Air Travel Guilt

Hi David -

I think that the *only* way to reduce the "carbon footprint of necessary air travel" is to redefine the meaning of "necessary." I have begun thinking about putting together what I would call a "Climate Reality Workshop." Here is a preliminary idea of what it might look like: First, a general discussion of climate urgency, along the lines of Jim Hansen's recent declaration that 350 ppm is the maximum safe atmospheric CO2 concentration (which I think is still optimistic). Next, a hellfire and brimstone list of *current* climate symptoms and crises, which will get people's attention (I vehemently disagree with the prevailing assumption that people turn off when they're scared). Then I pose the key question and whole point of the workshop: if fossil fuels were to disappear tomorrow for peak resource and/or climate reasons, or if months of drought were on your doorstep, or hurricane Katrina events were on their way sooner rather than later, how would you (each workshop participant) go about changing how you conduct your life? What do you do about work? Transportation? Food? Water? Shelter? Communication? Warmth? Clothing/footwear? Education? Entertainment? Everything changes. I've believe I've said something in previous posts as to how I've been working on sustainable living myself, and I admit it's slow and difficult going, but I don't think we have a choice. How do you do it, David? It's different for each of us, and it's also the same: we have to give up lots of stuff in order to survive, there's no way around it. On the other hand, I think we have much to gain in our quality of life, climate and peak energy aside. If anyone has any thoughts on such a workshop, comments and suggestions are much appreciated. Let's get going!

Cheers,
Adam in the overheated USA, where we ask, "Are the lights really burning all night in the industrial park if no one's there to see them?" P.S. - I invite anyone to feel free to contact me by de-pixelated telephone if you wish. +001 781 674-2339

Very timely topic. Two of our college faculty from western Massachusetts will be attending an AASHE sustainability workshop in San Diego, CA in June. They are doing so at my urging. I am the school's sustainability coordinator. I feel that the workshop is very worthwhile. The workshop is titled: Sustainability Across the Curriculum, and is billed as an intensive workshop for college faculty. Is their air travel justified? It COULD be argued that the plane will be flying with or without them. Of course this is rather tongue-in-cheek, although I DO feel that their carbon residue could be considered off-set by the related benefits gained from their attendance. Any thoughts?

Folks,

The director of Eco-Justice Ministries, Rev. Peter Sawtell, had an interesting essay on this topic: http://www.eco-justice.org/E-080111.asp An excerpt from this interesting article: Eco-Justice Ministries established an informal policy about long- distance travel. To be considered justifiable, we need to assured of at least 20 "people hours" of programming and conversation for each 100 miles of 1-way travel. So, when I was asked to speak to a denominational gathering in Connecticut last May, the planners and I talked up-front about the fact that I'd be flying 1,700 miles to get there. Over the course of the weekend, according to our guidelines, we'd need to engage folk in 340 "people hours" of interaction. To be sure that my travel met the policy, we not only scheduled a keynote address and a workshop session, but added on a Sunday morning in a large church, and a special ecumenical meeting with area environmental leaders. (I was also able to spend a delightful personal day with some dear friends.) We went way beyond the guidelines, and I still worry about whether the trip was worth the climate impact. But at least that factor was a conscious part of the planning. Our travel policy means that I have declined occasions to speak and teach, or to participate in good events. I hope that, by saying no, I have been a teacher about how to make responsible choices. Sometimes, I'm sure, my staying at home provided a better and more memorable lesson that I could ever provide by making the trip.

Janet Allen
New York Interfaith Power & Light

Under the premise of sustainable travel, the question is why, in this day of e-conferencing, not use that technology. Saves money also.

Ray Schmitz

Hello William,

Interesting topic. I am about to visit my parents who are in declining health on the other side of the continent. It could be argued that I should not have moved so far away 25 years ago, but work necessitated the move. You might want to check out how Air Canada is handling this issue. They have set up a voluntary contribution program to offset the carbon footprint of air travel. You can calculate the CO2 for your flight, nad contribute a smalll amount of money to a tree planting program. http://www.aircanada.com/en/travelinfo/traveller/zfp.html Or go directly to the Zerofootprint web site at http://flightoffsets.zerofootprint.net/(S(hmmsxy55m1l4bh552fmdmh45))/en/calc ..aspx

Here is a excerpt from that site: "Welcome to Zerofootprint Zerofootprint is a not-for-profit organization that has emerged as the industry standard for offsets. Our mandate is not only to help individuals and businesses become carbon neutral, but to develop the technology and communities that will help the world rise to the challenge of climate change. Air Canada and Zerofootprint have joined efforts to give you the opportunity to minimize the impact of your travel. Every flight you take releases carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere and contributes to climate change. When you offset your flight and contribute to certified environmentally friendly projects, you remove from the atmosphere an amount that corresponds to your share of CO2 generated by your flight."

Susan Ryan B. Sc.

Environmental Consultant
Calgary Alberta
[email protected]

Hi Susan -

You are in the throes of a dilemma that George Monbiot calls "Love Miles." We all, indeed, face the overwhelming felt need to travel for completely legitimate personal reasons. So, being responsible and caring people, we look for ways to rationalize the damage we inflict. Carbon offsets are, unfortunately, a calamitous scam. First and most significantly of all, we have to *eliminate* carbon emissions, not offset them. Secondly, offsetting mostly if not entirely fails to achieve the outcomes we desperately need - not only eliminating emissions, of course, but also addressing climate and economic justice issues. Offsets and other forms of carbon trading result in all kinds of damage in poorer countries, as well as in the unintended consequences of offsetting activities. Offsetting is just another form of exploitation that allows us rich folks to our imaginary clear consciences at the expense of half the world's population. Susan, I certainly don't blame you for wanting to see your parents, and I might well do the same were I in a similar situation. But at the very least let's not kid ourselves - we on this list especially - that what's harmful is not, as inconvenient as such thoughts may be.

