"The carbon footprint of each tourist in Africa is immense and therefore, if we want to be precise, the word eco-tourism is already a contradiction in itself. Flying once around the globe for a quick glance at a lion or an elephant can not be environmentally friendly and self-drive or private safaris are not exactly the most efficient use of ressources either (Not to mention the countless domestic flights and helicopter transfers)."

I agree with this majorly "inconvenient truth" and it applies to any of us who expend resources to get to remote places. Even if I do more than a quick glance at a lion or whatever, I still wonder if I've done more harm than good in the big picture.

But I hope all this energy to see nature at least means that the habitat and animals themselves are preserved. It's just that preservation may come at a far, far higher cost than at first glance. We have to factor in the huge presence of international tourists into the preservation equation.

Does using common sense and not being egregiously wasteful (in the bush or at home) merely minimize the devastation we cause? Do you think carbon offsets can help bring that equation into balance? Am I being a doomsday pessimist? I hope I am.

Thank you for bringing this subject back up, Atravelynn. I find it very interesting, maybe because there is no easy answer to it.

There are countless aspects to consider and from some of them we don't even know their effect.

One thing that is important is, that people only protect what they love. I assume, each and every member of Bushdrums has been countless times on Safari, hence creating huge damage to the (global) environment, but without those visits we wouldn't be posting on Bushdrums. We have seen African wildlife and fallen in love with it. Hence we try to protect it. Would we have never been there, we would hardly care (at least in comparison).

As the co-founder of this site, I should probably set one thing straight. The aim of Bushdrums is not to STOP the damage tourism causes (wish we could), but to REDUCE it. So much could be done for wildlife and environment if only all companies would stick to some basic rules. So there is my answer to your question, yes, with common sense and not being egregiously wasteful we merely minimize the devastation we cause, but that would already be a VERY large step forward and unfortunately the tourism industry is still far away from this.

There are some very good eco-tourism companies out there that really bring the carbon footprint back to zero by counteracting, but this is asking too much from the average tourist. As long as the majority of tourists doesn't care, I believe, wildlife is doomed for the future. The majority of tourists is not even AWARE of the damage they cause and therefore needs to be informed and given alternatives that are easy and affordable for everyone.

I agree with what you've all stated previously. However, I don't think eco-tourism is not just up to us tourists. Those who build lodges and camps should also be responsible for ensuring that they are doing their share also.

I was extremely disappointed, knowing how dry Tsavo East can get, that the powers that be let Ashnil Aruba Dam Lodge build a swimming pool!!!

Aruba Dam itself dries up every July - October leaving no water for the wildlife except at three bore-fed waterholes at different areas of the park. Yet here are humans filling a swimming pool and tourists who apparently want to enjoy it. Very frustrating.

I have now gotten to the point that when I am staying multiple nights at the same lodge/camp I ask that they not change the sheets and towels daily. Just make the bed. How many of us at home wash our linen daily?

Since this article is prone to drown in the flood of news, I would like to link up the article [URL=http://www.bushdrums.com/news/index.php?shownews=1950]Eco-tourism is all a hype[/URL] with this topic.

Very interesting, thank you for posting it, Jan.