January 2026 – Ptara

Greenwashing glamping as eco-tourism?

Posted on January 21, 2026January 21, 2026 by Vasco de Sousa

So, I just wrote a treaty on eco-tourism. Then, I tried to find out exactly when the term was coined. Sure, the idea was found by a Mexican architect in the early 1980s, but when and how did the term really catch on?

In Australia, the first steps toward “eco-tourism” were really a re-hash of glamping. The earliest mention of Ecotourism in the Australian press seems to be in the Canberra Times, on Monday, 16 September, 1991. Lorann Downer wrote an article on the Carnarvon Gorge, in Queensland entitled, “Bush Holidays for those less eager to rough it.”

in that article, the head of Nature Australia, Stephen Comber, defined ecotourists as those who “like “nature-based holidays,” and would devote time to “experiencing the wild, but who also want a hot shower and good meal at the end of the day.”

According to that article, “tourists” as well as “the industry, are still defining what they want.”

Nature Australia Inc and others seem to try to reduce ecot-tourism to a “buzz word for holidays in relatively unspoilt or wilderness areas with low-key building and servicing, and no glitz.” In other words, they tried to turn eco-tourism into a euphamism for glamping.

Now, we know that the real meaning of ecotourism is not about just seeing relatively unspoilt nature, like glamping might be, but it is about supporting a natural ecosystem, a local economy, in its current shape. It is about making a positive impact with your visit.

We didn’t find the origin of the word eco-tourism. But we did find that since 1991 at least, ecotourism has been greenwashed to sell nothing more than glamping holidays.

Even worse than that, a lot of mediocre camp sites in undeveloped places are selling themselves as ecotourism, without really giving anything to the tourist or the location. Minimalism is cheap, and tourists might be paying way too much for poor service because it carries the greenwash label of “ecotourism.”

And what’s worse is a lot of this tourism just goes to big businesses. As much as 95% of the money spent on tourism does not go to the locations where the tourists go, but to international companies that found ways to skim money off tourist traps.

Ecotourism doesn’t mean just going to undeveloped places. Rather, it’s goal is to make tourism more accountable, more authentic, more responsible, and more durable. In other words, it’s not about the destination, it’s about the attitude, the process, the way of interacting with the economy, the culture and the destination.

In other words, buyers beware. Just because something sells itself as ecotourism doesn’t mean that it is. Worse still, the media and the tourist industry don’t always know what ecotourism really is, so you might have to research a bit deeper than a single article or review in your favorite newspaper.

What we need, perhaps, is an “organic” or “fair trade” type label for ecotourism. A third party organisation that can verify the quality of the experience.

Until them, you can participate in ecotourism simply by the way you approach your holidays. You can buy locally instead of through those international websites. Buy food through local sellers rather than international chains. (If you need an app, then Detrumpify yourself might help there.) You can choose to walk places or bike, to just treat the places with respect, as respectful tourists did in the old days.

Ecotourism vs sustainable tourism

Posted on January 21, 2026January 21, 2026 by Vasco de Sousa

At first, ecotourism and sustainable tourism may seem like synonyms. But synonyms are not homonyms. Similar is not the same. Just as a wave is more than a ripple, and a tsunami is more than a wave, ecotourism is more than sustainable tourism. So, what is the difference?

Sustainable tourism aims at minimizing the impact of tourism. You might have heard of “reducing your carbon footprint.” That is sustainable tourism. Ecotourism is more than that.

We heard a little about ecotourism from the mooc by Universite de Toulouse “Cap sur l’ecotourisme.” (#MoocEcotourisme) While France has long been a destination for tourists (and expats) the French have not always been thought of tourists. It is hard for some older people, encombered by old stereotypes, to imagine French people leaving their country to enjoy the sights in another.

As an Australian newspaper said in the 19th century, “Just now France is anything but interested in ordinary tourism,” meaning France is not interested in tourism at all. “When Macmahon officially voyaged he was greeted with Vivas for Gambetta,” it continued. Even though he was a royalist at heart, Macmahon was the president of France (he started in the military and worked his way up.) And “vivas for Gambetta” means people saying, “Viva Gambetta!” Who was Gambetta? Macmahon’s political rival.

