[chumali]

It's true that travel should not be reserved for the wealthy. At the same time however travel is no different to most other non-essential commodities and should be similarly allocated via the price mechanism. Given that the supply of desirable destinations is fixed and demand is rising it stands to reason these destinations cannot be accessible to everyone.

As the article touches upon, each additional tourist presents an increase in the external costs they impose on everyone else. These costs may manifest in price increases (more expensive accommodation) or in other ways (longer queues, disruptions to locals, etc). Taxes are very much needed so that tourists bare the true cost of their presence. This will achieve the desired outcome of reducing tourist numbers by pricing some people out and making alternative destinations more appealing relative to their price.

Tourism is a luxury and there is no serious case to be made that cities should have to effectively subsidise the demand of travellers so that everyone can see the world.

[rhacker]

Definitely agree. I don't have a chance in hell of making it to Everest, not because I wouldn't want to, but I can't afford it. But if I could afford it, as much as I hear the place is already pretty much ruined (reports of garbage, dead bodies everywhere)- if everyday people like me started heading there, it would be obliterated. Now I'm not saying all travel should be reserved for the wealthy, but it makes sense that we have different levels of cost for different places. I've had two people on my team visit Reykjavik recently. And I'm just thinking - how on earth did people find out about these places. (short answer the internet ruiner of all places nice)