We all wear several different hats. I’m a professor, a wife, and a mom (probably in reverse order of importance). In trying to lead a balanced life we may sometimes struggle with conflicts among these roles. Similarly many of us find ourselves with multiple labels: environmentalist, feminist, economist, global citizen. In trying to live a purposeful life we may also run into situations in which there are conflicts created by these various labels.
I run into the latter conflict every time I’m confronted with the carbon footprint of my own travel. One of my goals is to have a lower environmental impact. But another goal is to live as a global citizen and, in particular, to raise my children as global citizens. One of the most transformative experiences of my life was the year I spent as an exchange student in Germany. Learning another language, culture, and way of living is critical in our globalized economy. And I believe that it is critical for successful negotiation of solutions to our global environmental problems.
I intend to expose my children to as many other countries and cultures as I can (and not just at Epcot) so that they can appreciate the myriad of human differences as well as appreciate the fundamental ways in which we are all the same. But that involves getting on planes. Big planes. Traveling long distances. Emitting a lot of carbon dioxide.
Sit down with any carbon footprint calculator and watch it skyrocket the with every plane trip. If you think you can reduce carbon emissions from other areas (by buying local food or driving around town less) you are probably wrong. Let’s take an example from my own life. Last year I went to Switzerland with my daughter and my mother. That’s three coach-class round trips tickets from RDU to Zurich which works out to be approximately 4.71 tons of carbon. My reasonably long daily commute from Raleigh to Duke results in about 12,000 miles per year on my Honda Odyssey minivan and that is equivalent to 5.32 tons of carbon. So if I never drove to work I could offset one trip to Europe, but smaller changes (that I have made) like carpooling one day and working from home one day, won’t be sufficient.[i]
So how do we reconcile this conflict. Many advice sites suggest that you decrease your travel or take a “stay-cation” in order to lower your travel footprint. I think this is fundamentally wrong-headed. Even if you don’t care about experiencing other cultures, there is something odd about advocating for cleaner air at the Grand Canyon and then not travelling to see it! So here are my recommendations for reconciling travel and carbon emissions. I look forward to hearing yours!
- Travel consciously. Pick your vacations to maximize your exposure to new experiences and cultures. It’s fine to enjoy a beach vacation, but try to avoid an an-inclusive resort where you will only meet other Americans and will never experience any local culture.
- Stay longer. Rather than take many short trips, consider a yearly vacation where you stay 2 weeks or longer. This reduces the number of plane trips and the associated carbon, and also allows you to really get to know a place.
- Stay local. This isn’t always a great idea. If you are in an area where safety is a concern, you might want to stick to larger international chains. But if you are travelling to a relatively safe place, consider forgoing the international chains and staying at a locally-owned hotel or resort.
- Consider offsets. I’m not entirely sold on this one, largely because I feel like in the absence of a carbon policy, whether I purchase offsets or not probably makes no difference to overall climate change (see my first post of the semester). But should we ever get a climate policy, carbon offsets will be a key component of cost-effectiveness. If the marginal utility I get from travel exceeds the price of carbon, I should pay for someone else to reduce carbon and take my trip. You can do this now, voluntarily through several major sellers of carbon offsets.
[i] All estimates of carbon emissions were calculated using the carbon footprint calculator at Carbonfund.org.
Carbon emissions have been the nagging guilt behind my love of travel since one of my high school teachers introduced the idea of a carbon calculator to us. In addition to carbon offsets, I think any climate policy in the US would need to include a comprehensive transportation plan, with an emphasis on projects like light rail. This would allow us to not only reduce our reliance on cars, but our need for domestic flights as well.
Ah, travel. My favorite thing to do, and by far my biggest carbon footprint.
There’s a lot of rationalizing you can do to make yourself feel better – you appreciate foreign environments and cultures more because you’ve been there, etc. etc. – but there’s really no escaping it. At least it’s more prohibitively expensive than a car trip!
My personal recommendations, many of which are similar to yours:
1. Stay longer. (You’ve covered this one.)
2. Go somewhere that makes it easy to get to more places. Combined with #1, this means a trip where you hike, walk, or take trains everywhere is preferable to one where you need a car or plane to get from each of your destinations. You’ll absorb more culture that way anyway.
3. Go local. Again, you’ve covered this. (I personally like to stay in hostels because of the people you meet and the cheaper price tag, but your mileage my vary.)
As for offsets, obviously that’s something that’s nice to do ANYWAY, whether I attribute it to offsetting travel or not. Heck, I haven’t owned a car in 8 years, and purposefully live places that lets me get away with that…but that’s just as much simply hating the hassle involved with cars as it is carbon offsetting.
So…I guess the moral is, uh…do what you can, and try not to think about it too much?
I have done a lot of traveling, especially throughout North America and Europe, so my travel carbon footprint is cringe-worthy. Things I try to do when I travel to help offset that (though I recognize that they are fairly small things in comparison to plane emissions):
1) stay at eco-lodges, or environmentally conscious hotels; you’d be surprised how many more are starting to pop up all over the world, especially in areas with warmer climates (especially applicable if you like tropical vacations)
2) when staying somewhere warm, forgo air conditioning and open the windows; also, keep the drapes open to get as much light in the room as possible during the day (not only does this keep the room warmer into the evening but it also reduces how many lights you turn on); if you’re in a house or a hotel room with multiple rooms and AC units in every room, only turn on the units in the rooms you are using, and close the doors to the rooms that are unoccupied so that the AC doesn’t have to work so hard
3) on the flip side, when staying somewhere cold, keep windows and drapes closed to the extent possible and be quick when coming in and out to preserve what heat there is inside; also, bundle up when you’re inside and use an extra blanket on the bed so you don’t have to turn the heat up so high
4) use public transportation; Europe has this one down to a science in comparison to the U.S.’s complete lack of effective mass transit on a nationwide scale
5) when you’re on vacation, avoid activities that have high carbon emissions and substitute them for more eco-friendly excursions; for example, instead of taking a bus tour of a city, take a walking or biking tour – there are some great podcasts on iTunes that will walk you through a lot of the major cities around the world
6) eat local food; not only is it more delicious than the food at chain hotels and restaurants but it’s better for the environment too
7) if you’re going on an extended vacation (which is good in more ways than just helping out the environment!) pack clothes than you can wear more than once so you can cut down on how much laundry you do & how much water you use
8) bring your own water bottle and refill it from the faucet (assuming you’re going somewhere that has tap water that is safe to drink) or from larger jugs of water to cut down on plastic
Following a common theme, I too love to travel and would rather wear the same clothes from high school and splurge on a plane ticket than ever be “in-season”.
Some of my suggestions (some of which have been mentioned):
1) Eco-tourism: immerse yourself in nature at a resort that is sustainable. Live with the local cultures and surround yourself with the regional cuisine. Many eco-tourism hotels also offer projects that you can become involved in, here is an example of Sea Turtle conservation project: http://www.widecast.org/TurtleWatch/Why.html
2) Travel by Green(er) means of transport: In my life, I have spent 167 days traveling by boat. 93 of which were a sailboat… I have to say there is nothing like the open ocean and traveling from spot to spot. I would love to be a more experienced sailor and learn how to sail in extreme conditions and make it my mode of global transport, definitely a green way to travel. Trains are also a good way to cover ground and flying to locations such as Europe in which you can travel to several countries by rail is a greener option.
3) We are all in the School of the Environment and nothing inspires me more than actually being in nature. I think one of my ultimate favorite ways to travel is actually by foot and a backpacking trip is green vacation that keeps you healthy, inspired and serves a unique, less seen experience. If you are not an experienced wilderness trekker, companies such as the National Outdoor Leadership School, can help you learn the skills (www.nols.edu)
4) Service-Oriented Travel: This is actually on my to-do list and can be the more affordable option. Organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, offer service-oriented trips where you can live in another part of the world for a couple of weeks or a couple of months; and help work on a service project. For the compensation of your work, you are usually given shelter and food. There is another program that comes to mind called WWOOF (World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms)- which is an organization that links volunteers with organic farms all over the world.
5) Lastly, take a year-long sabbatical sometime in your life and travel the world. I am making a pledge to do that sometime in my lifetime!
My father is a commercial airline pilot. He and I are a lot alike, each incredibly passionate about what we do. Every day he asks me what I’m learning and what is changing and how we can solve the Earth’s problems. As expected, we’ve had long discussions about the effects that the planes he loves so much have on the planet that I love so much. Unfortunately, we haven’t come up with many solutions…
I agree with all of the above suggestions: staying longer, eating local, walking and biking, etc. But, I have a certain bias to believe that more public attention should be focused on researching new technology that would allow for fewer carbon emissions.
Or, if the technologies are not enough, we can work to manage planes in a more efficient way. Techniques such as optimized air traffic management (ATM) and a continuous decent approach (CDA) can significantly cut carbon emissions. It has recently been found that simply holding planes at their gates for an additional four minutes prior to pushing back decreases overall fuel use during each flight and is expected to decrease carbon emissions by millions of tons each year.(1)
This year, the “greenest commercial flight” was completed from Toulouse-Blagnac to Paris-Orly. The airbus, using 50% biofuels in combination with several management initiatives, reduced conventional carbon emissions by half.(2)
(1) http://www.geek.com/articles/gadgets/making-planes-wait-can- reduce-carbon-emissions-20110328/
(2) http://gulfnews.com/business/features/flying-green-1.913738
I agree with this whole-heartedly. I feel that true environmental solutions are a combination of many factors, and the truth of the matter is that people will not stop flying. This is by far the easiest mode of transportation, the quickest, and the most convenient for necessary short trips. Although we would all like to take the extra time off and take another form of transportation, or make our trip longer to make the footprint “worth it”, for the majority of people in the world this is not necessarily an option. Additionally, most people are not environmentally minded like we are. Although this is a problem in itself, and focus should be directed towards education, I feel that in order to make true environmental change on a large scale, efforts need to be made to create mass change on a global level.
Demi’s examples here show the technological changes which can be made, allowing efforts to come from all sides. Again, people will not stop or even decrease flying significantly. Technology must change and adapt to the times to account for the majority of people who will not consider environmental damages.
