Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
A more imaginative environmental discourse that rests upon a strong environmental ethic
and is representative of ecocentrism and deep ecology is being taken by some environmental
lawyers. The concept of 'wild law' or 'Earth jurisprudence' recognises the rights of an 'Earth
community', in which humans as part of that community cannot ignore the rights to exist-
ence of the rest of it (Thornton, 2007). Under this law, for example, a hotel owner could be
sued on behalf of the diversity of species belonging to a coral reef, whose habitat was being
destroyed by sewage emitted from the hotel. If the species of the coral reef won, the hotel
would have to fi nd other means to dispose of the sewage, as the right to existence would be
paramount.
This imaginative ecocentric discourse is one that is a long way from the ethics of
tourism policy, which does not generally challenge existing structures and is dominated by
anthropocentric logic, as demonstrated by the then World Tourism Organisation's (WTO,
2001) 'Global Code of Ethics for Tourism', Article 3 of which states: 'All the stakeholders in
tourism development should safeguard the natural environment with a view to achieving
sound, continuous and sustainable economic growth satisfying equitably the needs and
aspirations of future generations' (WTO, 2001: 3). The anthropogenic interest inherent in
this statement is also evident in the discourse of environmentalism that represents Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR). According to the United Nations Environmental Programme
(2005: 8), the advantages of CSR for tourism suppliers are that it 'can have signifi cant
business advantages for a company, in terms of its cost savings, market share, reputation and
preservation of its main business assets - the places and cultures their clients are willing to pay
to visit'.
Environmental discourses and tourism: the future
Environmental discourses are rooted in industrial society and are indicative of a shared
way of apprehending our surroundings and have become relevant as the awareness of
environmental problems has become prominent. Yet environmental discourses are not homo-
geneous, and are differentiated by axioms of political economy and the rights to existence of
non-human species. As an industry and system that is reliant upon nature and the environ-
ment, environmental discourses have relevance to policy and practice, and subsequently the
environmental impacts of tourism. However, the acceptance that tourism can cause environ-
mental problems through all its stakeholders remains debatable and sometimes contentious.
For example, the contribution of aviation to global warming remains contested by the
industry and tourists have yet to engage in a meaningful environmental discourse in relation
to their decision to fl y. Similarly, the example of rejection of the environmental tax on
tourism in the Balearics illustrates that the market seemingly places little value on environ-
mental conservation in the context of tourism. Without an acceptance that tourism can
cause negative environmental impacts, there is little reason for stakeholders to engage with
environmental discourse.
The emergent environmental discourse of tourism is rooted in a philosophy of environ-
mentalism that places faith in the ability of existing political and economic structures to
mitigate environmental problems. This belief in markets and technologies is refl ected in
the discourse of the UNWTO, governments and the aviation industry, although the degree
of imaginative creativity to place the environment at the heart of the economic system is
variable. In contrast the environmental discourses from some environmental lawyers and
pressure groups are more radical, challenging people's conceptions and environmental ethics.
Advocating that airline advertisements should carry health warnings and that non-human
