Not Too Hot To Trot

The New York Times was headlining this Travel section article this morning alongside the CIA interrogation tapes story on their website.

It's the 53 places to go see in 2008.

How exactly are you getting to many of them? Isn't that going to create global warming or polluting the local environment?

1 Laos
2 Lisbon
3 Tunisia
4 Mauritius
5 Mid-Beach, Miami
6 South Beach, Miami
7 Maldives
8 Death Valley
9 Courchevel
10 Libya
11 Hvar
12 Puerto Vallarta
13 Sylt
14 Prague
15 Quito
16 Liverpool
17 Munich
18 Iran
19 Tuscany
20 Anguilla
21 Bogotá
22 Playa Blanca, Panama
23 Alexandria
24 Mazatlán
25 St. Lucia
26 Oslo
27 Buenos Aires
28 Rimini, Italy
29 Malawi
30 Roatán
31 Mozambique
32 Kuwait City
33 Verbier
34 Lombok
35 Northwest Passage
36 Easter Island
37 Virgin Gorda
38 Namibia
39 San Francisco
40 Detroit
41 Itacaré, Brazil
42 Kilimanjaro
43 Algeria
44 San Diego
45 Málaga
46 Puerto Plata
47 London
48 Vietnam
49 Essaouira
50 Las Vegas
51 Barossa Valley, Australia
52 Tokaj, Hungary
53 New York

How many airline miles would it take to visit all of them from New York? Let's pick a couple out that strike me as fascinating selections, but ones that are dubious as to their environmental or political climate.

Easter Island. It's extremely remote, and has a sensitive ecosystem that can be overwhelmed with increased tourism. I thought we're supposed to tread softly on this green planet?

Northwest Passage. Again, it's another remote destination in an ecologically sensitive location where assistance in case of emergency is difficult at best. A recent Antarctic cruise ended in near-disaster as a cruise ship sunk after striking an iceberg. No one was killed in that incident, but plying the waters in the Arctic Circle isn't child's play and would release pollutants into the environment.

Then, there's Iran. Iran? Has the Times travel staff not been paying attention lately as to what Iran is busy doing? Don't consider Iran if you've got alternative lifestyle. That includes being Jewish. Or gay. Why would anyone go to Iran when doing so supports a regime that treats human rights as optional, and whose imposition of Islamic law is misogynistic and homophobic?

If you truly believe in man-made global warming, taking trips to these locales should be off-limits because of the COx emissions needed to get there, the pollution caused by staying at hotels in such locales, and the impact on the environment and ecology by your stay.

I guess the travel section doesn't have the same concerns for the environment as the environmentalists.