Carbon Offset for upcoming Best of Eastern Europe trip

Interesting.
I've long viewed the notion of purchasing carbon offsets as a feel-good scam perpetrated on a well-meaning public. I don't participate in them. I choose to try to reduce my carbon footprint directly through my actions and let the remainder stand as is.

I think what you did was commendable - you essentially paid for a negative externality caused by a behavioral choice. It would be interesting if these externalities were actually priced into the ticket so that voluntary acts like these would not be necessary. I'm familiar with Terrapass; I think I posted something on it several years ago on this forum because someone else brought up the topic of carbon offsets. I try to think of this whole issue more broadly - in terms of all sorts of lifestyle choices, of which travel and flying is a small part of the whole.

I'm sure you know this already, but here are other ways to reduce one's carbon footprint, and an EPA calculator for doing estimates:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rosie-osmun/how-to-reduce-your-family_b_8940860.html
https://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/

If i were to rely on my lifestyle to make a difference I would have to give up travel, because travel is a "want" not a "need".

By one study, The average American footprint is 20 tons per year. The same study says no matter what you do, it’s nearly impossible for an American to get below 8.5 tons per year. By your calculations a trip to Europe is 10 tons. Given those numbers, if accurate, there isn’t room for “broad” thinking or lifestyle choices to do much good if you are going to take a trip to Europe. By the way, the average world footprint, by that same study, is 4 tons a year; but I assume that includes impoverished parts of the world that don't have electricity.

But I am proactive. I use the Arbor Day Foundation. I love trees and want to see a greener and a cleaner world. Trees have a lot of other advantages too. The estimates of how large a carbon footprint can be varies widely by source. Conservatively, I think, 10 tons of carbon takes about 3 trees; but planting 6 would be better :)

https://www.arborday.org/takeaction/carbon/offsetting-with-trees.cfm

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4157

Kaeleku, excellent points. So you understand why there was no good reason to stay in the Paris Accords..... Finally, we agree on something. Well that't not true, oddly enough we agree about 25% of the time .... naaa, maybe 33% and thats pretty good in this messed up world.

I think this is the study James referenced...it's quite an eye-opener:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428120658.htm

Also, interesting to look at the per capital metric tons by various countries. Qatar is off the charts, but some others are surprising as well (Trinidad and Tobago???).
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?year_high_desc=false

I still don't think it's a bad idea to pay for the externalities you create, but I would rather that it be priced right into the product (that does away with the freeloader effect). Germany (and other countries) do this very well with consumer products; hence there is very little excess packaging waste.

Thanks for the replies folks, I agree with your ideas and share some of the skepticism as well.

No one wants to be a part of a scam, but I believe that it is better to be a part of an imperfect market rather than waiting for the perfect market based solution. I favor that we tax carbon directly, but unfortunately our society is not there yet, and we have been instead turning a blind eye to increased GHGs in the atmosphere.

Our family may live on a small carbon footprint (relatively speaking) during the regular work week but we do like to travel. We live in a small house, take transit, live with one car. But, our air travel really adds up, and is the number one carbon producer for most of us. Actually, this awareness has also helped us choose different vacation locations. Some years we stay close-by in the US to visit a new state or province. And we try to use efficient transport - even Amtrak, bus or carpooling instead of flying. It makes the years that we fly to Europe more special. Our favourite trips have been cycle vacations in Europe with Rad Reisen, low carbon, and lots of burned calories means that we can eat and drink well. :) I only wish we had more options on this side of the Atlantic (actually we do have great trails here, like the Great Allegany Passage (GAP).

I think the tree planting might just be the best way to go. We live in an urban area with a beautiful tree canopy, it is literally a 20 degree swing in the shade from the sun. I will check out the arbour charity.

Thanks for weighing in, and happy travels.

-J.

Agnes, how do you define a freeloader? Someone who racks up a huge carbon footprint through lifestyle and does nothing to adequately compensate? I can afford to do what i do. Others, maybe not. I don't judge. I'm pretty much okay with it just the way it is. I rather my character be judged by what i don't do, not what i am forced to do; and society needs to be inspired and not coerced.

So Agnes, dont you feel inspired to plant a few trees.....

James,
I have planted trees in the DC area as part of a carbon project. I agree it's a good idea, hard to argue that planting trees could be a bad thing unless they're some kind of invasive species. I don't think I need to define freeloader, it's a well-understood term. I didn't apply it to any person - I said "freeloader effect" in the same way an economist would say (except they'd probably say free-rider)...it's nothing personal, it's just a way of saying that some people don't pay for the externalities they create and so the cost is passed onto others. If this is controversial, well...what can I say? It does seem very much correlated with wealth (greater consumption) and certain land use patterns that encourage a lot of driving.