It was like Macron going abroad and hearing people shout, “Long live Le Penn!” Or manchester United hearing people say, “Long live Manchester city!” Everton fans hearing “Long live Liverpool FC!” But a more powerful rivalry. Oh wait, we should have used more French analogies. “Long live your opponent!”

The Australians did not imagine the Frenchman enjoyed his trip abroad. “How the President must be delighted that the tour is over.”

Now, many people think ecotourism started in a similar way. It is often assumed (by who? I hear you ask… by me, I guess) that ecotourism started when people were frustrated with the litter left by tourists or hotels, the way development competes with natural resources, or some other events of tourism. You might think ecotourists were frustrated that tourism seemed to be the opponent of everything that was good and sacred. But no, that wasn’t it. Not at all.

In fact, however, ecotourism was started in the early 1980s when a Mexican architect, Hector Ceballos-Lascurainm saw the way people appreciated the tranquil pink flamingos at the side of a lake. He thought to himself, what if tourism could help nature and inspire people to preserve it? What if it could be a force for good? Can the economic and environmental, appreciation and protection, coincide? Of course they can!

The idea of ecotourism is not just to minimize the impact of tourism, but it reaches into a deeper philosophy of tourism that helps the enviornment, having a positive impact. For instance, tourists who go to watch a species can help scientists track that species. Instead of simply not dropping trash, tourists might help clean a location of trash (maybe that’s not a good idea, some might say. If you run out of trash, you will lose tourists. Well, show me a location that has run out of trash, and then we can talk.)

Ecotourism will do something that will involve tourists in not only appreciating natural beauty of a place, but helping to preserve it. The place will be better off for them coming.

Sustainable tourism, on the other hand, simply tries to stop the location from getting ruined too quickly. It doesn’t go nearly as far. Sustainable tourism (like “responsible” tourism) might try to reduce a tsunami to a smaller tsunami, but it won’t always build barriers to protect against that tsunami. Ecotourism can have the power to reduce a tsunami to a wave, or even a ripple, or even replace it with nourishing rainfall. Ecotourism aims to be a force that doesn’t only bring less destruction, but that may bring healing, regeneration, and growth to the local traditions and ecosystems of a place.

It was Francois Huet who called Ecotourism “more than a simple label, ecotourism is a true philosophy of travel.” His suggestions for ecotourism is not just to stand as an idle observer, but to be an active preserver of the natural and cultural richness of a location. You might use or help create its local instruments, learn its local language… The term “ecotourism” is a bit confusing, the concept of ecotourism seems to go beyond simple environmental preservation. Rather than simply “visiting a place,” the ecotourists “sense its heart” and bring back much of the good of a place with them.

It is like what Owen Feltman said about travel during the times of the Cromwellian Republic. A traveller should experience a place to bring back the best of that place, and be enriched by its virtues.

This wasn’t new. A lot of people think travel makes people better. Anthony Bourdain said that “travel is education for life.” Feltman was more realistic. He said that some men are made better by travel, and others worse. Feltman warned that men can pick up bad habits from travelling, and counselled that they should choose to pick the best to take back with them. We might not agree with everything that Feltman said (he only thought a few places were worth visiting), but he was more refreshing than those who think that everyone who travels is better for it. No, we must make a conscious effort to improve, personal improvement won’t happen on its own. Even in the 17th century, Feltman knew some well-travelled “Karens” who seemed worse than people who never left the country.

Feltman, and many others, spoke of the benefits (or dangers) of tourism for the tourist. Ecotourism, on the other hand, looks at the benefits that tourism can have for locals. The philosophy is ambitious: Rather than just learning to adapt to tourism, rather than just learning to mitigate its supposed evils, tourism can have a positive impact on a place. Tourism, as ecotourism, can be positive not just for the environment and culture, but for the people who live there as well.

Ecotourism is not “greenwashing” it is not simply sounding environmental to get money. It is about “regenerative tourism” or “leaving a place better than you found it.”