I completely agree with Roxanna and Demi’s outlook that technology must adapt if we wish to see a significant change in carbon emissions from planes. While it is important for people who recognize the issue of carbon emissions as a result of traveling to not be ignorant and do their best to reduce their impact when traveling, unfortunately, that is not the majority. Solutions to environmental issues are almost always multidimensional and involve approaching the problem from different angles. For most people flying is the only travel option to get to their destination, therefore educating people about how to reduce their footprint and simply making them aware of the issue is important. However, as Dr. Bennear points out it is almost impossible to make up the carbon emitted from taking a flight by cutting back in other small ways, and for that reason investment must be made in greener technology for planes if we hope to see a cutback in carbon emitted from airline travel.
I’d like to comment about offsets. Personally, I think that buying offsets from a company that builds wind farms in Wyoming is cheating. I know greenhouse gases are universally mixing pollutants so it doesn’t technically matter where there are emitted or abated, but being able to make your carbon footprint magically disappear at the click of a button is too disconnected for me.
That being said, I think that the Duke Carbon Offsets Initiative is doing some great work on developing local and regional offsets projects that have an impact on our community and our local economy. They are working with community partners to generate electricity from swine waste, restore and protect forests, and increase the energy efficiency of area homes and businesses. These types of projects have real, measurable impacts on our community beyond the benefits of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
If I’m going to travel – and I am, the above stated reasons and more – I should certainly do it in the least harmful way possible. As for the unavoidable emissions associated with any type of travel, local projects are my choice.
Disclosure & Disclaimer: I am an intern for the Duke Carbon Offsets Initiative. Also, the above opinions are my own and in no way reflect those of Duke University or the Duke Carbon Offsets Initiative.
I can’t claim that I have a brilliant suggestion for reconciling travel and carbon emissions, but I can propose some additional environmentally minded travel ideas. Agro and eco-tourism, a growing industry in recent years, offers a unique and enlightening experience for today’s traveler. The possibilities are too many to recount here, but some options include trips to nearby organic farms, volunteer stints at wildlife refuges, tours of wine country, etc. Often agro/eco-tourism options offer city folks a retreat from the hustle and bustle as well as a rare look into how nature is used and preserved. For the millions of people who experience life in a concrete jungle or even perfectly manicured suburbia, a trip into a more rugged landscape can awaken awareness and admiration for a world previously unknown.
In addition to planting seeds of environmentalism in visitors, many agro/eco-tourism destinations are also hands-on. In this way, business benefit from eager help, and visitors get immersive experiences that are always more memorable. In the end, environmental ideas and practices are shared among people who would normally not have the opportunity to appreciate the dynamics of nature and what it means to be a part of it.
As an international student, the majority of my carbon footprint comes from flights home to visit my family. Not going home for Christmas just isn’t an option and so I see that kind of travel as a necessity. To compensate, I pay for the carbon offsets when I fly and try not to feel too guilty about it.
But I also love to travel to new, faraway places. As this blog points out, these kind of experiences are important to have but how can I justify travelling somewhere far away for fun when I already contribute so much carbon going back and forth between school and home every year? I think the best way I can address this is to limit my extra travel to places where I will be productive and contribute, for example on a summer internship. For actual vacations I stay local but if I’m travelling somewhere to work I think it’s worthwhile to explore somewhere new and different. Also, I follow most of the tips already mentioned, and try to get the most out of all the travel experiences I have. I also don’t own a car so that at least balances out some of the air travel.
I have read many articles saying that reducing my personal carbon footprint by recycling, staying local, and riding my bike to school doesn’t really do much. I still choose to do these things. While I know that my single impact will be relatively small I take satisfaction in knowing that I’m living within my means in a sustainable way. I do agree that travel is important and experiencing cultures is something I enjoy doing myself. In addition to the points you’ve made regarding carbon offsets during travel these are some things I consider:
1. Camp when you can. Camping allows me to feel more connected to the new environment I’m experiencing. Although I know this isn’t feasible in some cases, if you’re travelling around the US there are campgrounds everywhere. Alternatively, if travelling abroad, consider staying in a green certified hotel or a share a hostel room.
2. Use public transportation. Instead of renting a car, rent a bike or take the bus.
3. Plan your activities accordingly. Really consider your itinerary. There are tons of ecotourism excursions you can go on that promise eco-friendly operations.
Similar to your year abroad in Germany, the first time I was out of the country (besides border towns in Mexico, which don’t really count since my hometown is Tucson) was a summer I spent in Iceland. The huge change in perspective that even just a few weeks there gave me was, in my opinion, well worth the carbon emitted on my flight there. To rehash a point people have previously made, I had to fly out of New York to get there so I stayed for 5 days to visit friends since I had already flown to the other side of the US anyway. In terms of travel, as well as many other carbon-intensive activities, I think it just really comes down to making sure you get the most out of an experience.
While planes are pretty much the only option to travel overseas, I can’t wait for the day that we have a developed inter-city high speed rail system in the US. Or even just regular trains! Even in the US, I think there are plenty of opportunities to experience a different sort of culture just by traveling a few states away. Setting up a high speed rail system would make these shorter, domestic trips much less carbon intensive. I think it’s just a matter of time, though given the current political climate and the number of states who give back money they receive from the federal government to build high speed rail, it may be much longer than I’d like. Until then, when I fly domestically, I try to fly nonstop and make sure that I make the most out of any trip I take.
Although the idea of carbon offsets for travel is a good one in theory, I’m also very skeptical. I actually wrote an op-ed on the topic of tree plantings as carbon offsets, so I’ll discuss in brief my stance on the topic as explained in this op-ed. As mentioned, without a carbon policy these credits are likely to be effective. There are no guidelines for offsets, or verification of their efficacy. One of the most common forms of such consumer offsets, ‘X number of trees planted,’ has several issues.
Without guidelines or good science, it is likely these planted trees won’t effectively sequester carbon. Forestation is often not suitable for any given plot of land. There is generally a reason why a given parcel wasn’t forested in the first place: a formerly forested environment has been too altered to support a forest, or forests are not the natural vegetation of the ecosystem, or there is not enough water, etc. If the environment is suitable for a forest, trees will regenerate their on their own; this process occurs from an abandoned field in the southeast in 2-3 years.
Making the leap that trees are appropriate for the environment, it is very possible that they won’t sequester carbon for a very long time, if ever. It takes many years for trees to become carbon sinks, and when they die and decompose, they release this carbon back into the atmosphere. Plain and simple, old growth forests are the best carbon sinks; effort should be put into conserving our existing forests rather than planting new ones that may or may not be effective in sequestering carbon. Programs like REDD (Reducing Emissions from Degradation and Deforestation) address this.
Three additional concerns that should be noted are that 1) there have been reported cases of scams, in which promised offsets are not actually carried out (perhaps due to a policy or oversight mechanism), 2) offsetting emissions often absolves guilt or responsibility associated with carbon emissions and makes people think they’ve solved the problem, and 3) planting trees may sequester carbon, but will also affect other resources. Tree planting is a decision cannot be made in isolation, considering carbon alone .For example, if planted in an inappropriate environment, trees may require a great deal of irrigation to survive; in water scarce environments, this could take water much needed by people for survival.
I definitely agree that you should not avoid traveling. And although environmental issues are important to you- as they are to me- if I had to pick, I’d still choose to travel to as many unique places as I could even if I knew the enormous footprint that would have. In life, you need to make choices about your priorities. And environmental awareness is important to me, that’s why I’m at the Nic School but travel and experiencing other cultures is paramount. Maybe some people will view my opinion as a shortcoming but what I’m saying is that you can’t be perfect and shouldn’t have to give up travel, if that’s what you really like to do.
That said, I agree with the responses of other students. If you are going to travel, make responsible choices like eating local food (which will probably allow you and your children to have a richer cultural experience anyway) and take public transportation or walk as much as possible.
While I enjoy taking vacations just as much as everyone else, my love for travel is one of the primary reasons that I hope to work internationally after finishing here at the Nicholas School. The thought of pursuing an international career in environmental management is altogether alluring and terrifying however, and I have often found myself trying to reconcile my conflicting desires to work abroad and reduce my carbon footprint. Working internationally will inevitably require lots of plane flights, regardless of whether or not I decide to work on site or for a domestic organization that deals with international issues (because let’s be honest, simply skipping the holidays at home is not an option).
Every time I hop on a plane, I frequently sit next to people traveling for business, getting from one meeting to the next. After making small talk with them during our taxi to the runway, I often wonder why they have to travel in the first place. In a world with state-of-the-art communications technology, why are people still flying across oceans for meetings that could be held over conference calls or tele-video? My father’s response is often that it takes building face-to-face, personal relationships in order to seal a deal with clients. While I find some validity in his answer, I never hesitate to encourage him to “get with the times.” I think there’s an incredibly feasible way to reduce our carbon footprints related to travel. We can start by only making the trips that we absolutely need to take. In just the last few months, my father has made multiple round-trips to Europe, Brazil, China, Japan, and various cities throughout the US, very few of which were more fruitful than a telephone call. In the face of high ticket prices, he’s finally considering to make use of available technology.
In the long term, we can continue to invest time and money into developing cleaner technologies. My father witnessed the unveiling of the world’s first serial hybrid electric aircraft this summer at the Paris Air Show. The technology is intended for later use in larger scale planes and is expected to cut fuel consumption and emissions by 25%, compared to today’s most efficient aircraft drives. While we’re a long way away from “green” aerospace, we’re at least headed in the right direction, so that maybe one day our kids won’t have to think twice about being global citizens.
While I do think it can be a useful exercise for an individual to examine his or her own carbon footprint while traveling, I do not believe that it is a consideration for most of the population, even for normally well-meaning people. It would be nice if the emissions associated with each plane trip were printed on the ticket similar to how restaurants must now print the number of calories of each menu item. I believe that most people want to do good, but do not understand the true cost of their actions because of a lack of true cost pricing/information. While printing the carbon emissions may not make people reconsider their trips it could lead them to adopt some of the tips suggested in this blog post.
