 |
Want to reduce your footprint? Take a vacationSure, planes are bad, but low-carbon locales might help you work off the debt
I’ve just returned from a long-awaited vacation, a return to two of the many places that I have called home over the past several years. The planes, trains, and automobiles along the way, in addition to the widely varying accommodations and landscapes I encountered, brought me back to a simple question: how does where you spend your time affect your carbon footprint? On a broad scale, this question is pretty easy to answer. Certain countries are less carbon intensive than others, and the same can be said for individual cities. The U.S. Energy Information Administration has some good information on national comparisons and a piece in City Journal compares the carbon profiles of various American cities. The Carbon Footprint of Nations web site also offers up a wealth of data. I was interested in the shorter-term impact. Could taking a vacation somewhere actually end up lowering my carbon footprint? Using the EIA and City Journal sources above, and TerraPass’ handy flight emissions calculator, I did some back- of- the- envelope calculations to see how traveling could lower your carbon footprint, both internationally and within the US. To do so, I had to make some simplifying assumptions:
The findings point to a clear conclusion: I do not get enough vacation! Not enough to lower my carbon footprint, at least. Maybe next year we’ll go to Jamaica. If you live in New York City (one of my old hometowns) and travel to Jamaica (the island, not the place in Queens), the carbon emissions from your flight will be matched by a lower day-to-day footprint in just over one and a half weeks. If I had my druthers (and more vacation time), France sounds particularly nice. From San Francisco, I’d only need to eat, drink, and be merry for five and a half weeks to make up for my airline emissions. New Yorkers can pay down their carbon debt in three and a half weeks. If you want a cheaper change of scenery, consider California. According to City Journal, all five of the least carbon-intensive metropolitan areas are in the U.S. can be found in the Golden State, led by TerraPass’ very own San Francisco (we claim only partial credit). Round-trip flights for your family from Houston to San Francisco would be matched by lower daily emissions in about one month, or make your trip from Atlanta and it will take a little under two months. Want more fun in the sun? A family vacation from Oklahoma City to San Diego would level out in just over six and a half weeks, plenty of time to work on your tan. If the suburbs are where you call home then you might not even need to get on a plane to lower your impact. Residents in the suburbs of San Francisco, for instance, are responsible for nearly 10,000 pounds more CO2 a year than their city counterparts, and the city-suburb difference is almost 50 percent higher in New York. It isn’t always the case, but generally speaking urban residents tread much more lightly than those in outlying regions. So the next time you’re thinking about how to lower your footprint you might want to set your sights on more distant horizons. This analysis is surely too simple — for starters, the things you actually do wherever you are matter more than the broad averages — but it’s food for thought. Take a peek at the articles above to see how your location’s footprint compares, or leave a comment with your origin and destination and I’ll see how much vacation time you’ll need to request. Image by Flickr user m o d e. Comments
The comments section is now closed. |
|
About Us | Press | FAQ | Site map | Contact us | Jobs| Privacy policy | Terms & conditions | Customer service | Logos & badges © 2004-2010, TerraPass Inc. All rights reserved. TerraPass is a trademark of TerraPass Inc.
|
Fascinating article. I have been looking for a way to justify travel now that my budget is stretched to the breaking point. I think it's called "escape."
How long would I need to bask on San Diego beaches to compensate for a trip from Minneapolis? How much does the visit expand if I drive both ways?
You are a genius.
Reply
by Mark Frey on July 29, 2009 12:22 PM
Judy,
Taking a quick look at the numbers it turns out that out in Minneapolis emissions are about on par with Chicago (not too surprising I guess), DC, and (surprise, surprise?) Miami. This is nearly 45% higher emissions than in San Diego, where temperatures are pretty consistently warm and you don't have to worry about humidity.
And on to your vacation... the emissions from flying and the difference in climate / lifestyle from Minneapolis to San Diego equal out in about 2 months, vs. a little over 3 months if you drive an 09 Prius out there. If you were to drive an SUV from a couple years back it would take about 10 months of sunshiny days to make up for your sins.
Reply
Meh.
Most Terrapass customers are far more sophisticated than this. We don't use averages for our city in evaluating our own carbon footprints. And we KNOW our personal carbon footprints (or at least have calculated them enough times via enough credible data sources, to have a pretty good idea where we stand). That knowledge has empowered us to make choices to help reduce the climate footprints we make.
I know that flying long distances has a huge relative impact on my carbon footprint at this point, and so I consciously don't fly more than once every couple of years now. I think it would take months living on a tropical island with no heat, no air conditioning etc to balance out the thousands of pounds of carbon emitted from flying there (vs. my relatively low footprint at home).
Relying on glib, broad generalizations like those being hypothesized above, may risk lowering the credibility of Terrapass, upon which we rely for credible data, using much sharper pencils. Otherwise we're in Mark Twain's dreaded realm of, "lies, damn lies and statistics".
Anyone taking vacation time, can and should make choices to keep their footprint on the low end of the relative scale. We can offset anything left over. Last month, my family took a week-long group bicycling trip, within our state. We had a blast!
On a daily basis I lower my carbon footprint by picking up at least 10 pieces of litter and recycling as much of it as I can. Yesterday it was 10 bottles, 6 cans and 15 plastic bags recycled. "Think globally, act locally" works well most of the time, in my opinion.