I have planted trees in the DC area as part of a carbon project. I
agree it's a good idea

You don't have to explain. I don't judge and I don't try and keep score. I know a couple that drives a massive SUV, travels to Europe at least once a year, drinks bottled water and tosses the plastic in the trash. They also took in a number of special needs orphan children. Who am I to weigh one against the other.

Kaeleku, we can discuss the Paris Accords off the forum so i don't get in trouble for being political.

jprice13;

No one wants to be a part of a scam, but I believe that it is better
to be a part of an imperfect market rather than waiting for the
perfect market based solution.

You recognized a problem. You rated it accordingly in your life and you worked towards a contributing to a solution. You didnt preach and you didnt ridicule; you took personal responsibility. If everyone did that the world would be a much better place. Well done.

If you want to donate to a charity that plants trees, great. How that relates to me taking a trip I'm not sure. I think that's why "carbon footprint offsets" don't pass the smell test. I'm skeptical when businesses are able to buy and sell them and I think on a personal level it is a guilt assuagement tax.

"How that relates to me taking a trip I'm not sure."

I share your skepticism.

All of our air travel has a huge the cumulative impact in increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and the idea of offsetting this impact by a secondary activity that reduces carbon emissions with the goal of reducing or zeroing out the net impact.

Most human activity creates carbon dioxide: breathing, heating our homes, and driving our vehicles. But, air travel takes the cake and has a disproportionately large impact on the climate system. If we want to mitigate this impact, then the complication is how to do it.

The approach to offset carbon production by funding an activity that will reduce carbon pollution, does seem like a leap of faith. But the intended effect to mitigate the impacts of our air travel is well-meaning. I think this offset idea is a marriage between accounting practice and the Judo-Christian practice of indulgences.

Overall, Air travel is luxury that has changed or lives, mostly for the better. But as useful as air travel has been, planes are big polluters. Modern designers use a rough goal of about .07-.1 lbs of fuel per passenger per nautical mile. That is a lot of combusted kerosene up in the stratosphere. In the year 2000 the US airlines consumed 19,026,200,000 gallons of jet fuel. In 2016, 17,044,700,000 gallons of jet fuel. You can find all this data in the DOT websites (https://www.transtats.bts.gov/fuel.asp)

More background information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/air-travel-and-climate-change/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/sunday-review/the-biggest-carbon-sin-air-travel.html

Interesting discussion.

As for the "why bother" question the answer is because we must. It will be the cumulative effect of many small actions and adjustments in behavior that will make a difference. Sort of the reverse of "which raindrop caused the flood" thinking.

In addition to the mitigation efforts listed above, I will mention that when we fly domestically we fly Alaska Airlines when possible, to support their biofuels program:

https://blog.alaskaair.com/alaska-airlines/news/nara-flight/

Not that we can choose which flights might use the fuel, but we let the airline know we like them because of this program. Of course the fuel still produces carbon dioxide, but it is not a fossil fuel and uses forest scraps which need cleaning up so the land can be replanted in more trees.

This is a great and new topic. Environmental conservation is a complex issue and can take many forms. In addition to flying, a lot of fuel is used by cruise ship industry for a luxury experience. The only green travel is probably backpacking and bicycling or sailing/boating without fuel. "Bush" type living. USA, India, and China are the major carbon producers - no surprise. Others suffer because of us. We really can't point the finger at China when so many of our corporations send manufacturing there and we buy imported goods. So, USA is in many ways responsible for Chinese pollution and lifestyle change. RS luggage is made in Asia, not USA or similar country. I believe the overarching issue is simply human overpopulation - an issue absolutely no politician or leader wants to touch for many reasons. Yet, population issues truly need to be addressed. We cannot "green technology" our way out of it.

Carbon Tax. I am skeptical about taxing corporations over carbon. Why? So, the government taxes a company. What does the government then do with that tax money to provide a solution? That tax money just goes into the general fund at the IRS and the government then does what it will with more tax dollars. I see this with so many of our tax dollars like social security, Medicare, Medicaid, medical device taxes. Does all of this money actually go to where it belongs or is this just another tax excuse?

Taxes are effective in dissuading certain kinds of behaviors (e.g., smoking, polluting) and embracing more desirable technologies (e.g. higher efficiency standards in cars, point sources of pollution, light bulbs, etc) while dissuading old technologies that tend to have adverse effects (e.g. incandescent light bulbs). The revenue collected can get fed back to pay for tax credits, programs in support of "green" initiatives, or it can go elsewhere - but the point is that regulatory taxes shape the behavior of individuals and corporations.

I see this with so many of our tax dollars like social security,
Medicare, Medicaid, medical device taxes.

