Later this week, Nepali Prime Minister Madhav Kumar, along with 26 members of his government, will travel to base camp on Mount Everest, where they’ll hold a cabinet meeting to raise awareness of global climate change and the effects it is having on the mountain. Warming temperatures in the Himalaya are causing glaciers to recede at an alarming rate, as rivers and streams dry up across the region.
On Thursday, Dec. 3rd, the cabinet will fly to Lukla, a small town located at 9383 feet, where they’ll spend the night before boarding a helicopter on Friday that will take them up to base camp at 17,585 feet in elevation. While there, they will survey the direct impact of the dwindling water supply in the Khumbu Valley, where villagers are already having to trek several hours each day to collect the water they’ll need for their day-to-day living.
Recently a similarly high profile cabinet meeting was held in the Maldives, where the president of that island nation, along with 11 cabinet members, held a meeting underwater while wearing scuba gear. Both of these events take place as the U.N. prepares to convene a special conference that is expected to be attended by 190 nations, who will be discussing a plan to replace the Kyoto Protocols by 2012.
The glaciers of the Himalaya are the second largest concentration of frozen freshwater on the planet behind the polar ice caps. The normal melting process of those glaciers feeds some of the longest rivers in the world, including the Ganges in India and Yangtze in China. As those glaciers recede, and the latest estimates have some melting at a rate of 70 meters per year, we can expect long term, and wide reaching consequences throughout Asia and beyond.
It’s World Heritage Week from November 19-25 and countries around the globe are celebrating the priceless treasures that UNESCO, which runs the list, is helping to preserve.
But one country, India, is wondering why two of its most famous places aren’t on the list. India has no shortage of World Heritage Sites, like the Taj Mahal and Agra Fort, but the 3500 year-old holy city of Varanasi (Benares) isn’t on the list and the Buddhist shrines at Sarnath are only on the tentative list.
This seems like an odd oversight. Varanasi is a beautiful, chaotic, ancient city on the banks of the Ganges. Nobody knows just how many temples there are here, from massive golden structures with elegant statues to little flagstones carved with a lotus flower and daubed with a bit of paint or an offering of a flower. It seems that when you are close to the river you cannot look anywhere without seeing a temple or shrine. In fact, it’s hard not to see several of them! The riverbank is famous for its burning ghats, platforms where Hindus are cremated before their remains are tossed into the holy Ganges River. But like in Hinduism itself, death and life are two parts of the same process. While people are mourning along one section of the riverside, not far off the dhobis are washing clothes, spreading out colorful saris like terrestrial rainbows, while old men play chess and kids frolic in the water. The ghats are strange mixture of morbid reminders of mortality and the throbbing life that makes India so exciting.
Nearby Sarnath is where Buddha is said to have preached his first sermon, and there are numerous temples in the representing all the Buddhist countries in the world. It’s interesting to see Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese, and other temples all together, attended by monks of all different nationalities.The peaceful, semi-rural surroundings make a stark contrast to noisy Varanasi.
So why aren’t these two places, so popular with visitors and so important to world heritage, not on the list? Nobody seems to have a good answer, but the Indian press does have some complaints about how they are treated, not by UNESCO, but by the Indians themselves. An article in the Times of India complains that the temples of Varanasi aren’t properly preserved. The stone temple of Kashi Vishwanath, shown here and built in 1777, was recently painted using enamel paint, which can seriously damage the stone. Now curators are facing a hefty preservation bill if they want to save one of the most important temples to Shiva. A recent study found about 2,000 temples in Varanasi that need help, but nobody is sure of the true extent of the problem.
Sarnath was submitted for consideration in 1998. Now it appears poised to get on the list. While the older temples and monuments have crumbled with time, the newer temples are in good condition and give the visitor or pilgrim a world tour of Buddhist practice. Here’s hoping Sarnath makes it onto the list soon, and that India will increase its efforts to preserve Varanasi and get it on the World Heritage List too.
The nudist community worries that the California decision could trigger a chain reaction across the country. Bob Morton, executive director of the Naturist Action Committee, says, “There are other states in which there are sanctioned nude beaches. They’re all looking to see what California is doing.”
There’s a secluded stretch of San Onofre State Beach, 1,000 feet long, that’s been popular for sunning sans threads for more than three decades, and it has such a reputation that visitors from out of state seek it out. Cliffs stretching 300 feet into the sky block the views of would-be gawkers, making it comfortably private. And, there’s a certain justice in the fact that it was a decision by President Richard Nixon that opened the beach to the public.
Fernando Ortiz grew up on mainland Ecuador and has lived in the Galapagos the past twenty years. His career path has led him from tour guide to dive guide and eventually dive company manager. Along the route he decided that talking to tourists about conservation was not enough, so he made the leap to fulltime environmentalist. Today he runs Conservation International’s office in Puerto Ayora. We talk on the town’s main dock, Zodiac’s whipping back and forth behind us overloaded with tourists, bags of cement, cases of water and beer, two-by-fours and cement blocks, frozen chickens and everything else needed to run a community of 40,000 on an island separated from the mainland by six hundred miles.
