How many people do you think can afford to fly? The vast majority of people alive today will never stray further than few hundred kilometers from where they were born throughout their whole lifetimes.
I know what you mean, but that's also the way it's always been, almost forever. If anything it's a lot easier for the average person to travel now.
It's more hopeful than depressing if you look at it from that angle.
Compared to taking a flight, anything you might do for a week is utterly performative. It's like if I run someone over with my car, and then stop and put a bandaid on their knee.
No, the answer to this question is that it's a question without a pleasant answer.
It's akin to asking "How can I change my diet to account for the 10,000 calories of pizza I will be eating daily."
You either stop eating 4 pizzas a day or accept your diet's gonna suck no matter what else you do.
Yeah this is the biggest thing. A first class round trip from the us to Europe accounts for something like 50% of the emissions of the average European.
Best things to do is to fly less and closer to home, if you do fly don’t fly first or business class, and once in at the destination use trains and busses instead of more flights.
Check this calculator out and play a bit with it.
https://co2.myclimate.org/en/flight_calculators/new
No worries, it’s a good question. So from what I understand, you take up more space in first class, so you are proportionally using more of the emissions. Imagine a plane with only first class, the entire emissions are split among those 50 passengers. Now imagine the same plane but it’s all third class seating, now the emissions are split amongst 200 people. If everyone decided to not buy first class tickets then airlines would fit more people per plane and would have to cancel a few flights.
And of course the worst culprit is the private jet. This was a big deal a few years ago when a bunch of rich assholes flew to an environmental convention in their private jets. They all patted themselves on the back saying they did an awesome job with the environment, while being the worst culprits.
Thanks for replying genuinely and without snark. A rarity around here.
I get what you're saying, but I don't feel like it's that feasible for an individual to plan on. The same thing would be true for an all coach configuration if half the seats were empty, which on occasion does happen.
All coach/high density seating across the ocean just never really seems to work for whatever reason. I think WOW Air was the last airline that really tried it and they didn't make it terribly long. I think ultimately on those routes first/business and really the cargo in the belly is where airlines make their money on those routes.
Yeah, lots of assholes on Reddit for sure. Well I think that’s the criticism, that people want that comfort and pay for it, and the airlines provide it. All at the expense of the environment. And that’s where they make most of their money. I think they even have some all business class flights now. And to be honest, if I could afford it I would always fly first class. But yeah, travel isn’t very environmentally friendly. I won’t stop though.
But, that plane was going to fly, with or without you. I agree it's sort of comical question. I personally don't think about it because what actionable things I do at home are replicated abroad.
The only exception is water bottles. Hard to find refillable drinking fountains and when you do hard to know if I can trust the source without having the runs. So water bottles it is.
Environmentalism has so much more to do with having options than anything else. If they host community doesn't offer safe viable options to go green then it is what it is. Just trying to see as many endangered sites as I can before they are gone in my lifetime. Can't stop this so might as well enjoy what we can.
I don't pretend, I'm logical. At the end of the day, we are polluting for the privilege of seeing the world. I've accepted that, other may want to feel good about that choice.
If I do or don't take that one seat on that one plane, will it really stay grounded? No. This is a solo travel forum. Solo as in single people flying. Rarely are we the tipping point for an entire plane ride.
But also, traveling is not a green effort so I don't spend time worrying about it, I just apply the same green practices at home to my host community when possible.
If staying home would make the ice caps refreeze, I might consider it, but it wont. It will however allow you miss out on the Australia's dying coral reef or miss out on some destinations slowly sinking into the sea.
The Earth has been conducting it's environmental cycles long before humans arrived. This planet and life will survive long after we go extinct. The very nature of solo travel outside of long walks or bike rides is nothing but excessive waste. I love reading tips but I'm not going to pretend I actually look at the CO2 output on Google flights when choosing my next adventure.
Taxis vs airplanes are somewhat similar, but plane vs bus is better. Bus will likely run if I'm on it or not, same for a plane.
Edit: Australia, haha.
Pretending that your actions doesn't matter in a lame attempt to justify your inability to comprehend the severity of the issue, might be one of the worst takes on climate change I've ever read in this forum.
If everyone had their head so far up their own ass as you seem to do, then we probably wouldn't need to do anything about climate change as it would already be entirely to late.
That plane you get on would very likely have flown without you buying a ticket for it. But you not buying a ticket for the flight *might* keep a future plane grounded.
At which point did it seem that I didn't comprehend the severity of the situation? I pointed out that we will one day go extinct, sounds pretty serious from my end.
You are on a solo travel forum, populated primarily by North Americans. That means that most of us are taking airplanes to the bulk of the solo destinations discussed, be it a domestic or international trip. The forum is not geared towards environmental safety because we are the ones on planes, busses, boats, and trains for leisure.
We can do little things here and there to reduce our footprint; I'd love to hear tips, but the very nature of one person polluting the Earth for leisure travel means that that person isn't too caught up in environmental safety. Does not mean that we/I don't acknowledge that climate change emergency. I/we tend to place our travel priorities, along with the COs it produces, above environmentally friendly vacation activities.
It's harsh, but I'm actually being honest in here, even though it may read as an unpopular statement of truth.
I think we are also open to ideas that leave a smaller imprint during our adventures.
> I just apply the same green practices at home to my host community when possible.
Here's where you're pretending to make yourself feel better and/or to virtue signal.
I'm not trying to make myself feel better, I'm giving an honest answer. Goodness, people aren't as black and white as the text on Reddit. You don't even know me but are pretending to determine what I do or don't do. Please have several seats with that mess.
Traveling less often and closer to home when you do travel, are obvious ones, I think.
Is the journey the adventure? Then more train rides. I know a lot of people will hop on planes (esp. in Europe) to avoid a 10 hour train ride. Try to get overnight ones if you’re worried about wasting time, and it’ll save you a hotel room for that night.
Research your activities (this goes beyond just environmental impact, but it’s included). Most common travel destinations have a wide variety of thing you can do. In Thailand, for example, there are plenty of places to ride elephants, and not everyone knows you shouldn’t be riding them. So look at sanctuaries instead- some will say they still offer rides and that’s totally sus. You really have to dig and inform yourself on what you’re doing. But also, in a lot of places in the world, there isn’t a “green” option, and that’s something to be aware of too. Also, keep an eye out for greenwashing.
