most popular:
66 Gas Saving Tips



most popular:
7 Best Electric Scooters


th comments
John Taylor said: "Sometimes you need to sue idiots who refuse to take responsibility for their actions. In this case Jude Judy was quite correct, the dog ow..." [read]

Elepski said: "I have to say.. this is really pathetic This is a classic case of the "sue everyone for everything America" Sometime accidents just..." [read]

said: "Aw c'mon Maria, have a sense of humor. The author is awoman, and speaking as a DD myself, I find the concept hilarious! ..." [read]

Alejandro Mosquera said: "Great article, really informative, and also helpful links, thanks..." [read]

Brian said: "This is a common problem in rural areas where dogs run free more often than not. While most rural dog owners accept this fact it is clear these tw..." [read]

Zerofootprint: To Offset or Not Offset, That is the Question

by Ron Dembo, Zerofootprint on 07.28.06
Travel & Nature (eco-travel)

plane-wing-through-window_TH.jpgA UK travel company has accepted that it is not just its customers that are responsible for the emissions produced by their flights, and it now plants a tree for every booking it takes.

Flourishing UK holiday company TravelRepublic has gone one better than simply offering its customers the opportunity to offset the carbon of their air travel – the company has pledged to save a tree for every customer that books one of their flights. Working with international conservation charity World Land Trust (WLT), TravelRepublic is making a donation towards the protection of threatened rainforests for each customer.

“Through our carbon offsetting program, we have the opportunity to help people behave in a greener way if they choose, but we also wanted to demonstrate that we believed that there was merit in the idea [of carbon offsetting],” says Kane Pirie, financial director of TravelRepublic.

TravelRepublic is supporting a tropical forest protection scheme in Ecuador, where over 80% of the natural forest has already been destroyed. WLT, whose patron is the distinguished BBC nature program presenter Sir David Attenborough, works by buying land, and working with local non-governmental agencies and communities to establish long-term management programs for the standing forests that would otherwise be threatened with destruction.

Meanwhile, the voluntary carbon offset payments made by customers (rather than the company's contribution) goes to forest regeneration. This program is also being handled by WLT, and the funds are directed towards areas around protected standing forests. The aim is to restore cleared land, thereby increasing the size and biodiversity of the forest, and connecting fragments of forest to create more stable areas of trees, and to develop corridors that allow wildlife to move unhindered through the area, says Oliver Blakeman, carbon project manager for WLT.

TravelRepublic's Pirie has been encouraged by the take-up of the carbon offset programme so far. About 3% of customers are already offsetting their flights. This may seem low, but the concept is entirely new to most people, and Pirie expects participation to grow to 5-10% within a year as awareness of climate change grows and travelers begin to take more responsibility for their behavior. Pirie also denies that there is any contradiction in what the company is doing in promoting travel while recognizing that flights cause environmental damage.

“I believe in green causes, but I also believe in people taking holidays and enjoying themselves,” says Pirie. “I don't think being green means that you have to restrict yourself to going on camping holidays in the local countryside, but we are only borrowing the planet and we need to ensure that it is preserved for future generations.”

TravelRepublic has not increased the cost of its holidays as a consequence of its forest regeneration and planting schemes - “It comes out of our profits,” says Pirie. Nor does the company take any administration costs for the customer carbon offset programme, passing 100% of customers' donations on to WLT.

Pirie, an accountant by trade, has been the driving force in TravelRepublic for the schemes. He investigated potential environmental partners carefully before choosing to work with WLT. Although there are other larger offset schemes in the UK and elsewhere, some, such as Climate Care, are for-profit or part charity/part for-profit, and Pirie insisted on using a registered charity. WLT was the final choice because it has an almost 20-year track record, it focuses on buying and preserving standing forest, and it is large enough to handle TravelRepublic's expected contributions. “We will be a significant donor to WLT,” says Pirie.

WLT has done a number of offsetting projects, including for other travel companies. “Offsetting works well with air travel,” says Blakeman. “It's hard to reduce emissions [from transport], and it hard to tell people not to travel. But people are becoming more worried about the impact of transport, and air travel is the most damaging of all because of where the emissions are released.”

WLT has a number of conservation projects underway, including the protection and regeneration of Atlantic rain forests in Brazil and Ecuador, and creating forest corridors for elephants in India.

[Ron Dembo and Clive Davidson, Zerofootprint]

Comments (5)

I think that rebuilding the forest is very important but I don't believe that offsets are a solution to climate change. I think reducing the immediate impact of air travel by creating hyper effecient planes and by travelling less are better solutions. Offsets only encourage people to travel which encourages the use of fossil fuels.

"It's hard to reduce emissions [from transport], and it hard to tell people not to travel."

That statement is pathetic. It's hard to do a lot of things, and whatever eventually curbs climate change is going to be hard. So get used to it.

jump to top Jeremy says:
I think that rebuilding the forest is very important but I don't believe that offsets are a solution to climate change. I think reducing the immediate impact of air travel by creating hyper effecient planes and by travelling less are better solutions. Offsets only encourage people to travel which encourages the use of fossil fuels.
I couldn't agree with you more Jeremy, but you have to remember that not everyone sees things that way. There are many people out there that want to see changes, but don't want to change their lifestyles. And if you baltently dismiss things like carbon offsetting, to the point where nobody does them, then you are hurting the environment. Carbon offsetting is geared to the lazy person that doesn't care because tree huggers know the importance of getting these people to contribute in some form.

Now for people that aren't lazy and willing to do some work, carbon offsetting should be the least of things they should do. I wish I could hit everyone over the head with an intelligent stick and get them to wake up about global warming, but unfortunately the world doesn't work that way.

jump to top Webs [TypeKey Profile Page] says:

I Agree with Webs. Carbon Offsetting does have it's benefits and they shouldn't be dismissed. That being said, hyper efficient means of travelling should still be researched and developed.

--
editor note: I think flying wings look promising.

jump to top Jeremy Kirouac says:

I think that carbon offsetting can be a good thing. I am skeptical of it because the New Internationalist's most recent issue entitled "CO2NNED" had some compelling stories about the negative impacts of carbon offsetting. They were: it encourages the use of fossil fuels (clear conscious), the offset trees are usually planted in plantation monocultures which can destroy ecosystems, and the companies that are selling offsets and planting trees (or giving out light bulbs) do not monitor or maintain their projects so they can hurt people. They had many examples of how local communities were devastated by the impacts of these initiatives.

It sounds as if the World Land Trust is doing it right, and if it's done right then I fully support it.

jump to top Jeremy says:

But this still goes back to an issue I constantly bring up in all forms of debate. Just because something is poorly managed, does not mean we should dismiss it as a poor solution. If carbon offsetting programs are being poorly run, then fix them. It makes no logical sense to get rid of them if there is a chance for them to do good. Instead make a law stating how carbon offsetting programs should be run efficiently, this would do a lot more. Or have an economic incentive for companies that correctly manage a carbon offset program.

jump to top Webs [TypeKey Profile Page] says:

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

th ads
th top picks
th ads