Last week, Sven-Olof Lindblad, president and CEO of Lindblad Expeditions, came out in harsh opposition to President Trump's decision to pull out from the Paris climate accord. Travel Weekly senior editor Michelle Baran caught up with Lindblad to discuss his strong stance and the risks he took to make it.
Q: In your opinion, what were the benefits of the U.S. being part of the Paris climate agreement?
Sven-Olof Lindblad
A: Clearly it's better to be at the table than to not be at the table. This is an international agreement that the U.S. signed onto, encompassing pretty much every nation in the world, that recognizes that the climate is a serious issue that needed international cooperation. And for the U.S., the leader of the free world, to disengage, I just cannot for the life of me see how that is productive.
Q: What impact do you feel Trump's decision to pull out of the accord will have?
A: It's sending signals internally in the U.S. that there is really not going to be any, at least on a presidential level, any real push to support alternative industries, to give teeth to reductions that were put in place and would continue to develop over time. So Trump gets up and says this is a really bad deal for U.S. businesses. I think it would be very useful to frame the conversation, if you want to frame it in economic terms, [as] what is the cost of the continued warming of the climate? And at the end of the day, are we really willing to, as the U.S., basically send out a signal to the world that the environment really is a low-tier issue, that it doesn't really matter a whole hell of a lot because it's more important that a few people can continue producing coal in Kentucky? I mean, it just doesn't make sense.
Q: I know you are gathering stories from travelers about their thoughts on the environment and how it is changing. What do you hope to do with them?
A: I'm not 100% sure yet, except that I do know that stories sometimes wind up becoming very powerful. One thing I think is clear is that we are very [far away] in this society from fully understanding the individual stories of people around the world who are affected as a consequence of these developments that have absolutely nothing to do with having created them. I was just in French Polynesia, and I met a bunch of people who are enormously scared about their future because of the changes they are seeing, [such as] greater, more powerful storms [and] sea level rise. Is there some [responsibility] on the part of the United States to deal in the realm of international justice? If that's the case, then these stories potentially become important because then people begin to see and understand more about what is actually going on out there.
Q: In one sense, you support the accord, but in another, the travel industry is a big contributor to problems plaguing the environment. How can the travel industry come to terms with that?
A: The reality is there are no perfect answers. Yes, when people travel, they get on an airplane, yes, that burns fossil fuels. Yes, that's not a good thing. Clearly one could say, well, you're suggesting people travel and then you're talking about climate, and that's hypocritical. I don't view it as hypocritical. I think our chances are way better to solve the issues, accelerate the opportunity for alternatives, as a consequence of people learning more, seeing more, experiencing more.
Q: Do you feel that by taking a political stance on this, one that could be viewed as anti-Trump, you risk alienating some of your customer base?
A: Oh, sure. Of course if you say anything that stands for anything you're going to alienate some people. What I wrote was never intended to be anti-Trump. I think it is anti-this decision. Certainly the safer route is to just keep your mouth shut. But I'll take my chances every now and then. It's painful to see how we are dealing with questions relating to environmental health. The environment is the real World Bank. If it crashes, we are screwed big time. It will make [the recession of] 2008-09 look like child's play.