I agree sustainable tourism is a buzzword. It would be far better that it and ‘responsible travel’ were the way things are, with no need for their own labels.

I disagree that tourism is a ‘disease of consumption’: Man was a ‘tourist’ way before the consumer society. I do agree though that tourism can be a ‘cultural polluter’; and a wealthier society makes travel more accessible to more people which in turn makes the pollution more likely and more widespread. That though is the point of the ‘sustainable tourism’ movement. It has become a cause to which like-minded individuals can subscribe. It is for people who refuse to accept the wholesale degradation of destinations as the inevitable consequence of tourism. The negative consequences of tourism can be ameliorated by subscribing to a sustainable and responsible approach.

I would go further and suggest that well-planned tourism development can even be a force for good supporting wildlife conservation for example or alleviating poverty in remote communities.

Sustainable tourism is not a panacea but in my opinion it is better than the alternative.

at best, you can maybe, perhaps, barely, slow down the cultural pollution that is the inescapable companion of tourism, sustainable or otherwise ….

there is not a single place listed in, say, lonely planet, that is better than it was before listing …

tourism is a disease of consumption, and the sustainable tag does nothing to change that …