This semester I had to calculate how many earths would be needed if everyone lived as I do. As I was going through the test, I was thinking my results would come out good, definitely not more than one earth. I mean, I share an apartment with 2 other people, barely drive my Honda Civic, try to buy local food, and eat very little meat. However, the test still said to sustain my consumption for everyone, there would need to be four earths. I was shocked by this. The main problem for why my ecological footprint is so big? Travel.
I, as many of you do as well, love to travel. I like experiencing different cultures and breaking away from what is normal for me. So, it is disheartening to see what a negative impact my love for seeing the world can have on the world. Living in America, it is difficult to travel very far without having to fly. My favorite option given by Professor Bennear is to stay longer. While this may not always be the most feasible choice, it will help some and allow more time to experience the culture we travel so far to see. After reading this post, I am interested in looking into other forms of transportation, such as boat, to see how much I could reduce the carbon emissions I contribute to by not flying.
I remember the first time I used a carbon footprint calculator as a freshman in college, I was floored by the enormous impact air travel had on my footprint. It sounds like many others feel the same. It seems like a lot of the suggestions raised here about travel are partial and imperfect, and I have yet another to add. Growing up, I used to fly on Southwest from Manchester, NH to Baltimore to visit my grandparents in Washington DC. It used to be $99 dollars round trip (obviously that never happens anymore) and the flight time was about 50 minutes. Years later, I was living in DC and whenever I flew home, I noticed that the same flight now took about an hour and 20 minutes. This was an economic decision for the airlines as the price of fuel rose, and they could actually have large cost savings by adding even a few minutes to flight times. None of us want to be sitting on airplanes for longer than we have to, and it’s not as if the airlines are making any sort of attempt to reduce their emissions by flying slower. But if it does make my carbon footprint for flights a little smaller, I’m all for it.
Here are a couple stats:
JetBlue adds an average of just under two minutes to each flight, and saves about $13.6 million a year in jet fuel.
Adding just four minutes to its flights to and from Hawaii saves Northwest Airlines $600,000 a year on those flights alone.
From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24410809/ns/business-us_business/t/airlines-slow-down-flights-save-fuel/
I have three recommendations. One personal, and two systemic.
1. I agree with the stay longer. But I want to emphasize the longer. Dr. Bennear mentioned that her most significant experience was a study abroad experience. I previously lived abroad for 2+ years. It is well known that other countries generally live a little more environmentally friendly (or at least carbon neutral) than we do in the States. By actually living abroad and (most importantly) adopting the local lifestyle, we can actually decrease our carbon footprint immensely. While living abroad I ate all local food, travelling entirely by public transportation, hand-washed and air dried my clothes, had no AC or heating, and adopted other more carbon-neutral activites. Even a study-abroad experience in places like Europe will probably lead to using more public transportation, eating more local foods, etc. I also think these experiences are much more meaningful than 4 days of sightseeing. So, yeah, you may need to take a plane to get somewhere, but consider adapting to a country with a smaller carbon footprint for awhile, to balance out all of those years in the States.
2. Trains (and busses)! We know our train system in the U.S. is substantially below Europe or Asia. Of course, we are stuck in a chicken-and-egg situation as to whether we don’t use trains because they are expensive and slow or whether they are expensive and slow because nobody uses them. I am from the Eastern seaboard, which has decent train service, but most people still prefer to fly. Yes, the flights aren’t much more expensive and they are much faster, but for the sake of the earth and your carbon footprint, consider taking the train and creating a little demand so service will improve. Also to consider, long-distance busses.
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tech-transport/plane-train-automobile-travel.html
3. Business commuting. As Nathalie mentioned, most air travel is actually for work-related and business purposes. With the growing movement towards teleconferencing and all of the communications technology we have, hopefully we can reduce the number of people traveling by plane.
I can confidently say that traveling/living/working/studying in different countries has had the largest impact on who I am today. Needless to say, I fully agree that exploring new countries and cultures is an incredibly transforming and valuable experience, and one that I would encourage everyone, including my future children to do.
That being said, I am also fully cognizant that my travels go against the environmental values that I proudly wear on my sleeve. I calculated the carbon footprint just from the flights I’ve taken/will take this year and got a total of 7.99 tons. CRINGE.
RDU- Amman, Jordan – JFK 2.2 tons
JFK – Rio de Janeiro – RDU 1.74
Rio de Janeiro – Belo Horizonte .08
Salvador da Bahia – Rio de Janeiro .27
RDU – Baltimore/Philadelphia (x4) .10 = .40
RDU – Durban, South Africa – RDU 3.05
RDU – Miami .25
I am from the Philippines and England, so I decided to see what the per capita emissions come to for the two countries. They are .08 and 8.8 tons respectively (from World Bank data). This means the carbon footprint from my flights equal 90% of the combined per capita emissions from the Philippines and the UK. Embarrassed and sheepish as I feel about it, I still have to admit that traveling will continue to be a big part of my life. I just don’t know how best to reconcile these two loves of travel and the environement.
I do try to live as green as possible and mitigate emissions where I can. In addition to the list already mentioned, here are some steps I take to reduce travel emissions.
1. Take direct flights. A lot of the emissions come from take off, landing and idling/circling.
2. Use an aviation calculator to find the lowest emission flights: http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/low-carbon-flights-on-the-internet
The calculator takes into account aircraft type, average passenger loads, and fuel burn rates for ascents and descents.
The passenger loads may not be a good measure here though.
3. Choose environmentally friendly airline companies. I particularly like Virgin Airlines. Richard Branson has spent a lot of time and money in trying to find low carbon solutions to air travel – and on Oct 11 of this year, they released news that Virgin will be testing a new fuel in the coming year (to be rolled out in 3 years) that will halve emissions.
4. Ask congress to pass operational efficiency and technology standards – or even just lobby the airline company themselves.
First of all, I’d say carpooling could be very effective on reducing carbon footprint because if it works out, 2 people carpooling would reduce about 5 tons of carbon, and 3 would reduce 10 tons, based on Professor Bennear’s calculation. But it is true that compared to national or international travelling, these changes could be very minor. However, we could also say that compared to industries, carbon emissions from travelling are minor as well. I guess my point is, every little thing we do matters, although in different scales.
In regard to suggestions on travelling, I think: 1), since most Americans like to travel to Europe, and since Europe as a whole is still relatively small, try to make a plan to visit major countries in one time to avoid unnecessary cross-Atlantic travels; 2), think about alternative ways to travel when distance allows. Instead of taking the airplane to go to an island nearby, consider the waterways. Even though it takes much longer time, you can always enjoy the trip on the water. Don’t just take the destination as the destination, any part of travel could be the destination, and you can always meet different people and have interesting conversations.
After reading this post, I was compelled to revisit http://myfootprint.org to take my carbon footprint quiz for the second time since high school to see how many earths would be needed if everyone on earth lived like I did. I discovered my number is about 4 earths. Not surprisingly, most of the carbon I emit is generated from air travel. I also think that international travel has made a really positive impact on my life so far, but I am also very aware what this means for my carbon footprint.
The recommendations I have for reconciling my carbon footprint with traveling are very similar to yours:
1) Use public transit and carpool
2) When traveling, stay at places for a longer period if possible
3) Make a traveling budget in terms of carbon
4) Use communication technology for business meetings
5) For shorter distances, opt to take the train or carpool instead of flying
6) If possible, choose nonstop flights
These recommendations are easier said than done. I think that a lot of times the lower carbon transportation options is appealing, but not always practical. For example, oftentimes 9 hour bus rides will cost as much as a flight to the same place and result in only 2 hours of travel. I think it is worth noting that most emissions from air travel are during take off and landing of an airplane so nonstop flights are best to choose as well as traveling via plane mostly for longer distances. However, it is highly uncertain that one person making these choices in terms of flights really help the environment because some would argue that the plane will emit carbon and sell that seat on the plane either way. In addition, it can even help a person to have demand for these flights so that seats are readily available when they are demanded.
It seems like most of us are on the same page, that travel is both inspiring and educational, and how many of us selected our current career choices. One of the best ways for people to become inspired to care about nature, whether it be coral reefs or mountains, is for them to experience it first hand.
While it alone won’t save the world, I’m always happy to see signs in hotel rooms about how much hot water and detergent they save when you don’t want your sheets changed on a daily basis. I don’t know anyone who does that on a daily basis at home, so why do it while you’re on vacation?
I’m also a big fan of eating locally rathern than at chains. I have a friend with a Dunkin Donuts Aruba coffee mug, and while yes, sometimes you just want a familiar cup of coffee when you’re away, I have to wonder what great local breakfast treats she missed out on that day.
From my experiences, [safe] public transportation is just part of the experience. It’s a great way to get immersed right into the culture, test your language skills, and get to your destination much cheaper than renting a car.
Another important detail to consider is planning all details of your travel experience – including how you will get to the airport. At the end of fall break, two friends and I each drove to the airport at different times of the day to pick up other friends coming back to Durham. Had there been slightly better coordination before hand, we could have made less trips and that much less of an impact.
All in all, there are very few things that will keep me from traveling, so I look forward to new ways of how to do it with less impact.
I echo many of the beliefs stated in these comments. I feel very passionate about travelling and honestly do not even consider carbon emissions when making my travel plans. I also agree with all of Dr. Bennear’s suggestions about making your trip less carbon intensive. But not even considering the fact they they make the trip less carbon intensive, I feel passionately about travelling in those ways in order to really experience a different culture. What’s the point of flying to a new country if you are just going to stay in a huge resort, never explore beyond the resort except for pre-packaged “adventure” tours, and eat only the food prepared by the resort? Personally, these actions are against everything I believe in when it comes to travelling.
In addition to the recommendations made by Dr. Bennear, I would add that you should avoid pre-packaged, pre-paid tours in all feasible places. I believe in supporting the local economy by hiring local tour guides when necessary, and cutting out the middle-man. This concept was made clear to me last summer in Peru when visiting an island village in Lake Titicaca. Instead of paying a tour company to get me to the island and set up my accomodation, I went directly to the local ferry agency to purchase my ticket. I also directly payed my host family, instead of wondering/worrying about how much they would get if I went through the tour company.
