Catégories
Issues Sustainable tourism

Who is Carbon Neutral in Tourism in Québec?

Visitors to and from Québec contribute to Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHG), regardless of the mode of transport, distance traveled, or the activity undertaken during a stay. To date, no study assessed neither travelers’ nor the tourism sector’s contributions to GHG emissions, or attitudes or actions towards mitigation in Québec. This creates a knowledge gap about net reductions, and about compensations for unavoidable emissions. In this context, the aim of this article is to provide a brief overview of carbon neutrality in Québec’s tourism sector.

Offset Providers

The choice of offset providers internationally continues to augment, while the Carbon Catalogue presently lists 12 providers across Canada with an offset price range of 12.50 $ to 39.90 $ per ton CO2e.(1) For those wishing to purchase offsets from organizations based in Québec, the four principal providers include Planetair,(2) Carbone Boréale,(3) Zero GHG Inc.(4) and ZÉRØCO2.(5)

(1) Planetair is a not-for-profit organization managed by the Unisféra International Centre, also a non-profit organization. (2) Planetair is the exclusive distributor of Myclimate, one of the most respected offset supplier worldwide, since all their projects conform to the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)* and Gold Standard.** These projects finance only renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in various developing countries. Planetair plans to offer Canadian projects in the future depending on sales volumes.

(2) Carbone Boréale (CB) is both a program, and a laboratory of researchers at the University of Québec in Chicoutimi. CB offsets finance tree plantations in a deforested area of Québec and contributes to supporting research. The plantations are verified and managed according to ISO 14064-3 norms, and are registered by the Canadian EcoProjectsTM GHG.(3)

(3) ZeroGHG Inc. is a private consultancy firm offering offsets in a variety of renewable and energy efficiency projects in addition to their consulting services to develop GHG reduction strategies, quantifying emissions and performing audits. ZeroGHG projects are located in various countries, and at least 80% must meet CDM* and Gold Standard**.(4)

(4) ZÉRØCO2 is a private enterprise selling offsets that finance reforestation projects in various communities. Since 2006, ZERØCO2 has reforested more than 20 hectares of land, creating green spaces equivalent to just over 40 football fields in the heart of communities. (5)

Indirect Offset Sellers

Some tourism businesses have partnered up with various offset-selling organizations. For example, since 2007, Air Canada (AC) encourages its customers to purchase offsets via non-profit organization ZeroFootprint that invests in forest restoration project in British Columbia. To date, AC customers bought $187,612 of offsets, equivalent of 11725 tones of GO2.(6) In contrast, Air Transat does not sell offsets for reasons relating to the efficiency of such projects in their ability to solve climate change related problems amongst other reasons.(7)

For those traveling by rail, VIA Rail also does not directly offer offsets to its customers, however it also encourages its customers to calculate their GHG emissions with Tree Canada, an Ottawa-based offset company. Since 1990, VIA Rail has reduced its GHG by 15% approximately, although it is responsible for only 0,03% of total GHG emissions compared to 13% generated by motorists in Canada.(8) For travelers that hire vehicles, numerous car rental companies also offer carbon offsets on-line such integrated into their reservation forms such as Alamo, Enterprise and National Car Rentals amongst others.(9)

Tourism Operations Buying Offsets

Some Québec and other travelers to Québec probably purchase offsets, however none of the above named organizations had data available at the time of writing this article about their clients. Some tourism operations also buy offsets in Québec, but no study assessed their transaction value to date.

Some accommodation establishments also have a carbon neutral policy. For example, the Chicoutimi Hotel has been offsetting its heating and electricity use and has been encouraging its clients to offset their stay with CB.(2) Since 2006, the hotel l’Auberge des Seigneurs in St-Hyacynthe has been offering Eco-Friendly Packages to its clients and in 2008, it has also engaged to calculate guest’s travel related GHG contributions amongst other environmentally friendly services.(10) This establishment also compensates emissions of meetings and events held in the hotel by planting trees. Similarly, in an effort to be carbon neutral, Novotel Montreal plants a tree for every online booking. (11)

Montreal based tour company, Karavanniers du monde has also taken climate change mitigation serirosly and since January 2009, its price structure includes carbon compensation costs with Planetair. (2, 12) The company’s client’s base is approximately 97% Québécois and based on discussions with the operation’ owner, there have been no complaints at all concerning the price increase resulting from mandatory carbon compensations. On the contrary, clients are pleased to see such an effort by the company. Some other travel companies such as Omnitour, Voyages Tour Étudiants also offers offsets to its customers. (2) Similarly, since 2006, the regional-based operation WeLa Aventure organizes eco-friendly hiking and cycling trips in the Saguenay,(13) and it compensated for its clients travel related CO2 emissions to and from the region via supporting tree plantations by ZIP Saugenay (14) and the cooperative COOP4Temps.(15)

Increasingly festivals and events across Québec are also eco-friendly, and some compensated for GHG emissions.(16) For example, since 2008, Montreal’s International Jazz Festival is carbon neutral.(17) Both Québec and Montreal Convention Centers offer eco-friendly events with their partner organizations (18, 19) and both centers offer offsetting as an option for such events. For example, In 2004, the Québec Convention Centre committed to reducing its energy consumption by 33% per m2 and its total GHG emissions by 50%.(20) Since 2007, it hosted 32 eco-friendly events of which 7 involved carbon compensations.