Reply
by Mark Frey on July 29, 2009 12:36 PM
Dave,
Thanks for your comments, and do take my post with a grain of salt. This isn't meant to exonerate you from flying to Jamaica simply because you are responsible for more emissions wherever you normally live, but as a fun way to look at how emissions differ from place to place.
According to the numbers (and yes, it's easy to make numbers lie, so as always keeping a critical eye to things is important) there is a huge difference in the impact that people have depending on where they live. Some of this is related to lifestyle and choices of residents (e.g. one drives less typically if they live in the city than the suburbs), but some of this is unseen yet no less important (e.g. the energy mix of what you get from the grid).
And as to your point about vacation and keeping your footprint down: I fully agree, but sometimes you can’t help but get on a plane. I, for instance, had my graduation ceremony and a son that needed to meet his aunt before he could give her a call on his own. But I certainly look forward to us camping and exploring the beautiful scenery that California has to offer for my next vacation, which would preclude the need for any serious travel. I don’t think that it is an official mantra here at TerraPass, but I think that the point really is to minimize your impact and offset the rest.
Reply
And just to be clear about this, Dave is right -- the post was meant in fun, but the carbon impact of your travel is going to hang on very particular details of your behavior at home and your behavior while traveling.
If, for example, you forget to adjust your thermostat when you leave, then you're just going to end up using a ton of electricity in two different places at once. And your fridge is going to keep running while you're gone. And your driving patterns will change in unpredictable ways while you're on vacation.
So, Mark is calling attention to a useful fact: your environmental impact changes greatly with location, and it's possible to make travel choices that could even lighten your footprint. But Dave's caveat is equally important: you don't get the benefits for free. You have to continue to pay attention to the choices you make, even while on the road.
The good news is that low-carbon vacations can be great. Ditch the car, ditch the stress, get outdoors...
Reply
I recently went to Hawai'i with my wife for our twentieth wedding anniversary. (We live in Olympia, Washington, and both of us, when we retire, want to live at least part of the year in a tropical beach community--any recommendations?) We were only there six days, because, alas, work calls, and we had only so much paid leave.
But I was wondering, how does the carbon footprint of Hawai'i compare to Olympia, Washington? Take the best-case scenario--assume we retire, keep the house in Olympia, and rent in Hawai'i at least three months of the year. Wouldn't Hawai'i living be more carbon-intensive, given the islands' heavy reliance on imports flown and shipped in?
Reply
by Mark Frey on July 29, 2009 1:02 PM
J.C.,
This is an interesting question, and one that I wish I could answer. Unfortunately the journal article doesn't appear to have any information on Hawaii in terms of per capita emissions, and in any case I do believe that the study focuses on transportation, heating, and electricity exclusively.
The point on goods and services is important as well. To really fully understand your footprint in either location you need to look at the goods and services you consume and their impacts, not just the direct emissions you are accountable for. On a related note, I recently saw an article which reclaims America's notoriety in terms of most GHG emissions by doing this (but I can't seem to find it again), because so much of China's emissions are from goods that are exported to the US.
Reply
With this subject in mind, my wife and I spent 3 months on the west coast of Mexico last winter. We left behind a home in Corvallis, Oregon, with the thermostat set on 55 (the electric furnace virtually never came on, partly because of solar gains from our southern exposure). Our unit (a total of 180 sq ft, including bathroom) in Mexico had a kitchen (very very basic, with a two-burner propane stove and a tiny refrigerator). We walked daily to local markets for a one-day supply of locally-produced veggies and fruits (no meat or fish). The only downside, of course, was two plane tickets to Puerto Vallarta... but my calculations still showed that we lowered our footprint hugely for those 3 months. That doesn't include the fact that our kids and grandkids came for a 12-day visit, which brought the whole enterprise back almost to neutral. But the idea is good... Central America and Mexico are affordable and close, and it is possible to take the bus from Corvallis to Puerto Vallarta (an adventure!), which is what we'll do this year (and it's easy to continue down to Belize and Guatemala and beyond on cheap buses). The climate is incredibly mild... never hot, never cold, so not even a fan is necessary. Viva Mexico!
Reply
I like the concept, but stating you can simply go to a location with a smaller "average" footprint is really misleading. If you stay in a four star hotel in India, your footprint is nowhere near that of the average citizen. In fact, I'm not sure "average" means a thing for travelers, because we are not by and large living the same kind of lifestyle as the people of a city when we travel there.
Basically, I'd say you need to compare your own, personal life in the two places. Do you commute by car at home but ride a bicycle when in Bermuda? Do you live with air conditioning blasting 24-7 in Phoenix, but none in Banff? On the other hand, do you ride the bus at home but rent a car in Seattle? Do you eat at high-end restaurants which import their food from overseas when you go on vacation, or do you find it easier to get local cuisine away than at home.
The calculations aren't that hard, but they're personal. Do your own math!!
Reply
Hmm...sounds like someone is trying to justify a very unecological activity (flying)by the use of some dubious logic.
I've tried to justify flying abroad to my annual holiday in Italy in another way. I've installed a 3Kw pv array on the roof of my holiday home; annual output 3,600 Kw. Work out the carbon saving yourselves.
It's not cheap, however.
In the longer term, I hope to use the train, if Europe ever gets its railway act together.
Reply