Challenge 8 -- Bye flight

So, you and the kids are off to Disney World, Whistler or some other far-off pleasure place for March break. Or waiting at Pearson airport for the runways to be cleared.
Either way, you’ve got some hours to ponder our latest challenge.
Which is, simply, don’t do this again. Slipping the surly bonds of Earth is hard on the environment — not to mention your nerves when you spend two days of your week-long vacation embroiled in getting there and back.
The Challenge: Resolve that next year you’ll find your fun close to home instead of thousands of kilometres away.
And for this year, since it’s too late to change your plans, consider purchasing offsets to compensate for the greenhouse gas emissions your trip will add to the atmosphere.
Motivation: Air travel is a small but potent and fast-growing cause of climate change. Those turbines spew immense amounts of greenhouse gases and the impact is multiplied 2.7 times because the emissions are at high altitude.

Process: The longer-term part of the challenge is straightforward. You simply decide: No more March break flying. Instead, investigate good things to do near home.
For the short term, offsets pay for each tonne of greenhouse gas emissions your trip produces. Your cash goes to projects that cut emissions elsewhere. Offsets are controversial: They’ve been compared to the medieval indulgences that let sinners buy absolution. If you leap that philosophical hurdle, you can choose which of several offsetters to buy from.

Here's how my fellow blogger Catherine Porter described the options in a recent story on offsets:

Each company has its own method, using different data on fuel consumption, the number of seats, and the effect of the altitude. Most projects aim to avoid emissions elsewhere: Energy-efficient light bulbs in Kazakh schools will reduce fumes belched out by local coal-powered plants.
Some pay to do the same in North America, through wind farms or, in one case, a geothermal well supplying energy to a Vancouver AIDS hospice. Others aim to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by planting trees.
How do you separate good offsets from bad?
First, ask: “Would this project have happened anyway?” If your money goes toward a wind farm the government wants built, you are simply saving taxpayers money.
Are the projects verified by a third party? You don’t want to unwittingly line the pockets of some warlord in Africa. There is a gold standard for offsetting projects, developed by the World Wildlife Fund. It ensures a project does what it advertises, and doesn’t cause damage by, say, kicking people off land to plant trees.
Speaking of trees, a report by Boston’s Tufts University.says to avoid projects that plant them. “You have to ensure they’re around in perpetuity, which is pretty hard to do,” says Paul Lingl of the David Suzuki Foundation.
But there is an argument in favour of planting trees. How sure can you be that the Kazakh villagers don’t unscrew those fluorescent bulbs after the well-meaning Westerners have left? “The only known method we have today for extracting carbon from the atmosphere is planting trees,” says Ron Dembo, CEO of Toronto-based Zerofootprint. The company funds reforestation projects in British Columbia, but factors in a 25 per cent chance they’ll die. “The reality is we need to take carbon out and not just avoid (emitting) it," Dembo says.

There are many offsetters to check out, and while you’re doing the research, dig in to the types of projects they support. It’s a good education in how to reduce emissions. Check out zerofootprint, Carbon Neutral, Planetair and Carbon Zero Canada. This partial list isn't meant as a starting point, not an endorsement. Most of the offsetters offer carbon calculators.

Cost: Expect to pay around $10 per tonne of emissions. The 3,376-kilometre round trip between Toronto and Orlando emits 400 kilograms of greenhouse gases per passenger.

Savings: There’s no direct financial saving from offsets. But staying home is usually cheaper than being a jet-setter.

Those of you planning to spend March break here can designate one Green Day during the week when you can try out one or more of our previous challenges or the Star's green tip of the day, or come up with something else to reduce your footprint. Let us know what you decide and how it goes.

-- Peter Gorrie

Comments

[Will Bailey]

Love the blog it's full of great information, although I'm not crazy about the carbon offsets. I wonder if I can buy some calorie offsets and hit the buffet. Better stick with the diet and exercise.

[Al Roffey]

I prefer to contribute to Canadian charities that purchase land for conservation instead of buying commercial carbon offsets.

These organizations include The Nature Consevancy of Canada, The Escarpment Biosphere Conservancy, and Save the Oak Ridges Moraine.

[Nancy (aka money coach)]

oh, ouch. I'm finally at the age when I can afford global travel every year or so ... and now don't know if my conscience will let me. My timing sucks! But thanks for putting the challenge out there re: travelling or sticking closer to home.

[LizKnits]

I've just found your blog through a friend and am really enjoying the challenges. Thanks for the inspiration... I'll be following along!

[Alex]

I am tired of trying to move my car around a bike rider that cannot share the road because they want to help reduce emissions into the air to be 'GREEN'. They go through red lights and stop signs and cut cars off all the time (image, this bike rider has no license to speak of on their bike and its high time they have to pay for one as was done in the 40's & 50's) otherwise, ride through the parks and not on any of the roads. All bike riders do not follow "ALL" the road rules. If my horn blows at you, move, because you are riding with another bike person beside each other, which you should not be doing, if I honk at you because you just went through a red light or stop sign, while I have to wait and follow the rules, you deserve to have what little of the road you shouldn't have entitlement too. If you want to be "green" that is your choice, my choice is to enjoy my life, live comfortable and not have to do without. I pay to have my garbage picked up and recycled and people are being payed to sort through things (why should I, do I get payed for this. . no). I would rather use plastic bags for my groceries and also paper bags (if the stores had them). I am insulted that you are telling me I have to pay for a specially designed bag just to promote living "green" how dare you even think to charge or use my tax dollars to benefit any of this green garbage. The Toronto Star is the most left paper and all you want to do is put down those, who also have freedom of choice and are in fact not doing anything illegal or point them out as being wasteful/careless/look at us with a shock expression. Al Gore should never have gotten a reward for all that he has done to promote green and save the world. He has nothing through science to prove what he is promoting is correct and most important "accurate".

[Annie]

Wow, this is great information, and I'll be able to research more with the links that you provided. I've been wondering how a person is supposed to be able to offset their emissions, but paying for trees to be planted makes more sense. Great stuff! Thank you so much. :)

[Edward W. Stanley]

Please, I'm begging you both, stop.

This is nonsense. We do not live in a greenhouse. Well I don't.

Approximately 50% of the planet is living in poverty.

Unemployment is in the hundreds of millions of people globally.

These people are the ones who will be killed by famine, when natural weather patterns and volcanoes, change living conditions.

Tourism and trade are major economic factors for many 'developing nations'.

Take a look at the eruption in Iceland in 1783, please.

You have no proof that CO2 variances actually cause harm. Plants need Co2 to survive. The premise that it causes harm is a meme.

For the record I drove to Florida.

Global weather is something we can't stop from changing.

Discouraging international trade kills people.