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
Tourism is on course to thwart humanity’s efforts to reach a zero carbon economy because of its high growth rates and carbon intensity. To get out of its carbon predicament, the tourism sector needs professionals with carbon literacy and carbon capability. Providing future professionals in the full spectrum of tourism-related study programmes with the necessary knowledge and skills is essential. This article reports on ten years of experience at a BSc tourism programme with a carbon footprint exercise in which students calculate the carbon footprint of their latest holiday, compare their results with others and reflect on options to reduce emissions. Before they start, the students are provided with a handout with emission factors, a brief introduction and a sample calculation. The carbon footprints usually differ by a factor of 20 to 30 between the highest and lowest. Distance, transport mode and length of stay are almost automatically identified as the main causes, and as the main keys for drastically reducing emissions. The link to the students’ own experience makes the exercise effective, the group comparison makes it fun. As the exercise requires no prior knowledge and is suitable for almost any group size, it can be integrated into almost any tourism-related study programme.
DOCUMENT
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
