The Low Down On Green Living

November 13th, 2008

100 Places To See Before They Die

Posted by Jason Pelletier, Low Impact Living

Stumble it!Digg!digg it Icon Deliciousadd to del.icio.usTechnoratitechnorati

Maldives Sat PhotoThis probably goes without saying, but countries often appear and disappear. If you need any evidence, simply look at a map from the early 20th century. Africa and the Middle East have been completely reorganized. North and South Korea were one. Europe has added and lost a few countries.

These are mostly cartographic changes, though. Names are changed and boundaries are moved. It’s very rare that any physical changes occur. Hawaii might grow a bit, and a small new island might emerge from the sea somewhere, but that’s about it.

Until now, that is. When we talk about global warming in the US, it’s mostly about whether we build coal plants or nuclear, use ethanol or biodiesel, or build wind vs solar power plants. Occasionally it’s about polar bears. But it’s not about disappearing.

That is sadly the case in many areas. The small Pacific-island nation of Kiribati has been in the news for some time. Kiribati’s government and president, Anote Tong, are preparing for the day when the country of 94,000 will have to be completely evacuated due to the rise of the seas. New Zealand has already begun taking families from Kiribati.

This week there was similar news from the Maldives, another island country in the Indian Ocean off the coasts of Sri Lanka and India. One of the first things the new president of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, announced after taking office was plans to invest in land in other countries so that the entire population can be relocated when sea levels rise.

This got me to thinking. I’ve often thought about where I want go before I move on some day, but where are those places I need to go because they’ll probably die before I do? Here’s a start on my list - feel free to add your own thoughts in comments at the end of this post:

  • French Polynesia. I’ve already been there, but I want to go back as often as I can afford (which isn’t very often). The High Islands are like Hawaii - large extinct volcanoes sticking out of the ocean that aren’t going anywhere. But my favorite places so far have been the atolls, and I haven’t explored most of those. I better hurry - they’re at most six feet above sea level and in most places less than that.
  • Mt. Kilimanjaro. Kilimanjaro’s not going anywhere, but the iconic snows that make it such a compelling location are. They’ll likely be gone by 2020, and perhaps as early as 2015. So we all better get traveling!
  • Peru. Cheating here, too. I visited in 2001, and was blown away by the sparkling, glaciated peaks that loom over all of the Inca ruins. I aspire to go back to hike amongst them and commune with the llamas. Well, I better get moving. The glaciers are expected to be gone within 15 years.
  • Glacier National Park. If current trends continue, we’ll have to rename one of America’s most stunning national parks. Glacier could be glacier-free by 2030.
  • Australia Wine Country. Wine regions around the world will be affected by climate change, with the growing regions for particular grapes moving north in the northern hemisphere and south in the southern. Australia gets hit with a double-whammy: it is already very warm and will get warmer, and it is already very dry and will get drier. Many regions that produce premium wines today could become untenable for grape-growing. There is an upside, though: if you visit the UK in 2020, you might be able to buy locally-grown pinot noir!

Popularity: 1% [?]

November 13th, 2008 in Green Living, Travel | permalink

Comments

Adam

November 14th, 2008 at 9:20 am

The Pacific Islands get hit with a double whammy. Most believe that ice melt is the only culprit behind sea level rise. Water expansion due to warming will raise sea levels in the tropics even if the ice caps stay in tact. I believe Bangladesh was the first country to lose an entire island to sea level rise late last year.

Graham Morgan

November 16th, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Great article, I’m located in the heart of wine country in Canada. The Okanagan Valley where the many vineyards are already taking a very serious approach to to conserving water and energy.

Lauri Turpen

November 19th, 2008 at 9:40 am

I am trying to get my head around rushing to see these locations before global warming takes them away. And in doing so, helping the process along with the huge negative impact tourism has on the health of the planet. So sure book that flight, rent the car, purchase all the little travel amenities and ….

I don’t even know if “eco” tours are the answer.

We are a nation of get away from it all and perhaps that’s the trouble.
Personally I dont’ think it’s my innate right put my feet down where everyone else is trying to live.

Jason Pelletier, Low Impact Living

November 19th, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Lauri:

Those are definitely valid concerns. However, in many places (especially those frequented by eco-tourists) tourism is an important component of the local economy. Visiting certain locales can provide the income needed to help local economies, and can also provide the capital needed to invest in conservation and climate-related projects. So, I offer four tips that will lighten your load on the planet:

  1. Travel locally or in-country. There are many great eco-destinations in the US that are sadly threatened by climate change, and some right around the corner.
  2. Research your destination and lodging, and make sure your spending trickles down to the local residents.
  3. Pick lodging and tour operators that incorporate sustainability as part of their practices
  4. Work to minimize your impact while traveling. Pack lightly, recycle to the max, be conscious of the resources you consume while traveling (water, electricity, etc), and purchase carbon offsets for your flights and driving.

Victoria

November 23rd, 2008 at 6:16 pm

I agree with Lori . . . I question why we would want to advertise seeing these suffering locations iwhich encourage people to create more greenhouse gasses in order to see them before they are consumed by the results of excess greenhouse gasses!!?? . . . The whole thing seems like a vicious negative spiral into worsening the already sad conditions on our planet - it simply seems like another type of greed which is why we are in this predicament to start with . . . I just don’t get it.

Post a Comment

 
copyright © 2007-2010 Low Impact Living, LLC