Climate change has been described as the greatest environmental challenge of our time, not only for mankind (UN, 2011), but also for tourism (OECD-UNEP, 2011). Severe impacts of climate change, generally linked to exceeding 2°C global temperature rise, can only be prevented to some extent by drastically reducing the use of fossil fuels and thereby greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the next few decades. In this respect, an 80-95 per cent reduction of CO2 emissions by 2050 compared to 1990/2000 levels is recognised as the minimum required effort (Allison et al., 2009; Rogelj et al., 2011). Even with a full implementation of these goals, an increase above 2°C is not unlikely (World Bank, 2012). The contribution of global tourism to anthropogenic CO2 emissions has been estimated at around 5 per cent for 2005, corresponding to 1,302 Mt CO2, 75 per cent of which were from transport and 40 per cent from aviation alone. Tourism’s CO2 emissions are estimated to increase 135 per cent (to 3,000 Mt CO2) by 2035, which includes the high efficiency gains forecasted for air transport (Peeters and Dubois, 2010; UNWTO-UNEP-WMO, 2008). The share of aviation will increase as air travel is expected to grow faster than overall tourism trips (ICAO, 2010; UNWTO, 2011). Emission scenarios for civil aviation vary from 1,034 to 3,105 Mt CO2 for 2050 (Lee et al., 2013). The further development of tourism CO2 emissions is in stark contrast to the aforementioned global emission reduction needs. In fact, when assuming this business-as-usual growth path, tourism would exceed the global economy’s reduced emission budget by midcentury on its own (Scott et al., 2010). Given these developments it is not surprising that some regard the (mainstream) tourism industry as becoming less sustainable (Bramwell and Lane, 2012; Buckley, 2012; Gössling et al., 2012). In acknowledgement of the limited short-term energy reduction potential of technological improvements in aviation and the absence of short-term structural changes in travel behaviour, carbon offsetting has been accepted as an intermediate, albeit less effective solution for mitigating tourism emissions. This research aims to register the motives for buying offsets, but more particularly the effect of offsetting, as well as not offsetting, on the travel behaviour of Dutch tourists.
LINK
Global leaders agree on the need to substantially decarbonize the global economy by 2050. This paper compares potential costs associated with different policy pathways to achieve tourism sector emission reduction ambitions (−50% by 2035) and transform the sector to be part of the mid-century decarbonized economy (−70% by 2050). Investment in emissions abatement within the tourism sector, combined with strategic external carbon offsets, was found to be approximately 5% more cost effective over the period 2015–2050 than exclusive reliance on offsetting. The cost to achieve the −50% target through abatement and strategic offsetting, while significant, represents less than 0.1% of the estimated global tourism economy in 2020 and 3.6% in 2050. Distributed equally among all tourists (international and domestic), the cost of a low-carbon tourism sector is estimated at US$11 per trip, equivalent to many current travel fees or taxes. Exclusive reliance on offsetting would expose the sector to extensive and continued carbon liability costs beyond mid-century and could be perceived as climate inaction, increasing reputational risks and the potential for less efficient regulatory interventions that could hinder sustainable tourism development. Effective tourism sector leadership is needed to develop a strategic tourism policy framework and emission measurement and reporting system.
LINK
The current standard in accounting practice is the double-entry approach. Basis of the double-entry approach is that every financial event brings two equal and offsetting entries. Since these financial events are not automatically confirmed by both parties, the accounting quality can be improved. The blockchain mechanism possibly offers a different take on accounting. Based on an experimentation approach, data was collected to compare the double-entry method with the blockchain-based triple-entry method. The results show that the main difference concerns determining the completeness of the financial statement items. In the situation of double-entry accounting, segregation of duties is applied to do so. In the blockchain situation, the underlying mechanism of the blockchain already ensures this.
DOCUMENT
Contrary to most sectors, to date the tourism and aviation industries have not managed to level off greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, effective mitigation through technological innovation or structural and behavioural change cannot be expected shortly. Airlines and tourism companies appear to use carbon offsetting as a last resort. However, offsetting is generally acknowledged as a second-best solution for mitigating emissions, after reducing energy use. This paper seeks to determine the mitigation potential of voluntary carbon offsetting by comparing public and industry awareness of climate change and aviation emissions, and attitudes to various mitigation measures with relevant online communication by 64 offset providers. Methods were a literature review and online content analyses. Overall, the gaps that were identified between awareness, attitude and actual behaviour are not bridged by provider communication. From this perspective, the mitigation potential of voluntary carbon offsetting for achieving reductions of tourism transport emissions is estimated as low. The same conclusion is reached by comparing carbon dioxide volumes of flight offsets with actual air travel emissions. Current sales of flight offsets compensate less than 1% of all aviation emissions.
MULTIFILE
LINK
LINK
DOCUMENT
This study systematically evaluates greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reporting practices of European airline groups, covering both mandatory and voluntary key performance indicators (KPIs) under evolving regulatory frameworks. By analysing annual and sustainability reports from 16 major airline groups, the research identifies significant progress in the reporting of core metrics, with Scope 1 CO2 totals reported by 94 % and emissions intensity by 88 %, reflecting growing regulatory alignment and stakeholder expectations. However, persistent gaps remain: Scope 2 and Scope 3 reporting appears in only 56 % and 50 % of cases, respectively, while non-CO2 emissions are disclosed by just 38 %, despite forthcoming European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) monitoring requirements. Reporting on sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) life-cycle emissions is limited (19 %), and CO2 offsetting disclosures are rare (6 %), complicating verification of decarbonisation claims and readiness for ReFuelEU Aviation and Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). The proliferation of voluntary KPI disclosures further complicates comparability due to a lack of standardization and clear definitions. These challenges are compounded by risks of greenwashing, where airlines selectively report favourable data such as emissions intensity, and greenhushing, where substantive achievements are under-communicated. The study concludes that while regulatory frameworks such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the EU ETS, CORSIA, and ReFuelEU are driving improvements, further harmonization and methodological clarity are required to ensure transparency, comparability, and genuine progress toward aviation's climate goals.
DOCUMENT
Paper presentation at session mobility and climate.
DOCUMENT