But the alternative to ecotourism is not just garbage on the beach. It is not just “overtourism” that brings up rent prices. The cultural danger exists as well. The danger is “museification” where a local economy is replaced with a giant museum. Local jobs, even farms, are replaced with tourist traps (if there are local craftsmen, they are doing their craft to entertain tourists.) In museification, the jobs people had before become unsustainable because the economy replaces them with bellboys, waitresses, and if you’re lucky, tour guides. Locals end up having to look abroad for work. This is something ecotourism is fighting against. Ecotourism is not just about protecting the environment, it is about protecting jobs as well.

In fact, ecotourism, according to the Mooc, puts locals before tourists. That doesn’t mean tourists have a bad experience, rather the basis for the project is thinking of how it will impact local people, local customs, and local environment in a good way. The local economy is built in such a way that it helps the locals live a better quality of life.

It might sound like ecotourism is tourism that puts the environment first, but instead, it recognises how the environment can help people. Ecotourism is tourism that puts people first.

Sources: Our Paris Letter, written 6 May 1888, in The Week (Brisbane), published 30 June 1888, pg 29.

Of Travel, in Resolves, by Owen Feltman, about 1620.

The Mooc on FUN about Ecotourism (in French) https://lms.fun-mooc.fr/courses/course-v1:univ-toulouse+101024+session01

See also: permentreprise (in French. In English, there is a Taiwan organisation that has nothing to do with the concept.) https://www.permaentreprise.fr

The Darwin project in Bordeaux: https://www.france.fr/en/article/discover-darwin-in-bordeaux/#capital-of-street-art-2

Of Travel (Resolves LXXXVII, Owen Feltman)

Posted on January 21, 2026 by Vasco de Sousa

A speech which often came from Alexander was; that he had discovered more with his eye than other kings did comprehend in their thoughts. And he spake of his Travel. For indeed, men can but guess at places by relation only.

There is no map like the view of the country. Experience is [the] best informer. And one journey will show a man more than any description can.

Some would not allow a man to move from the shell of his own country. And Claudian mentions it as a happiness, for birth, life and burial, to be all in a [single] Parish.

But surely, travel fulleth the Man; he hath lived but locked up in a larger Chest, which hath never seen but one land. A Kingom to the World is like a corporation to a kingdom, a man may live in it like an unbred man. He that searcheth foreign nations is becoming a gentleman of the world. One that is learned, honest and travelled is the best compound of man; and so corrects the vices of one country with the virtues of another, that like Mithridate, he grows a perfect mixture, and an antidote.

Italy, England, France and Spain are the court of the World; Germany, Denmark and China are the city. The rest are most of them country and barbarism: who has not seen the best of these is a little lame in knowledge.

Yet I think it not fit that every man should travel. It makes a wise man better and a fool worse. This gains nothing but the gay fights, vices, exotic gestures, and the Apery of a country. A travelling fool is the shame of all nations. He shames his own by his weakness abroad: he shames others by bringing their follies alone. They only blab about domestic vices, and import them that are transmarine.

That a man may better himself by travel, he ought to observe and comment: noticing as well the bad, to avoid it; as taking the good into use. And without registring these things by the pen, they will slide away unprofitably. A man would not think, how much the Characterizing of a thought in paper fastens it. Litera script a mane has a large sense. He, that does this, may, when he pleaseth rejourney all his voyage, in his closet.

Grave natures are the best proficients by travel: they are not too apt to take a soil: and they observe more: but then they must put on an outward freedom, with an Inquisition seemingly careless. It were an excellent thing in a state, to have a select number of youth, of the Nobility and Gentry; and at years of some maturity, to send abroad for education. Their parents could not better dispose of them, than to dedicate them to the Republick. They themselves could not be in a fairer way of preferment, and no question but they might prove mightily servicable to the state at home; when they shall return verified in the world, languaged and well read in men; which for policy and negotiation is much better than book learning, though never so deep and knowing.