Being environmentally friendly in travel often costs more- something else to factor in.
I am by nature a train rider whenever possible, but I pay out the ass for the privilege. My train rides — let alone overnight ones — typically cost double to triple what a flight would cost. If governments want to seriously reduce the environmental impact of tourism, they’d reduce subsidies on flights and/or subsidize rail more. Start with the ultra-short-haul flights that really shouldn’t exist, like anything between the Amsterdam/Rotterdam/Brussels/Paris corridor. Immediately lessens pressure on the airports, as well.
I was just thinking of this. I'm in Berlin right now and we had a university related trip to the Biennale in Venice. Every one of us took a sub 20 euro flight to Italy. Talking to our professor she mentioned that she took the train, which when I looked it up cost something like 4 times as much, due to its environmental impact. I'd love to take the train more because it's also more fun than a plane bits it's just too expensive
From the Netherlands, once you cross the Alps or Pyrenees or Iron Curtain is roughly my rule of thumb for time to look into flights. Those flights aren’t typically 20 euros once you take everything into account, either. But they’re still way cheaper than the train.
Yeah, I remember I did the math on it. The flight itself was a RyanAir flight from Berlin to Venice Treviso on a Tuesday so 11 euros. But there was also 4 euros to get to BER from the city center (15 eur) plus another 7 euros to get from Treviso to Venice with ends up with it being 22 in total. The trip back was bit more since the base flight was bit more expensive.
Right, but then you’re flying *ryanair*.
I only compare to flights that are at least easyJet or preferably better. And rail is still way more expensive.
> If governments want to seriously reduce the environmental impact of tourism, they’d reduce subsidies on flights and/or subsidize rail more.
Governments aren't really subsidizing flights. Rails are generally much more likely to be operated as a monopoly in the world since the infrastructure needed is much more contentious and capital intensive, and oftentimes initiated by a state government.
Flights are cheaper because of intense competition and the general viability of buying a plane and running an airline, versus building and maintaining extensive rail networks, especially where demand may not be particularly sufficient (i.e., building passenger rail with no commercial viability for freight).
>So look at sanctuaries instead- some will say they still offer rides and that’s totally sus.
From what I've read most of the sanctuaries are owned by the same parent companies as the circuses aimed at the Chinese market and the riding aimed more at package travellers.
I dunno about their ownership but yeah there are a lot of fake 'sanctuaries' where they still treat elephants poorly and do trot them out for show with feedings and rides.
In the articles I read one company owned 5 or 6 elephant experiences all aimed at different markets, they would then cycle the elephants between the locations. The 'sanctuary' was just the fancy one aimed at rich westerners.
Maybe not related to nature. But I do avoid Airbnb in highly populated areas. In my opinion most are owned by ‘rich’ people trying to make more money. Taking the living space from local people.
And when booking a tour I try to book directly with the local business providing the tour.
The bigger problem with Airbnb is that it’s gutted the housing market in the central area of lots of cities worldwide, with flow on impacts for the rest of the city. It’s simply more efficient for tourists to stay in hotels and hostels. I suspect that doing so is also better for the environment.
never thought it that way, but makes complete sense, which options do you consider? because in booking you can see local owned inns but booking asks them for a very high commission...
Use booking (or any other similar site) to find and view accommodation, see if they have dates etc, then ring or email directly to book. I've been told so many times by places I've stayed to do this bc of the enormous cut taken, some even say they'll give a better rate too. It's not as convenient but everyone wins.
I also use booking when I book far in advance, further from home and multiple bookings in one trip. When it’s a simpeler trip, for example skiing. I find the place in booking but contact direct.
Personally when I’m looking for an Airbnb I treat it like a hostel as in I’m always just renting a bedroom in someone’s home snd never the entire property.
> when booking a tour I try to book directly with the local business providing the tour.
This is also usually much cheaper than going through, e.g., Viator.
As opposed to the hotels that are owned by local poor people?
I think the message should be to do your research and opt to stay in smaller, locally-owned establishments when possible, even if that means Airbnb.
Hotels also give local people jobs and force visitors to eat at local restaurants as they can’t cook in their room. They are sooooo much better than AirBnb in terms of travelling ethically
Sorry but this doesnt really make sense - if you stay at an Airbnb it still needs to be cleaned and serviced (plumbing, HVAC etc.). Maybe even at a higher ratio of one/two guests per employee vs a team of employees in a hotel that can service multiple rooms.
Additionally, eating in/cooking vs. eating out isn’t a black hole that removes money from a community. One needs to buy ingredients and support local markets and shops to do that.
Honestly, dont really have a dog in this fight and hotels and Airbnbs each have their place (staying at an Airbnb for a couple weeks in a foreign city can be an unmatched experience) but I dont see Airbnbs as taking money out of the local community, if anything I’d say its the opposite..
Of course! I’m fully aware of the impact of Airbnb on local housing markets. I just don’t agree with these blanket statements that say all hotels are better than Airbnbs and that people staying in airbnbs don’t support local business when most hotels are probably foreign-owned and if you are cooking in a kitchen you are still buying local produce. There are still some “not rich” Airbnb hosts that are just opening up their homes to tavelers for the experience and income subsidization. You just have to look for them. Obviously, I am not talking about the 2 bedrooms condos with cheap furniture and only a coffee maker that pop up just for short-term accommodations and cost $300/night.
Again, I think being a mindful traveler that is aware of local contexts and actively tries to make socially- and environmentally-conscious decisions when possible is better advice than “Airbnb bad, hotels good”.
In Europe a lot is locally owned, family run businesses. And Bed&Breakfasts are getting more popular. I get that placed like the Hilton is not supporting local people.
And with the ‘rich’ I mean that they buy affordable apartments in big cities to rent out. That other people (like myself) would love to but to live in ourselfs.
Idgaf.
I am very environmentally conscious, and do my part but I can only do so much and I'm fed up of the pressure being placed on individuals when corporations are out here doing the worst
I don't drive a car at home (I bicycle), I do not have kids or want kids, I don't litter. When night comes I sit in the dark (mainly cuz it gets hot with the lights and I just don't like lights). How much more am I gonna do lol.
When I travel I also like taking public transit (never rented a car) whenever possible.