At Montreal’s Jean-Drapeau Park (JDP), sustainable development policy integrates GHG mitigation and compensation strategies for the organization and activities (about 100 events per year) on the park’s territory. (21) JDP created a fund (Fonds Oxygène) to implement this policy, and partners and suppliers will be asked to contribute to this fund, which will finance specific environmental improvement projects (22). Additionally, drivers to JDP will be required to pay $1 extra to leave their vehicles in the parking to help offset GHG emissions with CB.

Conclusion

Although it is well known that carbon compensation projects do not represent an ultimate solution to mitigating GHG emissions, the purchase of offsets in credible projects can raise awareness, and provide funds towards worthwhile initiatives.(23) Although buying offsets in tree plantations remains controversial, in certain cases they can deliver net environmental improvements, while buying offsets in renewable energy projects and technology developments permit a shift away from using fossil fuels.

This brief synopsis of the situation in Québec shows that carbon neutrality in the tourism sector is a patchwork. The analysis also highlights the need for measuring net contributions of greenhouse gases by the travel and tourism sector in order to enable a coordinated approach to assessing how this could be effectively mitigated.

* CDM certifies emission reductions that are sold on the voluntary market and it ensures that developed countries’ carbon credits comply with Kyoto Protocol regulations.
** The Gold Standard is an independent organization that certifies carbon credits sold on the voluntary market. Such carbon credits need to meet sustainable development objectives. This means that a carbon-offset project must lead directly to a net GHG emission reduction. Gold Standard does not certify forestry projects.

Sources:

(1) Carbon Catalogue Project: Find a Carbon Offset: Canada. Last Consulted Apr 25, 2009.  http://www.carboncatalog.org/projects/canada/
(2) Planetair. Offset Projects. Last Consulted Apr 2, 2009. http://planetair.ca/
(3) Éco-conseil. Plantations Compensatoires de GES. Last Consulted Apr 15, 2009.  http://dsf.uqac.ca/eco-conseil/ges/frame_ges.html
(4) ZeroGHG Inc. Last Consulted Apr 25, 2009.   http://www.zeroghg.com/
(5) ZeroCo2. Last Consulted Apr 15, 2009.  http://zeroco2.com/welcome.php
(6) Air Canada. Carbon Offset Program. Last Consulted Apr 25, 2009.  http://www.aircanada.com/en/travelinfo/traveller/zfp.html?src=hp_ql
(7) Transat AT (2009) Greenhouse gas reduction and fuel management. Last Consulted Apr 2, 2009. http://www.transat.com/en/social.responsibility/gas.reduction.fuel.management.aspx
(8) Via Rail Canada. Environment: Helping To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Last Consulted Apr 17, 2009. http://www.viarail.ca/corporate/en_environment/reducing_greenhouse_gas.html
(9) Terra Pass Inc. (2009) Rental Car Carbon Offset Program Proves Most Popular With Consumers. Published on-line in Earth News, April 6, 2009. Last Consulted Apr 25, 2009.  http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/rental-car-carbon-offset-program-proves-most-popular-with-consumers775734.shtml#%23
(10) l’Auberge des Seigneurs à St Hyacynthe. Last Consulted Apr. 24, 2009.
http://www.hoteldesseigneurs.com/notre_environment.asp
(11) Novotel Montréal Centre. http://www.novotelmontreal.com/home/novotel_news.shtm Last Consulted June. 2, 2009.
(12) Karavaniers du Monde. Destinatons: Fiche technique. Last Consulted Apr. 3, 2009.  http://www.karavaniers.com/voyages/calendrier/?voyage_depart=134
(13) Wela Aventure. Horaire et parcours. Randonnées des cols du Fjord 2009. Fiche d’information. Last Consulted Apr 25, 2009. http://www.welaaventure.com/
(14) ZIP Saguenay. Réalisations. Last Consulted Apr 27, 2009.  http://www.zipsaguenay.ca/zipsaguenay/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=1&id=5&Itemid=12
(15) Coop Quatre Temps. Mission. http://www.coop4temps.com/ Last Consulted Apr 27, 2009.
(16) Réseau québécois des femmes en environnement. Sustainable Event. Last Consulted Apr 2, 2009. http://www.evenementecoresponsable.com/
(17) Festival International de Jazz de Montréal. Une édition 2008 carboneutre. Last Consulted Apr 27, 2009.  http://www.montrealjazzfest.com/Fijm2008/planetAir_fr.aspx
(18) Centre des congrès de Québec. Développement Durable. Évennements éco-responsables. Last Consulted Apr 27, 2009.  http://www.convention.qc.ca/tiki-index.php?page=devdurable_eve_resp
(19) Palais des congrès de Montréal. Environnement. Last Consulted Apr 2, 2009. http://www.congresmtl.com/fr/visiteurs/environnement.aspx
(20) Centre des congrès de Québec. Lauréate du prix Stellaris: Efficacité Énergétique. Press Release 2 April, 2004. Last Consulted Apr 2, 2009. http://www.convention.qc.ca/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=41
(21) Société du parc Jean-Deapeau (2009) Politique de développement durable. Montréal. 8 p.
(22) Société du parc Jean-Deapeau (2009) Fonds Oxygène.Le fonds de compensation de gaz à effet de serre Montréal. 4 p.
(23) Broderick, J. (2008). Voluntary Carbon Offsets. A Contribution to Sustainable Tourism? In Sustainable Tourism Futures. Perspectives on Systems, Restructuring and Innovations. In Gössling, S., Hall, C.M. and Weaver, D.B. (Eds.). Routledge, New-York. 169-197.

Catégories
Sustainable tourism

Compensating your emissions by planting trees? Know the pros and cons and the dos and don’ts.