Best, Adam P.S. - For more information on problems with offsets, visit The Corner House: http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/summary.shtml?x=544225

Trying to determine what is valuable based on a utilitarian scale like "people hours" is practical but does not truly evaluate the worth of a project. I think most of us have an informal metric with variable coefficients that decide these things. How significant is my presence? What is the long term benefit of this trip? What are the possible ramifications of my NOT going? E conferencing is great but sometimes, you need physical presence.

Anne Lewis

I&E Project Administrator
Project WET SD
805 W. Sioux Ave. 
Pierre, SD 57501 
605-224-8295
www.sd-discovery.com

Hi ListServe members

An interesting dilemma! As a resident of a developing country, someone who's worked a good deal with schools and communities on sustainability and climate change issues, I can vouch for the fact that in many cases, the trees donated to such groups often don't survive even six months - so their value as carbon sinks is zero! I believe that a far better CO2 offset route would be to invest in developing countries in enviro ed programmes or initiatives that work to achieve CO2 reductions. These are largely run by NGOs which are often cash-strapped - receiving such funds would enable them to continue with their good work. Having said all that, I agree with Adam that the real answer is not to undertake flights unnecessarily. Having family in the UK and Canada, this is extremely difficult (though earning in developing country currencies goes a long way to preventing the flights anyway!). So flights to visit family must serve a dual purpose - if I visit family, I seek opportunities to meet also with organizations working on sustainability issues. I absorb as much info from them as possible, and then on returning home ensure that I transfer my new-found knowledge to as broad a number of appropriate local people as possible. Many other South Africans in the sustainability field do likewise. This increases our pool of knowledge and hopefully will contribute in the long run to CO2 reductions in excess of CO2 emissions generated by the flights (though this scorecard is of course impossible to calculate).

Regards
SUE BELLINGER

SUSTAINABILITY CONSULTANT
S B & Associates
Cellphone: +27 82 5777 000
Phone/Fax: +27 11 463 4902

I agree completely that physical presence is a very important element of human relationships, and electronic versions - web or even telephone - are very poor substitutes. The question then becomes one of *whose* presence do we need, and what expertise we need. Is that expertise available locally? Regionally? Can we get there by short-distance public transportation or bicycle? If it's not available locally, how do we develop it? Can a local person learn it without travelling (books, internet, phone exchanges) and communicate it to the rest of us? I think that such considerations will be more and more primary as we proceed through the next few years. If we can figure it out in advance, it's probably a really good idea. Here's a website (and there are many) that's doing some of that kind of thinking: http://postoilsurvival.blogspot.com/2007/09/checklists-considerations.html

Cheers,
Adam
781 674-2339

In the mid-80s I took an excellent class from Dr. David Clarke at WWU. He posited that in the future travel would be limited to raised, high-speed rail between cities, and that families would once again live close to one another. His rational for any travel was that we all need to connect with our professional peers, and that limited travel would be available for this purpose. He also ascribed to the bulls-eye formation for cities- inner circle being the business district, next circle high-density housing, next circle parkland, next circle farmland, and the outer circle a boundary across which all agreed not to pass (except via the raised rail line) as it was to remain wild and left natural. That may come to pass, but in the meantime, perhaps we should agree to limit our travel to a certain number of miles per year (or a number of tons CO2/year, as some modes are less energy-intensive). Then we would have to get very creative, and discerning on where we go and how we get there. It is human nature I suppose to find some way to justify behavior which we know is damaging, but if we see others agree to similar restrictions perhaps it would be easier to do. Then we could model the behavior for others...just a thought!

Kate

We hosted an interesting little debate evening the other night here at Wageningen University in The Netherlands titled: "To C or not to C: Carbon Offsetting - What is your perception?". The panel included an academic from environmental policy/governance (focusing on certification schemes), a researcher recently returned from South Africa who investigated the CDM vs Voluntary Carbon Market (mainly for landscape restoration/reforestation programmes), a private consultant on biofuels and lastly, a director from a Dutch-based CO2 offset charity. Was some lively discussion - particularly related to some of the oddities of how the carbon market & certification works...as well as consumer perceptions/expectations. Interestingly, the C02 offset charity has undertaken research on what their (over-the-counter carbon offsetting) consumers want, and similar to some of our own anecdotal evidence, carbon itself was not the main - or at least only - motivation. Like Sue from SA suggests, many people indicated a preference for their carbon offset money to go toward ensuring a range of sustainability related issues such as enlargement of forested areas, ecosystem protection, more sustainable world, cost-efficiency (not easy with costly certification processes), reliability, transparency...and of course less CO2 in the atmosphere. And questions we ask ourselves are the influence of media, feel-good factor and growing society/peer pressure to be seen to be doing something good and linked to something positive. As far as C02 goes, in addition to critical emissions reduction in the first place, it should not become our sole preoccupation. We should ensure that related investment can also be linked to more holistic sustainability ideals embedded in the Millennium Development Goals amongst others...

Regards,
Matt