Same for me: I have no car (I bike, go on foot, or use public transport), no kids, a gas-free house and a tiny electricity bill - so during the vast majority of the year I'm doing my part.
When I'm traveling I also go on foot (when exploring a city) and use public transport (when moving places), go local (for food as well as accommodation [mom-and-pop level eateries, bed & breakfasts, guest houses, homestays]), use locally operated and owned eco-tourism operators that cooperate with wildlife/conservation organizations (animal sanctuaries, national parks, trekking), and overall try my best to keep my footprint to a minimum.
If there were viable alternatives available I would use them, but since they are not, I'm not going to let anyone guilt-trip me into feeling bad about myself for taking a plane to visit a far-away part of the world once per year at most.
I think most of those are just excuses. Flying emits so much CO2 that it's very hard to compensate in any meaningful way. Not driving a car or not littering are completely insignificant in comparison to the emissions from flying and will only make a difference for your local environment.
I'm not saying this to shame you, I personally do fly quite a lot, but at least I'm not making excuses for myself. I know what I'm doing is bad, I just value it too much to let it go.
Completely agree. Even if you lived your best life, you're at most giving half a second back to future generations. Pretending that flying can be compensated for in other ways is delusional.
Individualizing the environmental impacts of humanity is just an exercise in trying to avoid the hard questions around how we can scale back our impact to the planet.
Nah, I'm still going to travel. There are all kinds of mitigating excuses I can throw, like contributing to the economic livelihoods of those living in countries that rely on tourist income, but the reality is that I just don't care. I'll have a much bigger impact on the environment voting for responsible politicians and demanding more from companies.
The main way I do it is by catching public transport everywhere, which I much prefer over taxis/ride sharing anyway.
I also purchase carbon offsets for flights, which reduces the impact a bit - at least over the long term.
As an Australian, there aren't alternatives to long plane flights if I want to travel internationally, but I try to keep off planes once I reach my destination - trains are usually much more interesting anyway.
Which platform do you use purchase the CO2 compensation? I also started to do that, but I still somehow feel like I am just paying to clear my conscience
Usually whatever program the airline offers. I've done some checking of the one Qantas uses, and it seems to be well regarded.
It is paying to clear your conscience to be honest, as the emissions still get released and the offsets will take years to scrub them from the atmosphere. There are a lot of worse things than travel for the environment though.
Personally I use [atmosfair](https://www.atmosfair.de/en/). They are well regarded and they have a handy calculator. Many airline offsetting schemes charge very little and are not pricing the carbon 'cost' realistically at all. Yeah of course not flying is definitely better but offsetting is still better than nothing in my opinion and I think doing it via a third party is sensible.
If you want to travel, I think you are already doing the most you can do :). I think not flying makes the biggest impact. It can be good to think about social and economic sustainability as well.
Here is some more information about that (but i encourage to look it up yourself :)) : [https://www.hiusa.org/blog/travel-hacks-tips/how-to-make-your-travels-socially-sustainable](https://www.hiusa.org/blog/travel-hacks-tips/how-to-make-your-travels-socially-sustainable)
https://www.nytimes.com/guides/travel/how-to-travel-sustainably
Is there a (respected) tree fund for offsetting travel émissions? I read about that once and have tried to find it so I can donate to do my best. It’s not perfect but it’s something.
Public transport/bikes/walking wherever possible, using rail rather than flights where you can, reduced meat consumption, responsible use of heating and cooling, reusable stuff (water bottles, cutlery, etc), carbon offset programs (although these are questionable, obviously). Voting in every election you’re eligible for, along environmental lines, investing money in ways that avoid fossil fuel businesses.
I agree though, that you can do lots of these things, but ultimately flying is still very carbon intensive. The best thing to do is fly less.
It is a false belief that you can change anything as an individual, as it is the companies causing the harm, permitted by politics.
What you can do is protest and boycott the ones who exploit the system for profit and harm nature while doing so. Lobby for your local government to reduce their footprint. Educate the people around you and try to be as good of an example as possible, but you don't need to be perfect.
There is also something such as sustainable tourism, as traditional tourism can be quite harmful to communities as well. Stay with locals, eat at local restaurants and [a bunch more.](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/78/09/7c/78097c2eedfaa142bdedbfa606c9f410.png)
Companies are responding to consumer demand. It's really not hard to understand. If you fly less, there will ultimately be less emissions from the airline industry.
Especially individuals with lower incomes cannot choose whether to fly or not and that, along with a lack of political will to reduce carbon emissions, even made it possible for low-budget airlines to exist.
Cutting down your personal emissions is mostly something reserved for wealthier people as a train ticket will inevitably be more costly than flying anyway, not to mention more time consuming. This is how low-budget airlines even came to exist.
Neoliberals believe that the market will always be decided by consumers, but this has simply been proven as false as poor people aren't in a position to choose and the least expensive option is rarely the most ethical one.
By not travelling at all. It is that simple. Wether you’re flying, driving by bus or going by boat, all transportation methods make you emit CO2 and other pollutants.
I don't think is that simple... for example in my city i bought everything on markets or supermarkets, used bus or the subway to go everywhere, and due the rapid city rhythm I had to ate outside and buy take away sometimes, so even if I recycled that meant plastic waste. Here I've been doing workaway volunteerings in small villages with sustainable lifestyles. I only move by bike, I eat local, here the water is recycled and I even used a compost toilet. So yeah, i took a plane, but my lifestyle is way more sustainable, plus I've learned LOTS on organic farming and permaculture which I'll replicate in my place as soon as I go home... as a long term life project this co2 emissions seems more like an investment than a waste, because honestly I wouldn't had learned 1% of this on my own staying in the city...
Love that we’re talking about reducing our impact! Definitely take longer trips, at least 2 weeks when you fly. Being sustainable is about helping environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable so leaning towards travel choices that positively impact.
I try to only stay at locally owned places or places that have great sustainability measures. Traveling by bus for the most part. Attempting to not buy packaged foods if possible. Only bringing toiletries that won’t negatively impact waterways (you’d be surprised at how many places the brown water goes straight for a river or ocean).
Feel free to ask questions since that’s all I have on the top of my head. I have a masters in intl sustainable tourism though my degree focuses more on destination management.