I hope in the future that I can travel without contributing to such a high amount of carbon emissions.
Here are my thoughts on how to best experience all the world has to offer while also minimizing your carbon footprint.
1) Take the train. While trains do still emit carbon (unless you are riding a mag-lev in Japan or on Old Dominion’s campus), they emit far less carbon than planes. In America, we are unfortunately left with Amtrak which (as I experienced last weekend) is unreliable and incredibly slow. But if you are attempting to travel on the eastern seaboard, it can be done manageably. And once you get to your destination, do your best to not rent a car but to ride entirely mass transit. This is very easy in cities like DC, Boston, NYC, Toronto.
2) See America First! I went on a 3 week cross-country road trip this past summer where I drove from Arkansas to Alabama all the way out west to California and back. 5,500 miles in total (which would come out to 2.4 tons of carbon). Compare that with a 3 week trip in Europe and you are looking at $10,000+ and 10 tons+ of CO2.
On that trip I went to four national parks, 10 states, and saw two oceans. We only stayed at a few hotels and camped most the time, relying entirely on flashlights and fires for our light and warmth. There are so many great sites in America that we forget about. While the historic cities of Europe are great and full of history and beauty, we needn’t forget America’s beauty.
3) If and when you do decide to fly overseas, try to hit as many sites in one longer trip. Instead of flying over to Europe and seeing England, fly to Europe and see England, France, Spain, Italy, and Greece. You can take the train across the entire continent and only have to make two (high carbon footprint) flights. This month long trip can not out your desire to visit Europe for at least a decade.
4) Camp. Or stay in a hostel if need be. I mentioned it earlier but camping has a far lower carbon output. It can be just as enjoyable (or more) and you get to stay in peaceful places. In cities, stay at a hostel where multiple people share a room. This reduces the amount of electricity required for heating, lighting, etc.
The only major travel I have done so far in my life is my trip from India to Durham (and that had to be done, no option). I have traveled extensively in India though, and I can say luxury travel is not really an option not only because of cost but also because you won’t get to see half the things that you should see there. I have mostly traveled by trains between cities and used public transport within cities. I guess that is a major factor in lowering your carbon footprint from traveling.
1)So, I would recommend traveling by trains wherever feasible (I’m not sure if it is such a good option here, but it is probably the best option in India).
2) Travel in groups- Buses, convenient option for going around a city if you are in a large group. Most practiced by international tourists in India. And yes, lower carbon footprint than going around in hired cabs.
3) stay with some local family. Gives you a better insight into the culture, is cheaper than resorts and hotels, and lower footprint.
With ecotourism as a major focus of my academic and personal interests, the dilemma of the air travel carbon footprint is a major consideration. My biggest contribution towards shrinking my carbon footprint is biking as much as possible, and keeping a vegetarian diet. In daily life, these two choices have been great for me and my conscience as an environmentalist. However, when it comes to traveling, they have the potential to infringe on submergence into other cultures abroad.
Part of the reason I bike is because I never really learned to drive, despite what my driver’s license says. I have almost always gotten around by foot, bike, bus, or subway, and it was only when I moved to Durham that I felt the need for a car. When traveling I go places accessible by public transportation but never rent a car. During my internship in the Dominican Republic this summer it became clear that it is extremely difficult to really get to see the ins and outs of a place without renting a car.
Secondly, my vegetarianism also limits my amount of submersion into a culture. Again, this summer I ate little other than rice and beans because I would not eat fish and meat served at the restaurants where I stayed in the DR. There, though the fish and meat was local, it certainly was not harvested sustainable. And I admit that even if it was harvested sustainable, I still would not have partaken.
Clearly, the choices I’ve made to try to reduce my carbon footprint are indeed choices. When I am traveling on one of my ecotourism adventures it is my own will (or fear) that keeps me from renting a car and eating meat. However, witnessing new cultures and places is still extremely important to me, even if indulgence is limited by my other conscious choices.
Although this is going to sound more than a little cynical, one of the biggest revelations I’ve had since starting at the Nicholas School is that no matter how many informed and responsible quotidian decisions we make in an attempt to lower our personal carbon footprint, these choices will have no ultimate impact on the health of the world’s ecosystems or the inevitable change in climate. Yes, yes: of course these decisions are good for our moral and ethical well-being, and I certainly strive to make informed, responsible decisions on a daily basis–it’s one of the main things that brought me to the Nicholas School in the first place. But the fact of the matter is that even if you decide to start making the 50-mile round trip from Raleigh to Durham on bicycle, the economies and populations of developing countries that are projected to blossom throughout the 21st century will be fueled by a huge increase in the amount of cheap, dirty, fossil fuel-generated electricity that fueled the growth of our own country into a developed world power with a high standard of living. That’s not to mention that we’re having a really rough go of achieving any sort of meaningful reduction in emissions from power generation or transportation here in the United States, after 150+ years of running our society off of steam. Thus, my groundbreaking realization was that individual actions, while valiant and well-intentioned, do not contribute to the systematic institutional changes necessary for anyone to harbor any tangible hope for the long-term health of the planet. Rosy, right?
That being said, a large element of your predicament is the fact that three people making a single round trip to another continent is comparable to your daily commute for an entire year. Air travel is insanely carbon intensive, and any effort to curb carbon emissions must duly address it. The European ETS has recently entered the phase of the program where they begin to hold airlines accountable for their emissions, which obviously would result in laughably enormous fines for an industry that can’t really do much to curb its fuel usage (short of going out of business and forcing all of Europe to travel by train….something that I am completely fine with, by the way). The airlines are opposing this to the death, of course. I find it more than slightly ironic however that Kyoto protocol, which provided the impetus for the ETS, was drafted through the UNFCCC meetings–the biggest international effort to stem global carbon emissions on the institutional scale I was talking about in the first paragraph–in which delegates fly halfway around the world for two weeks of meetings to discuss how they will come together to fight climate change. Ironic, yes, but there aren’t many alternatives for such massive coordination. I guess what I’m trying to say is that air travel and the large emissions that come with it is for the most part inevitable and in many cases justifiable.
What the real problem is is that your only option for getting between the place you live and the place you work is to drive. (I’m not a big proponent of commuting, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt in this case because Durham is, let’s just say, not as well-serviced and desirable as some other places in the triangle region.) The same goes for me: though I live just to the east of the Duke golf course and have a ten-minute bike commute on 751 to get to campus, I have to drive to go downtown or to Ninth Street or to Target or the ABC on 15-501, for the simple reason that I fear for my life if I attempt to bike to any of these places–especially at night. What I’m getting at is that there is no more important factor that influences our transportation choices than the design of the places in which we live–streets, city blocks, cities–and the connectivity that exists between different uses–home, work, grocery stores, churches, bars, etc. It doesn’t matter how much of an environmentalist you are–if you live in a subdivision off of Fayatteville Road by I-40 the ONLY way you can get anywhere is by car, because the roads are not built to accommodate bicyclists and public transit in such an area is simply not viable. (Fayatteville Road of course is part of the large hodge-podge of haphazard, randomly-oriented roads that exist between Duke’s campus and Chapel Hill that don’t come anywhere near resembling any sort of street grid in the slightest and will render you completely and hopelessly lost if you go there without a map.) So Lori, despite the fact that you don’t live in Old West Durham or the apartment complexes by Chipotle, which would allow you to commute on foot, don’t fret about your commute: Durham and the triangle have a long, long way to go before they afford the same connectivity and public transit options as New York City. We need to make our cities denser and more connected so that people are enabled and empowered to make informed, responsible transportation choices.
I was going to take a similar tack, so rather than re-hashing what you’ve written, I’ll just respond to what you’ve written. Of course we should all do whatever we can throughout our daily lives to reduce our carbon footprint and our overall environmental impact. But I wonder sometimes whether the time I spend washing out a peanut butter jar so it can go into the recycling is, at the end of the day, a good use of time (and water resources). Like you’ve said, unless we have systemic change, the (relatively) tiny changes made by a (realistically) tiny percentage of the population are not going to be a difference-maker.
A recent op-ed in the NYT by an economist at EDF speaks directly to Professor Bennear’s blog post:
“My cross-country flight adds fractions of a penny to everyone else’s cost. That knowledge leads some of us to voluntarily chip in a few bucks to “offset” our emissions. But none of these payments motivate anyone to fly less. It doesn’t lead airlines to switch to more fuel-efficient planes or routes. If anything, airlines by now use voluntary offsets as a marketing ploy to make green-conscious passengers feel better. The result is planetary socialism at its worst: we all pay the price because individuals don’t. It won’t change until a regulatory system compels us to pay our fair share to limit pollution accordingly. ”
[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/opinion/going-green-but-getting-nowhere.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general.]
It’s a compelling argument. Of course we all get a warm fuzzy feeling when we see the sign at the hotel that says they won’t wash our towels if we leave them on the hangers rather than the floor. But as long as that hotel, and 50,00 others like it across the country, are using inefficient washers are dryers to do 5,000,000 loads of laundry a day, it won’t add up to a whole lot. We should continue to make the small adjustments to our everyday lives that can make a tiny difference, but if we really want to make an impact, we’d be better off spending our energy fighting for systemic change.
(BTW I highly recommend reading that whole op-ed, it only takes a couple minutes and it’s pretty compelling)
It will be different if you see it from another perspective. In my view, I am never troubled by the guilty of carbon emission of a flight if I consider the flight is worthy for me. It sounds egocentric. However, as a single person, the airline company does not cancel the flight even though I take other kinds of transportations instead of plane. Also, as a single person, I have no ability to influence other people’s decision to make them abandon their flights.
On the other hand, if I think travelling by plane is worthy for me, this means that plane is a more efficient choice for me. At the same time, the plane reduces its carbon emission per passenger because I join in the group of its passengers. Sounds like double dividend?
Staying longer and local are optional. It is not always wise to specially stay longer and local in one place considering the living cost (that may also generate large carbon emission). You make the decision based on your demand.
