My conclusion after visiting Las Vegas is that America needs a polar opposite of Sin City: a city branding itself as a tourist destination for those who find joy in treading with light carbon footprints and being frugal, rather than by hemorrhaging dollars in front of a billion flashing lights.
David Sirota is right in his judgment of Las Vegas’ unbridled energy consumption in this piece today at Salon.com. Las Vegas is not an escape; it’s a place where people come to practice the same bad habits they always do, just with the volume turned up.
A real escape would be a place where you could find relief from the guilt-laden behaviors - like driving and shopping - that are necessities of routine for most people. A vacation destination that relieves you of your ecological footprint for a few days makes much more sense than unrepentant excess at a time of economic and environmental crises.
Maybe you can hide that fling in Vegas from your spouse back home, or get away with calling the numbers on those X-rated cards shoved in your face on the Las Vegas Strip, but those carbon emissions from your weekend gambling binge most certainly do not stay in Vegas.
Coming off a visit with my new freegan friend Professor Saier (see my previous post on his dumpster-diving prowess), at least I can say I tried to keep my footprint to a minimum during my first trip to Las Vegas. Twenty bucks got me through a day and a half of walking and eating on the Strip. Not bad, I think.
Discussion
View Comments for “What Happens in Vegas Does Not Stay in Vegas”