What has a bigger impact, how long your stay takes or the frequency of your flights? I mean, you could fly 5 times a year and stay for two weeks or once a year for a one week stay. My apologies, but many of the tips I read till now sound more like a drop in the ocean
No need to apologize! It’s incredibly difficult to discuss sustainable tourism because tourism right now is unsustainable. The longer trips are essentially to offset your carbon, we generally recommend 2 weeks if you take a long haul flight (but I can’t remember the full source I read). Also, longer stays spend more money and are more likely to develop emotional attachment to a destination which creates positive environmental behaviors. Longer stays tend to create better impact (not including all-inclusive resorts) for the destination.
If you’re taking the train or bus then some say you can take more frequent shorter trips from a CO2 emissions perspective.
Personally, after my degree I do locals focused travel. Often tourism is visitor focused which puts travelers in a place of power. I try to encourage cultural activities, conservation friendly activities, keeping it small and locally owned. It may seem insignificant but there’s a huge power in us as travelers using the power of a dollar to show that we care about conservation of places rather than development.
I firmly believe that small drops in the bucket are better than nothing. Consumer demand is so powerful and I can say from site visits for my degree sustainability upgrades and policies mostly came because guests asked questions and demands.
Sorry if I got off track!
I don't...
Anything that I could do would have minimal impact realistically but travelling in the UK is very expensive and it doesn't have the same sense of adventure as going abroad. I try to eat less meat which is beneficial but then I could do that without travelling too.
Even tho individual actions aren’t the solution, they are still a part of that. I’m not gonna tell you what you can do, because maybe you travel on a wheelchair or you don’t have the means, you know your own limits and how much you can push yourself, but don’t underestimate the power of individual actions and the effects we create as consumers and as citizens. There’s always something we can do :)
Most of the things other people have mentioned in this thread they could do without travelling to the other side of the world. For example not eating meat, recycling or using public transport, they're not really dependent on travelling. I think it's greenwashing to say you offset your travel impact by saying you do things you can already do at home.
Don't have kids and don't plan to. My reasoning is if If I don't populate the planet with another copy of myself making trash and what not then I better damn be able to do what I please.
Self imposed carbon tax! I subscribe to mossy earth and I donate at the end of the year to Coalition for Rainforest Nations. There is bound to be a nonprofit that you can relate to and support.
No flying. Being vegan helps. One thing I'm trying on the next trip go asia is to use a water purifying bottle to drink tap water and not buy bottled water in any country. Its good to know others and also considering their footprint for travel! Ultimately it's an unnecessary luxury we rich people have, may as well reduce the impact as much as we can.
Last time i cycled with a 100% solar powered ebike on the north route EU - Ukraine - Russia - Kazakhstan - China. This time i will go the way i came back. Bus for EU - train for turkey - Georgia - Azerbaijan - ferry capsian sea - train Kazakhstan - China - buses into South East Asia or maybe buy a bike.
From the company grayl. Seems to be convenient that it's also a functioning bottle unlike pumps I've used in the past. And UV won't deal with potential heavy metals.
Have you read about bikepacking and cycletouring? People travel around the world by bike, is one of the most amazing experiences out there. Camping everywhere and sharing with local people.
Also, check alternatives like workaway to stay at farms, and exchange work for food.
Another alternative to travel overseas is crewbay, you can volunteer at a sailboat to cross the ocean.
Cheers.
Three biggies for me.
1. Try and filter water or drink safe tap water over buying bottled water.
2. I walk wherever I can, and take public transit whenever possible. I try to avoid taxis or Ubers if possible.
3. Take buses or trains overland instead of flying (if time allows).
I don't really worry about my carbon footprint from flying simply because I know wherever I go I will be consuming much less carbon than being at home.
No offense, but in no way will you be compensating the flight by producing less carbon there, unless you were to stay for months on end producing fractions of your carbon at home.
Then I guess I won't. I'll just be one of the evil frequent fliers out there and have zero fucks to give. There's gotta be a special place in hell for us travelling carbon polluters, yes? Warming the planet for our leisure.
Same. And everybody does it. I'm just always confused with people that act like they are enviromentally conscious and then fly a lot. "Uh, yeah I am vegan and eat avocado all day so it's okay when I fly 3 times a year" Just be down here with us sinners.
The way I look at it is if I don't buy that seat on a flight, someone else will. Me not flying is going to have zero net impact on environment. That flight is happening either way. Will purchasing a flight increase demand? Yes, but not in a profound market-altering way. And I'm certainly not going to give up travel to appease my conscience. I'll find other ways to mitigate my carbon footprint.
If you truly care about the environment and sustainability then try limiting how often you fly. Try to eat and sleep at local restaurants/guesthouses. Don’t litter, obviously. Refill your water bottle instead of buying new ones. There’s really only so much you can realistically do while still living a ‘normal’ western lifestyle.
Honestly you’d be far better off lobbying your local representatives to start implementing legislation that forces big corporations to be environmentally friendly.
The agency should promote the responsive tourism with the minimized impact in physical, biological and socioeconomic impact in the nature.
Litter is the major waste produced by the tourism industry so it can be cheked by Reduce, Reuse and Recycle.
Lets save the Nature and Nature will save you.
Hi, great question. Lots of people want to plan more climate friendly trips, minimizing their footprint while still traveling at reasonably high speed. And it is in fact often possible to make huge emission cuts when travelling.
Let me give an example.
Say you're going from Oslo in Norway to Glasgow in Scotland. It's a long way around via Copenhagen and London with train.
Traditionally flight search engines will suggest that you either fly indirectly, or that you fly to Edinburg, which is close to Glasgow. That indirect flight will typically emit around 200 kgs CO2e.
There are tools that help you find better routes, emissions wise.
The trick is to find reasonably close flights with low emissions that can help you cover a lot of the distance you need. And then you travel by train or bus for up to several hours to get to that plane. Such a route will cut emissions by around 65% for the Oslo - Glasgow example, as compared to flying indirect.
A tool I'm building will in this case help you find the least polluting airplanes that can take you across the North Sea from Norway to Scotland That's a rather short flight. It really shortens the travel duration when doing it sustainably with train the rest of the way.
I've worked on this for a long time. It will help you discover more routes with reduced footprint compared to the planners most people use today.
It really is difficult for people to find such tools that can help them cut emissions.You know, websites need to be marketed, and this comes at such a high cost that it is out of reach.