In short, economic efficiency is not necessarily to be efficiency of controlling the carbon emission. As a single individual, I will consider whether the travel is valuable for me, and whether I can do something to offset my emission. One person’s effort of reducing emission is small, but what about the 3.5 billion people in the world considering the same thing?
I understand my circumstances are different than yours, given that I don’t have children, but I justify my traveling because a) I think the United States would have a much broader perspective on the earth’s environmental challenges if we got out and experienced other parts of the world, and b) I support local economies in developing parts of the world by traveling. Nearly 100% of my travels over the past 5 years have been to developing nations, primarily in Africa. I don’t even want to calculate my carbon footprint for the 24 hour flight over, but in my mind I justify it. Partly because it is through these travels that led me to want to protect these last remaining natural landscapes. I also believe a big part of our handicap in addressing environmental challenges is due to the narrow mindedness of most Americans. I am constantly surprised by the number of people I meet that don’t travel, or have never been outside of their state. The environmental challenges we are facing today cannot be solved without the collaborative efforts of each nation. And how better to encourage collaboration than for cultures to integrate and form a respect for each other; to realize that we all share the same planet, and the same atmosphere. Through traveling, we can not only spread the wealth on to lesser developed parts of the world, but we can form an appreciation for the natural beauty of this planet and the people and cultures that rely on it.
There are several measures that we could take to lower down our carbon footprint during travels that I can think of:
1. Use other method of transport when possible, such as trains and buses. They are much more energy efficient than airplanes, and would be much more interesting. Even cars can be more efficient than planes – especially when we do carpooling.
2. If have to fly, choose the most direct route possible. Because the process of take-offs and landings use the most fuel.
3. Fly economy, since having more people on the plane means fewer emissions per person.
4. Plan your trip. If travelling to a place far away, you should consider the area nearby that you also want to go, thus you can minimize the number of flights you take by combining trips.
5. For those people who have frequent business trips, consider using video-conferences for meetings. Companies will benefit from the decreased costs, and their employees could use the time they spend on travelling to stay with their families. Moreover, I think companies should purchase carbon offsets for the emissions from their employees’ business trips.
Consider the climate impact of travelling by air, we should limit our flying unless absolutely necessary, and it actually isn’t that difficult as it sounds.
While I agree with the general consensus that travel should expand your cultural horizons and I have taken several trips that have shaped my worldview and perspective, I am a self-admitted beach bum, and my favorite vacation type is one where time laying on the beach is maximized and time doing anything else is minimized. In addition to following all the above suggestions about air travel and destination choice, it is possible to take a relaxing, sun and sand heavy vacation in a responsible manner. Below are some amazing eco- resorts that get you close to the coast and have some really cool environmentally-friendly features:
1. Maho Bay Camps in the US Virgin Islands has pioneered many ideas for sustainable tourism, such as using minimal chemicals for laundry purposes so that the remaining water can be diverted to secondary uses. http://www.maho.org/ManagingResources.cfm
2. Nakia Resort in Fiji made the choice to generate the property’s power entirely from wind, solar and hyrdo features, rather than relying on diesel generators like the rest of their “off the grid” island. http://www.nakiafiji.com/support-files/pdf-s/Nakia-Sustainable-Plan.pdf
3. Finca Exotica in Costa Rica boasts its own organic garden to provide food for guest meals, and composts waste products for garden fertilizer. http://www.fincaexotica.com/en/sustainability.php
See you at the beach!
Shame on me, I’ve never calculated my carbon footprint until ten minutes ago. As a global citizen, I cannot just stay local because I must go back my country at least once a year to see my families, and the only traveling option for me is to take a plane. Roughly calculated for flight alone, my carbon footprint is 2.03 metric tons of CO2. So even if I won’t go anywhere else to see diverse cultures, my unavoidable emission will be approximately 2-4 metric tons. However, my “secondary” part of carbon footprint is up to 4.62, more than twice as much as that of flight footprint. The secondary part includes food preference, organic produce, in season food, imported food and goods, fashion, packaging, furniture and electricals, recycling, recreation, car manufacturing, finance and other service, from which I can substantially reduce my footprint of organic produce, in season food, imported food and goods, fashion, packaging, furniture and electricals, recycling and recreation. After adjusting choices, my footprint decreases to 1.96 metric tons, which means I can earn an extra chance to see diverse culture abroad while in total emit no more or even less than my original footprint.
Thus, my strategy is salient: Locally low-carbon results in diversified global experiences.
I love traveling. I love traveling even more if I’ve packed lightly and can stay wherever I’m going for at least 2-3 weeks, get to know some local people, gain some insight into the way they live, and get to eat some great local food. However, I think destinations should always be chosen with more than just the carbon footprint of travel in mind.
My suggestion is to not travel as a tourist. Period. Find some sort of service program that lets you be a true global citizen, and most importantly, bring your kids with you. When I was 16, my dad got really into some sort of neat way to send email via amateur radio. He signed up to help a group of doctors and dentists run clinics in remote areas of Honduras (they communicated with other teams and home base via radio, that’s where the random radio thing came in). He brought me with him the next year as a “general helper” and I worked with the pharmacist to distribute medicine and vitamins. He brought my sister with him the next year. We both took 3 weeks off of high school, drastically improved our Spanish, got about 1000 mosquito bites and ooh-la-la-ed by the locals, rode in cars without seat belts where people drive with only accelerator and horn, met some amazing people, and learned more about being a global citizen (and being an American) than most adults who just travel for vacation will ever learn.
Anyway, if you’re going to travel, make it worth it.
My biggest suggestion is to travel qualitatively. You touched on this in your paragraph about taking less trips and making them count more, but I would like to elaborate on that point from my own experience. I spent about 6 months preparing for a two-month trip to South America I embarked on after graduation so that I could make sure that once on the ground and without access to the boundless resources of my apartment [read laptop] I still had an itinerary that maximized my exposure to the culture and the ecology of all of the places I would be seeing. This was also effective in making sure I budgeted properly, because I have a tendency to take the easy out once I’m in vacation-mode, which can get expensive and carbon-costly. I read books by South American authors, marked up all of my guidebooks for each country I would visit, and took notes on the experiences my friends and family who had traveled there had had. I also made it a point (and do this on each trip I take) to make my souvenirs primarily photographs- they tell the best story and are least wasteful; they also allow me to spend more money on experiences, which on this trip for example meant locally guided tours of Machu Picchu that inject money directly into the local economy and further my cultural and natural education.
I am a big traveler and also struggle with this moral dilemma. I avidly follow the aviation industry’s reports of biodiesel testing for their engines. There have been big strides made: China and the US have both flown biodiesel-powered planes, and airlines and producers like Boeing, Honeywell, and Jetblue are heavily investing in research and development. There have been some really creative ideas out there put to the test, like generating biodiesel from dirty shrimp farm water in a closed-loop system that would solve countless other environmental issues in the process. Whether that is an economically feasible solution we will see, but I do find reason to believe we will begin to see passenger airplanes running on at least partial biodiesel within the next five to ten years, from my experiences with airlines at my last job. I anxiously await this day!
I too am guilty of having a large carbon fotprint from travelling. To reduce my footprint, as you have mentioned before, is to stay local. I try to stay in the heart of whichever city I am travelling to, and make sure I have a plan to get to each site by foot. When planning a vacation, my family also likes to stay for about two weeks, but we plan to travel to many different cities or countries within that time period. We try to reduce our footprint by taking trains or other public transportation between cities and countries if feasible (this is usually feasible in Europe). Also, pack your own food for the flight and any other time when taking public transportation.
Here are my recommendations to this dilemma:
1) I really support the concept of travelling consciously. I try my best to incorporate this into my daily routine. If I need to drive somewhere, I try to identify nearby shops that I need to run errands in to maximize both my time and the gas I use to operate my car. My roommates and I are also very good at making trips together to decrease individual trips.
2) Create adventures based on existing public transportation routes. We are so used to having the freedom of choosing our destinations. Why not reverse this thinking and choose destinations based on where existing buses, trains, subways allow us to go? Of course this eliminates remote places like forests and camping but some vacations could be based solely on public transportation. Large cities are fun and offer a lot of tourist sites.
3) Perhaps don’t always go on vacation. There is valuation in “de-plugging from the media” and enjoying quiet weekend at home. My parents did not allow my brother and I to purchase video games or have cable television until we were in high school. This allowed for us to pursue other hobbies, such as sports, musical instruments, and cooking.
Honestly, I have never considered carbon footprint while traveling. I calculated the carbon footprint from flights and trains of all my travels and got a total number of about 5 tons. This article reminds me that as an MEM student, there are so many things I could do. But I’m quite satisfied that I do try my best to save energy in my apartment. I read the textbook and learnt that “greenhouse gases such as CO2 are dispersed widely to the atmosphere, regardless of where they come from. Thus the CO2 emitted in Boston and in Beijing have the same effect on atmospheric concentrations of CO2.” Therefore, I believe that things I did to reduce carbon emissions will matter, though that may not make a big difference. Imagine if more and more people could do something to live in a low carbon life, environmental issues would be relatively easier to solve.
Personally, I like to travel to small cities with less population. Thus I could be willing to take public transportation or even walk to the spot. When walking or taking bus to different spots, I can know the local culture well. And I recommend choosing places where you could go hiking. Finally, I really agree with Courtney’s view that “not travel as a tourist” if you have a chance to do some service program, especially in environmental protection. Thus, you can not only stay long to experience the local culture, but also offset your carbon emission by contributing your service to that place. I think it maximizes the utility of travelling.
I propose that international air travel in certain forms is better for the environment. I grew up rather isolated in rural Texas and extensive exposure to new cultures through international travel completely changed the political perspective I grew up with. I think that much of the indifference Americans show towards issues of global environmental degradation and socioeconomic injustice are connected to our cultural isolation. Seeing the way in which those in the developing world live would make Americans more conscious of the ridiculous overconsumption in the Western world. Interacting with those same people make the person aware of their humanity and value, so that Americans might consider how choices we make affect those outside our immediate sphere. Increasing self awareness and empathy are ways to 1) sway public opinion on issues that could bring major environmental protection and 2) get more folks like us to dedicate their careers to environmental protection.
