Carbon offsets can distract tourists from the need to reduce their emissions from travel and lifestyle
Justin Francis, guardian.co.uk 16 Oct 09;
With one click of a button, the guilt caused by a return-flight to some far-flung destination is wiped away in the same way one might approach packing the suitcase: "Suncream? Tick. Sarong? Tick. Carbon offsetting? Ah yes, tick."
For responsible travellers, the impact of flyingon the environment is difficult to ignore and carbon offsets have become an established tool to reduce the impact of holidaying. Offsetting has been embraced by the travel and tourism industry at large, too. More and more holiday companies, airlines and hotels have been turning to carbon-offsetting schemes in order to support claims that they are carbon neutral businesses, offering travellers a "guilt-free" travel alternative – the chance to have their cake and eat it.
Having been one of the first travel agents to introduce carbon offsets in early 2002, we have now decided to remove the offsetting functionality for travellers from responsibletravel.com, making us one of the first travel companies to do so for environmental reasons.
Why? I believe that too often offsets are being used by travel companies to justify growth plans. In June this year, Friends of the Earth produced a report entitled Offsetting: A Dangerous Distraction. The report argues that carbon offsetting fails to reduce, and in some cases is even increasing, carbon emissions.
We sought advice from Friends of the Earth and the tourism academic Prof Harold Goodwin (a co-founder of responsibletravel) among others. I concluded that where travel is concerned, carbon offsets can distract tourists from the need to reduce their emissions from both a travel perspective as well as where everyday lifestyle habits are concerned. They create a medieval pardon for us to carry on behaving in the same way (or worse).
Ultimately we need to reduce our carbon emissions rather than offset. We can do this by flying less – travelling by train or taking holidays closer to home for example, and by making carbon reductions in other areas of our lifestyles too, alongside travel.
There is also no hiding the fact that tourists will continue to want to visit destinations requiring a flight to get there. Indeed, it has long been established that tourism can contribute to livelihoods, and local economic development and the conservation of the world's cultural and natural heritage. It is for this reason that it's more important than ever that when we do fly, we ensure we make that trip count as much as possible by choosing a holiday that makes a real difference in the destination – one that seeks to reduce CO2 impacts, supports local community programmes and community developments.
Those in favour of offsetting would argue that we should be doing all we can in terms of carbon reduction through lifestyle adjustments as well as by offsetting our impacts. For the traveller who has done their utmost to reduce their emissions then I agree that offsets do have a role to play. My concern is that too few people use them in this way.
Ultimately it is about striking a balance between flying less as well as reducing our everyday carbon emissions, and also ensuring when we do fly that we "make it count".
It remains to be seen how committed governments around the world are to making aviation part of the emissions-trading scheme or taxing it – essential if we are to reduce the numbers of that people fly.
• Justin Francis is MD of the travel agent responsibletravel.com