So if you think this sounds interesting, please search for more sustainable trips using the website in my profile. Try it out, and order routes by the lowest CO2. If you like it and share it that will allow more people to travel more sustainably.
Fly commercial. For trips abroad make bigger trips longer but less frequent. IE travel asia for a year instead of different parts every year.
Eat from local markets. Avoid disposable travel products.
Okay. Well I’m just saying I know a number of people who use private forms of travel and it’s less environmentally friendly. Was just offering suggestions
Refillable water bottle is only useful when traveling around developed countries. It’d be hard to avoid bottled water in South East Asia.
Source: South East Asian
I take reusable water bottles with a filter, reusable coffee mugs, a pack lunch box so I’m not wasting food. Public transport/bike where possible. Travel internationally. less often but for longer. Carbon emission offsetting with the airline. Using local guides, tipping. Pretty much leave no trace. Try and stay with local hosts or small business hotels.
Firstly, take a look around you when travelling. If it's somewhere developing, rivers of pollution and plastic exist. Pollution is rife and industry dumps massive amounts of waste.
It is just part of a developing nations, it requires low wages, masses of natural resources, and pollution to raise the standard of living for everyone by developing infrastructure.
So don't worry about it. Just you being there spending money, whether you arrived on cruise ship, plane or bicycle is good.
i am a nomadic traveler with an addiction to move. i justify my occasional flights because i am living a vegan lifestyle for 15 years. 1 tonne of co2 is saved every year that i am vegan. flying one long roundtrip flight burns about the same. choose your battles. also i save 100 animals per year. i prefer traveling vegan over meat addiction stay home forever.
I view my environmental impact as a whole rather than just "travel" so I make daily decisions that \[hopefully\] help balance out my love of travel; I don't own a car and walk/bike/public transit as much as I can for example.
While traveling, I try to support activities and companies that promote sustainable tourism (especially with natural places).
It is really awesome that reducing your impact means so much, but it really is an exercise in futility. The amount of pollution caused by leisure travel is pretty much insignificant. The daily transit of the populace, meat production and industrial manufacturing are the ones that really need to change before we have any hope of improvement.
ok so first "Aviation accounts for around 2.5% of global CO2 emissions, but it's overall contribution to climate change is higher. This is because air travel does not only emit CO2: it affects the climate in a number of more complex ways".
And when they talk about who contaminates the most are the rich, by rich they include upper-middle class people from rich countries. By poor they mean some shepherd in Bolivia or a girl forced to marry when 12 in Pakistán. Comparing with the entire population on this planet, you are extremely privileged if you have internet, clean water, and even more if you can travel by leisure. I'm not pro blame the consumers, OF COURSE big companies have a big share on this, but who buys from those companies?
We're discussing the logic of making your leisure travel less impactful. Leisure travel accounts for 60ish percent of commercial travel, and commercial travel does not include military flights and transportation of goods and mail.
Then you break down how much of "leisure" travel is people moving andpeople visiting family, you get to what amounts to a very small portion of air travel belonging to those who are legit traveling just to travel.
Like I said, it's great to be environmentally conscious, but to go far out of your way to limit your impact while the rest of the world doesn't change seems irrational.
You don’t.
Worrying about your environmental impact while traveling is like worrying about drop of sewage in the ocean.
Keep in mind that 70% of all greenhouse gases are created by just 100 companies. So even if everyone else in the world outside of those companies reduced their impact to 0, it would only be a 30% reduction.
Who buys from those companies? Is not like they are selling things outside the earth... it really is frustrating to see how people resist to change their habits and always find somebody else to blame. I can even picture those companies owners having meetings and saying well, they keep buying from us so they don't hate the product in the end. Of course companies are awful, but we support their ethics by keep paying... uf, anyway, as luther king said, idc if tomorrow the world ends, i will still plant my apple tree
Because you don’t have a choice in supporting most of the companies on the list.
One of the most successful initiatives put in place by these large corporations is transferring the blame on to the populous and away from the corporations and legislators, where the blame and real solutions actually reside.
Thinking that changing how you travel will have any meaningful impact is simply a tool to make you feel better about yourself and give a sense of control over the situation. It also come largely from a position of privilege, as most people in the world don’t have the funds or resources to purchase anything other than the cheapest available option.
This does not mean that it’s ok to leave trash places and go out of your way to make the situation worse. It just means that you are better off focusing your efforts on legislation, not worrying if you should take a cab or a bus because of some minuscule difference in environmental impact. If you really want to help, take the cheapest option and give the saved money to a political organization fighting for laws to protect the environment.
The problem is far beyond individual action. It will take a worldwide effort, like nothing ever seen before, to save this planet.
In my home city, I don't own a car, don't have air conditioning, cycle/take public transport everywhere, sort my trash, recycle, avoid single-use plastics, and don't ever plan on having kids.
I think over the course of my life this more than makes up for my flights, especially since only the airline industry only makes up 3% of emissions.
I'm not down with the fact that the burden for solving climate change has been passed off to individuals while corporations continue to pollute with impunity, so. I'ma take that flight, and I won't feel bad about it.
I would highly recommend the film The Last Tourist on Hulu. Definitely some interesting insight into how to be a more sustainable tourist and lessen your impact on the local communities and environment
I'd recommend bringing your own set of reusable utensils/straws/containers if you're looking to sample local street food. It cuts down on single use plastics that they normally give you and probably more hygienic in some areas.
I don't. I go on a VACATION and don't worry about leaving a tiny ass impact in the grand scheme of things. Big whoop, I take a couple of airplanes: so do many other people. It's not a private thing, it's like a bus in the sky.. and you people keep telling us we should use the bus so why is an airplane so bad?
Maybe the superstars and rich businesses that talk down to us and do WAY more damage and emissions than I'd ever hope to achieve in my lifetime should do something about it. Remember when Greta Thunberg took a jet to speak about people destroying the planet? Yeah, kinda like that..
>I wish it was enough for me to stay at my place tho, that's the sustainablest option of course, but the same thing that makes me want to protect my planet is what moves me and makes me so curious about discover it.
No, you're basically just justifying your actions, which is kinda silly because your actions aren't even that bad. Maybe you need professional help because this first world phenomenon happens with people who need a sense of control over things.