The popularity of carbon-neutral travel continues to grow, although no reliable figures have been published on the size of this market. Traveling or doing business carbon neutral is a voluntary, market-based option to compensate for the greenhouse gas emissions caused. Using a web-based calculator, one simply calculates the emissions caused and then buys some credits from a company that promises to plant enough trees to absorb an equivalent amount of harmful emissions during their lifetime. For example, Air Canada currently offers this service through the non-profit organization Zerofootprint. Since the launch of the program in May 2007, Air Canada clients have offset 2224 metric tonnes of C02, resulting in 445 trees being planted in a forest restoration project in Maple Ridge, British Columbia. This is equivalent to taking 727 cars off the road for one year.

Purchasing carbon credits in a tree plantation is popular because it is simple to understand and presents a good clean green image. From a business perspective, the establishment of forest carbon sinks is estimated to be 90% cheaper than developing and implementing energy efficiency technology. Although planting trees is a move in the right direction, one needs to be aware of the issues surrounding carbon sequestration projects.

Issues

It is recognized that trees play a part in reducing atmospheric greenhouse gases. If managed appropriately, tree plantations can help address other environmental problems and generate income. They can also cause problems.

  1. Forestry projects only store carbon while the trees are alive. If the trees are harvested, die or get destroyed naturally or by other mechanisms (such as fire), then carbon gets released back into the atmosphere. When this happens, a client’s emissions are not actually offset or compensated for.
  2. Once a forest is established, it is complicated to measure how much carbon is absorbed during the life of the project and this is a current subject of debate amongst scientists.
  3. The Earth does not have the physical land available to absorb the excess emissions already in the atmosphere. Not all land currently available is suitable for carbon sink plantations due to biogeographical and other reasons.
  4. The effectiveness of a plantation depends on the type of tree species planted. Agroforests with multiple tree species have higher carbon storage capacity, greater biodiversity and are likely to provide more benefits to local livelihoods. Monoculture plantations, of non-native eucalyptus or pine trees, for example, provide no biodiversity value, little habitat provision, disturb hydrological cycles, intensify the use of chemicals and pesticides and can increase soil acidity. Unfortunately, many people buy carbon credits in such monoculture projects.
  5. The establishment of carbon sink plantations by developed countries in developing countries has been problematic because they threaten local communities, who risk displacement and loss of access to traditional lands. These communities are often not compensated adequately for their losses.
  6. Since sequestration projects lack regulation, companies can take advantage of the situation to over-exaggerate or inflate their projects’ estimated benefits.
  7. Planting trees does not directly result in a move away from using fossil fuels. It compensates for emissions, rather than cutting pollution at its source. This is why some organizations do not offer carbon credits from sequestration projects. Rather, they focus on renewable energy and energy efficiency projects, which support a transition away from fossil fuel dependence.

What to do

  1. Try to reduce your emissions, while traveling and in daily life.
  2. If cutting down is not an option, try to substitute with the best available alternatives.
  3. If neither of the above is an option, then continue traveling or doing your business carbon neutral, but be selective in supporting tree projects.

If you decide to buy carbon credits in tree plantations look for:

  • Permanent plantations (<100 years) or projects under protection
  • Local native species and multiple species
  • Projects with long lived and hardwood species (or the most appropriate native species)
  • Projects with the resources to manage the plantations to ensure survivorship and longevity
  • Additionality (i.e. projects that would not have happened without your purchase)
  • Insurance on the project so the company can replace trees if lost or damaged (fire, drought, etc,)
  • Well-organized, transparent projects with low administration costs
  • Projects that have additional environmental benefits (such as habitat provision)
  • Projects that provide genuine sustainable development benefits to local communities
  • Projects that retire the carbon credit you bought – so it cannot be sold again
  • Projects that incorporate local people’s needs and knowledge
  • Projects certified and verified by an independent third party

The climate change solution requires social change – and a move towards greener energy in all sectors. The more we rely on carbon sinks to offset greenhouse gases in the short term, the more we delay the transition to alternative energy, and the harder it will be to reach emission targets in the long term. Carbon sinks should supplement an alternative energy revolution, not replace or delay it.

Finally, travelers can take matters into their own hands, rather than relying on carbon credit companies. For example, when you take a holiday, calculate the amount of emissions you need to offset using one of the web-based calculators. Then, make up for this yourself before and after the trip, by not driving your car or by purchasing energy-efficient products for the household. Individuals and companies now have the opportunity to be proactive in addressing their travel-related carbon footprint.

Notes
1. In this paper, greenhouse gases refer to those recognized by the Kyoto Protocol: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydro fluorocarbons, per fluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.

Sources:
– Air Canada Carbon Offset Program [http://www.aircanada.com/en/travelinfo/traveller/zfp.html?src=hp_ql]. Last accessed November 20, 2007.
– Priskin, J. and Stenhouse, R.N. (2007) Des végétaux pour voyager : les avantages et les inconvénients des contreparties de la fixation du carbone par la séquestration dans les forêts. Téoros. 26(3) p. 68-71.
– Zerofootprint [http://www.zerofootprint.net] Last accessed November 20, 2007.

Catégories
Sustainable tourism Transportation

Understanding the dynamics of carbon credit purchasing from offsets when traveling carbon neutral

Voluntary carbon compensation, or carbon offsetting is applicable to anything that contributes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions1. It means paying an extra for buying carbon credits in offset projects, so that the emissions caused are balanced out. To be carbon neutral, the quantity of carbon credit purchased need to equal the quantity of emissions caused.

