Responsible Travel changes their mind

by Annie Scott on

ResponsibleTravel.com, a website known for providing eco-friendly vacation options, has changed their mind about something important. Especially after all our climate change talk yesterday (Blog Action Day), with the topic fresh in our minds, let’s talk about carbon offsets.

A recent report by Friends of the Earth states:
“Carbon offsets distract tourists from the need to reduce their emissions. They create a ‘medieval pardon’ for us to carry on behaving in the same way (or worse).”

Interesting point. So interesting, that Responsible Travel has removed the carbon offset widget from their site. The company has offered travelers the option of calculating their trip’s carbon footprint since 2002, so as to enable them to offset the environmental cost — but no more.

According to Responsible Travel’s Justin Francis:
“We believe that the travel industry’s priority must be to reduce carbon emissions, rather than to offset. Too often offsets are being used by the tourism industry in developed countries to justify growth plans on the basis that money will be donated to projects in developing countries. Global reduction targets will not be met this way.”

So, there’s some food for thought. We certainly don’t want to make anyone feel guilty for traveling, and if you’re going to travel, carbon offsets aren’t a bad thing, but keep in mind that you can make smart choices that will reduce your emissions. Responsible Travel can help.

Choosing the right company for your carbon offsets

by Katie Hammel on

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.

Maldives President proposes green tax for tourists

by Katie Hammel on

The Maldives, an archipelago of over 1000 islands in the Indian Ocean known for their stunning beauty and expensive, luxurious resorts, aren’t exactly cheap to visit. And they aren’t about to get any cheaper. The President of the Maldives has proposed a $3 per day “green tax” on tourists.

The tax would help fund the President’s plans for fighting climate change and for making the Maldives a carbon-neutral country within the next decade. He has a vested interest in stopping global warming – the Maldives are the lowest-lying islands on the planet, with an average elevation of only 7 feet above sea level, and it is estimated that they could be completely submerged by rising sea levels within the next ten years.

With an average of 700,000 visitors, who each stay around three days, visiting the Maldives annually, the tax could provide the country with over $6 million per year for environmental initiatives. With most resorts in the Maldives costing $500 (or much more) per night, $3 per person, per day is a small price to pay to help protect this vulnerable country from the dangers of climate change.

Global warming has a reverse effect on Alaska’s state capital

by Catherine Bodry on

You’re likely used to hearing about the possibility of cities flooding as sea levels rise, a result of climate change. But in Alaska, that quirky, individualistic state, the reverse is happening – at least in one area.

In an article today from the New York Times, Cornelia Dean reports that Juneau, the only US capital not accessible by road, is actually gaining land as a result of glacial melt. Though it seems counterintuitive, the logistics work a bit like this: glaciers weigh a lot, and as they recede, their pressure eases. The land sort of bounces back, or rises – faster than the rising seas can keep up with it.

Furthermore, glacier runoff deposits sediments into the water, and the Gastineau Channel in front of downtown Juneau is so silty that at low tide it’s more of a mudflat than a channel. Where boats regularly sailed, runners now cross in the annual Mendenhall Mud Run. It’s a fun spin on the rising land, no doubt, but it belies the seriousness of the changes.

Read more about Juneau’s rising land problems here.

Only in Alaska: Welcome to the 49th state

by Catherine Bodry on

Alaska is one of those places where your expectations are met and often exceeded: the mountains are gargantuan and they’re everywhere, there are moose wandering the cities, and folks still run trap lines and live in log cabins. Yes, people still mush dogs (an Iditarod champion even lives in my small town), and many Alaska Natives still practice subsistence living.

Though the stereotypical Alaska is alive and kicking, there’s a whole lot more to the state. Environmental issues such as climate change and Pebble Mine, the political scene in 2008 (remember Sarah Palin? We’ve still got her), and an 800-mile pipeline that supplies a sizable sip of oil to the rest of the country all make Alaska more than simply a vast and beautiful place where hairy hippies live in off-the-grid harmony.

I hope to highlight some of the quirky qualities of living in or visiting Alaska – and there are plenty. Here are some stats, just to get you started:

  • Alaska is the largest state in the US. It’s more than twice the size of Texas, which means that if you cut Alaska in half, Texas would be the third largest state. In general, it’s about the one-third of the size of the continental contiguous US.
  • Though it’s not the least populated state (that would be Wyoming), it’s the least densely populated. There’s just under one square mile per person.
  • The population is approaching 600,000. Around half that number lives in Anchorage (279,000), and another 35,000 are in Fairbanks. The state capital, Juneau, has 31,000 residents, while Ketchikan, Sitka, Homer, Soldotna, Wasilla, and Seward collectively add roughly another 40,000. That leaves only 215,000 residents scattered across a massive sweep of land. It can be pretty quiet up here.
  • It’s the only state with a capital that’s not accessible by road.
  • Alaska has the US’s largest national park (Wrangell-St. Elias, 13 million acres), national forest (Tongass, 17 million acres), second-largest national forest (Chugach, 5.5 million acres), and the highest mountain (Mt. McKinley [locals call it ‘Denali’], 20,320 ft).
  • Though English is the official language, it is still possible to hear Yupik and Iñupiaq spoken. It’s not common in the cities, but in rural villages many residents still use their native languages.

With the widest spaces, the highest peaks, a somewhat surprising political influence, and a romantic place in Americans’ imaginations, it’s no wonder that Alaska receives $1.6 billion in tourist dollars. But if you can’t afford the trip this summer, I hope to provide a virtual tour of some of unique aspects of the state. Stay tuned!