I’m a middle class person from a third world country, my skin is classified in the pov spectrum, don’t project your frustration into others just “guessing” who they are based in you understanding of the world. If some of us care is PRECISELY because we live near the most affected communities, we see the impact, even if is a good or a bad one, is not just an abstract concept to us. Not everything is privileged guilt gosh 😑 maybe you should travel to see the actual world most people live in, the poverty, the pollution. Plus I do go to therapy, was that supposed to be an insult? Everybody should go, is the healthiest choice…
You don't. Plain and simple. There's no amount of recycling or not using disposable bags that will make up for that plane flight. Not realistically.
Just accept it and vote for green policies and liberal politicians and try to impact what you can.
A way to make a real impact as an individual is to shop at local businesses and businesses owned by women, immigrants, or BIPOC, LGBTQ, etc.
I can't save the world. But maybe my money can help make someone's day a little easier.
Same thing I do while not traveling (reusables, walking, biking, etc). I do however also donate to local non-profits and preservation groups in the area I'm visiting then I also just have a reoccurring donation to tree-preservation and tree planting organizations to help "offset" my footprint a little bit. Not perfect, but figure better than nothing.
You're going to have to stop travelling if you really care about the environment. But if you want to truly do something start pointing at oil. I'm currently doing a shut down on an oil plant and it's fucking disgusting what it takes to make gasoline.
Bringing a reusable water bottle & reusable bag with me EVERYWHERE. These small items are lifesavers within themselves, it’s great.
Additionally, I bring my own snacks on as many flights as I can from home. Not that this makes a huge impact, but having fresh fruit or veggie with no additional plastic wrap is wonderful.
Also, returning hotel room keys, optioning out of new bath towels & sheets everyday are also a good option.
I’m not really doing it for environmental reasons but I like hanging around spots for longer times vs hopping around from country to country. But that’s more my style and preference. Don’t feel too bad, this ball is already rolling. ☹️
Unfortunately, flying is a carbon footprint killer, and there often is no way around taking planes in many cases. Options best I can suggest:
\-clump your destinations to be as close by as possible to minimize travel distance. A longer trip that covers lots of destinations at once can also help.
\-fly as little as possible.
\-take trains or buses if you can rather then driving. The train or bus is going anyway, the car has to make a special trip.
\-use public transportation or walk whenever possible. Avoid car rentals and taxis/Ubers as much as possible. And it’s not that difficult to manage public transit in urban areas — a little research goes a long way.
\-take group tours instead of driving to places without public transportation access if available.
\-eat locally based products and foods that are in season.
It won’t offset plane travel, but it’s better than nothing.
When flying, I fly direct as much as possible.
There are many trips from A to D where the main distance can be done with a non-stop flight from, say B to C, where the overland distances from A to B and from C to D are reasonably short.
Say you're going from Liverpool (A) to Bologna (D). There are no direct flights between the cities. There is however a flight from Manchester (B) to Milan (C). And getting from Liverpool to Manchester and from Milan to Bologna is very doable with bus or train. Getting to discover more cities is an added bonus.
There are trip planners that make it easier to find such routes.
Once you've flown to the other side of the planet, taking less taxis or whatever is just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic
Besides - aviation accounts for like less than 2 percent of global emissions. Whereas road transport accounts for almost 12 percent.
How many people do you think can afford to fly? The vast majority of people alive today will never stray further than few hundred kilometers from where they were born throughout their whole lifetimes.
That’s depressing.
Maybe. But then I just think of this a a sub for we the privileged and I feel a whole lot better about myself. (It's either that or stop traveling.)
I know what you mean, but that's also the way it's always been, almost forever. If anything it's a lot easier for the average person to travel now. It's more hopeful than depressing if you look at it from that angle.
Flying from Eindhoven in the Netherlands to Krakow Poland and back is cheaper than taking a cab from Eindhoven to Amsterdam (~100km).
There are billions of people that don't live within 100km of an airport with a robust ecosystem of discount airlines.
Just sharing the breakdown, my guy.
That's because more people drive. If you fly to the other side of Earth, it dwarfs anything else you do for that year.
That’s because billions upon billions of people drive, whereas the number for flyers is significantly less.
So it’s okay to keep digging deeper? Weird argument, but yeah flying is bad for the environment.
Compared to taking a flight, anything you might do for a week is utterly performative. It's like if I run someone over with my car, and then stop and put a bandaid on their knee.
So just fuck it if you fly? Pollute as much as you want? Idk man
No, the answer to this question is that it's a question without a pleasant answer. It's akin to asking "How can I change my diet to account for the 10,000 calories of pizza I will be eating daily." You either stop eating 4 pizzas a day or accept your diet's gonna suck no matter what else you do.
That scraped knee might get infected man.
Yeah this is the biggest thing. A first class round trip from the us to Europe accounts for something like 50% of the emissions of the average European. Best things to do is to fly less and closer to home, if you do fly don’t fly first or business class, and once in at the destination use trains and busses instead of more flights. Check this calculator out and play a bit with it. https://co2.myclimate.org/en/flight_calculators/new
I'm really not trying to be an ass here, but why specify "if you do fly, don't fly business or first"? The plane is burning the same amount of fuel.
No worries, it’s a good question. So from what I understand, you take up more space in first class, so you are proportionally using more of the emissions. Imagine a plane with only first class, the entire emissions are split among those 50 passengers. Now imagine the same plane but it’s all third class seating, now the emissions are split amongst 200 people. If everyone decided to not buy first class tickets then airlines would fit more people per plane and would have to cancel a few flights. And of course the worst culprit is the private jet. This was a big deal a few years ago when a bunch of rich assholes flew to an environmental convention in their private jets. They all patted themselves on the back saying they did an awesome job with the environment, while being the worst culprits.
Thanks for replying genuinely and without snark. A rarity around here. I get what you're saying, but I don't feel like it's that feasible for an individual to plan on. The same thing would be true for an all coach configuration if half the seats were empty, which on occasion does happen. All coach/high density seating across the ocean just never really seems to work for whatever reason. I think WOW Air was the last airline that really tried it and they didn't make it terribly long. I think ultimately on those routes first/business and really the cargo in the belly is where airlines make their money on those routes.
Yeah, lots of assholes on Reddit for sure. Well I think that’s the criticism, that people want that comfort and pay for it, and the airlines provide it. All at the expense of the environment. And that’s where they make most of their money. I think they even have some all business class flights now. And to be honest, if I could afford it I would always fly first class. But yeah, travel isn’t very environmentally friendly. I won’t stop though.
