Off Topic

The Carbon Footprint of Global Tourism

  • Last Updated:
  • May 20th, 2018 8:54 am
[OP]
Deal Fanatic
Jul 5, 2005
6526 posts
239 upvotes

The Carbon Footprint of Global Tourism

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0141-x

Just a small excerpt from the article but it's worth reading the whole thing...
Tourism contributes significantly to global gross domestic product, and is forecast to grow at an annual 4%, thus outpacing many other economic sectors. However, global carbon emissions related to tourism are currently not well quantified. Here, we quantify tourism-related global carbon flows between 160 countries, and their carbon footprints under origin and destination accounting perspectives. We find that, between 2009 and 2013, tourism’s global carbon footprint has increased from 3.9 to 4.5 GtCO2e, four times more than previously estimated, accounting for about 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Something to think about when you go to book your next vacation. Staying closer to home helps cut down on emissions.

Oh and here's an article talking about the study for people who don't like reading studies - Study Confirms: Our Vacations Suck For the Climate
28 replies
Deal Addict
User avatar
Oct 2, 2006
3326 posts
310 upvotes
Just out of curiosity -- per capita, how does that compare to driving long distances?
Deal Fanatic
May 29, 2006
8825 posts
1576 upvotes
great here comes vacation taxes, liberals will stop at nothing.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 19, 2010
4785 posts
1759 upvotes
There is no way that I could possibly care less about the carbon footprint of my wife and I as we travel around the world. Just completed a four month 'round the world trip (not our first one) and will do it again...and again...and again.

Seeing what other countries in the world are doing about this "problem", which is largely absolutely nothing, I feel no compulsion whatsoever to try to save the world on my own.
[OP]
Deal Fanatic
Jul 5, 2005
6526 posts
239 upvotes
heymikey wrote:
May 10th, 2018 1:59 am
Just out of curiosity -- per capita, how does that compare to driving long distances?
Last I remember seeing the numbers driving was like 1/2 to 2/3 of the emissions of flying and it drops substantially the more people you add to the car whereas flying is usually already reduced to a per user cost.

Here's an article https://www.thoughtco.com/flying-drivin ... nt-1203936
In assessing the global warming impact of a trip from Philadelphia to Boston (about 300 miles), the environmental news website Grist.org calculates that driving would generate about 104 kilograms of carbon dioxide (CO2)—a leading greenhouse gas—per typical medium-sized car, regardless of the number of passengers, while flying on a commercial jet would produce some 184 kilograms of CO2 per passenger.
So in this example if you had a couple flying their cost would be around 104 kg for driving and 368 kg flying.

----

I don't think anyone is suggesting we stop traveling completely but it's something to keep in mind when planning vacations if you're concerned with your environmental impact. I know a few people who staunchly oppose things like pipelines but go on 3 or 4 very long flights every year without considering the impact. It's something good to be mindful of.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Oct 25, 2009
3799 posts
1053 upvotes
Moncton
The easiest way to be environmental is to work less to earn less.

If you keep the same income and don’t travel, chances are that money will go to something just as carbon intensive like a big house or an SUV. Even Canadian cannabis is being produced using coal generated electricity. And even if you are in BC, Manitoba and especially Quebec, hydro that is being sold to residents isn’t being sold to adjacent states and provinces that generate electricity with coal or gas.

If you start traveling at a young age, perhaps you will postpone childbirth. You are also less likely to want methane generating pets. Travel also help spread deadly diseases, that contributes to fewer people.

Hug a monkey, save the planet.
Toronto is a very small part of Canada
Sr. Member
User avatar
Nov 13, 2003
551 posts
20 upvotes
Toronto
Conquistador wrote:
May 10th, 2018 4:56 pm
Seeing what other countries in the world are doing about this "problem", which is largely absolutely nothing, I feel no compulsion whatsoever to try to save the world on my own.
You put problem in quotes because you think green house emissions is not a problem?
Also, other countries in the world are doing nothing in part because they have their own citizens that think just like you. Basically you are pointing the fingers at each other and using that as an excuse: "You start first! No u!"
Deal Addict
User avatar
May 22, 2016
1085 posts
205 upvotes
Ontario
Tourism is good for the economy. It creates jobs in areas where there are none and the locals resort to worse things emissions like destroying the reefs, poaching and cutting down rain forests.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 19, 2010
4785 posts
1759 upvotes
Renton wrote:
May 11th, 2018 9:59 am
You put problem in quotes because you think green house emissions is not a problem?
Also, other countries in the world are doing nothing in part because they have their own citizens that think just like you. Basically you are pointing the fingers at each other and using that as an excuse: "You start first! No u!"
The Earth has experienced periods of warming and cooling for millions of years. This is part of the cycle so I look upon it as the same kind of "problem" that is was when the last ice age ended by, wait for it, the warming of the Earth.

It is the height of human arrogance to think that we can use a little over one hundred years of data to draw conclusions and then meaningfully alter what's happening by sending PM Dressup a cheque but that's a subject for a different thread.