Being carbon neutral in tourism is mostly associated with the transport sector, but increasingly, hotels, events, and even car rental companies offer the possibility to neutralize their carbon footprint. Carbon neutrality is not yet mainstream, however, it is heading in that direction. For example, in 2005 0,5 % of British Airways passengers traveled carbon neutral and the figure is estimated to be 1 % presently. Some reports suggest the voluntary carbon market grew up to 1000 % between 2002 and 2005. However, as it is not regulated, a number of issues have emerged that require awareness.

Carbon compensation in context

The voluntary purchase of carbon credits is outside the Kyoto mechanism, and it represents an important part of climate change mitigation for individuals, as well as businesses. It is also an example of a voluntary application of the
polluter-payer principle. The Kyoto Protocol is a mandatory framework to signatory countriesand includes three principal mechanisms:

  1. Emission trading in pollution quotas
  2. Clean Development Mechanism projects (CDM)
  3. Joint implementation projects (JI)

Emission trading is an allowance-based measure that sets a limit on the amount of pollution permitted by Kyoto countries. Those emitting more than permitted must buy credits from those that pollute below limits on the carbon market, for example via the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. At present this affects mainly power companies and the manufacturing sector, and excludes tourism and the airline industry, although the latter is under significant pressure for inclusion.

Project-based measures include specific projects that will result in GHG reduction. Offset projects create new carbon credits and include renewable energy production, energy efficiency technology development and carbon sequestration. Kyoto-based projects are administered by signatory national governments and two types exist. « Clean Development Mechanism » (CDM) projects permit industrialized nations to invest in projects located in developing countries, to contribute to their sustainable development, while « Joint Implementation » (JI) includes projects between industrialized countries. When travelers purchase carbon credits to compensate or neutralize their activities, in general, they are not contributing to such projects. Exceptions include organizations such as « Atmosfair ».

Voluntary carbon credit purchasing does not equate to emission reduction in absolute terms, because the pollution still occurs. Thus, an effort is still required by everyone to reduce emission contributions. Researchers suggests that to achieve a 10 % reduction of GHG emissions from aviation, the purchase of voluntary carbon credits would need to increase by a factor of 400.

10 things to be aware of before choosing to be carbon neutral

1. Type of organizations selling carbon credits
Estimates indicate that more than 40 organizations sell carbon offsets and their growth and expansion has lead to certain transparency issues. Some are profit and others are non-profit organizations and they are all located in industrialized countries. They all verse a % of the money to offset projects that can be anything between 25 % and 90 %. Hence, some keep significant proportions for operating costs.

2. Variations in emission calculations
Recent research suggests significant differences (as much as a factor of 3) exist between the carbon calculators of individual offset organizations, thus, there is a need for standardization to improve credibility. Calculators need to be informative and accurate. The more parameters used, generally the more accurate the carbon calculation should be. In the case of emissions from flying, a good calculator will include the exact distance flown based on actual routes, take account of radiative forcing at different altitudes depending on the length of flight, occupancy rate, and the type of plane.

3. Cost of carbon credits
The price per ton of carbon offset is variable between organizations because the voluntary carbon market is outside the Kyoto mechanism and hence, it is not regulated, nor standardized. Buying carbon credits currently varies from $ CAD 3 to $ 43 per ton.

4. Type and quality of projects supported
Of the three main types of offset projects the most favorable include emission-free energy generation (wind, biomass, solar, geothermal) and new technology developments (any new products that use less energy such as hybrid vehicles).

When buying into these projects, the main issue relates to additionality; a debated concept in carbon accounting. What is important to know before purchasing carbon credits is whether the projects supported will genuinely result in GHG emission reductions. The question to ask is, if I did not finance this project, would it have occurred? If yes, then it is not a real reduction project, because its financing was not from carbon credit purchasing.

5. Beware of tree plantations
Intending carbon neutral travelers need to be well-informed about carbon credits that finance tree plantations. Evidence suggests problems and controversies surround such projects, and consequently some organizations do not even offer any carbon credits in them. The singular action of tree planting will not solve climate change problems for many reasons, notably because it does not lead to a reduction of fossil fuel reliance (Refer to next edition of the Globe-Veilleur on this subject).

6. Buying high-quality carbon credits
Voluntary offset companies can either operate in or outside (mostly) of the Kyoto framework. The advantage of buying credits from organizations associated with Kyoto, is that emission reductions are verified under a regulatory framework administered by national governments.

7. Project standard credit labels
Presently there are no standards to judge the performance of voluntary offset projects, although several are currently being developed. The Gold Standard Foundation offers a quality label to both Kyoto-based and to several voluntary based projects. Thus, it is currently the most reliable label. Such projects are rigorous, and tested for environmental quality by registered third parties. Gold standard projects exclusively focus on renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.

8. Buying future carbon credits: forward purchasing
Travelers also need to be aware that some organizations sell carbon credits in either already existing projects or in future projects. The purchase of future credits creates some risk, because the proposed project may not be realized and or under-perform. However, investing in projects upfront is important in generating funds to start new offset projects.

9. Location of offset projects
Some of the offset projects are located in developing countries and some have created a variety of environmental and social problems, such as people getting displaced from their land and losing access to resources on which their livelihood depends. Thus, it is important to check that the projects are verified and meet standards, so they deliver long-term benefits to the areas where they are developed.

10. Most credible offset organization?

Two recent studies evaluated offset organizations and the most recommended include « Atmosfair », « Climate friendly », « Myclimate » and « NativeEnergy ».

What next?

The above issues need to be addressed to ensure that additional expenditures by travelers and the tourism industry towards negating fossil fuel use are created with the desirable outcome for which they are intended.