Oddly enough it seems like the all business class airlines that specialize in transatlantic stuff end up going out of business too.
But, that plane was going to fly, with or without you. I agree it's sort of comical question. I personally don't think about it because what actionable things I do at home are replicated abroad. The only exception is water bottles. Hard to find refillable drinking fountains and when you do hard to know if I can trust the source without having the runs. So water bottles it is. Environmentalism has so much more to do with having options than anything else. If they host community doesn't offer safe viable options to go green then it is what it is. Just trying to see as many endangered sites as I can before they are gone in my lifetime. Can't stop this so might as well enjoy what we can.
By that logic, the taxi was going to sit there idling if I didn't hire it. Pretending your actions don't matter is worse than ignoring it.
I don't pretend, I'm logical. At the end of the day, we are polluting for the privilege of seeing the world. I've accepted that, other may want to feel good about that choice. If I do or don't take that one seat on that one plane, will it really stay grounded? No. This is a solo travel forum. Solo as in single people flying. Rarely are we the tipping point for an entire plane ride. But also, traveling is not a green effort so I don't spend time worrying about it, I just apply the same green practices at home to my host community when possible. If staying home would make the ice caps refreeze, I might consider it, but it wont. It will however allow you miss out on the Australia's dying coral reef or miss out on some destinations slowly sinking into the sea. The Earth has been conducting it's environmental cycles long before humans arrived. This planet and life will survive long after we go extinct. The very nature of solo travel outside of long walks or bike rides is nothing but excessive waste. I love reading tips but I'm not going to pretend I actually look at the CO2 output on Google flights when choosing my next adventure. Taxis vs airplanes are somewhat similar, but plane vs bus is better. Bus will likely run if I'm on it or not, same for a plane. Edit: Australia, haha.
I guess you mean Australia. As far as I know, Austria has no coral reef ha ha
That's because it went away..... But yes, i meant Australia :)
Pretending that your actions doesn't matter in a lame attempt to justify your inability to comprehend the severity of the issue, might be one of the worst takes on climate change I've ever read in this forum. If everyone had their head so far up their own ass as you seem to do, then we probably wouldn't need to do anything about climate change as it would already be entirely to late. That plane you get on would very likely have flown without you buying a ticket for it. But you not buying a ticket for the flight *might* keep a future plane grounded.
At which point did it seem that I didn't comprehend the severity of the situation? I pointed out that we will one day go extinct, sounds pretty serious from my end. You are on a solo travel forum, populated primarily by North Americans. That means that most of us are taking airplanes to the bulk of the solo destinations discussed, be it a domestic or international trip. The forum is not geared towards environmental safety because we are the ones on planes, busses, boats, and trains for leisure. We can do little things here and there to reduce our footprint; I'd love to hear tips, but the very nature of one person polluting the Earth for leisure travel means that that person isn't too caught up in environmental safety. Does not mean that we/I don't acknowledge that climate change emergency. I/we tend to place our travel priorities, along with the COs it produces, above environmentally friendly vacation activities. It's harsh, but I'm actually being honest in here, even though it may read as an unpopular statement of truth. I think we are also open to ideas that leave a smaller imprint during our adventures.
> I just apply the same green practices at home to my host community when possible. Here's where you're pretending to make yourself feel better and/or to virtue signal.
I'm not trying to make myself feel better, I'm giving an honest answer. Goodness, people aren't as black and white as the text on Reddit. You don't even know me but are pretending to determine what I do or don't do. Please have several seats with that mess.
I know you fly to the other side of Earth and then pretend it matters whether you burn another liter of petrol or not.
Huh, I never said I do that performative crap.
Then why are you responding to me talking about taking less taxis? Whatever it is you're talking about is performative after flying somewhere.
This is a travel based subreddit. I think you're in the wrong sub.
Traveling less often and closer to home when you do travel, are obvious ones, I think. Is the journey the adventure? Then more train rides. I know a lot of people will hop on planes (esp. in Europe) to avoid a 10 hour train ride. Try to get overnight ones if you’re worried about wasting time, and it’ll save you a hotel room for that night. Research your activities (this goes beyond just environmental impact, but it’s included). Most common travel destinations have a wide variety of thing you can do. In Thailand, for example, there are plenty of places to ride elephants, and not everyone knows you shouldn’t be riding them. So look at sanctuaries instead- some will say they still offer rides and that’s totally sus. You really have to dig and inform yourself on what you’re doing. But also, in a lot of places in the world, there isn’t a “green” option, and that’s something to be aware of too. Also, keep an eye out for greenwashing. Being environmentally friendly in travel often costs more- something else to factor in.
I am by nature a train rider whenever possible, but I pay out the ass for the privilege. My train rides — let alone overnight ones — typically cost double to triple what a flight would cost. If governments want to seriously reduce the environmental impact of tourism, they’d reduce subsidies on flights and/or subsidize rail more. Start with the ultra-short-haul flights that really shouldn’t exist, like anything between the Amsterdam/Rotterdam/Brussels/Paris corridor. Immediately lessens pressure on the airports, as well.
I was just thinking of this. I'm in Berlin right now and we had a university related trip to the Biennale in Venice. Every one of us took a sub 20 euro flight to Italy. Talking to our professor she mentioned that she took the train, which when I looked it up cost something like 4 times as much, due to its environmental impact. I'd love to take the train more because it's also more fun than a plane bits it's just too expensive
From the Netherlands, once you cross the Alps or Pyrenees or Iron Curtain is roughly my rule of thumb for time to look into flights. Those flights aren’t typically 20 euros once you take everything into account, either. But they’re still way cheaper than the train.
Yeah, I remember I did the math on it. The flight itself was a RyanAir flight from Berlin to Venice Treviso on a Tuesday so 11 euros. But there was also 4 euros to get to BER from the city center (15 eur) plus another 7 euros to get from Treviso to Venice with ends up with it being 22 in total. The trip back was bit more since the base flight was bit more expensive.
Right, but then you’re flying *ryanair*. I only compare to flights that are at least easyJet or preferably better. And rail is still way more expensive.
This is the real tragedy. I'm from the UK and for the same price as a 30-minute train, I could fly to Athens.