While you touched on the same practices I follow when traveling, I also suggest exploring service opportunities when traveling. Not only can you do a very modest amount of good, but it also provides the opportunity to closely interact with those of a different socioeconomic background, which doesn’t always happen naturally.
True social change and revolution stem from what we believe to be our core values. Currently, we as Americans, value cheap sources of fuel to aide our commuter and consumer lives. We value rewarding ourselves with lavish vacations and the cultural experience that comes with it. We value convenience and independence over global social responsibility. We value entitlement. Individually, our carbon footprint seems nominal in the grand schemes, but collectively, western ways of life have caused our current predicament. Yes, it does matter what each and everyone of us does. It will take a value shift in America for there to be any chance of curbing carbon emissions.
Traveling is a luxury, not a right. The rich do it, the poor do not. I dont think it takes travelling to foreign countries to be a well-rounded informed individual. Backpacking through the Appalachians and visiting small mountain towns will give you just as much an adventure and sense of understanding for different cultures as going to Bali. The US is highly diverse; visit any big city to experience an incredible collage of art, culture, food, music, etc. San Francisco, New Orleans, New York, Miami, and on and on.
What a funny paradox us environmentalists find ourselves in. We have all these think-tanks, multimillion dollar research projects, non-profits etc. that are devoted to SAVING the world from global warming resulting from carbon emissions. Yet, all of us still fly and travel the world like its no big deal. We find justifications about why we do it, whether personal or professional. We pollute the most per capita of any country in the world. Education means NOTHING, money means everything when it comes to your carbon footprint. A few years ago, I served in Americorps in Marin County, CA which is the richest county in the US. People there are highly educated, compost, all schools have a garden and environmental curriculum, it was the first county in the country to recycle, they pride themselves in their priuses, but that county has the highest volume of trash per capita being sent to the landfill in the nation.
For most americans, being green is a fantasy. If you want to make a difference in lowering your carbon footprint, stop flying. There is no other way around it. If being an international conservationist means flying to another country every month, I want no part in it. This has become a personal epiphany from my own experiences working abroad.The hypocrisy is hard to escape. “Teaching” locals about conservation is a joke. The forests that are being cut are for the western world’s consumption. The biological reserves and parks are set up, but mostly for our enjoyment; locals cannot afford to visit them. Not to mention, flying there and back probably sent more carbon into the atmosphere than an entire farming village does in a year.
All this said, I eagerly await the days when gas costs $15/gallon. Because then I know our values will be forced to change. Culture will shift so dramatically that it may actually inspire the average person to question the status quo and think about what things in life really do matter.
i’m a big fan of traveling but unfortunately I failed to consider the carbon footprint while I was traveling…. This reminds me what Lincoln said on his first lecture on Energy and Environment: the difference between high quality of life and high standard of life. Traveling around certainly contributes a lot to a good quality of life, however, we need to seek ways to make it less energy consuming. Here are some of my thoughts on traveling:
1) Vote for eco tourism! I’ve been interested in this topic for a long time. People can not only enjoy the natural views and also can contribute to local environment by bringing in revenues. Of course, this needs to be carefully managed, otherwise, too many tourism will destroy the environment instead.
2) Stay for a longer period of time and enjoy more local activities. The international travel I’ve made during last several years were not long period, due to limited vacation length in China. It was such a regret that we didn’t have the chance to fully experience local culture and view, meanwhile we had a very high daily average carbon footprint because of the short period. Next I’ll try hard to plan for a vacation focusing on one place and try to fully experience. This winter I plan to go to florida for half month to both enjoy the cruise and the orlando theme parks! Can’t wait to go there.
3) Try to take public transportation or more tour on feet. I would say experiencing the public transportation system is one of the amazing part of local culture. traveling around the city by bicycle is also a romantic way to view the city, which is becoming more and more popular in some coastal cities in China. Have u seen a bicycle for two people or more? It’s a really good way to enjoy a sweet time with ur couple or friends:)
I am really into traveling. Every year I spend lots of time on traveling around China. It is really a good experience to meet new friends, get used to new culture and enjoy local delicous food. The benefit mentioned from the blog really hits my heart and I totally agree with the point.
However as an environmental management student, right now the environment-friendly consiousness always comes up on my head. As before I never consider carbon footprint and this article reminds me my careless previous behavior.
Impressed by what Dr Lori Bennear said, I am going to change my old traditional travel methods and hopt that will help reduce the carbon emission.
Whenever I arrive a new country, I will try to find out all the public transportation that could help me travel around rather than take private car. Sometimes, it may be very dangerous but it will reduce so much CO2 emission especially travel big and safe city like Hongkong or Shanghai.
Try not use local utilities that are not environment friendly. Try to stay in locals´ house and not checked into large hotel. Hopefully, especially in some historical spot there are so many hostel addmistrated by local people which merged with local environment.
I have yet to have the opportunity to travel as I would like but, I will say that when I do it shall be epic. I think it is important to do as the locals do in order to best learn about and from a foreign country’s culture. I feel as though the areas most traveled to have pretty good public transportation systems. With that being said, USE THEM! If that means taking a small smelly taxi to visit the villages on the other side of the city, you will at least have an awesome story to tell when you return home. I also love the idea of visiting more sights in one trip. One may find more history in their journey to the mountain than in visiting their final destination. Not to mention the fact that their is so much to learn about a culture than just what you see. Being green or sustainable should not be hinder one from traveling but propose a good challenge to determine how far one may go with the lowest carbon footprint.
I’ve struggled a lot with this issue already, especially because I got my undergrad degree in Scotland. That meant that for 4 years I averaged at least 4 flights from Seattle to Edinburgh. That is 6.48 tonnes of carbon a year just for the minimum number of flights. Tack on the travelling I did around Europe while I was there, and I feel like a pretty terrible person.
On the other hand, I think my experiences travelling both while I was a child and while I was at university shaped how I see the earth. The earth is fragile. I know that because I’ve seen the beauty of the Alps and smelled and felt how fresh the air was, then I’ve taken a 2 hour bus ride and seen the grey murkiness of a city. Without my arguably harmful travelling I doubt I would be as passionate about protected the environment as I am now.
What helps me sleep at night is that I consider the earthly education I received as it’s own type of offset. No, I didn’t go out an plant trees after every flight (and I am ashamed to admit I don’t tick that ‘carbon offset your flight’ added charge very often), but I gained a respect that I carry with me into my future hoping to preserve the environment.
Considering the unfeasibility taking trains here, Chinese government did a good job in investing and improving the public transportation. Is it ture? It might be a good point to compare ways of transportation in US and in China
Airplane.
The price for air ticket is still too high for the majority of the people in China ( the high price push people to take trains since railway service is state owed, that’s probably the main reason why the price is so high )
Each time I bought air tickets here, I deem it as a big bargain
Automobile:
People find that driving cars in big cities in China can neither save time nor save money. Subway is, absolutely a better choice taken traffic jam into account when you drive a car. The expanding car market in China also indicates longer time to find space for park in the near future.
Subway is cheap and convenient, no wonder it’s so popular. During peak hours, usually 9 in the morning and 5-6 o’clock in the afternoon. You’ll find white-color workers wearing business casual get stuck in the crammed car of a subway. It is really funny
Bicycles:
When I went to Boston during this fall break, my friend lived there told me that Boston is implementing a system which allow borrowing/returning electric cars within the city in a self-serve way. You can also charge the small electric car in different spots
So basically, you don’t have to own a car anymore in Boston. That’s really cool
It reminds me of a similar system back in China, it is not car but bicycle, bicycle is space saving, no charger spot is needed, and its infrastructure investment is small. The system now works well in both big and median size cities in China.
The public transportation in China looks fine.
However, I read an article recently—-china’s building binge outpaces citizens’ needs. In which it pointed out that the high-speed rail project that costs $3 million now exceeds the demands.
“in a recent journey, there are hardly any passengers”,“high speed become holy grail for progress”
How much infrastructure building is too much, how to balance present capacity and future need?
Investing in public transportation isn’t always a good idea.
Coincidentally, I also spent a year in Germany as an exchange student and have had the travel bug ever since. Experiencing the world is too important to me to give up, so I’ve tried to compensate in other ways.
I traded my gas guzzler for a Prius a couple of years ago, a move which more than halved my gasoline usage. According to my carbon calculator, for medium-ish trips (e.g. from Durham to NYC or to Birmingham), my carbon footprint will be smaller if I drive my hybrid than if I fly. Accordingly, I’ve pretty much stopped flying domestically.
A couple of people on here have mentioned eco-tourism, and that’s definitely something I’ve been wanting to do. I looked into some opportunities this past summer to help with research using scuba (e.g., fish counts) in fabulous places like Fiji, but it didn’t work out. It seems like a great learning vacation for kids, though, and if I had a family, it would be on the agenda.
I also have to say that I like the idea of justifying longer but less frequent vacations on the grounds that fewer flights means less carbon. I’d much rather have one 2-week vacation than 2 1-week vacations anyway, so I’ll have to try that one out at my next job.
Being from a tiny island, I’ve definitely dealt with this dilemma throughout my life – my first flight was two weeks after birth to fly home from the hospital! Now I love going home and I love traveling, and that involves a whole lot of flying. I can definitely cut back on the global adventures, but I’m not willing to cut back on the flights home – that’s 3,000 miles round trip just to go home from Durham for Christmas, and Durham is the closest I’ve ever lived to home.
But this dilemma is what makes me want to become an environmental economist – if a tree hugger like me isn’t willing to sacrifice the plane ride, how can we expect the other seven billion people in the world to make sacrifices for the sake of the environment? We have to find cost-effective ways to make it easy for them.
Biofuels aren’t cost-effective now, but they may be. Many major airlines are currently investing a lot of money in biofuels research, and as cost of fuel rises with demand, they expect cost of biofuels to decline with new technology. It will take a while, and the promise of biofuels in the future is no excuse for my excessive traveling now. But it offers hope for a future of guilt-free flying, and it’s definitely something I’d like to be a part of.
