As a follow-up from my last post, I thought I'd share with you an image circling around the media that effectively sums up a lot of what I talked about. The last panel really struck me - globally, direct tourism carbon dioxide emissions (so not even including the indirect emissions embedded in food production, hotel construction etc.) are almost double those released by 5 of the top 10 emitting countries. So whaddya say? Would you be willing to pay the price of a photo on a camel to decarbonize tourism?
Just a note that in the top panel, the 'decarbonized' scenario is based on the high-end emission reduction scenario (-70% by 2050) of the IPCC's recommended range (i.e. very, very, very positive... idealistic even, one might say.) If the scenario that's actually been endorsed by the tourism industry (-50% by 2035 and then stable) was shown, the graph may have been slightly less dramatic. Always best to take things the media says with a pinch of salt...
Source. Image is based on this study.
A survey conducted on tourists travelling to Churchill Bay in Canada found that 46% of those questioned were willing to buy carbon offsets on top of their flight ticket (and, in fact that the average price willing to be paid is 10% of the cost of that flight - far more than $11 in many cases!) However, they also found that a strong barrier purchase of carbon offsets was the doubt surrounding what a carbon offset is, how it works to mitigate against carbon emissions, and the most reliable companies to purchase them from. This suggests to me that climate change education is key in encouraging consumers to opt for carbon offsets, and critical in gaining customers sympathies if carbon offsets are imposed as a compulsory tax on airplane tickets.
I had no idea tourism was such a carbon emitting industry - but I guess it's understandable since it's a global industry. The extra $11 really puts everything into perspective and it seems like such a small price to pay for a potential 'decorbonization', although I have to point out that having been to Japan, you can definitely get more than a sushi roll for $11 - especially with the current exchange rates! (Though beside the point I know)
ReplyDeleteHi Celia! Brilliant point! I was also really taken aback by how much the tourism industry emits, especially considering how little it has been discussed in global agreements etc on climate change and GHG emissions. The $11 does really put it into perspective though, and I personally think it's very doable. Whether in practice this would actually be enough for all the unexpected costs etc of the emissions target is still up for debate!
DeleteHi Shruti, Happy New Year!
ReplyDeleteReally interesting post, like Celia, I had no idea of the extent of CO2 emissions associated with direct tourism either!
I agree that $11 is very little considering the potential change it has the power to generate. However, like you say, this is "direct tourism" we're talking about... so when put with the CO2 emissions generated by INdirect tourism is this payment making that much of a difference to global tourism as a whole?
Thanks!
Hi Caitlin, happy new year! This is such an excellent point. The indirect carbon emissions are just as great if not greater than the direct emissions - all those embedded in constructions costs (of hotels etc), food production (agriculture etc) are not included in direct carbon emissions of the tourism sector. Because of the scale of these, and their strong links to the carbon emissions of other sectors, I question whether the $11 could really meet the cutting of these indirect emissions. I think the problem here however is that indirect emissions are not taken into account in the actual emissions reduction targets themselves, let alone the plans for how to meet them. But they should not be ignored!
DeleteAs everyone has said, it really isn't very much money at all! Do you think that there could be some sort of international framework where the $11 is just added onto the price of a plane ticket for example, so that people pay it and offset their carbon footprint as a matter of course?
ReplyDeleteHi Ben! Thank you for the comment! I think that that would be a very effective way of implementing the carbon offsets, and I've noticed that for some airlines carbon offsetting in an option you can tick when booking the flight online. If this could be integrated into the price automatically that would be more effective, but I'm unsure whether there would be backlash from those who'd prefer a choice. Perhaps if they were informed on the importance and implications of their offsetting the public would be more willing to have it included in their flight cost.
ReplyDelete