I may have just talked myself out of one of my dreams.
For years now I’ve held out hope of an opportunity to travel to Africa to see one of my favorite species, mountain gorillas, in the wild. This year it looked like that dream could finally come true. I have the vacation time, I have the money (well, the credit cards), and I don’t have any work or personal commitments keeping me close to home.
I could do it if I really wanted to.
But a question has been gnawing at me: Should I do it?
With climate change threatening just about everything on Earth — including mountain gorillas — does it make any sense for me to do something that would produce so much atmospheric damage, and something that could contributing to damning the very species I want to see?
The more I thought about it, the more I realized that the big problem looming over a trip like this is its impact on the climate. Based on some quick calculations I made on a travel site, it looks like an airplane trip to Uganda would produce at least 2.13 metric tons of CO2 emissions. That, according to the EPA website, is the equivalent of burning 2,329 pounds of coal — enough energy to charge my cellphone more than 271,000 times.
And that’s just for the trip there, using one possible flight path. It doesn’t even count the return flights, ground travel or other accommodations.
All told, any trip to see my beloved mountain gorillas could produce something in the neighborhood of 5 metric tons of planet-damaging emissions.
Damn, that’s a lot.
With climate change threatening just about everything on Earth — including mountain gorillas — does it make any sense for me to do something that would produce so much atmospheric damage, and something that could contributing to damning the very species I want to see?
Photo: Mike Arney
We all know that ecotourism, done right, can do a lot of good. This may actually be a fair example of that. In order to see mountain gorillas I would have to buy special permits, and that money would, in theory, be funneled back into mountain gorilla conservation. Much of the other money I would spend on travel, tour guides and food would help support local economies, giving people a reason to support their local wildlife and habitats.
On top of that, as a journalist I would certainly write about my trip, hopefully inspiring others to understand the threats these animals face and the need to protect them.
But is that enough?
I know others have done it. A journalist colleague flew to China last year to see and write about giant pandas. I recently spoke to a professional conservationist who took some vacation time to fly to Asia to see snow leopards. Another friend regularly flies to remote parts of the world for important environmental journalism work.
So why can’t I do the same?
The thing is, I also know people who are not flying for the very same reasons that worry me. One of them is climate scientist Peter Kalmus, who runs a website called No Fly Climate Sci, where he and other researchers, academics and activists pledge not to fly, or to fly as little as possible, and to meet their professional commitments with less emission-heavy methods.
I reached out to Kalmus about my conundrum.
“That’s a tough one,” he told me. “It’s probably no surprise that I can’t answer for you. Personally, however, I would not fly there. I know too much about the damage that burning fossil fuel does.”
And that brings to me to my decision. Right now, I just can’t see myself making my longed-for journey. I’m not saying others’ choices to fly to these remote locations are wrong, but personally I can’t balance out the costs and benefits for myself (or even for my readers). I know we’re at a place in time where every single action we can take to reduce emissions on a personal and societal level is absolutely necessary. I already fly a few times a year for work, so adding a massive, continent-hopping journey like this would just feel wrong.
And so I defer my dream to see mountain gorillas. And beyond that, my other dream to see orangutans in Borneo. And the next dream to see rhinos in South Africa. And the next fantasies after that.
Photo: Danielle Barnes
Perhaps someone can talk me back into it. They could argue that I’d use the opportunity to tell stories about conservation. Maybe they could offer information on techniques to offset the emissions from my trip, although Kalmus tells me he feels those exist more to make people feel good than to actually compensate for anything. Or they could encourage me to find out exactly how the money I would spend would directly benefit mountain gorillas and the species around them — messages and details I could convey to my readers.
Or maybe I could just take some of the money I would have spent on that trip and donate it to a nonprofit dedicated to mountain gorilla preservation — something that would help to keep these incredible species going for as long as possible.
That feels like a better dream after all, at least for now.
But damn it, I still want to see mountain gorillas.
This piece originally appeared at The Revelator.
Top photo: Photo: Richard Ruggiero, USFWS.
Adventure Journal doesn’t accept sponsored content, native advertising, or paid reviews. Here’s why.
The AJ staff is smaller than you think. Here’s a peek behind the scenes.
Here’s why Adventure Journal was launched and how we follow ethical business and publishing practices.