By all means, if you want to curtail your travel footprint in your bid to save the planet please do so but do it without the judgmental attitude towards those of us who will not be staying home.
Member
Nov 8, 2017
450 posts
168 upvotes
An instrument has yet to be invented that can measure my indifference in regards to my carbon footprint when I travel.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 18, 2007
4110 posts
238 upvotes
Conquistador wrote:
May 12th, 2018 12:02 pm
The Earth has experienced periods of warming and cooling for millions of years. This is part of the cycle so I look upon it as the same kind of "problem" that is was when the last ice age ended by, wait for it, the warming of the Earth.

It is the height of human arrogance to think that we can use a little over one hundred years of data to draw conclusions and then meaningfully alter what's happening by sending PM Dressup a cheque but that's a subject for a different thread.

By all means, if you want to curtail your travel footprint in your bid to save the planet please do so but do it without the judgmental attitude towards those of us who will not be staying home.
While true that the earth has had cooling/warming periods, none have been due to man made fossil fuels and byproducts.

But let's say it's a normal warming period, what is so wrong or bad about wanting to have cleaner air and water? What is wrong with environmental regulation? After all without, we'd still be burning coal or dumping toxins in our drinking water, but hey I saved a few bucks so it's ok!


Anyways, from what I remember (in a report years ago) travelling in first class (since it took up more space) and short hop flights were the biggest contributors. Not taking a TATL or going from YYZ to YYC or YVR. Although I suppose the train is an option, albeit slow.
I'm looking for a NZ Silver Fern Kiwi coin! :)
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 19, 2010
4785 posts
1759 upvotes
IceBlueShoes wrote:
May 14th, 2018 6:05 am
While true that the earth has had cooling/warming periods, none have been due to man made fossil fuels and byproducts.

But let's say it's a normal warming period, what is so wrong or bad about wanting to have cleaner air and water? What is wrong with environmental regulation? After all without, we'd still be burning coal or dumping toxins in our drinking water, but hey I saved a few bucks so it's ok!


Anyways, from what I remember (in a report years ago) travelling in first class (since it took up more space) and short hop flights were the biggest contributors. Not taking a TATL or going from YYZ to YYC or YVR. Although I suppose the train is an option, albeit slow.
Like I said, it's the height of human arrogance to attribute so much impact to humans based on a little over a hundred years of data. And here's a newsflash for you. Much of the world is still burning coal and dumping toxins in the drinking water. Air and water in Canada are pristine compared to many parts of the world.

To each their own. You stay at home and I'll go and see the world, mostly in Business and First Class.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Nov 13, 2003
551 posts
20 upvotes
Toronto
Conquistador wrote:
May 14th, 2018 10:22 am
Like I said, it's the height of human arrogance to attribute so much impact to humans based on a little over a hundred years of data.
To each their own. You stay at home and I'll go and see the world, mostly in Business and First Class.
Speaking of arrogance...
Also, it's more like 650000 years of data. The thing is, it's hard to change a mind that's not open to change.

Image
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 18, 2007
4110 posts
238 upvotes
Conquistador wrote:
May 14th, 2018 10:22 am
Like I said, it's the height of human arrogance to attribute so much impact to humans based on a little over a hundred years of data. And here's a newsflash for you. Much of the world is still burning coal and dumping toxins in the drinking water. Air and water in Canada are pristine compared to many parts of the world.

To each their own. You stay at home and I'll go and see the world, mostly in Business and First Class.
It's called having an open mind and accepting new scientific data.

So while yes, a lot of the world is still burning and dumping toxins, the west pollutes/consumes more resources per capita than those living in the 3rd world.
Again, like pollution, this is all information collected.

Just because we used to do certain things in the past, doesn't mean we should continue to do so now and in the future.

Also pollution doesn't respect borders. So again, what is the problem with environmental regulation?
If we did nothing, we'd be living in smog filled places aka Beijing or 1950's London, because you know both are known for their stellar air quality.

And I never said I'd stay home. Travel is one thing I enjoy. I was simply stating what the main sources of travel emissions were.

Oh wait, just realized, humans haven't increased the emissions, created the hole in the ozone layer (and worked together to close it) created the pacific plastics patch, causing wide spread extinction, destruction of the rainforest and the bleaching of coral at all.
It was the bears, bigfoot and hummingbirds.
Humans are innocent. :rolleyes:
All the scientists have been wrong the entire time. Let's do nothing pull out the catalytic converters from out cars, start burning coal again and shut down any environmental regulation. Yep. Humans are innocent.
I'm looking for a NZ Silver Fern Kiwi coin! :)
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 19, 2010
4785 posts
1759 upvotes
Conquistador wrote:
May 10th, 2018 4:56 pm
There is no way that I could possibly care less about the carbon footprint of my wife and I as we travel around the world. Just completed a four month 'round the world trip (not our first one) and will do it again...and again...and again.

Seeing what other countries in the world are doing about this "problem", which is largely absolutely nothing, I feel no compulsion whatsoever to try to save the world on my own.
Looks like some of the neighbourhood environmentalists missed the first line of my first post in this thread. Here it is again for clarity.

As such, you can all spare yourselves the effort of googling for nice graphs and stories. Have a nice day. :)

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)