Being abroad, the best is to converse with the best, and not to ch{oo}se by the eye, but by Fame. For the State instruction is to be had at the Court; for Traffic, among merchants. For Religious Rites, the Clergy; for Government, the Lawyers, and for Country and Rural knowledge, the Boors and Peasantry can best help you.

All rarities are to be seen, especially Antiquities, for these show us the ingenuity of elder times in Act; and are in one both example and precept. By these, comparing them with modern invention, we may see how the world thrives in ability and brain. But above all, see real men. There is no monument like a worthy man alive. We shall be sure to find something in him, to kindle our spirits, and inlarge our minds with a worthy emulation of his virtues. Parts of extraordinary note cannot so lie hid, but that they will shine forth through the tongue, and behavior, to the inlightening of the ravisht beholder. And because there is less in this, to take the sense of the eye, and things are more readily from a living pattern; the soul shall more easily draw in his excellencies, and improve itself with greater profit.

But unless a man has judgement to order them aright, in himself, at his return, all is in vain, and lost labor. Some men, by travel, will be changed in nothing; and some again, will change too much.

Indeed, the moral outside, whosoever we be, may seem best, when something fitted to the nation we are in: but wheresoever I should go, or stay, I would ever keep my God, and Friends, unchangeably. Howsoever he returns, he makes an ill voyage, that changeth his Faith with his Tongue and Garments.

It wasn’t Franklin’s basement

Posted on January 16, 2026February 3, 2026 by Vasco de Sousa

If you live somewhere, does that make it yours? I guess you could say, “my town” or “my country” without owning it. But, if you are a foreigner, say in Paramus, New Jersey (where the end of the world happens, according to Ghostbusters), San Dimas, California (where Bill and Ted had their excellent Adventure), or Cluj-Napoca (where the greatest king of Hungary was born, and where Romania’s great Black Sea Bubble started), then you might hesitate to say, “my.”

Yes, there are people who feel affinity to somewhere without being a citizen. But, when I say, “in my country,” people do not expect me to say a place where I lived for a few years as a boarder. Hey, I spent some time in Bulgaria, is that “my country?”

Now, some people say that bones were found, “in the basement of Benjamin Franklin’s house.” This implies that Franklin had something to do with those bones. However, Franklin was a boarder in that house. That means, he had a housesit there. Like a student might rent a “bed sit” in modern Britain.

The house is now called the Ben Franklin house to capitalise on tourism. Just like the house where Matthais Corvin, the great King of Hungary, was born, is marketed as the Matthais house. But, just as the baby Matthais had no idea what was going on in that quiet little house in Cluj-Napoca, so Ben Franklin likely didn’t know what was happening beneath his feet in London.

But he was “a curious man” you say? (Or the Smithsonian says.) The Smithsonian claims that the “curious man that he was,” Franklin probably knew what was going on and would, “sneak down and check out the proceedings at least once or twice.”

Franklin’s curiosity did not, in other areas, include spying on private affairs. There seems to have been an illegal anatomy workshop underneath him. Franklin might have thought something else was happening there, perhaps something of an intimate matter that he didn’t want to see. Or, perhaps something political that he didn’t want to know about. It might have been an illegal gambling den for all he knew. And, I would bet that he didn’t want to know.

Franklin’s curiosity usually extended only to things he could write about. As Franklin once wrote, “three can keep a secret if two of them are dead.” He loved reading books and talking to people. But spying and keeping secrets was not his thing.

Now, the Smithsonian goes on to defend the other occupant of the house who the skeletons might have belonged to. William Hewson is said to have run an illegal anatomy school while Ben Franklin was a lodger, boarder, bed-sitter at the house.

Sure, Ben Franklin stayed there. But calling it “his house” is misleading. It assumes that he had control of what happened in the basement, and access to it. In reality, it wasn’t his, he merely rented a small part of it. If I eat at a restaurant, that doesn’t make me the chef.

That doesn’t mean it’s not a nice place to visit. The idea that you could be in proximity to where a great mind once contemplated things is great. However, don’t blame Franklin for what he had no control over, and probably didn’t know.