Sun-Baked in FL,
Can you clarify exactly what you're "seeing"? All of these taxed revenue streams have dedicated trust funds they go into; they are not siphoned off somewhere else. The 2.3% medical device tax was imposed to fund Obamacare and has been suspended through the end of 2017 (it will probably be on the chopping block after that once a new Federal budget is passed).

https://www.thebalance.com/where-do-social-security-and-medicare-taxes-go-1289990

The belief that the government, any government, will be competent enough, un-corrupt enough, to achieve any goal as complex as improving the environment is nothing but wishful thinking. No government has done anything competently other than win wars and commit genocide. If you want change you have to give up on the concept that the government will some how make it happen and take control of the situation at a grass roots level. If that is not successful, then it probably shouldn't happen anyway. Of the people I know, those that think like me are more likely to go plant trees, of those that think the government is going to save the world are more likely to sit and wait and blame and judge. Again, just among the people I know.....

James,
Ever heard of Teddy Roosevelt? He did plenty to help the environment, although he was an enthusiastic hunter and shot anything that moved. Nixon founded the EPA, and the National Environmental Policy Act occurred on his watch. San Francisco has something approaching an 80% recycling rate due to regulations, and Southern CA now requires reusable bags at all grocery stores (given how large CA's population is, this is not peanuts in terms of an environmental benefit). Cars and appliances have become vastly more efficient, again due to regulatory pressure. More recently, many States and cities (including where I live) have developed their own climate change long-range plans to drive policy improvements. Portland, DC, and other cities have large concentrations of bike commuters; other cities have decent transit ridership because government invested in the infrastructure and taxed people to make it happen (the means less cars on the road). There have been hundreds of miles of abandoned railroad tracks that have been converted to bike lanes, although grass roots advocacy played a big role in that. I could go on and on...heck even Dallas has a very decent light rail system linking it to Fort Worth (too bad ridership is so low, but the densities around the stations are too low to sustain great ridership), and the extension of San Antonio's river walk trail is nothing short of commendable. But many European countries are eons ahead in this regard...

Agnes,

I could go on and on...heck even Dallas has a very decent light rail
system linking it to Fort Worth (too bad ridership is so low, but the
densities around the stations are too low to sustain great ridership),
and the extension of San Antonio's river walk trail is nothing short
of commendable. But many European countries are eons ahead in this
regard...

You sound like you think spending money on empty trains and nature walks past real estate owned by political fat cats is money better spent than feeding the poor or educating immigrants? You see, you are wrong and I am right ... or I am wrong and you are right. Neither of us has the ultimate wisdom to know which is right. Do you think the government will? One of the reasons the light rail system in DFW isn't better utilized is it connects political interests of the various players involved in the approval process (government and special interest groups). If it had been privately funded it might have been worth the cost, because the goal would have been to connect points that would fill the cars to make a profit, not make political fat cats fatter or get someone reelected.

There is only so much money to go around and I don't want the government wasting it. And, its one thing I know a tiny bit about because I provide the same service to government agencies and private concerns and the private concerns are able to accomplish significantly more for the same dollar than the government agency is.

Government is little more than a necessary evil and certainly not a solution to anything.

Okay, this has gotten way too political for the rules of the forum. The OP felt a need to make a personal contribution and attempted to share that. The rest of this is way off topic and outside the rules. Webmaster, my apologies.....

James,
No public transit system anywhere makes a profit, not even a system like MTA in NYC which has the highest density in all of US. (Hong Kong is the one outlier I know of, but it has a very unique funding arrangement and characteristics). The only difference with most systems is the amount of subsidy required. Thanks to DART, I didn't use a rental car at all on a trip to Dallas and Fort Worth (didn't need one in Austin or San Antonio either), but I won't argue that the system is not underutilized. The route between Dallas and Fort Worth follows old rail lines, so it's not a surprise that the stations are in the middle of nowhere and have no density around them (old rail lines are not really seen as desirable to develop around). For the system to perform well, higher densities are required and users have to gain either a cost or time savings (or preferably both) versus driving during peak hours. There's a strong aversion to not using one's car in Texas..gas is too cheap and people are used to sitting in major traffic, so it takes a behavioral shift for them to switch to transit. But DART's schedule does not seem to be an impediment - trains run during weekday commuting hours without breaks and well into the evening.

By the way, highway maintenance is not fully funded by users because the gas tax is wholly insufficient (it hasn't been raised even to counter inflation)...so that's a subsidy as well.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/driving-true-costs/412237/

Ahhhhh, but many privately owned toll roads do make a profit. But the argument is about the concept of each of us taking personal responsibility for our actions, convictions and society being more or less effective than government "central planning;" and the historic context of that term is intentional as I would expect the same final outcome.

But, the good news is you and I probably agree on the end goal and just differ on how to reach it.