Well, but look at it this way. If access to the environment by tourists is completely controlled, so that no one gets into some areas, and people only get into other areas when accompanied by guides, you can minimize environmental degradation. I don't believe this teaches anybody anything about the environment, but then, as I wrote above, the only people who are attracted to these kind of tours are already sensitive to the issues involved. And as I wrote above, the governments then control who locates there, what they offer, how much land they use, what resources they consume, and what outflux they provide into the surrounding environment. Controlling this aspect of tourism has been known to be vital in terms of keeping local ecosystems alive.
Sanctimonious? No more so than the businessfolk who preach that there should be no environmental resources set aside from regular use, and that future generations can worry for themselves, as they've always done in the past. When you're constantly fighting a well-organized, well-connected and wealthy opposition that wants to get its hands on pristine beaches, rain forest mines, etc, I suspect you would get a bit preachy. Kinda comes with the territory, and I'd understand.
