Choosing the right company for your carbon offsets

According to Carbonfund, with the amount of flying I do annually, I “produce” about 21,000 pounds of CO2 per year. If I want to make up for the environmental damage I’ve done, I can pay $125 to offset my carbon contribution.

But what does that really mean? How can paying $125 make the air cleaner or the ozone layer stronger? Where does that $125 go? Am I just paying to make myself feel better?

Well, as I’m learning, it all depends on which company you choose. Some seem to be more transparent than others about where your money goes, and some seem to offer more assurance in the way of third-party auditing. Two that I have found that seem to be among the most reputable are Carbonfund.org and TerraPass. Both take the money you pay for your carbon offsets and invest it into projects that help reduce pollution, produce clean air and alternative sources of energy, and reduce the effects of carbon-producing technology.

Carbonfund, the company your money will go to if you choose to buy offsets for your next Virgin America flight, contributes to three major undertakings: renewable energy and methane projects, energy efficiency and carbon credits, and reforestation and avoided deforestation projects. According to their website, each project is audited and certified by a third party. The money they receive goes to projects that help offset the damage being done not just from planes, but from all the other carbon-producing technology we use on a daily basis – trains, buses, cars, and home appliances.

With Carbonfund, you can pay for all your environmental sins at once, or calculate more precisely based on a single flight. They also seem to offer very affordable options. If 20 or so flights per year and 12 months of living in a small apartment and riding the city buses and trains only costs me $125, I’m betting a single flight can’t be over $20.

Some of the projects to which Carbonfund contributes include those that: reduce the emissions produced by large transport trucks while they idle at rest stops, protect tropical rainforest land, restore hardwood forests, generate clean electricity from farm waste, and destroy methane produced by landfills.

TerraPass, the offset option offered by Expedia, funds some similar projects. Their big three are wind energy, farm power, and landfill gas capture. Like Carbonfund, their programs are audited and verified by a third party. When you register your flight, your life, your wedding (yes, weddings leave a very large carbon footprint) or your business, you’ll get a total price and also see where that money will be spent and how it will help offset the emissions you have produced. TerraPass seems to be a bit more expensive for me though. It cost more like $150 to combat my yearly output and a single flight (Chicago to CapeTown) was nearly $50. I did, however, really like that they had a comprehensive report published on their website, which listed how much carbon each project reduced over the course of a year.

I also appreciated that both websites make it a point to say that purchasing carbon offsets doesn’t give you a free pass to live a wasteful live. Both promote that, in addition to buying carbon offsets, you should also strive to reduce your carbon footprint by using less electricity, taking public transportation, flying direct when possible, and using alternative sources of energy when you can.

Whether you go with one of these two companies or another, be sure that it is independently audited and verified and that it offers information on where and how your money will be spent. While you can’t chose a specific project, you can often choose what type of project your money funds. Choosing a company that is audited by a third party helps you be sure that your money is going where you think it is, and ensures that companies aren’t selling the same offset credits more than once.

In an age where we seem to be nickle-and-dimed to death by the airlines, it’s difficult to think of voluntarily coughing up another $10-$50 per flight. But this money isn’t going to the airlines. It’s not lining the pockets of some corporate honchos. When invested correctly, it seems it really can make a difference in the fight against climate change.

San Francisco airport wants to sell you carbon offset credits

As of yesterday, passengers departing from San Francisco international airport can purchase carbon offset credits before taking their flight. The credits are called “Climate Passport”, and they can be bought from electronic kiosks located throughout the airport.

Each ton of carbon offsets costs $13.50, and a typical transcontinental flight spits out about 1.9 tons. Offsetting that will cost you just under $25. Of course, that number is for the total amount per flight, so if more than one passenger on a flight pays for the offsets, the flight will theoretically be carbon negative.

The money gets split – $12.00 goes towards the Garcia River Forest project, and $1.50 goes to the city of San Francisco to support local carbon reduction projects.

The kiosks cost $190,000 to install, and to me that seems like a heck of a lot of money for something that is going to be a pretty hard sell. On paper the project looks great – it allows passengers to help the environment without having to give up much more than a little of their cash, but in reality I really don’t see many passengers participating – though I’d like to be proven wrong.

You can learn more about the program, and how the collected money is spent, at the Climate Passport web site.

%Poll-34551%

Antarctic tourism to get safer, more environmentally friendly

The 20th Annual Meeting of the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) was held last month, with marine safety and the impact of travel on the Antarctic environment being the main topics of discussion. Attending members adopted measures that will hopefully ensure that travel to the region becomes safer, while also forming a working group to study ways to reduce the carbon footprint of tourism on the fragile ecosystem there.

