Can the Tourism Sector Survive in a Decarbonized World?

In a couple of days time, the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP-21) will be happening in Paris to agree upon a fresh global agenda restricting increases in average global temperature to 2°C relative to pre-industrial temperatures. Currently, the tourism sector globally is pretty much completely reliant on energy from fossil fuels. Direct emissions contribute an (highly conservative!) estimated 5% to global anthropogenic CO₂ emissions, more than all but 5 countries worldwide! Furthermore, one business as usual scenario (which even incorporates optimistic advances in energy efficiency) predicted tourism's CO₂ releases will increase by ~135% from 2005-2035 with an increase in travel numbers, frequency and distance largely from rapidly developing countries.

In order to have a likely (i.e. not even certain!) change of achieving COP-21’s target, the IPCC stated that current worldwide CO₂ emissions need to be lowered 40 - 70% by 2050. The United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) has endorsed a sectorial carbon emissions reduction target of 50% by 2035 (relative to 2005 emissions). Put bluntly, the coordinated national and international policies required throughout the global tourism sector to achieve such emission reductions do not currently exist. In fact, none of the available decarbonization scenarios designed to achieve the 2 °C target even explicitly discuss tourism, despite its substantial contribution to global emissions. We shall wait with baited breath as to the outcome of the COP-21 negotiations, but the question remains regardless: how will the tourism sector survive in such a decarbonized global economy?

In this post I will compare the effectiveness of two distinct policy strategies tourism could take to reduce CO₂ emissions: carbon offsetting and emissions abatement.

Carbon offsetting or trading is a market-based mechanism which involves purchasing emission reduction credits achieved in sectors outside tourism. Although effectively avoiding the costs and any technological limitations of actual emission reduction, offsetting has so far been implemented with highly variable and non-standardised verification and credibility. Beyond problems of credibility, offsetting without legally binding emission reduction targets and caps for sectors can result in total global greenhouse gas emissions remain pretty much the same – essentially a business as usual scenario justifying continued inaction and attracting high levels of criticism from activists.

On the other hand, emissions abatement refers to explicit reduction of carbon emissions within the tourism sector, through mechanisms such as efficiency improvements to reduce energy usage and a transition to lower-carbon fuels. The potential for reducing tourism’s emissions is dependent on subsector, being especially expensive and tricky for air-travel as fuel efficiency advances and low-carbon fuel alternatives are both limited. Conversely, sizeable reductions in emissions (20 - 50%) are possible for the accommodation subsector at an initial negative cost as shown in Figure 1, via investment in energy efficiency, biofuels and renewable power.

Figure 1. A comparison of tourism sub-sector emission reduction and carbon offset prices with time. Source.

A recent paper modelled the financial costs of two emission reduction scenarios with either solely carbon offsetting, or offsetting in combination with abatement. Although the difference is slight, the results in Figure 2 show that emission abatement combined with offsets to strategically target aviation, is less expensive than carbon offsetting on its own, for both emission reduction scenarios. In fact, the additive cost throughout the thirty five years is 5.2% lower for the combination of abatement and offsetting (scenario 2) than scenario 1.

Figure 2. Cost of exclusive carbon offsetting, or offsetting combined with emission abatement for two emission scenarios: either a -50% reduction by 2035 (from 2005 levels) and subsequent stability, or a -50% reduction followed by a -70% reduction till 2050 after 2035. Source.

Importantly, in practical terms, the costs for emission reduction appear attainable as a proportion of overall global tourism revenue. Significant investment is required – starting at approximately US $1 billion annually beginning in the 2020s – but relatively speaking, this investment is lower than 0.1% of the predicted global tourism income for 2020. For example, if the projected costs for achieving scenario 2 by 2030 ($ 70 billion) was spread amongst the projected 6.6 billion domestic and international travellers for that year (under a medium growth projection for population), the per trip cost would be approximately US $11 - on par with many existing tourism fees and taxes set by governments and private companies that have had little, if any, impacts on the overall economic growth of thesector.

So what is your opinion, my curious reader? Is a global system of carbon trading the best way forward, investment in emissions reduction, or a combination of the two? And would you be willing to pay the extra $11 to carbon neutralise your holiday and ensure sustainability of the tourism industry? Personally, the path seems straightforward – beyond the comparative cost effectiveness of emission abatement with strategic carbon offsetting, future international agreements such as those expected at COP-21 may impose stricter emission and carbon trading limits for the tourism sector. Without investing in emission reduction now, this would leave the sector exposed to potentially increasing carbon trading costs and struggling to rapidly reduce emissions, hindering future economic growth of the sector.