Adventure Journal in print is like Adventure Journal online x 100—and print stories can only be found there. Subscribe to get it now—we guarantee you’ll love it.
Thank you for caring about our world and all nature. Nature includes us as well. Perhaps you will feel content with nature shows and enjoying nature in your own area. Also, because you care so much, I highly recommend you read the book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. Main character happens to be a gorilla. It’s a very eye-opening book. I am re-reading it and it’s still so incredible. I wish everyone on the planet could read it.
A terrific book.
I think this is an important conversation that we need to have and I’m happy to see the AJ raise the topic.
I see my job and many of my personal actions as part of my own commitment to fighting climate change, and at the same time, I’m a huge climate hypocrite because I’m constantly flying around the U.S. to some event or another. So much so that I achieved frequently flyer status last year. But every time I get on a plane I feel guilty because of the climate impact.
I try to convince myself that the events that I attend for work lead to meaningful action on climate change, and try to limit my trips as much as I can. I also avoid personal travel on airplanes to the extent that I can, largely after reading that a round trip transatlantic flight emits enough carbon pollution to melt about 3 square meters of sea ice. Its just too hard for me to justify that in a world where I’m concerned about the future of our species viability and the massive disruption that I expect we will see in my life time as a result of our society’s refusal to act in a responsible way.
Take a sailboat, best way to travel, like we use to do in the day.
Bravo!! Finally someone who is willing to stick by their convictions. I am sooo tired of politicians telling me that the world is going to end in 10 years, pretty much everyone of the 20 or so Democratic Presidential hopefuls, and AOC, due to Americas carbon footprint. Yet, they continue to fly in private jets, live in gated mansions own multiple homes, drive gas guzzling suv’s. And then tell me to walk to work, stop driving and flying ect. ect. Do as I say not what I do!!
Wow. it only took 4 comments until someone turned this into a partisan political theater.
And here I thought the world is going to end because we teach evolution in schools.
Good intentions…but… Time to think it through a bit more.
The numbers are wrong. Your impact is the flight total emissions divided by the number of passengers. On top of that, the flight was going, with or without you. When I fly to Utah, 99% of the persons on the flight are not flying to travel to the backcountry. They are business persons, leisure travelers, physicians (like my sister on her way to a migrant clinic), researchers, moms seeing daughters, sons seeing fathers, etc. The flight is going, with or without me.
The answer isn’t to ground planes (going to sailboats? really?) or to reduce the tiny amount of travel dedicated to seeing various species. Air travel didn’t tip the scales. Coal burning plants, methane belching livestock industries, and other major factors like these, which have substitutes (clean energy, different plant based sources for our protein) are what can be substituted right now and make an impact. You can’t substitute air travel with a sailboat. Additionally, if you feel guilty, you can simply charge yourself a carbon tax. Donate that tax to an emission reducing program. You then zero out your impact. There are solutions that are practical, that will help the planet. But if you think that plane isn’t flying because one or two eco tourists isn’t on it…well, it just isn’t so.
Hi David,
To a degree, yes of course everyone thinks “why should I not eat meat anymore?”, “what difference does it make if I choose “oat milk or vegan ice cream over the dairy version?”. The produce is there anyway. “Why do you bother swapping your light bulbs or turn off the lights when leaving a room if not because this also has an impact on the grant scheme of things?”.
I like to think in those terms of “why cheer on your team in a game?”. Your voice doesn’t seem to make a difference but it does and you cheer. It’s about the messages it sends to other individuals, to companies, to policy makers. It’s also about the accumulative effect it can have. Yes, at the moment there’s hundreds of thousands of people flying all the time but they make those individual choices. In regards to Airlines it happens all the time that flights are cancelled and put on the later flight due to low fill capacity! That’s a flight saved right there 🙂 A couple of people making a choice can have an impact. And if you choose to take the train instead you support public transport! Our choices matter.
PS: see what happened in Sweden just yesterday. Because so many people are trying to take the train instead of flying, the Swedish railway company is trying to increase the number of night trains from Stockholm to enable better connections to the South of Europe and to make it more convenient and attractive! The power of choosing not to fly in action! (Use google translate for this 🙂 https://www.dn.se/ekonomi/sj-forbattrar-forbindelser-med-kontinenten/?fbclid=IwAR0T0XvvHh1afGJ9WVZGuxaO7Wu3dEo4hE86TPtJDZvTFsG-UI7CKjF_98A )
Better quit driving your car then too. In the last decade, the efficiency of planes has increased so that now flying on a loaded (don’t remember the % needed) plane produces less emissions than driving a typical car, solo. Personally, I’m still going to fly, but I drive an electric car and pay my utility extra for wind energy.
We can’t take a train from North America to Africa. That leaves air travel. No one is suggesting an attitude that “oh well, my little part doesn’t make a difference”. What I and others are suggesting is that some things can be substituted to help this planet and some can’t (yet). The logical and reasonable answer is to purchase a carbon credit to offset those types of activities (air travel) that sometimes have no substitute. When you buy a carbon credit for $11, you are guaranteed a reduction of one metric ton of carbon dioxide in return. Anyone can do so. In fact, you can purchase extra credits to actually become a net positive traveler! Put your money where you heart is. A win-win. While at it, donate to conservation causes that deal with the wildlife visited. Reason and logic are needed to go along with the emotion of the subject at hand; not suggestions of trains and sailboats when the distance is so large, with a little something called the Atlantic Ocean between himself and the gorillas.
Hi I kind of struggle with this as well and ….. I’m a commercial pilot. On one hand I know the planes are going anyway weather you’re on them or not so if you add to the passenger load you are spreading ( diluting ) the per person damage. I know if more people travel though the airlines May add more flights. Also you may want to know that different airplanes use different amounts of fuel. I fly the 787 which uses 50,000 less pounds of fuel than a 777 on a similar flight leg say Atlanta to Johannesburg. I’m excited that there are people thinking about these issues It gives me a little hope. Maybe someday I’ll be out of a job and I can concentrate on sailing but until then it’s flying the 787 , eating a vegetarian diet, driving electric cars, solar panels on the roof, reduce waste and plastic and try to reduce fuel consumption at work
Yes, by all means, cloister yourself in your house, don’t drive, don’t fly, don’t consume, don’t exist…why be here at all??? Don’t embrace this absolutely incredible gift known as life, just live in fear of everything. For god’s sake, leave it to AJ to print this rubbish…
Maybe we’d like to leave a shot a decent life for our kids? Maybe I’d like Florida to not be underwater if I make it to 100 like my grandmother did? Call me crazy, but those sound like reasonable ways to embrace life.
Well, perhaps a bit of cloistering is just what the planet and our children need right about now — since consuming everything we can get our hands on has turned out to be destructively selfish.
I love these self aggrandizing articles which amount to the literary equivalent of an Instagram post. Maybe the author knows a more efficient way to move a large group of people across long distances. Unless you were planning on taking a private jet out there, your point is misguided at best. I know everyone has to do something to help nowadays, but if the sword your going to fall on is not taking the sky based version of public transportation… all I can say to you is- cool story bro
Go see the gorillas. I want people to see them and write about them and make sure that governments and individuals are under pressure to protect them. I agree with the philosophy that living a life well lived and as unobtrusive as possible is a good goal. But living experientially rather than through reading or watching videos is so much more important. The flight needs to be divided by the number of passengers for sure and talking about this issue will help keep companies like Boeing designing better and more fuel efficient planes. I love the thought process and the exchanges here. Thank you.
I still have a long list of places on this planet I’d like to see fist hand (in addition to all those that I have already been privileged to visit and sometimes live in). A lot of that desire is based on seeing photos of various landscapes and ecosystems. But as I near retirement I realize that I will never get to them all and will have to prioritize, and climate impact is increasingly figuring in to those calculations. I am US born and raised but live in Norway. This summer my wife and I will spend our Euro-vacation hiking in relatively nearby Iceland, flying one way and returning home by ferry and train. We both commute by bicycle, don’t own a car (but use coop cars when needed, mostly to get out of town) we are 90% vegetarian and struggling to reduce dairy, etc. But I have flown a lot, especially in latter years to visit family and friends and recreate in the US. I may never get to Hawaii or Patagonia or return to New Zealand, where I spent some of my formative years. Just too far away (or, in the case of, say, Roraima Tepui or Socotra, politically inaccessible). Other peoples’ photos will have to be good enough. After all, the Norwegian mountains, despite some rough weather and being rather barren in places, are pretty sweet (as are mountains and deserts and forests all over North America). And the Alps aren’t so far away either.