The "Zero-Carbon" Luxury Beach Resort
by Justin Thomas, Virginia on 02. 9.07
The Observer is reporting that the world's first 'zero-carbon' five-star resort is being developed by architects in London. The developers of the resort, due to open next year, claim it will have no negative environmental impact and each of its 35 villas will be totally self-sufficient, using only energy from the sun and wind and producing little waste or carbon emissions. The only drawback, environmentally speaking, is its location - thousands of fuel-guzzling miles away in Nungwi, Zanzibar.
'We have to accept people will fly there, but we will offset their flights, and our guests will be choosing an eco-friendly resort when they get there,' says Richard Hywel Evans, the British architect behind the resort. 'Carbon neutral is very difficult to achieve. What goes into the hotel must be available locally and plentifully, and what comes out the end must not damage the environment.'
The resort's design incorporates many ingenious, energy-saving tricks. The infinity pool in front of each villa will use water that has been naturally filtered by reeds in an adjoining pool. To create natural air-conditioning, the villa walls will be shaped to draw the sea breeze into the bedroom, after being cooled by passing over the pool. Cold water pipes will run through the inside of the bed to cool it, and each villa's water supply - from rainwater and desalinated seawater - will be stored in its own tank. Hot water comes from pipes which run beneath the solar panels on the roof, and so are naturally warmed. Waste water will be reed filtered and recycled. The resort will be built from local earth, renewable timber and reclaimed stone; the 100 staff will be given bicycles, and electric cars will transport guests to and from the airport.
:: The Observer
Wow. 'No negative environmental impact'. These architects must have an office above the hidey-hole where the Knights Templar put the Holy Grail or something.
Ummm... I think that ecorevolution starts at home. It's sad to think that these architects/ designers would overlook such a glaring flaw- Zanzibar? I mean, it doesn't seem to be eco friendly whatsoever till it can clear that hurdle.
I really don't think that this place ought to get ANY kudos- it's trendy and chic to go green, at least superfcially, but there seems to be little thought paid to the big picture. bummer.
I'm not too sure if this is the world's first 'zero-carbon' resort. Maybe it's the first five-star 'zero-carbon' resort. Pick up the fall copy of British Columbia magazine and there's a large article on Green lodges or getaways throughout BC and Alberta. They mention Yoho National Park's Lake O'Hara Lodge, Purcell Mountain Lodge, Strathcona Park Lodge, and Mulvehill Creek Wilderness Inn. Some incorporate complete on-site wastewater treatment, Lake O'Hara is fueled by Beef Tallow or vegetable oil biodiesel. Purcell Mountain is planning on installing its own hydro too. There's more going on at those getaways as well.
I am a little conflicted on this article. On the one hand I feel the same as some of the posters that said that this is at the western edge of the Pacific, far away from Europe and very far away from north America (and these will undoubtedly be the areas where most customers come from) which means a lot of plane-flying and GHGs. At the same time I feel that each individual business and industry has to do its best to be green, regardless of whether they are producing cars, or energy, or tourist services. This tourist hotel business is trying to go green without going out of business. In the end, they are hotel operators and not an airline. I think their responsibility is to try to eliminate as much as possible the negative impacts of their operations. And try to find ways to make it easier for customers from abroad to minimize their GHGs in the transport (which is to their benefit and to the customers benefit). In the end, people will still travel - and travel far. What society needs to do is to convince its members to travel only occassionally rather than several times a year (especially to very far away locations), to travel energy-efficiently (use trains or buses over planes where feasible, or boats or bikes where feasible.), to push for airlines to continue fuel-efficiency improvements. If airlines, and other transport mediums, continue to improve fuel-efficiency, the problem is not that we travel and travel far away - the problem is that we are travelling way too much. In the past ten years, I have not been out of western Europe, travelling only a couple of times between my home in Spain to Finland to visit my wife's family on special occassions. And in my lifetime I have only been in western Europe and the US. It would be nice to see some other parts of the world in my lifetime. I'm just not going to be doing it every year or every other year. Maybe once a decade I'd like to travel very far away (maybe by boat or maybe by plane). If we ALL did this in the West, then airplane travel would probably decrease enough in the West that the expected increase in travel by Thirld Worlders would be offset enough by fuel-efficiency increases that the airline industries' GHGs might actually decrease slowly, gradually. And if I decide to take that once a decade trip to some faraway place, hopefully by the most energy-efficient transport medium I can find, like Zanzibar, I want that place to be as green as possible.
"If we ALL did this in the West, then airplane travel would probably decrease enough in the West that the expected increase in travel by Thirld Worlders would be offset enough by fuel-efficiency increases that the airline industries' GHGs might actually decrease slowly, gradually."
decreasing it enough probably has to mean decreasing it under zero. i don´t think that each individual business has to go green. in a world of 6 billion people who all have the same right for using ressources, climate and ecosystems some individuel business need to be shut down completely. at least until not foreseeable technical innovations make them thousands times more efficient than they are today. one of those business is holiday air travel.
this green luxury trend is moronic. you can´t buy your footprint down to a universalizable and sustainable level. even if those rich and famous drive hybrids, buy eco-fashion and organic food, put solar cells on their homes roofs and offset their emissions their lifestyle leads to a ressource consumptions many times higher than that of a real treehugger who strives for a simple but satisfying life.
maybe its time for some naming and shaming. the greenwashing of overconsumtion lifestyles has to be stopped. we should only compliment those rich and famous who really strive for a green lifestyle. holiday air travel and greenwashed luxury hotels can´t be part of that cause both are wastes of ressources.