350 in Vancouver

Photo: Jon Breisnes

Just some of the 5,000+ people at Bridge to a Cool Planet, Vancouver's big event on October 24, 2009, for 350.org's International Day of Climate Action.

Note the awesome signs: "No Jobs on a Cooked Planet," "[Prime Minister] Harper - get your head out of the tar sands," and "We don't want your truckin' freeways!" My other personal fave was "I [heart] Ice Caps."

More photos, including Vancouver's human "350", at East of Main. 

Would you like guilt with that?

Can you imagine the US or Canadian governments promoting beans as a climate-friendly alternative to beef? The Swedish National Food Administration has done just that, putting out new climate-focused food guidelines.

The New York Times this week reported on Sweden's food-based efforts to measure and reduce their CO2e emissions:

New labels listing the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the production of foods, from whole wheat pasta to fast food burgers, are appearing on some grocery items and restaurant menus around the country.

Among the most interesting tidbits in the piece is the discussion of Max Burger, a longstanding Swedish burger chain, where menus now feature GHG emissions figures for every. single. item. "Max De Luxe Burger"? 2.9 kh CO2e. But the "GI Chicken Burger"? A mere 0.3 kg CO2e. (Entire Menu, Google Translated) And the best part? It's actually changing behavior. Sales of lower-emissions items have risen 20% since the info went up.

Read more about Max's impressive environmental efforts. I wonder if they're actually healthier than the American chains in addition to being much greener... Oh, well, would you look at that--transfat and GMO-free. For fast food, these guys seem pretty great!

Can you imagine McDonald's or Burger King listing emissions data on their menus? No, I can't either.

ResponsibleTravel.com Ditches Offsets in Favor of Promoting Reductions

Last night, CBC's As it Happens featured Justin Francis, co-founder and managing director of British travel agency Responsible Travel. Responsible Travel was [at least one of] the first travel agent[s] to offer carbon offsets, way back in 2002. This month, they decided to be among the first to ditch them entirely. Their website explains their revised stance pretty clearly:

Say 'NO' to carbon offsetting and 'YES' to carbon reduction.

Here's the beginning of his As it Happens interview. He outlines the gist of his stance:

I felt [offsets] were being used in the wrong way. I think what's really important for us in our lives now is that we make changes to reduce the amount of carbon we're emitting. And the way carbon offsets were being used was by people who were making no changes to their lives, who were continuing to pollute, travel, fly, in exactly the same ways as they'd always done before, but by paying a little bit of money, were offsetting their guilt. [...]

To get to the level of carbon reduction we need, North America, Europe, Britain, needs to reduce its absolute amount of carbon that it emits. And the problem with carbon offsets is they're distracting us from that need. They're convincing us we can go on with no change to our lives, but paying a little bit of guilt money to offset our emissions.

He then spoke about his impressions of carbon neutral businesses vs. carbon aware businesses (my phrase, not his):

What I'm much more impressed with is not a political party, or a business, or an organization that has paid money for carbon offsets. What I'm much more impressed with is a political party or a business or organizations which can tell me how much they've reduced the absolute carbon that they emit into the atmosphere. and that year on year, they've managed to reduce those emissions. That lends far more credibility to your organization than having paid a little bit of money to offset your carbon emissions.

He also touched on offset quality and the particular challenges of forestry offsets (as discussed in my last post):

One of the most popular forms of carbon offset is to fund the planting of trees because trees absorb carbon dioxide. So by planting a new tree that would not have been planted, you are reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. And yet, the scientists are increasingly questioning whether that's valid, because what happens is after a time, that tree will die, and it will rot. When that tree rots, it re-emits all the carbon back into the atmosphere. So there is some debate about the science behind some forms of carbon offset.

But ultimately, he brought it back to his core message of reductions above all:

But my point is not necessarily about whether some offsets are good or bad. My point is more about they can not be used as an excuse to avoid the most important thing of all, which is reducing the amount of carbon that you emit.

So how does a travel agency make a business case around encouraging people to fly less? They promote taking the train, vacationing closer to home, avoiding domestic flights, not taking lots of short vacations, and enjoying fewer, longer vacations. Sounds easy enough, right? This is what my family has done in recent years. Last Christmas, we took the train over 2000 miles round trip to Saskatchewan to visit family. The train ride was an adventure in itself, and we were able to tack on a free stopover in Jasper, Alberta. This Christmas, we're flying almost halfway around the world to see family in Norway, but we're staying put for over a month and we're taking advantage of Iceland Air's free Reykjavik stopover policy and a return layover in Copenhagen to get two extra mini-vacations-within-a-vacation. Three trips for the carbon of one! The last time we flew to visit our family in Norway was over three years ago for another month-long visit. This summer we didn't travel at all, but instead visited Victoria, BC, this fall, just a short jaunt from our home in Vancouver. How have you reduced your travel emissions?

While I have purchased (high-quality) offsets for my own unavoidable air travel, I absolutely agree with Francis' core message. We need to achieve actual CO2e reductions; we can't afford to just offset the status quo. I think it is very gutsy for a green travel agency to take this stance, but I also think the way he's communicating his decision is clear, eloquent, and completely rational. However, I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

Why not encourage--and even emphasize--absolute carbon reductions while still allowing and seeing the value in offsets when travel can't be avoided?

[The entire CBC interview is the first 8 min 10 sec of this archive audio at cbc.ca (autoloading WMV link).]

Of Airlines and Offsets

To their credit, most airlines seem to be offering carbon offsets these days. However, the quality of offsets offered varies dramatically. Some airlines are simply offering forestry offsets, which are controversial at best. They're completely barred from the Gold Standard, and the David Suzuki Foundation has laid out some of the arguments against forstry-based offsets, including methodology of measurement, permanence, and lack of space. Other airlines are offering a choice, which is better than strictly forestry. For some airlines, this choice includes offsets that meet the Gold Standard, one of the highest standards for carbon offsets.

Here's a summary of what some North American airlines are offering, with links to each program:

• United - choice of forestry, renewable energy, or Gold Standard
• Continental - choice of forestry, renewable energy, or Gold Standard
• Jet Blue - choice of forestry, renewable energy, or methane recapture
• American - mixed sources including renewable energy and forestry, unable to specify
• Delta - forestry
• Air Canada - forestry
• West Jet (Canadian discount domestic airline) - nothing, but if you click through from this page at Offsetters, West Jet will pay for renewable energy offsets on your behalf!

And bonus points go to Virgin Atlantic, who are not only the only airline I could find that only offers Gold Standard, but also let you purchase them onboard.

The question then becomes... Are inexpensive, poor quality offsets better than no offsets at all, or do they cheapen an important issue? Should airlines offer high-quality offsets, even if they are marginally more expensive? (We're talking less than $10 difference at most for a bi-coastal flight.)

I also would love to see numbers on how many (or more likely, how few) customers actually purchase the airline-offered offsets, but I can't find those stats.

You can read more on offset quality here.

Adaptation is Not an Option

This is part of a new ad campaign for a new exhibit at the Vancouver Aquarium. It's about the changes in Canada's arctic. Very catchy posters have appeared all over transit in the last week. Not just this nemo-beluga, but also a giraffe-caribou and a zebra-polar bear.

Pee Before You Fly

Here's an awesome GHG management strategy from a Japanese Airline: pee before you fly! ANA Airlines is testing the strategy and targeting a 5 tonne reduction over 30 days and 42 flights.

Based on an average human bladder capacity of 15oz, if 150 passengers relieved themselves on board an aircraft, this would amount to 63.7kg of waste.