Home » Travel Tips » Can You Bribe the Environment to Reduce the Size of Your Carbon Footprint?
“Offset carbon emissions” and “reduce carbon footprint” have become popular phrases in the world of business travel. I keep seeing articles about business travelers or travel companies making payments to offset the carbon emissions created by frequent flying. Companies, even the big guys, are jumping on the “green image” bandwagon like wildfire. The goal of the whole thing, besides a cuddly image, is to reduce emissions created by airlines. Super. But what exactly are they doing with that cash?
They are “donating” it to an organization such as Carbon Fund or C Red, which are in place to initiate carbon reduction efforts like reforestation or alternative fuels. Excellent.
The faulty logic in the equation is that providing funds to offset the carbon emissions negates the carbon dioxide created by the flight and thus makes for a “carbon neutral” flight. Guess what? No matter what amount of fee you add, it doesn’t make the massive amount of byproduct disappear. By all means, any given person needs to be aware of the ecological effects of his or her travel, but this isn’t a permanent solution, it just looks good on paper. So feel good about your company’s efforts to reduce it’s carbon footprint, but understand what that means. When travel companies make statements such as “a convenient way for people to heal the planet - even while on vacation,” it just isn’t true. Sure, it’s better than going on vacation WITHOUT providing any funding to a carbon reduction organization, but it still doesn’t make all the ugly emissions go away.
I’m not sure what the environmental impact would be for any individual staying in a hotel rather than their home. I guess if you leave the heat on 76 and don’t unplug your PC, then you’re double dipping your power allotment during your travel time. There’s an easy fix - don’t do that. Beyond those irresponsible activities, I would think it would be irrelevant. If your home systems are less eco-efficient, you might actually do LESS damage by staying in a hotel. I’m not saying you should stay home all of the time, just understand that the fee isn’t reversing global warming or re-freezing the polar ice caps or bringing back the numbers of polar bears in the arctic.
Related Posts
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share ![]() |
I don’t understand your logic.
Trees absorb and act as stores of carbon dioxide so it is perfectly possible to plant enough trees that will absorb and store the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by your flight.
The limits are the amount of land available for planting, but we are no where near that limit.
The trees will release methane, a far worse greenhouse gas, when they die but that would be decades hence depending on species chosen.
Deforestation is a major env problem so reforestation helps with that.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not in favour of flying - with or without carbon offsets. We took the train to Prague this Xmas rather than fly and I am refusing to fly to Belfast for business trip. I’ll trake train/boat instead.
But I wondered if you could explain your thinking.
Claire, thanks for your comment. I would be happy to try to explain my logic.
I’m a big fan of planting more trees and yes, deforestation is a devastating problem. The problems I have with that type of program is that
1. It isn’t sustainable.
2. If the trees being planted are reforesting a deforested location, they are only making up for previous damage to the environment. and
3. While there is land available for planting, much of it is more highly valued by the owners as a potential site for real estate development. True, that is much more of a problem in some areas of the world than others. The urban sprawl in the United States and developing countries ensures the majority of land will be used for development rather than an environmental purpose. I wish that wasn’t the case, but dollars talk and real estate developers have dollars.
What really set me off was the quote I listed above. That is an actual quote from a press release for a tour company. Unfortunately, I deleted the link to the release. That type of language gives people the false assumption that they are actually IMPROVING the carbon levels by flying, rather than achieving an “eye for an eye” type of trade-off.
A study by people much smarter than I conducted by the University of California found the following:
We find that replacement of current vegetation
by trees on a global basis would lead to a global annual mean warming of 1.6 C, nearly
75% of the warming produced under a doubled CO2 concentration, while global
replacement by grasslands would result in a cooling of 0.4 C. These results suggest
that more research is necessary before forest carbon storage should be deployed as a
mitigation strategy for global warming. In particular, high latitude forests probably have
a net warming effect on the Earth’s climate.
http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/324200.pdf
So planting additional trees to “make up” for the carbon created by flying can actually exacerbate the problem.
I’m just a lowly blogger, not environmental scientist, but I think this is just a way to create a false sense of self satisfaction to consumers.
Business News
Check out these related posts from Mary at the Eco Travel Logue. Lucky for me, she agrees with my standpoint.
http://www.ecotravellogue.com/planning-a-trip/carbon-credits-my-opinion.html
http://www.ecotravellogue.com/planning-a-trip/carbon-offsets-rated-at-last.html