Climate change is a global problem that needs global solutions. Thus, if the tourism industry is to keep its confidence in carbon compensation schemes, it needs a standardized method for carbon calculating and the projects it invests in need to be certified and accredited by a relevant global organization.

In the meantime, it is important to reduce GHG emissions and move away from the use of fossil fuels that contribute to climate change. If going carbon neutral, we need to ensure that carbon credits are purchased in quality projects, preferably clean energy and energy efficiency.

1: Carbon refers to carbon dioxide as a gas. Carbon offset projects sometimes involve compensating for other greenhouse gases. The Kyoto Protocol recognizes six gases as contributors to global warming, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydro fluorocarbons, per fluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.

Sources:
– Anonymous. The Economist (2007) Carbon offsets: ripping off would-be greens? The Economist, 382(8520) p.61.
– Anonymous. The New Internationalist (2006) Special report on carbon related issues. The New Internationalist. July. Issue no.391.
Atmosfair website. Last visited 4 July, 2007.
Climate Friendly website. Last visited 4 July, 2007.
– Heughebaert, A. (2006) Étude comparative des programmes de compensation volontaire des emissions de C02 par les passagers d’avions. Institut de Gestion de l’environnement et de l’aménagement du territoire. Université Libre de Bruxelles. 98 pp.
– International Civil Aviation Organization 2007. Presentations and statements from the ICAO Colloquium on Aviation Emissions with Exhibition, held in Montreal Canada 14 – 16 May 2007.
Gold Standard Foundation website. Last visited June 11, 2007
– Gössling, S., Broderick, J., Upham, P., Ceron, J., Dubois, G., Peeters, P. and Strasdas, W. (2007) Voluntary Carbon Offsetting Schemes for Aviation: Efficiency, Credibility and Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(3) p.223-248.
– Kollmuss, A. and Bowell, B. (2007) Voluntary Offsets for Air-Travel Carbon Emissions. Evaluations and Recommendations of Voluntary Offset Companies. Tufts Climate Initiative. 53 pp.
-Luzadder, K. (2007) Agent Issues: Carbon-offset programs: a reality check. www.travelweekly.com. June 14, 2007. 5 pp.
Myclimate website. Last visited 4 July, 2007
NativeEnergy website. Last visited 4 July, 2007
-Tufts Climate Initiative (2006) A Consumer Handout. Flying Green. How to protect the Climate and Travel Responsibility. Tufts Climate Initiative. 5 pp.
United Nations Framework on Climate Change website. Last visited 28 June 2007.

Catégories
Issues Sustainable tourism

Is flying really that sinful?

The tourism industry already has a plethora of environmental issues to address, but more than ever, flying is considered as the biggest sin. Travelers are increasingly preoccupied with the environmental and social ethics of their consumption patterns and some reports claim that more people choose not to travel, in an attempt to curb their contribution to anthropogenic climate change. For example, a recent bulletin of the Canadian Tourism Commission reported that 29 % of UK travelers confirm having already cut back on air travel because of environmental concerns. Thus, the travel and tourism sector need to demonstrate it is taking its share of responsibility towards sustainable development. If not, more consumers may continue to choose to avoid travel, which will adversely impact on the entire tourism sector.

Atmospheric pollution from aircrafts contributes 2 % to 3 % to global greenhouse gas emissions annually, which is less than other sectors, such as road transport, forestry, or agriculture. According to current scenarios of civil aviation carbon dioxide emissions, in 2050 they will increase by factors of 3.3 to 5. Thus, if aviation emissions continue to grow while other sectors reduce their emissions, the relative importance of tourism’s contributions to greenhouse gas emissions will grow. Consequently, tourism involving flying will become a more significant contributor to environmental problems.

The problem

At least the airline industry is addressing the problem and it was the first sector to commission a special report to determine its baseline performance from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1999. A recent International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)1 conference, and first ever on aviation emissions, outlined the nature and magnitude of the current problem. Discussions also extended to mitigation measures, where the tourism sector has an important role to play. However, the near absence of tourism industry representatives at the conference is a clear sign that many opportunities remain for a cooperative approach to finding solutions to current problems.

Scientists today confirm that new aircrafts are more efficient than the average car on the road. Engine fuel consumption and aircraft fuel burn per seat improved 70% since the 1960s. Nonetheless, planes use non-renewable natural resources, and between 1990 and 2004, fuel consumption by the aviation sector increased by 2 to 3% per year. Despite alternative fuel technology developments, kerosene remains the primary fuel for planes in the short to medium term. Alternate fuel developments continue to deliver major advances, however fuel source and production raises other environmental issues. In addition, unlike conventional fuels, alternative fuels such as biofuels are currently not regulated nor standardized.

Aircraft emissions are complex and many scientific uncertainties remain. There is pollution from fossil fuel combustion on the ground and in the air at high altitudes. Besides the well-known carbon dioxide emissions, planes also emit water vapors, nitrous oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfur gases, soot aerosols and metal particles. At high altitudes these gases behave differently and emissions also change the radiation balance of the troposphere. Planes also contribute to condensation trails that cause cirrus cloud formation, which is unique to aviation in the climate change debate.

Today the aviation sector’s target for 2020 is to reduce fuel burn and carbon dioxide emissions by 50%. It is currently estimated that technological improvements alone can bring more than 1% improvements per year. In order to achieve further engine innovations from technology development means environmental trade-off between low gas and noise emissions (especially nitrous oxides) and these also impact on operational costs. Thus powerful research and development advances are needed, coupled with appropriate programs and strong collaboration effort by stakeholders, such as airlines, airports, traffic managers, regulators and governments.

