man-made climate change: a raised sea level, glaciers melting, and rivers drying up. I couldn’t get the text out of my head for a long time. On the surface, it is about climate change and its effects on tourism. But subliminally, travel motivations seem to be stimulated that are everything but sustainable. This is now the attempt to put into words my stomach ache with such articles.

Sights and destinations threatened with disappearance

Among the tourist hotspots mentioned were Venice, the Easter Islands, the Maldives, and the Great Barrier Reef, to name a few. And yes, I think we all know by now that at some point in the near rather than distant future, we will no longer be able to visit these places because, for example, they will be flooded or, in the case of the Reef, simply cease to exist due to coral bleaching.

However, what bothered me tremendously about the article: It was about how we should definitely see these places again before they are irretrievably lost. It was not about the fact that we should do everything humanly possible (and maybe even more) to prevent it from coming to that.

Yes, we are late with that. And yes, we will lose places in this world. Scientists agree on that. Unique habitats that are home to humans, animals, and plants will be gone.

The article doesn’t mention that either. Instead, it is about the impact on us tourists. We can no longer sip cocktails in the Maldives or look at the Taj Mahal. We can no longer walk along the Hollywood Walk of Fame because wildfires make the area immensely dangerous. We can no longer stroll the alleys of Venice.

Are we asking the right questions?

Should the debate about the effects of climate change be primarily about which destinations we from the rich West will no longer be able to travel to and that we will only be able to bar hop in Miami for a limited time because the boardwalk will be underwater in forty years?

Shouldn’t it be first and foremost about the local people, animals, and plants that are losing their homes to climate change? About saving unique ecosystems like the islands of the Maldives, and only afterward about us tourists? Should we really all be flocking to already vulnerable destinations to see them one more time before they sink (or dry up)? Or should we perhaps rather fight to preserve them?

Don’t get me wrong: tourism is essential to many of these regions (we’ve written about the socio-economic effects of travel here before). But articles like this make me wonder if they don’t encourage more destruction. After all, does a text like this really reach the people who think about sustainability and its impacts and therefore make a real positive difference in their travels, even or especially if such a trip is to the Maldives?

I tend to believe it reaches the people who want to put as many checkmarks on their bucket list as possible. Without any consideration for losses. And for me, that’s the wrong reason to visit these places. And for you? What’s your take on it?