carbon footprint – Lori Bennear Research Group

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.

My colleague and friend, Dr. Gernot Wagner, has a new book coming out, But Will the Planet Notice?: How Smart Economics Can Save the World (available in hardback and kindle editions on October 5^th). The premise is that individual actions, like changing incandescent light bulbs to compact fluorescent, using groovy (yes, I said groovy) reusable grocery bags instead of plastic, and buying local food may make us feel better about our environmental impact, but actually do very little to reduce global climate change, resource use, or improve overall environmental quality. To make the “planet notice” we need systematic and collective changes in behavior.

In this class you will learn that, contrary to popular opinion, economists don’t believe unregulated markets will naturally supply this type of systemic and collective behavioral change. We also don’t put a lot of faith in the powers of moral suasion (even by the former Vice President). Instead we believe in the power of incentives—the power of the price signal. If carbon emissions are costly (through a carbon tax or from a cap-and-trade system), then goods produced using more carbon are more expense. By the law of demand, when prices rise, quantity demanded falls. So if carbon-intensive goods are more expensive, fewer of those goods will be consumed and less carbon will be emitted. Less carbon is emitted not because people care deeply about the impacts of climate change (although some may), but because they care deeply about their pocketbook. Note that unregulated markets don’t result in the correct price signals; we do need public policy to address environmental problems. We do need the big R—Regulation!

Let’s bring this discussion home to Duke. If you go to sustainability.duke.edu you will see a carbon footprint calculator. This tool asks you a series of questions about your eating habits, travel, and electricity consumption. Questions include things like: How far do you drive per trip to work? How much of your food is locally produced? Do you turn off your computer at night? These are all very reasonable questions and clearly linked to each individual’s carbon consumption. But perhaps we should also be asking: How many letters have you written your congressman demanding action on climate policy? How many community meetings have you organized to explain climate policy to your neighbors and friends? The “true believers” doing a lot won’t solve our problem. We need carbon to be priced in order to affect behavior sufficiently to reduce overall carbon emissions. How else can we “make the planet notice?”

I have lately been pondering the specific question of what Duke should do. I have been asked to serve on the Campus Sustainability Committee and have agreed. Universities are frequently leaders in sustainability efforts. But even if Duke cut carbon emissions to zero, the planet would not notice. Does this mean Duke should stop trying to lower its carbon footprint? What is the role of the university in promoting environmental change? Feel free to share your ideas for me to take to this committee.

Tag: carbon footprint

Profile: Travel; Relationship Status: It’s Complicated

Making the Planet Notice

Meta