“I have realized a few things in the last few years regarding how best to preserve the Galapagos, primarily that it doesn’t matter how good your technical arguments or human arguments are, it’s not about that. It’s mostly, and unfortunately, all about economics and politics.
“I try not to be critical to tourism as an economy. In fact, if we analyze it in one way, tourism is probably the best way in which nature can pay in cash for its survival. If I were to go back to the islands as I saw them for the first time, nineteen years ago, I would probably find the same biologic, ecologic and evolutionary processes still happening, the same blue-footed boobies still nesting on the same trails. The same for the sea lions and penguins. Tourism has actually been well controlled, despite its growth. It’s the indirect impacts of tourism that we need to control.
“For that we need to be able to make some hard political decisions which then need to be followed out by everyone. Unfortunately when you have, let’s say a mayor who is looking for a re-election, he may not favor some regulations that sound restrictive for some of his potential voters. While some of our politicians are aware of the fact that natural resources are limited here in the Galapagos, that there is not enough water, not enough land, that we can’t produce much here locally, who understand the importance of conservation, most regard those as things that can be ‘negotiated.’ Nature cannot be negotiated.
“My children are growing up here and there couldn’t be any better place for a child to grow up. It’s fantastic, they are having experiences no other child – certainly no city kid – can have, which is very important. But do I think we’ll have to leave the Galapagos eventually, because it’s changing too fast. There are simply too many people. All of a sudden there are things here that didn’t used to be here, like violence and crime, a result of too many people.
%Gallery-77072%
“The frustration is that I think we know how to save and protect the Galapagos, but I don’t think we have the political will to follow through. In a way, I have become a Galapagos expert, working in different trades and that experience allows me to be analytical right now, to see things from different perspectives, and I still think it is possible there is room for optimism. Again, though it sounds cliché, I really do believe we can make a difference otherwise I wouldn’t be working in conservation, I would probably still be working in tourism, making more money while I can, having a great time scuba diving every day.
“But I know that things can be better managed, especially on land. The difficult part is that we are now surrounded by a one-hundred-and-thirty-eight-square-kilometer marine reserve, which is harder to manage. Thanks to illegal fishing and a boom in industrial fishing many of the beautiful fish that make the Galapagos special are at risk. On paper we are able to come up with strategies to protect them. But we have to have strategies that go beyond the limits of the Galapagos, beyond the marine reserve, all the way to the mainland and further.
“Ironically the Galapagos National Park and the Galapagos Marine Reserve are far advanced in terms of having the right tools and the right resources for managing the impacts of people. Many other protected areas in the world look up at us because we are breaking new ground here, things that are then replicated in other protected places. But we also have our failures, which unfortunately are also being replicated.
“Tourism, if well managed – and I emphasize, if well managed – has a chance to become the best opportunity for people to make a living here, without effecting the environment. But we have to keep our eyes on not just what happens to the visitor sites but the rest of the Galapagos. Let’s not be so short term. But if you look at the numbers, the growth in tourism is scary. We’ve had sustained growth for the past twenty years of twelve to fourteen percent a year and don’t see it slowing down.
“We have allowed market pressures to rule tourism in Galapagos. Many of my friends are tour operators and I ask them all the time what if something gets out of control here – species disappear, too much pollution — and tomorrow people start canceling their trips to Galapagos. What would happen then? They have no answers. Neither does the government on mainland Ecuador. Everybody knows we have a so-called golden goose here and that we need to take care of it. I hope as a society, and as institutions, that we can cope with this challenge. I believe there is an important group of well-intentioned people working in the right direction. All we can do is hope for the best.”
Congress is digging into all those new airline fees. Extra bags, special check-in situations … you name it. Before you start cheering on our lawmakers, though, you should know that they aren’t doing this from a sense of consumer advocacy. Frankly, Congress doesn’t give a damn how much you pay for air travel. But, it does care how you pay. Why? A cash-strapped government is wondering if it’s leaving money on the table.
When you look at your receipt, the line with “taxes” has never been lost on you, right? Well, the add-ons aren’t included in this number: Congress has a tax on airfare, not all the other stuff. So, for the airlines, this has been a tax-free revenue stream, one that’s been crucial to helping the already bruised airlines survive the current recession.
Yet, is it really just airfare in another form? That’s what Congress wants to know. Even if this is a different form of revenue, do you think it will be left untouched? Of course not! The government needs money, and there’s nothing stopping it from passing a new bill to tax the extra services. How much resistance would be raised?
Think about it.
The average person, even if traveling frequently for personal reasons, wouldn’t be hit too hard by the tax on the fees. If a $10 bag surcharge were taxed at 30% (just to pick a random and unreasonably ugly number) and a passenger flew weekly, he’d rack up $152 in taxes on the additional fees … and that’s assuming he needs to check the extra bag and did so every week. If faced with this or a higher income tax, how would you ask your congressman to vote?
Add it all up, and there’s some tax money to be had. The airline industry has pulled in more than $3 billion this year from the extra fees we all love to hate. If they were taxed at the same rate as fares — a much more reasonable 7.5% — $225 million in tax revenue would be generated. That’s not a trivial number.