Over the past couple of years there have been several high profile incidences involving Antarctic cruise ships, including the sinking of the MS Explorer back in 2007, and two ships running aground in December 2008 and again in February of this year. In response to these accidents, the IAATO passed a series of actions to enhance marine safety. The changes include mandatory participation in a satellite tracking program for all IAATO members, the conversion of all open lifeboats to partially or fully closed boats, and a new rule that stipulates that all ships sailing below 60º South have “a captain or appointed ice pilot with Antarctic experience.” The final new rule is in direct response to an investigation earlier this year that found that the inexperience of the captain directly played a role in the sinking of the Explorer. In the report that the IAATO released on the conference they indicated that G.A.P. Adventures, the company that held the charter for the Explorer, acknowedged the negative impact that the sinking of the ship had on the entire Antarctic tourism industry, and they encouraged the changes to restore confidence with travelers.The more than 100 IAATO members, from 14 countries, that attending the meeting also acknolwedged that global climate change was the greatest threat to the Antarctic continent, which led to the forming of the working group to explore more options for sustainable travel to the region. The new group intends to find ways to raise awareness of the threats to the frozen continent, as well as explore options for reducing the carbon footprint of travel to the area.

Personally, I think that the measures adopted are good steps for the Antarctic tourism industry. Clearly there are safety concerns, and it seems that operators have been playing with fire, especially since no one has been seriously hurt or died from the accidents that have occured there in the past few years. The changes are not likely to prevent further incidences however, but they may help to ensure that passengers continue to be safe and that they can be located more quickly by rescue crews, should the need arise.

The fact that that the IAATO is thinking about sustainable travel to Antarctica is encouraging as well, as it shows that they are moving towards becoming better stewards of the environment and ensuring that the continent remains in pristine condition for future adventure travelers to enjoy as well. It remains to be seen what kind of plans they put in place in this area however and how it’ll impact the industry as a whole.

And the happiest place on Earth is …

… not Disney World!

Despite the theme park’s claim, Costa Rica actually takes the top spot, according to the New Economics Foundation. This Britain-based independent research firm uses the “Happy Planet Index” to determine and rank the countries with the happiest people. The organization’s goal is to build a new economy that focuses on people and the environment.

This year’s survey covered 143 countries, with Latin American claiming nine of the top 10 positions in the study. The Dominican Republic took second, followed by Jamaica, Guatemala and Vietnam.

If you live in a developed nation, it seems, you’re probably unhappy. Great Britain took 74th, and the United States came in at 114. But, the latter is happier than it was 20 years ago. China and India are also fairly unhappy, but mostly because they are pursuing aggressive economic growth.

Now, the results are skewed because ecological implications account for a substantial portion of how happy a country is. The study assumes that the further you are from carbon-neutral, the unhappier you are. I’m down for going green, but I really struggle to see how it plays such a large role in a country’s happiness.

Ecoventura vows to eliminate fossil fuels

Environmental tour company Ecoventura has promised to stop using fossil fuels on its vessels by 2015. Ecoventura runs environmentally conscious boat tours to the Galapagos Islands, a unique ecosystem that is under threat by climate change and tourism.

“The Galapagos Islands rank right up there with the Amazon and the Serengeti as one of the richest and best known, yet fragile and threatened, ecosystems in the world. Now, the Ecuadoran government is looking to a range of alternative energy resources to make sure it stays that way,” reports Triple Pundit, a leading website on responsible business practices.

“The Ecuadoran government has turned to wind and solar power as a means of realizing its goals. Along with a range of international aid organizations and private sector businesses, it’s working to eliminate the use of fossil fuels on the Galapagos Islands by 2015.”

One of Ecoventura’s four yachts, the M/Y ERIC, is equipped with solar panels and wind turbines to replace some of its diesel consumption. The company hopes to have these on all its yachts by 2011.

In addition to reducing fossil fuels, Ecoventura donates to carbon-offsetting programs, prompting NativeEnergy to award it with a “Cool Business Certificate” last month. NativeEnergy hosts numerous projects aimed at reducing carbon emissions; the one Ecoventura supports is the Cascade Sierra Solutions Trucking Project, which works to make trucks more fuel-efficient and therefore reduce their carbon emissions.

Ecoventura estimates they have offset slightly more than 4,000 tons of CO2 emissions this year, and hopes to offset more with its renewable energy plan for its boats.

%Gallery-65409%