The overtourism problem in Europe (1 Viewer)

A focus by local and national governments in creating more secure, better paid employment opportunities would be a start. Curbing one of the most of the exploitative sectors of the capitalist economy can only be a good thing.
This is internal fiscal policy. If a country has exploitative labor policies, then that will be reflected across all its markets, not just tourism.
 
- planes and ships have a massive carbon footprint and travel for tourism represents 5% of all manmade carbon emissions
- tourists on beaches, in nature and in urban areas consume and leave behind a fucking ton of plastic and other pollutants
- in hot, dry places like Sicily, Greece or South Africa, water supply is already at a premium and expected to decline - so more people coming in and using more of it can never be a good thing. in Sicily this summer the authorities had to decide between water for tourist resorts or for livestock - in the end many livestock were put down because tourists need water and lots of it.
- in ten years much more of Europe will be hot and dry so this problem will be considerably exacerbated
- heavily overcrowded cities, metros etc. can make life difficult or even miserable for locals (as evidenced by the many protests currently)
- global tourist numbers (~1.5bn in 2019) are on track (National Geographic) to rise 20% to 1.8bn within 5 years - with obvious knock-on environmental effects

the idea that only the housing/accommodation situation is a problem is madness
I'm not disagreeing with your description of the problems.

However, you still haven't explained why reducing tourists numbers is the best or even a desirable solution. Train travel instead of flying, for example, tackles pollution but without reducing tourists numbers. There are a number of companies working on electrifying aviation, which will again help the climate side.

Infrastructure can be improved instead of demand being reduced. This is the logic behind tourists taxes, rather than for them to be used as a disincentive for tourism.

So again, why is reducing tourists the correct way to deal with problems, rather than alternative approaches?
 
It does both, no? AirBnbs drive up rental housing prices for locals because dwellings that would have been long-term rental units before, landlords can now charge $150 per night for as an AirBnb. Sure this results in higher taxes for the government but it makes an individual's economic situation worse and brings down their disposable income.
That’s true, but I think the fault is on airb&b and also the governments not regulating it
 
This is internal fiscal policy. If a country has exploitative labor policies, then that will be reflected across all its markets, not just tourism.
saying one thing is not problematic because other things are also problematic is... stupid
 
saying one thing is not problematic because other things are also problematic is... stupid
That's not what I said, that's what you read.

If a country has poor labor policies, then fix the policies. Don't pick on the ONE market exposing them.
 
that also isn't the read you think it is. I pay my taxes in the country I live in now, I contribute to the economy, I live as sustainably as I can, and I came here in the first place partly because of a financial incentive from the government explicitly designed to recruit more workers from other European countries. I don't claim to be "real Dutch" and it's not even slightly relevant to the argument of OVER TOURISM! but good try.
I was kidding, but also I was being a dick, so I’m sorry. I know you’re not claiming to be Dutch, but I don’t see how the problem is “over tourism” and not the Dutch government regulating its tourism industry to benefit locals
 
I'm not disagreeing with your description of the problems.

However, you still haven't explained why reducing tourists numbers is the best or even a desirable solution. Train travel instead of flying, for example, tackles pollution but without reducing tourists numbers. There are a number of companies working on electrifying aviation, which will again help the climate side.

Infrastructure can be improved instead of demand being reduced. This is the logic behind tourists taxes, rather than for them to be used as a disincentive for tourism.

So again, why is reducing tourists the correct way to deal with problems, rather than alternative approaches?
because in 2024 there is no such thing as electric flying? some well funded start ups may be exploring it but we don't even have clean long-distance train travel yet so the idea that clean flying might be about to come along and save the environment from tourism is way off.

yes train travel over flying is good but who's doing it? most people on mainland Europe still fly to get somewhere a few hundred KM away. the % of people taking the sustainable option is tiny.

even when we DO have electric plane travel it will likely be super expensive, airlines won't be mandated to use electric planes (doing so would eat into their profits), and only a few rich travellers will pay the premium - just as with the electric car industry that's hit a brick wall this last year with many electric car firms going under.