Earlier this year, I startled my childhood friend by contradicting her when she called me an “environmentally conscious” person. Revealing that I am in fact, NOT particularly conscious of my ecological footprint shocked her, because loving the outdoors and caring about the environment has always been a key part of my identity. I was feeling particularly guilty that day, because I had just flown across the country to visit her, and to top it off we had spent the last couple of hours at the mall. I explained to her that obviously I love the outdoors and want to protect it – I am willing to recycle, turn off lights, be a vegetarian, even spend the extra money on organic produce – but have never actually sacrificed anything substantial to live a more “green” life.
Instead of doing anything significant to minimize my environmental impact, my version of being “environmentally conscious” is feeling guilty about taking long and frequent flights, but not actually letting that guilt stop me from doing it. For example, I still plan on someday flying halfway around the world to dive the world’s last (semi-) pristine coral reefs, even though the carbon emissions I leave in my wake will contribute to their demise. And like Britta said, if someone who is dedicating their career to environmental protection is not willing to make personal sacrifices for the environment, then how can I expect that other people will?
My hope for the future of the environment lies with the implementation of government regulations that will force people to reduce their environmental impact in big ways, such as imposing some sort of annual limit or huge tax on the number of miles flown by an individual or within a certain company. Humans need environmental policies or market instruments in place to force them into a state of environmental consciousness – even the ones (like me!) who claim to care the most.
I know many of us have struggled with this travel/carbon budget conundrum. It is difficult being a part of the global community and having a guilty conscience about your carbon footprint. I’ve seen first hand how this applies not only to environmentally aware people, but to environmental organizations as well. Prior to coming to the Nic. School, I worked for an organization that sets regulatory-quality standards for GHG offset projects (climateactionreserve.org), and also issued credits to projects verified against the standards. This work involved a lot of travel at all levels of the organization. The president of the org would jet to D.C. to meet with congressional staff to educate them on credible offsetting programs, the organization sponsored California’s annual delegation to the UNFCCC COP which included the Governator’s 30 person security detail, and oversight of the projects involved travel worldwide.
The emissions footprint of this travel seemed to be antithetical to the goals of the organization, but it is a necessary cost of doing business. Fortunately, airlines are working on ways to reduce their emissions footprints, both voluntarily and to meet legal requirements. Many airports have been retrofitted with systems that allow airplanes to plug-in to the grid while they are at the gate, previously airlines would run the engines between flights. Some airlines offer offsetting to customers, and others directly sponsor offsets for a portion their operations. Virgin is developing low carbon biofuel blends that will significantly reduce the footprint of their fleet. Finally, the EU may impose cap and trade on airlines with operations in Europe. As always, the devil is in the details with all of these programs. But it is heartening to know that the issue is receiving some serious attention. As travelers and environmentalists, we can make ourselves aware of the most climate friendly choices when it comes to choosing an airline, and support their actions. And, if you are inclined to offset your emissions, be sure you use offsets from a credible program. I recommend the providers on this site: http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/crt-marketplace/
We are constantly confronted with tradeoffs. One that I regularly grapple with (or plan to in the future) is reconciling the balance between air travel in pursuit of leisure (and exploration) and lowering my environmental impact. While the following recommendations are surely no panacea for a complete reduction in individual carbon footprints, they shed light on the importance of being environmentally cognizant in our decision making.
You can get partway to carbon neutrality through how you live your life, that is, through reducing your carbon footprint – especially in the context of air travel.
Here are some questions/recommendations to ponder when planning your next vacation:
(1) Can you combine trips to get more done on one trip?
(2) For some vacations that are accessible via train, you might want to consider this mode before air travel and car travel
(3) Have you considered flying nonstop? Connecting flights are usually associated with higher carbon footprints
(4) Do some background research about your destination to pinpoint lodging that implements environmentally friendly practices
(5) While your away, turn down your thermostat, your hot water heater, other electronic devices, etc.
(6) It might be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the surrounding area of your lodge, the most efficient travel routes and cleanest modes of transportation
I confess…since I study water here the Nicholas school, my focus as of late is on water foot-printing more so than carbon, but that doesn’t make it any less important to me. I love to travel and I constantly feel the need to have some sort of travel plan in the pipeline (otherwise I get a bit anxious and location claustrophobic). It’s incredibly enriching to explore new cultures and countries, and it is essential for future generations to experience and understand how globally interconnected we are.
I agree with many of the recommendations you and many other students have made. Aside from focusing on recreational/vacation travel, I’d like to highlight the number of business travelers I always see who are on planes like clockwork. Companies can definitely rack up the frequent flyer miles from NY to LA, Chicago to Dubai and Sao Paulo etc. and are generally at their destination for a short duration of time, even just a few hours. So with the need to constantly be on the go back/forth to meetings, major conferences etc., the vacation related suggestions of consolidating trips or staying for longer time periods isn’t really applicable to this group.
I think the solutions are going to come from both sides of social and technological advancement. Transcending social behavior to new norms through embracing the direction that technology is heading in.
An article I found discusses some of the following recommendations (http://www.businesstravelnews.com/article.aspx?id=20427&ida=Airlines&a=btn)
1. when traveling on popular routes look for low-carbon alternative flights as certain airlines/planes are more energy efficient and have lower CO2e footprints compared to others. Just because a flight is more energy-efficient does not necessarily mean that you pay more.
2. Another is that better/more information should be made available at the point of sale.
I think it would be great to see your footprint calculated at the time of purchasing a flight and make adjustments to your travel plans if you feel the need to do so. It ends up right there in your face and could be encouraging for the many who have never given the idea of a carbon footprint a thought.
I agree with much of what people have written above. I love to travel and have been very fortunate to see many different places and to experience a variety of different cultures. While I agree that it can be difficult to justify traveling in order experience other places, given the immense carbon footprint one creates, I do believe that there is great benefit to be gained through visiting different places and that there are ways to lessen the environmental impact. First, I agree that when traveling abroad, one should stay for a longer period, and thereby minimize the carbon footprint. Moreover, once someone makes the effort to travel a long way, he or she generally wants to really truly experience the place, which requires staying for a longer period of time. It is only then that one has a chance of being more than a tourist who flits through, and actually realize the true value of travel—gaining some understanding of another place and culture, and functioning, in a small way, as an ambassador from one’s own world. In addition, I think that it is important to research the place where you are going. If you do, you can consciously attempt to find and patronize hotels that are more environmentally friendly, restaurants that use local foods, and activities that do not require a lot of additional traveling to enjoy. For instance, in Europe it is very easy to travel by train, which has a fairly minimal carbon impact. Also, most European cities have good public transportation. Furthermore, the slow food movement, which is geared towards using sustainable local food in a traditional manner, has a website that can help you to locate member restaurants. By eating at such places, one can learn more about a culture while leaving a smaller footprint.
http://www.slowfood.com/
Although I know travelling might result in more carbon foots, I cannot give up it. From my personal perspective, travelling is a very critical part of my life because I can gain lots of things through travelling. For example, travelling is a great way to learn about a city. When I was in Boston, I realized a different life style from that in Durham. I enjoyed the historical atmosphere there and I found a balance between modernization and conservation of historical sites.
However, there are some things I tried to minimize my carbon foots.
1. Work out a suitable route for my travelling ahead. If there are several places I plan to go, I might search for a route that can might my travelling distance shortest. Less overlapping of my trip, less carbon foots I have.
2. Try to use public transportations instead of renting cars or taking taxis. When I was in Boston, I tried to use subways and city buses. In other words, this can make the local transportation more efficient and my arrival will not cause too much extra carbon foots.
3. Bring personal washing articles such as toothbrush and towel along rather than use throwaway washing articles in hotels. It is really easy and helpful for reducing carbon foots.
4. Buy fewer souvenirs for travelling. Several souvenirs might be necessary for memory. However, too many souvenirs might exert a burden on travelling transportation. Besides, too many souvenirs might be a waste of natural resources. People who buy too much souvenirs might just leave them in corners. Therefore, think before buying too many souvenirs. (I know this measure is not good for local economy.)
To sum up, I will keep travelling as a good study way while I will keep protecting the environment in mind. Hope more people can enjoy travelling in a more environmental-friendly way.
The moral Anthony mentioned is the only way I’ve been able to deal with it so far. Like Dr. Bennear I have a decent commute to Duke. However, I didn’t want that to be a reason for me not attending Duke. I justify the commute in my head with: well, I’m getting a grad degree in environmental management. Thinking about it that way helps me make peace with it. Really it’s the only way I let myself think about it. I also end up in New York often visiting my brother. Selfishly, spending time with him is more important than my carbon footprint. I tend not to think about it, at least until I started writing this post. I wish I had wonderful recommendations for reconciliation, but I’m afraid I don’t. I think staying longer, the second point, is the one I align with the most. It’s important for a variety of other reasons as well. I think it helps to really disconnect with where you were in you’re life at the point when you left. It helps put things in perspective. However, the problem is getting away for two weeks at a time. Most employers, at least the ones I’ve worked for, are not supportive of such a trip. I find it sad because you really do come back refreshed and inspired and more productive. It seems to be a good thing for everyone involved.
I often question my own commitment to sustainability and lessoning my carbon footprint. As an environmentalist, I try to weigh the pros and cons (or maybe it would be more appropriate to say costs and benefits) of the environmental “unfriendly” actions I sometimes take. My environmental “sins” against the environment might include everything from throwing away a plastic container if there is no recycling to be found at the moment, taking a long hot shower when I “need” it, or printing out copious articles and lecture notes when I could be reading them on my computer. At what point am I not an environmentalist anymore?