The ICAO conference also included discussions about local air quality and emission standards for aviation. Although standards exist for several gases2, presently there are none for particulate matter and carbon dioxide. The setting of standards is a very complex procedure. Current research is investigating how to enable appropriate monitoring and standard setting of aviation emissions.

At airports aircraft are responsible for about 50 % of the emissions produced on average. Other emissions result from ground transportation and use of support equipment. Airport efficiency is highly variable at different destinations, thus many opportunities exist to improve operations. For example, the time taken to taxi in and out, take-off climb and subsequent descent and landing procedures contributes very differently to emissions. For example, on average (all flights globally) it is estimated that 6.5 kg of carbon is emitted per passenger during take off and landing, compared to 0.02 kg per passenger at cruising level. There appears significant emission and fuel burn savings by optimally assign aircraft amongst available altitudes. Calculations also suggest that current traffic flow is inefficient and rerouting may improve emission performance as well prevent conflicts (with other planes, weather and on ground). Even a 2 km reduction in average distance flown by planes could lead to over 200 million km of travel per year, resulting in over 2 million tones of carbon dioxide savings.

Major issues remain

Although mitigation measures via technology and traffic management promise continued improvement in the future, market-based solutions are also part of the solution. However, questions still remain as to who is really accountable for aircraft emissions? Is it fuel suppliers, aircraft operators, airport and navigation service providers, or the manufacturers? Or is the end user, i.e. travelers? Or – the tourism industry responsible for destination marketing?

Current market-based solutions to greenhouse gas emissions include taxes, carbon trading and voluntary reduction mechanisms, such as carbon compensation schemes. Environmental taxes are already part of tourism at several destinations in various forms and they are not generally popular with everyone. Since the early 1990s several European airports notably in Switzerland, France, Sweden, UK, Germany have implemented local air quality charges to respond to local air pollution problems.

Aviation fuel is currently exempt from taxes. Some transport research3 suggests that the potential impact of a carbon tax on international tourism would be small. Even if a very high global tax of $ 1000 per tone of carbon emitted were applied in the year 2010, it would not change travel behavior and only reduce carbon dioxide emissions from aviation by 0.8 %. Under such a scenario, tourist destinations on short haul flights may see a decline in international tourist numbers. Island destinations would be losers in general. Eastern and Central Europe and countries such as China and India would gain, while Western Europe, the Americas and Africa would lose. Modeling also suggests that a carbon tax on aviation fuel would affect medium distance flights least.

The ICAO conference also offered discussions about voluntary reduction mechanisms. There is a clear increase in carbon neutral travel and the carbon market is growing exponentially. However this raises new issue concerning the credibility and the effectiveness of carbon compensation mechanisms (the next topic to be covered by J.Priskin in a forthcoming Globeveilleur).

Where to next

The ICAO conference suggests the airline sector needs to be a part of post Kyoto (2012), thus it endorses development of an emission trading system for international civil aviation. Air transport is, and has been an enabler of economic growth and it is a catalyst for growth. ICAO believes that global problems need global solutions and we need a co-coordinated approach to problem solving. The airline industry also knows that it will take Promethean solutions to improve the sector’s environmental performance.

As global forecasts suggest a growth of international arrivals by air, averaging up to 5 % till 2015, the tourism industry cannot continue to hide behind its clean image because it is a part of the service sector. Nor can it conveniently stay focused on destinations, and ignore that travel to and from them is up to 90 % of environmental problems, such as contributions to greenhouse gas emissions.

The good news is that some segments of the tourism market are showing signs of willingness to pay, although attitudes are highly diverse (Figure 1). Last May, the Canadian Tourism Commission reported that nearly 70% of Canadians would be willing to pay an extra $ 10 or more for every $ 1000 they spend on air travel, if the funds collected were used to develop sustainable resources of energy (Figure 1)

Figure 1: Amount Canadians are willing to pay to offset carbon emissions when traveling by air

JP_2007-07_vol_avion_conf_grphq1

Source: Canadian Tourism Research Institute, The Conference board of Canada.

Notes:

1. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations created in 1944 by the Chicago Convention. It has 190 contracting States and one of its strategic objectives is to minimize the adverse effect of global civil aviation on the environment. ICAO has a Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), composed of public and private sector reps and NGOs representing the aviation industry.

2. At present emission standards exist for carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, unburned hydrocarbons and smoke.

3.. This research was on international tourism only and also excluded business travel for data reliability purposes concerning international arrivals by air.

Sources:
– Canadian Tourism Commission (2007) Travelers Keen on Going Green. Tourism Intelligence Bulletin Issue 39, May 2007. – Canadian Tourism Research Institute, The Conference board of Canada, Vancouver. 5 pp.
– International Civil Aviation Organization 2007. Presentations and statements from the ICAO Colloquium on Aviation Emissions with Exhibition, held in Montreal Canada 14 – 16 May 2007. [http://www.icao.int/EnvClq/CLQ07/Documentation.htm]
– Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1999) Special Report: Aviation and the global atmosphere. Summary for policy makers. Geneva. 23 pp.
– Tol, R. S. J. (2007) The impact of a carbon tax on international tourism. Transportation Research. Part D 12. p. 129-142.
– United States Environmental Protection Agency (2000) Aircraft Contrails Factsheet. EPA430-F-00-005. Washington DC. 6 pp.
– Weissman, A. (2007). Binge Flying, sinful travel and paranoia. [www. travelweekly.com] 21, 2007. 2 pp.

