It’s the world, Jim, but not as we know it

by None on

Fans of the West Wing will be
familiar with the Peters Projection Map, the geographically accurate view of our world that “freaked out” fictional
White House Press Secretary CJ Craig. And to those who have never before seen the map, which is more commonly used
outside the US, it is pretty
freaky.

But the traditional Mercator Map most North Americans are used to badly distorts the relative size and shape of
countries, and the further from the equator you look, the more distorted the depictions. Greenland, for example,
probably appears on your home maps to be more or less half the size as Africa. In reality, Africa is
14 times larger.

What difference does it make? Well, first of all, if you’re travelling the world, it’s nice to know what that world
actually looks like. Second, how we are visually taught to see a country or region has a deep effect on how we precieve
that region. Organisations raising money for work in Africa, for example, prefer the Peters map because the sheer,
overwhelming size of Africa on the globe — it dwarfs any other continent — helps donors to understand how vast
the need is. Because it appears (accurately) to be larger, donors feel it is more important.

Fans of the world (or just of the West Wing) can order a Peters Map online from
New Internationalist. And if you really want to change your
world view, you can always hang it upside down.

The Emigrant Hordes

by Erik Olsen on

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. And it seems a lot of people don’t particularly like either of them very
much.

Turns out that some people are so frustrated with the Bush re-election that they are contemplating emigrating. What?
Is it really that bad? Some people think so. Now where would these political refugees flee? According to
this peice, it seems Americans
fancy New Zealand and Australia. Sure, why not? Also,
Canada is big.
Immigration officials in Ottowa also say there’s been an increase in requests for information on how to become
Canadian, eh?

So how would one go about leaving exactly? And what kind of things would you need to think about?
Harpers has a tongue-in-cheek piece that will be useful (if not just for a laugh) for
would-be-emigrants. For example, for those thinking that becoming a citizen in Canada would be as simple as driving
across the border and saying, “here I am, where’s my passport and fancy maple leaf patch” turns out things are a bit
harder. Today, for example, it takes an average of twenty-five months to be accepted as a permanent resident, and
that’s if you meet all the heady requirements. Thus begins an average five-year process of becoming a citizen. One
other great alternative, should you have the cashola, is to buy an apartment on

the World, a luxuury liner that cruises the globe with permanent and semi-permanent residents.  (Cost of the
cheapest apartment? Over a million bucks.)

I don’t know, if you’re that upset, maybe pull a Kaczynski and find yourself a little place in the woods.

Travel Guides and the Burma Debate

by None on

Tourism in Burma is a subject of much debate these days, with a grassroots tourism boycott
gaining mainstream support as many tourism companies and multi-nationals pull out of the country, also know as Myanmar
since a military coup put a brutal regime in power in 1988.

The Burmese democracy movement, led by Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, has asked that tourists not visit
Burma because it helps fund the regime and because forced labor and child labor is used to develop tourist sites and
infrastructure for tourism. Human-rights watchdog The Burma Campaign UK has published
a Dirty List of companies they
claim support the military regime in Burma by encouraging tourism. And there are some pretty familiar names on the
list: Lonely Planet, Let’s Go, Fodor’s, Frommer’s and Trailblazer all publish guides to Burma. The
Campaign also maintain a Clean List of companies with a positive ethical position on Burma; it seems Rough Guides
is the only popular publisher to make the grade, with a pretty
smart statement on their reasoning.

Happily, according to the clean list, we can all still shop at IKEA.

The Argument for Eco-tourism

by None on

World Wide Ecolodges, an environmentally-friendly tour company, has
a page on their website defining ecolodges and
ecotels, and while they’re at it, providing a very compelling explanation of what eco-tourism is all about.

In ecologically sensitive areas like rainforests or coral reefs, eco-tourism preserves habitats or land that would
otherwise be used for forestry, fishing, mining or other destructive development. Eco-tourists help make it
economically viable for tour companies to buy and build on these lands. Good eco-tourism also contributes to the native
economy, employing locals to contribute traditional skills like guiding, cooking, and crafting.

“Ecotravel is mindful travel—environmentally sensitive, culturally aware, and personally fulfilling.” It isn’t,
however, always luxurious. Eco-tourism can be basic; in the
Amazon, for example, you’re likely to
stay in pretty basic, though new, dwellings. While you may have your own bathroom, it’s likely to be cold-water
only. In Costa Rica, World Wide Ecolodges runs a remote
tent camp. In more touristed
destinations like Mexico, though, it can be downright plush.

Because eco-tourism is environmentally based, it tends to be be centered around some pretty amazing territories,
offering some of the world’s best hiking, mountain biking, climbing camping, and scuba diving, depending on location.
From volcanos to rainforests to beaches, ecotravel can take you to some of the most amazing places on earth, and help
keep them that way.