Increased temperatures are really not in tourism's best interest. Many popular tourist destinations and activities, from the skiing industry to iconic species, are negatively affected by climate change. As could be expected, the modest $ 11 cost per traveller for the required investment has been widely shouted about in the media – almost exclusively in a positive light, with catchy slogans such as “are we willing to pay less than the price of an extra checked bag…?” and, my personal favourite: “the $11 solution to cleaning up the tourism business”. This is a good thing. Raising public awareness of the global environmental impacts of tourism and its potential management pathways is necessary. But the cost isn't the only thing to consider: emission reductions will not be easy. The tourism sector will require its own clear, globally integrated and consistent strategic policy framework that all subsectors and countries are on board with, combined with a sector-wide systematic emissions monitoring system. Without these, business leaders and investors will be unwilling to invest in low-carbon technologies for the sector, leaving it with little hope of achieving its emission reduction plans. Greater discussion and coordination amongst the tourism industry, governments and researcherss is necessary to address both of these challenges. The model discussed above assumed a well-functioning governance systems, yet this will not always be the case, especially in developing countries. Yet in light of the rising consumer activism against heavily carbon-emitting sectors, the global tourism industry will not be able to hide for long – it needs to make itself heard in international discussions such as COP-21, and it needs to start taking responsibility for its actions if it is to become truly sustainable.

Tourism's Environmental Impacts Part II: An Update

Greetings and salutations to all the curious minds out there!

Following the responses to last week’s blog, I thought it would be a great idea to look into how research on the impacts of tourism on the environment has developed since the 1970s and 80s when it was just beginning, and the new ways of thinking about these impacts. Last week we delved into some of the basic system models used to conceptualise the tourism life-cycle and categorise the environmental impacts of tourism. This week we’re fast-forwarding to the 21^st century and looking into the relationship between mass tourism/travel and globalisation, how this is linked with the rise of cheap flights and internet communication technologies, and some of the modern global environmental changes this is linked to.

Globalisation and the Tourist Industry

Globalisation refers to the increasing interconnectedness of the world through a global network of transportation, trade and communication (IMF, 2000; Dwyer, 2015). It is increasingly recognised that tourism is a globalised industry with an extended supply chain (Hall and Page, 2014).

Central to this understanding of tourism as a globalised industry is the rise of cheap air travel. Aviation comprises the primary mode of travel to numerous tourism locations, and for some can constitute 100% of international tourist arrivals (Bieger and Wittmer, 2006). Tourism is a driving force in the evolution of air travel, for example in the formation of new aviation business models like charter airlines. Similarly, developments in air transport have made available novel destinations as well as forms of tourism such as long-haul trips. Since the deregulation of the European aviation industry in the late 1980s, the subsequent increase in competition meant new business models emerged, including low cost carriers (LCC) (Bieger and Wittmer, 2006). LCCs offer increasingly cheap prices for flights, thus gaining significant air traffic volumes as well as new modes of tourism including short-stay city breaks (Bieger and Wittmer, 2006). Thus the increasing accessibility to cheap air transport is a major driving force in international tourism growth; this can be seen through the remarkably similar growth curves of air passengers and the international tourist arrivals (Figure 1).

Data for graph sourced from: The World Bank (Air Passenger Data) and The World Bank (Arrivals Data).

Furthermore, the Internet and social media has been a key development in this expansion of the tourism industry, as consumers can use it to collect information on potential destinations and quickly compare prices across service providers before booking online (Dwyer,2015). Thus the Internet has been important in the growth of international flights and package holidays.

In more recent years, strong economic growth in countries such as the BRICs (Brazil-Russia-India-China) can be expected to promote further increases in international tourism as their rising middle classes have more disposable income for travel. Tourism is projected to grow by 3.3% annual at least till 2030 (UNWTO, 2012), driven mainly by this economic growth. Furthermore, increasing globalisation has supported growth in the tourism industry as consumers become increasingly aware of different cultures and lifestyles, and thus more ‘international’ and ‘cosmopolitan’ in their lifestyle choices (Dwyer, 2015).

Environmental impacts associated with the modern tourist industry

During the 20^th century much research undertaken on tourism’s environmental impacts focused on impacts at the destination or on the local scale, omitting other elements of the geographical tourism system, such as the transit region and the origin area (Hall and Page, 2014). This fails to recognise the globalised nature of the tourism industry. Activity in one location can affect the entire system, particularly due to the cross-boundary nature of several environmental problems associated with the tourist industry, such as water and air pollution (Bridge, 2002). Furthermore, tourism activities can add up globally. For example, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at one location contribute to the global balance of GHGs and therefore have more than a localised effect.

In this following section I shall discuss some of these global environmental challenges associated with the rise of mass tourism and travel.

Air Pollution

Tourism related transport, particularly air travel, is a major emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG) and thus contributor to global warming (Dwyer, 2015). Overall, transport is the primary factor adding to tourism-related emissions of GHGs: in fact, it can been estimated that transport accounts for a whopping 94% of the tourism sector's role in global warming (Gössling, 2002).

Emissions from aircraft need particular consideration because they’re released directly into the troposphere and bottom stratosphere, where they have a much greater effect on radiative forcing and ozone levels (IPCC, 1999). Aircraft emissions modify the Earth’s climate and radiation budget via direct emissions of radiatively active substances (e.g. CO₂ , H₂O) that trap terrestrial radiation resulting in global warming and chemical substances that alter natural greenhouse gases (NO_xand SO₂); and release of other substances (e.g. H₂O and soot) which cause cloud formation (e.g. contrails) (IPCC, 1999).

So there we have it! The tourist industry of today - huge, globalised and linked to many global environmental issues. In future blog posts, we'll look in further detail at some of these global environmental issues being exacerbated through the tourist industry. Stay tuned folks!