Catégories
Issues Sustainable tourism

Going Carbon Neutral – The Greening of Travel

In the face of growing concerns about climate change, businesspeople, rock stars, and increasingly ordinary travelers are going ‘carbon neutral’ to counterbalance their contributions to greenhouse gas emissions. This trend is an important step towards improving the environmental performance of travel.

Tourism contributes to human-induced climate change, because it consumes non-renewable natural resources en-route and at the destination. Transportation constitutes approximately 80% of the total environmental impact of an average tourist while the rest is attributed to consumption of various goods and services such as accommodation, hospitality, entertainment, activities and so on. However, since tourism is a non-traditional industry involving many economic sectors, no comprehensive statistics exist on its exact resource consumption pattern.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that globally, the transportation sector contributes about 13% of all carbon dioxide emissions, with passenger aviation alone representing 2 3%. The percentage attributed to other tourism-related land or sea transport is not commonly documented. Both tourism and passenger aviation are forecast to grow 4-5% respectively per annum till 2015. Thus, the growth of the travel industry remains one of the biggest issues in sustainable tourism.

The aviation industry continues to invest substantially to ‘green’ the sector and mitigate its contribution to climate change. The rest of the tourism industry also continues to improve its eco-efficiency, but milestones are yet to be made across the entire sector. For example, aircraft fuel efficiency improved 5% in 2004-2005 alone and an A380 or a B787 can transport 100 passengers for 3 L of fuel per km, which compares favourably to most cars. However, no air travel can be considered sustainable at the moment, due to the burning of non-renewable fossil fuels. Additionally, airplanes emit many noxious gases, whose impact is 4 times worse at 30 000 feet than at ground level.

Therefore, individual travellers must become more responsible via their consumption patterns. Although there is a trend towards ‘greener’ consumerism, recent research indicates that most tourists are not fully aware of their individual environmental impact or contributions to climate change. Despite the growing surcharges on air travel, the real price of travelling does not reflect its true environmental costs.

Options to mitigate the impacts of travel

Two options exist to improve the sustainability of travelling. One is to reduce emissions directly and the other is to compensate for the pollution. At some destinations, one can sometimes choose less polluting forms of transport, as well as ‘more responsible’ tourism products and services. Since simply travelling less is not favourable in terms of economic development, option 2 becomes a necessity.

Carbon neutral travel involves the voluntary purchase of carbon credits in offset projects, which compensate for the emissions generated. The cost and choice of carbon-offset projects depends on where one buys the offsets (Table 1). Most companies offer a range of investment options in energy efficient technology or Renewable Energy Certificates in wind, solar, biomass or geothermal power. The contribution to carbon sequestration projects via tree plantations is also a common mechanism.

Voluntary emission offsetting is a growing trend and globally it has grown from 1 million tonnes of carbon in 2001 to 9.5 million tonnes in 2004. There are no readily available statistics on the size of the overall voluntary carbon market, and certainly none yet for the tourism sector. The Kyoto Protocol outlines compulsory and voluntary strategies to compensate for emissions. The tourism industry, including the aviation sector is not (yet) regulated, so at present it has no obligation to address matters concerning climate change. In 2005, British Airways launched its own carbon offset scheme and encourages its clients to contribute to sustainable energy projects. In fact, carbon neutral travel is a mechanism to assuage one’s guilt about travel and consumption. For this reason, some people don’t agree with emission compensation because it is perceived as the ‘right to pollute.’

Table 1: Emissions estimates and the equivalent cost of offset certificates
offered by five companies for a return plane between Montreal and Orlando.

** based on emission calculations provided on the websites of respective
companies for a return trip of 3500 km. Currently, the average price for
a tone of C02 equivalent from the voluntary offset market is $1.25 at the corporate rate.

Some offset projects are controversial, as most have inherent disadvantages. For example, biodiesel from crops such as sugar and corn raises issues about genetic engineering. Further questions surround the real benefits of certain projects in developing countries, such as monoculture tree plantations for carbon sequestration. These plantations also lead to biodiversity loss, amongst other problems, and their effectiveness is altogether questionable. In the Kaikora District of New Zealand, the local council provides tourists with the opportunity to plant a tree during their visit, which is numbered and can be revisited in the future.

Overall, emission offsetting has been criticized because of costs, measures and certification and because compensating does not put pressure on people to switch from using fossil fuels to renewable energy. It also does not regulate polluting activities. Nonetheless, it needs to be encouraged as an interim measure. Clearly, the use of alternative energy from renewable sources will appear more viable and cost effective as technology advances.

In the meantime, travellers can choose to travel more responsibly by investing in offset projects, especially in technology, that will ensure a more sustainable future. In any case, sustainable development implies the ‘polluter pay’ principle and so travellers must improve their environmental performance. As Table 1 shows, the costs are not exorbitant. But first and foremost, travellers need to be educated about the consequences of their impact and the associated benefits of counteracting them before they can choose to become more responsible.

* Carbon refers to carbon dioxide gas. Carbon offset projects sometimes involve compensating for other greenhouse gases.