I'm curious about why you find it so hard to imagine that in our world of considerable excess, maybe there can be too much of a good thing when it comes to tourism?
 
we don't even have clean long-distance train travel yet
So invest in rail lines
yes train travel over flying is good but who's doing it? most people on mainland Europe still fly to get somewhere a few hundred KM away. the % of people taking the sustainable option is tiny.
Subsidise it
airlines won't be mandated to use electric planes
...why not? We're phasing out petrol cars
I'm curious about why you find it so hard to imagine that in our world of considerable excess, maybe there can be too much of a good thing when it comes to tourism?
Travel is a good thing, and your desired solution still boils down to NO POORS HERE PLEASE
 
I really think what it boils down it is that we've all done far too much of everything - travel is just the latest and flashiest tentacle of excess consumerism. and because it's so much fun, like having new technology or buying clothes, people don't want to stop or do it less.

but the other side of that is - there are quite a few things in life we really do HAVE to do less, and a lot less, if society and the planet we inhabit is actually going to survive. eating less meat. farming fewer animals. producing less waste. mining fewer minerals, burning less coal. you can mock it or deride it or roll your eyes or call me a hypocrite (I am!) but isn't it kind of obvious? we all need to reduce, or we all die. yes travel is a good thing... in moderation, like most good things.

anyway brb booking a trip x
 
Jark, I think you're 'hating the player' rather than the game. Curbing tourist numbers will not fix ANY of these issues because they are all caused by ineffective internal policy across ALL sectors and markets. Not by tourists.
 
I wonder if the invention of teleportation will ease the need for airbnbs and therefore help with all of this. Or if people will still want to sleep in the place too, because I do think the best part of a holiday is waking up to a new place and exploring.
 
I wonder if the invention of teleportation will ease the need for airbnbs and therefore help with all of this. Or if people will still want to sleep in the place too, because I do think the best part of a holiday is waking up to a new place and exploring.
I don't think Airbnb and teleportation are going to coexist.

Humanity and teleportation probably won't coexist
 
I don't think Airbnb and teleportation are going to coexist.

Humanity and teleportation probably won't coexist
How about Instant Hotels?

5d63a61c3c00004e004520e5.jpeg
 
There is zero chance of reducing tourist numbers as China and India get (for the first time in modern history) rich enough to afford it, nevermind Nigeria. And de-romanticising it is a nonstarter. The solution is all in how governments manage it and the modes of transportation.

Countries are already taking different approaches, for instance in Canada the most famous lake in Banff is Morraine Lake, which is now only accessible by bus in the summer. It limits the number of people and the pollution.

Or you have the Thailand model of 'sacrificed cities'. Thailand has visa-free entry but funnels 99% of tourists to Phuket or Chiangmai etc., as it's marketed the shit out of them as the hot spots. They know most tourists don't have a lot of time and need an easy trip. These cites are sacrificed totally so that the rest of the country is relatively free of mass tourism.
 
Last edited:
- planes and ships have a massive carbon footprint and travel for tourism represents 5% of all manmade carbon emissions
- tourists on beaches, in nature and in urban areas consume and leave behind a fucking ton of plastic and other pollutants
- in hot, dry places like Sicily, Greece or South Africa, water supply is already at a premium and expected to decline - so more people coming in and using more of it can never be a good thing. in Sicily this summer the authorities had to decide between water for tourist resorts or for livestock - in the end many livestock were put down because tourists need water and lots of it.
- in ten years much more of Europe will be hot and dry so this problem will be considerably exacerbated
- heavily overcrowded cities, metros etc. can make life difficult or even miserable for locals (as evidenced by the many protests currently) and many cities on this continent simply were not designed to handle such a large influx of people
- global tourist numbers (~1.5bn in 2019) are on track (National Geographic) to rise 20% to 1.8bn within 5 years - with obvious knock-on environmental effects

the idea that only the housing/accommodation situation is a problem is madness
While you raise important points, all of which can be addressed IMO, you are missing the point that tourism contributes significant amounts to some countries GDP. Again using Spain as an example tourists make up 15% of the national income. You cant just ignore that.
 
I’m just boarding my flight to the Caymans. Sorry - I promise to plant a tree or, you know, whatever when I get back
 
As long as you did that 28p aeroplane carbon offset thingy, I think your conscience should be clear.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom