Reuters has a good story here. The eco-change debate is becoming harsher every day. More emotion = less brains, unfortunately. Take a look at this outrageous piece. How come there are no warnings about policy wonk stupidity?

All the talk about the poorest countries in the world suffering from climate change is highly charged. The images of poor people, already hammered by harsh conditions, suffering even more from climate change is awful. The outcome of this thinking is going to take you down a road that leads to the following: travel and tourism is bad because it hurts the environment. Really? What is the trade off between eco-tourism to undeveloped parts of the world and leaving the "unspoiled nature" to grinding poverty?

As Prof. Ian Yeoman, of Stirling University, points out: "In the UK, like everywhere else there has being a debate about climate change and sustainability – and its impact on tourism". This is further reinforced his Chanel 4 documentary 'The Great Climate Change Swindle" – link – and its impact on tourism.

• Since the fall of communism, the anti capitalist movement is focusing on the environment of politics. Combined with communities moving away from participation in party politics (individual political party membership in the UK is in free fall) to individual issues i.e., the environment. This is what is driving supply side change and legislation. We are seeing the rise of the new puritan, someone telling you what you can do or can't do. This is about 'freedom from' rather than 'freedom to' etc.

• Consequently, international tourism is becoming a dirty word i.e., don't fly, air miles, and holiday in your own country etc.
• Is the debate balanced between economic sustainability against environmental sustainability. For example, many African countries depend on upon international eco- tourists for economic development. What would be the economic cost of significant reduction in international aviation?
• It's not just tourism. In the UK without international aviation the financial services industry would disappear – the impact on the business tourism market would be enormous."

Travel and tourism employs one in sixteen people worldwide. So before you dive off into an emotional response about this issue; ponder first how your job will disappear if the climate change eco-terrorists have their way. Note that Boeing and Airbus' new planes already exceed by huge amounts the best fuel consumption numbers of any hybrid car. Moreover, if you want to take the view that all this travel is doing great harm to earth; think about this – ignorance kills far more people because ignorance enables stupid politicians to mislead even more stupid voters. One of the world's finest educators is a thing called tourism. Its much tougher to go to war with people you have visited and like.

The real "peace dividend" of the cold war has been the explosion in travel. Note how hard it has been to sustain the war on terror – even though the start of this war was not hard for anyone to understand. People clearly see the concept of a global village and don't like all the aggression going on. But note that the nations that are accused of enabling the start of the war (Afghanistan, etc.) are not places known for their great learning. Education requires an opening of the mind which is not something many cultures appreciate. Saudi Arabia for example does not encourage tourism because it dos not want to be "infected" by outside cultures. Which would be fine, except they have all this oil the rest of humanity needs to build their economies.

So who is the greater eco-terrorist? The one who is trying to burn fossil fuel to create jobs or the one who wants to ban burning of fossil fuels? What will cause greater and quicker damage; climate change or derailed economic growth? You cannot dismiss this trade off – its coming to a ballot box near you soon. Arm yourself with data (movies don't count) because you are going to be bombarded with opinions and emotional attacks. Pick a side because there is no middle ground.

Reuters has a good story here. The eco-change debate is becoming harsher every day. More emotion = less brains, unfortunately. Take a look at this outrageous piece. How come there are no warnings about policy wonk stupidity?

All the talk about the poorest countries in the world suffering from climate change is highly charged. The images of poor people, already hammered by harsh conditions, suffering even more from climate change is awful. The outcome of this thinking is going to take you down a road that leads to the following: travel and tourism is bad because it hurts the environment. Really? What is the trade off between eco-tourism to undeveloped parts of the world and leaving the "unspoiled nature" to grinding poverty?

As Prof. Ian Yeoman, of Stirling University, points out: "In the UK, like everywhere else there has being a debate about climate change and sustainability – and its impact on tourism". This is further reinforced his Chanel 4 documentary 'The Great Climate Change Swindle" – link – and its impact on tourism.

• Since the fall of communism, the anti capitalist movement is focusing on the environment of politics. Combined with communities moving away from participation in party politics (individual political party membership in the UK is in free fall) to individual issues i.e., the environment. This is what is driving supply side change and legislation. We are seeing the rise of the new puritan, someone telling you what you can do or can't do. This is about 'freedom from' rather than 'freedom to' etc.

• Consequently, international tourism is becoming a dirty word i.e., don't fly, air miles, and holiday in your own country etc.
• Is the debate balanced between economic sustainability against environmental sustainability. For example, many African countries depend on upon international eco- tourists for economic development. What would be the economic cost of significant reduction in international aviation?
• It's not just tourism. In the UK without international aviation the financial services industry would disappear – the impact on the business tourism market would be enormous."

Travel and tourism employs one in sixteen people worldwide. So before you dive off into an emotional response about this issue; ponder first how your job will disappear if the climate change eco-terrorists have their way. Note that Boeing and Airbus' new planes already exceed by huge amounts the best fuel consumption numbers of any hybrid car. Moreover, if you want to take the view that all this travel is doing great harm to earth; think about this – ignorance kills far more people because ignorance enables stupid politicians to mislead even more stupid voters. One of the world's finest educators is a thing called tourism. Its much tougher to go to war with people you have visited and like.

The real "peace dividend" of the cold war has been the explosion in travel. Note how hard it has been to sustain the war on terror – even though the start of this war was not hard for anyone to understand. People clearly see the concept of a global village and don't like all the aggression going on. But note that the nations that are accused of enabling the start of the war (Afghanistan, etc.) are not places known for their great learning. Education requires an opening of the mind which is not something many cultures appreciate. Saudi Arabia for example does not encourage tourism because it dos not want to be "infected" by outside cultures. Which would be fine, except they have all this oil the rest of humanity needs to build their economies.

So who is the greater eco-terrorist? The one who is trying to burn fossil fuel to create jobs or the one who wants to ban burning of fossil fuels? What will cause greater and quicker damage; climate change or derailed economic growth? You cannot dismiss this trade off – its coming to a ballot box near you soon. Arm yourself with data (movies don't count) because you are going to be bombarded with opinions and emotional attacks. Pick a side because there is no middle ground.