Sources:
– Baral, A. and Guha, G.S. (2004) «Trees for carbon sequestration or fossil fuel substitution: the issue of cost vs benefit.» Biomass and Bioenergy, 27 p.41-55.
– Becken, S. and Lane, B. (2006). «Air travel and the environment. An interview with Hugh Somerville.» Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(2) p.216-219.
– Becken, S., Simmons, D. G. and Frampton, C. (2006) «Energy use associated with different travel choices.» Tourism Management, 24. p. 267-277.
– Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2005) «News Release: Carbon offset scheme launched.» 12 September, 2005. 2 pp.
– Gössling, S., Bredberg, M., Randow, A., Sandström, and Svensson, S. (2006) «Tourist Perceptions of climate change: A Study of International Tourist in Zanzibar.» Current Issues in Tourism, 9(4-5) p.419-435.
– Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1999) «Special Report: Aviation and the global atmosphere. Summary for policy makers.» 23 pp.
– Lynes, J. K. and Dredge, D. (2006) «Going Green: Motivation for environmental commitment in the airline industry. A case study of Scandinavian airlines.» Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(2) p.116-138.
– Van Kooten, G.C., Eagle, A.J., Manley, J. and Smolak, T. (2004) «How costly are carbon offsets?
A meta-analysis of carbon forest sinks.» Environmental Science and Policy, 7 p. 239-251.
– Various authors (2006) «New Internationlist.» July 2006. Issue 391.
Sur le web:
Atmosfair
Climate Care
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
International Air Transport Association website
My Climate via Sustainable Tourism International
Native Energy
Carbon Neutral Company

Catégories
Issues Trends

What can we expect from the tourism bubble in the next few years?

What are the major influential factors that will affect tourism supply and demand this decade? For a start, China and India are poised to become major players as they increase their presence in the travel marketplace.

  • Climate of uncertainty
    The political, economic, climatic and health crises of the past few years have shown us that the travel industry, particularly the airline sector, can become very vulnerable and that no destination is immune from these threats.
  • Rising oil prices
    More gas price hikes are expected in the next few years. Since the price of oil affects tourism-based businesses in myriad ways, travel costs will rise. This situation, coupled with risk factors, could lead to an increase in intra-regional travel. Poorer countries will be hurt by higher transportation costs and require special assistance.
  • Security procedures to facilitate travel
    A country’s methods of providing security and protection for travellers play an important role in its position in the global tourism marketplace. In the coming years, these methods should be harmonized.
  • Increased wealth in both existing and emerging markets
    Economic prosperity drives tourism growth. Existing markets will continue to increase their wealth. Among emerging markets, China and India will experience the most growth. Experts anticipate problems due to overcrowded airline routes.
  • Development of both multilateralism and regionalism
    South-South alliances will develop and create more equitable relations. The current trend towards political and economic consolidation in major global regions will restructure the overall globalization movement. Asia will become an economic centre to watch. As a result, tourism, as well as transportation structures and costs, will be profoundly affected.
  • Technology in the forefront
    Whether we are talking about developments in communication, the convergence of the Internet, cell phones and television or the rollout of new aircraft models, technology will continue to play a primary role in the evolution of the tourism industry.
  • Demographic changes
    Concentrated urban populations and family/work dynamics continue to modify travel behaviour. The populations of large industrialized countries are aging, meaning that more baby boomers will have the time and money to travel. However, some experts have reservations about the amount of discretionary income available to retirees for travel.
  • Increased consumer power, thanks to the Internet
    When it comes to accessing information, prices and reservations, the centre of power has shifted from tourism professionals to travellers themselves. Consumers are very comfortable with the Internet and the decisions it enables them to make.
  • Improved quality of life as a travel incentive
    Travel is seen as an element that can help improve one’s quality of life, whether it is used for adventure and discovery, personal growth, relaxation or to get a new lease on life.
  • Heightened competition
    In an attempt to stimulate economic growth, every city, region and country will be looking for a piece of the tourism pie, creating a context in which branding strategies are key.
  • Promotional strategies involving public-private partnerships
    These types of partnerships are especially common in countries with federal or highly decentralized political systems.
  • Ongoing mergers and acquisitions
    The hotel industry, airlines, distribution network and tour operators will continue their trend towards consolidation.
  • Infrastructure deficiencies
    When it comes to infrastructure, the major Western countries lack the planning needed to respond to the coming international growth. It requires several years’ lead time to expand airports and build more hotels.
  • Booming products
    Green tourism, spa tourism and health tourism (surgery and convalescence) are becoming increasingly popular. Although these are examples of segmentation and specialization, mass tourism is in no danger of disappearing.

  • Flirting with China and India

    Even though China and India are enormous potential markets, there is a long list of countries competing for their business. Over 170 destinations are using their charms to attract Chinese and Indian travellers. Despite these efforts, travellers from emerging markets often follow the same pattern as they start to venture outside their country. They begin by traveling in groups and are most likely to visit neighbouring countries. Afterwards, Europe and North America (particularly the West Coast) are added to the list of destinations and the number of individual travellers increases.

    Not everyone behaves the same, however. Chinese travellers like to feel safe by finding people who speak their language and can provide familiar food. As a result, they will be attracted to foreign countries that boast major Chinese communities. As for travelers from India, their travel experiences have made them more likely to travel alone, anywhere in the world.

    All the same, those who wish to appeal to these travellers are well-advised to get busy.

    Tourism in general likely to continue its upward climb

    If we look at the past fifty years or so, although its growth curve may have had a few blips, tourism is not ready to collapse. And yet, even though international demand is expected to grow by 4.2% annually, there are also more and more regions vying for travellers.

    Sources:
    – Baumgarten, Jean-Claude. President of the World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) and a guest lecturer for the Cercle de tourisme du Québec, April 20, 2006.
    – Désiront, André. Interview with Jean-Claude Baumgarten following his remarks to the Cercle de tourisme du Québec, April 20, 2006.
    – Frangialli, Francesco. « Défis pour un nouveau millénaire, » Le Devoir, April 1 and 2, 2006.
    – Sarrasin, Bruno. « Temps de ruptures et continuités, » Le Devoir, April 1 and 2, 2006.