In reply to JimHolmes69:
We sympathise with that sentiment. It's a dilemma when publishing articles on any destination, frankly, and not just the most distant ones. Should we only cover public-transport-accessible destinations? Or places you can cycle to? Worth discussing, but it might seem a bit radical and limited.
Did you see this bit in the info box?
Unfortunately you'll have to fly to NZ, but you might consider offsetting the CO2 - see carbonfootprint.com
You can get the train to Spain, but not NZ. Does that mean no one in Europe should ever want to go there?
What about those who are going to NZ anyway for family or work, and fancy a walk while there? Or people on a once-in-a-lifetime trip? Or those who are going over there for six months or a year?
Perhaps it's the lifestyle that's based on multiple short haul flights that we should really be seeking to discourage, more than the very occasional long distance journey? Take off and landing demand more fuel than high altitude cruising after all...