[renewiltord]

Oh I didn't say it was unpleasant. It's bad for the environment. High CO2 cost, requires interfering with the local ecosystem, poor land use etc. I don't see why this upsets people so much. It's just an honest accounting of the costs. Living inside a US National Park would be both lovely and bad for it.

This sort of trade-off between pleasantness and damage is common. For instance, I like traveling the world and in first class you've got half the seat-density of economy so the environmental cost is massive. But it's really nice and there's no way I'd prefer not to do it. It's just also bad for the environment.

My wife and I just returned from a two-week long vacation in Patagonia. It's a stunning place and you'll be surrounded by unbelievable natural beauty. But the same lovely glaciers I mourned the melting of, I contributed to the melting of by flying there. Both things are true.