I, too, enjoy traveling. Right now it is not a necessity to visit loved ones but I feel it does enrich my life (I can also say that about my long showers for mental health). I agree that it is important to experience different cultures and to travel and agree with many of the above suggestions on how to lesson one’s carbon impact when traveling. Staying at “eco-lodges”, extending your trips, eating locally, supporting eco-tourism and considering other ways you can reduce your carbon footprint are important to think about. However, I wonder if they are always an option. Air travel can be so costly that any deal is a good deal. Staying longer may not be economically viable for some. And, as Nathalie and Abbey mentioned, what about business travel? I would think business travel is where one would see the most improvement. Corporations that are sending their employees on trips have more of a financial capacity to be picky in the airlines they use, the length they send their employees away for, and where they send their employees to stay.
I agree that buying carbon offsets is not necessarily the best option. The average traveler may not quite understand what exactly this is and may get the false impression that their large carbon footprint can be made up for. My previous analogy of individual environmental faux pas as “sins” is inappropriate. Penance for air travel is a bit more complicated and may take more than an individual considering carbon offsets and/or planting a tree in their back yard. I think if a significant change was to happen it would come from the airlines themselves. As Demi noted in her response, there are new technologies to explore, other efficient fuel sources to experiment with; even flying techniques can be improved. Though it is important to discuss the way people can alter their activities to be more environmentally sound, the biggest immediate impact needs to come from the airlines themselves.
There are always many confliction in our life. We want to reduce carbon emission but sometimes we cannot avoid. Just like me ,I go to Americal from china to study in Duke, I have to take the plane. There is no other choices for me (unless some technique annovation that can take me here without taking plane ). So what we can do is to minimize the effect. For example, some people are always on the plane to attending different conferences in different regions in the world. I think sometimes they can use the internet conference if the problems can be addressed without meeting. Also, the techique development maybe more useful than we try to reduce our travelling.say,the total emission by one flights is decreasing. What I want to say is that the emission from the plane is just one smaill source of pollution,we need to think more in our daily life,like using fuels or other carbon intensive products.
There is a part of me that screams-‘don’t even worry about your carbon foot print-go see the world!’
On a less romantic note, I do believe it’s important for us to take a moment to consider the environmental costs of our actions. I agree with many of the recommendations, but find myself wondering about the logistics of taking longer vacations. I feel that the majority of the people in my life take do not have the option of taking long vacations-the weekend and weekly trips are about what is affordable. There are the costs of getting to your destination, accommodation, food, and activities. However, I think that the biggest challenge is taking time away from work. Most of my friends are in there mid twenties and we are not in positions where our jobs allow long vacations. Especially in Portland, OR where there are plenty of other young people willing to fill positions if someone decided to jet off for more than two weeks. Ours is not really a culture that supports or encourages a long yearly vacation. It is my understanding that that is a far more common practice in Europe. It’s a fantastic idea, especially considering the amazing benefits of experiencing new cultures (and getting out of town for that long!). I find myself wondering how we as a culture could start to change our attitude towards vacations.
I am in full support of the ‘staying local’ idea. I visited a friend in the Dominican Republic a couple of summers ago (sadly only for a week, or course). She was a Peace Corps volunteer so staying with her, though she was in a good housing situation comparatively, was quite different than what we’re used to in the US. No air conditioning, intermittent electricity, no hot water, and a plumbing system that was so bad you couldn’t flush toilet paper down the toilet. I loved it. Actually, what I loved was experiencing was a way of life so different from my own. One day we sneaked into an all inclusive resort. It was fun of course, but we were surrounded by Americans and most of the lunch buffet items were things you could find anywhere, not local to the DR. This is the sad thing about the all inclusive resort-they’re all the same! You could be in any fantastic part of the world and not know it. I find that the most depressing part of all.
I really liked this blog post because I feel that there are other examples of when doing what is necessary is dissonant with sustainability. Two other examples to come to mind are sanitation and sustainability (hospitals generate a lot of waste because of the need for sterility) and security and sustainability (metal detectors are incredibly energy intensive). I’m sure one could argue that the definition of necessary is a subjective one but in your example about travel, many of the commenters have told stories of how traveling has positively impacted them. I think traveling makes us better global citizens. One note about staying longer: a lot of other countries lead lifestyles that have remarkably lower carbon footprints, so just by staying there for an extended period, you are counteracting whatever your carbon footprint would have been here in the US during that time. For example, whenever I’m in Ghana to see my grandparents, I take public transportation more, I use less water and electricity and much of the food I eat is local.
In my opinion, there is a mistake in this paper that if you cancel a flight trip, the plane will be canceled. In reality, the plane will not be canceled only because one person concerns about carbon emission or carbon footprint. So, if only the trip is worthy, we should make it. The most important thing to do is to improve the value of the trip to the maximum. Just as professor Bennear mentioned in the article, we can stay longer, rather than take many short trips.
Actually, there are many many other things we can do to reduce carbon emission.
1) Use the telephone meeting to replace the traditional meeting. We usually see people flight to another country to attend a meeting which seems “important”. These meetings can definitely be replaced by a group call or group video. The organizer can set a time so that every participant can open computer and “attend” the meeting at the same time. Usually there are hundreds participants of a meeting. You see, we can save hundreds of air tickets and reduce tons of carbon dioxide.
2) Develop public transportation. After coming to the US, the most uncomfortable feeling is that life is not convenient if you do not have a car. I know that America is a nation on the wheel, but I still think the government could advocate public transportation. If everybody reduce their use of the car, there will be a significant amount of carbon reduction. For example, many people travel between Raleigh and Durham like professor Bennear. If there are buses between the two counties, there will be no need to drive a car! This is also a kind of carpooling.
3) Add less cubic ice into water or drinks. Ice makers usually cost a lot of electricity. So, if we drink more normal temperature water, the amount of carbon reduction is also significant.
4) Reduce the use of air conditioner. In the summer, the temperature in a room is always too low. I always see students wearing a coat after entering a classroom since it is really freezing. However, in the winter, the temperature is too high. I always feel confused which shoes I should wear before going to school. If I wear warm shoes, it will keep my foot warm on the way to school, but I feel uncomfortable in the classroom. If I wear sandals, it will be too cold to walk outside. So, if we can use less AC, or just to turn up the temperature in summer, and turn down the temperature in winter, it will not only save GREAT amount of electricity but also make people feel much comfortable.
As an avid international traveler like most everyone here, I agree with much of what has already been said on maximizing the value of our cross-continental trips and ways in which to reduce the carbon intensity of these trips. I echo Christina Van Winkle’s comment that my global travels were indeed the sparks that ignited my interest in social and environmental issues in the first place. Had I not biked everywhere like the locals do in Copenhagen, sneezed out black soot while on exchange in Beijing, or travelled to the US and realizing firsthand that the air pollution back home in Hong Kong is indeed very, very bad, I probably would’ve still ended up at the Nicholas School, but certainly not with the intensity of passion and clarity of vision that I have (and share with all of you) for making our world a more sustainable place. My hope is that more Americans will travel more widely, not only to experience different cultures and peoples, but perhaps then people would realize that the rest of the world’s households can actually survive without owning two gigantic refrigerators and three cars.
I really like this hot discussion of how to reconcile the conflict between travel and carbon emission. Not only the blog, but also the all the comments are thoughts provoking to me. Tell the truth, this is the first time I realize this existing conflict between travel and carbon emission. For me, travel to other places actually give people the chance to know the nature better and care about the nature more. At the same time, people’s willing to pay for the trip are counted as the benefits of preserving a nature resource, so if we reduce the chance to travel and put high moral standard in travel, will it have spilled over effects in reducing the benefits of preserving a traveling site?
Anyway, I find some suggestions online about how to reduce the carbon footprint,
“Step 1
Travel to your vacation destination using the bus system or train. Both are more carbon efficient than flying or driving, according to the University of Arizona.
Step 2
Offset your carbon usage if you’re flying to your vacation destination. Many major airlines, such as Continental and United Airlines, let customers calculate their trip’s carbon usage and buy carbon credits when they book a ticket through the airline. Online travel sites like Orbitz and Expedia also sell customers carbon credits for their trip by using social enterprises like TerraPass and and CarbonFund.
Step 3
Book a hotel that’s listed with the Green Hotels Association or Audubon International’s Green Leaf program (see Resources). These third-party auditors certify that the hotel follows environmentally friendly operating standards that reduce waste, minimize carbon footprints and lower energy usage. If you’re traveling in the United States, some states, like New York, also operate their own green hotel certification program.
Step 4
Practice practical carbon reduction strategies when you’re in your hotel room. Turn off all appliances and heating or cooling mechanisms when you leave the room. Keep the window shades drawn to block the sun and reduce the need for cooling. Request that the housekeepers not change your towels or bedding. Sort recyclables out of your trash–the California State Government says that the average hotel room throws away 30 pounds of waste per day, 80 percent which is recyclable–and ask the front desk where to drop them off.
Step 5
Check out of your room using the modern electronic check-out systems and video checkout services available at many hotels. This reduces paper waste.
Step 6
Use public transit, such as buses and subways, when you are exploring your vacation destination. Walking is also an environmentally friendly method of getting around the area, allowing you to see the sights and sounds up close. Both also are usually cheaper than taking a taxi.”[1]
[1]Cited from http://traveltips.usatoday.com/reduce-carbon-footprint-during-travel-2296.html
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.”
(Mark Twain).
Much has been proposed and I do agree in particular with:
1. The idea of a more comprehensive and smarter transportation concept. Long-haul flights are without alternative but many connecting shorter flights could be replaced by other forms of transportation. Without time-consuming check-in and security procedures but arrival in city centers high speed trains can be as quick as or even quicker than airplanes, as the connection Madrid – Barcelona illustrates. Frankfurt airport among others shows how well a long-distance train system and air travel can be connected.
2. The need for further development of biofuels in air transportation.
Another idea which may be worth exploring: is efficiency increased through larger passenger airliners auch as the Airbus A380?
Finally, I would like to allude to an article written by a friend of mine, Zoe Robaey, on identity and (sustainable) consumption and how they conflict occasionally –very much along the lines of the discussion here. To be found under http://www.hertie-school.org/fileadmin/images/Downloads/sp3/sp3_10.pdf (Robaey, Zoe & Lukas Schmid 2011: Identity and Consumption, in: Schlossplatz3, Hertie School of Governance, Berlin, p. 25).