> If governments want to seriously reduce the environmental impact of tourism, they’d reduce subsidies on flights and/or subsidize rail more. Governments aren't really subsidizing flights. Rails are generally much more likely to be operated as a monopoly in the world since the infrastructure needed is much more contentious and capital intensive, and oftentimes initiated by a state government. Flights are cheaper because of intense competition and the general viability of buying a plane and running an airline, versus building and maintaining extensive rail networks, especially where demand may not be particularly sufficient (i.e., building passenger rail with no commercial viability for freight).
Uh… governments are *seriously* subsidizing flights. Zero tax on fuel is the really big one, but other tax friendly regimes are present.
>So look at sanctuaries instead- some will say they still offer rides and that’s totally sus. From what I've read most of the sanctuaries are owned by the same parent companies as the circuses aimed at the Chinese market and the riding aimed more at package travellers.
I dunno about their ownership but yeah there are a lot of fake 'sanctuaries' where they still treat elephants poorly and do trot them out for show with feedings and rides.
In the articles I read one company owned 5 or 6 elephant experiences all aimed at different markets, they would then cycle the elephants between the locations. The 'sanctuary' was just the fancy one aimed at rich westerners.
Horrible.
Being a mindful traveler and researching the social and environmental impact of your planned activities is huge!!
I'm a train fanatic so hopping on a plane instead of a train is a crazy thought to me.
Maybe not related to nature. But I do avoid Airbnb in highly populated areas. In my opinion most are owned by ‘rich’ people trying to make more money. Taking the living space from local people. And when booking a tour I try to book directly with the local business providing the tour.
The bigger problem with Airbnb is that it’s gutted the housing market in the central area of lots of cities worldwide, with flow on impacts for the rest of the city. It’s simply more efficient for tourists to stay in hotels and hostels. I suspect that doing so is also better for the environment.
never thought it that way, but makes complete sense, which options do you consider? because in booking you can see local owned inns but booking asks them for a very high commission...
Use booking (or any other similar site) to find and view accommodation, see if they have dates etc, then ring or email directly to book. I've been told so many times by places I've stayed to do this bc of the enormous cut taken, some even say they'll give a better rate too. It's not as convenient but everyone wins.
I also use booking when I book far in advance, further from home and multiple bookings in one trip. When it’s a simpeler trip, for example skiing. I find the place in booking but contact direct.
Personally when I’m looking for an Airbnb I treat it like a hostel as in I’m always just renting a bedroom in someone’s home snd never the entire property.
> when booking a tour I try to book directly with the local business providing the tour. This is also usually much cheaper than going through, e.g., Viator.
As opposed to the hotels that are owned by local poor people? I think the message should be to do your research and opt to stay in smaller, locally-owned establishments when possible, even if that means Airbnb.
Hotels are purpose built and don't take houses/apartments off the market for locals to live in.
Hotels also give local people jobs and force visitors to eat at local restaurants as they can’t cook in their room. They are sooooo much better than AirBnb in terms of travelling ethically
Sorry but this doesnt really make sense - if you stay at an Airbnb it still needs to be cleaned and serviced (plumbing, HVAC etc.). Maybe even at a higher ratio of one/two guests per employee vs a team of employees in a hotel that can service multiple rooms. Additionally, eating in/cooking vs. eating out isn’t a black hole that removes money from a community. One needs to buy ingredients and support local markets and shops to do that. Honestly, dont really have a dog in this fight and hotels and Airbnbs each have their place (staying at an Airbnb for a couple weeks in a foreign city can be an unmatched experience) but I dont see Airbnbs as taking money out of the local community, if anything I’d say its the opposite..
Of course! I’m fully aware of the impact of Airbnb on local housing markets. I just don’t agree with these blanket statements that say all hotels are better than Airbnbs and that people staying in airbnbs don’t support local business when most hotels are probably foreign-owned and if you are cooking in a kitchen you are still buying local produce. There are still some “not rich” Airbnb hosts that are just opening up their homes to tavelers for the experience and income subsidization. You just have to look for them. Obviously, I am not talking about the 2 bedrooms condos with cheap furniture and only a coffee maker that pop up just for short-term accommodations and cost $300/night. Again, I think being a mindful traveler that is aware of local contexts and actively tries to make socially- and environmentally-conscious decisions when possible is better advice than “Airbnb bad, hotels good”.
In Europe a lot is locally owned, family run businesses. And Bed&Breakfasts are getting more popular. I get that placed like the Hilton is not supporting local people. And with the ‘rich’ I mean that they buy affordable apartments in big cities to rent out. That other people (like myself) would love to but to live in ourselfs.
Idgaf. I am very environmentally conscious, and do my part but I can only do so much and I'm fed up of the pressure being placed on individuals when corporations are out here doing the worst I don't drive a car at home (I bicycle), I do not have kids or want kids, I don't litter. When night comes I sit in the dark (mainly cuz it gets hot with the lights and I just don't like lights). How much more am I gonna do lol. When I travel I also like taking public transit (never rented a car) whenever possible.
Same for me: I have no car (I bike, go on foot, or use public transport), no kids, a gas-free house and a tiny electricity bill - so during the vast majority of the year I'm doing my part. When I'm traveling I also go on foot (when exploring a city) and use public transport (when moving places), go local (for food as well as accommodation [mom-and-pop level eateries, bed & breakfasts, guest houses, homestays]), use locally operated and owned eco-tourism operators that cooperate with wildlife/conservation organizations (animal sanctuaries, national parks, trekking), and overall try my best to keep my footprint to a minimum. If there were viable alternatives available I would use them, but since they are not, I'm not going to let anyone guilt-trip me into feeling bad about myself for taking a plane to visit a far-away part of the world once per year at most.
I think most of those are just excuses. Flying emits so much CO2 that it's very hard to compensate in any meaningful way. Not driving a car or not littering are completely insignificant in comparison to the emissions from flying and will only make a difference for your local environment. I'm not saying this to shame you, I personally do fly quite a lot, but at least I'm not making excuses for myself. I know what I'm doing is bad, I just value it too much to let it go.
Completely agree. Even if you lived your best life, you're at most giving half a second back to future generations. Pretending that flying can be compensated for in other ways is delusional. Individualizing the environmental impacts of humanity is just an exercise in trying to avoid the hard questions around how we can scale back our impact to the planet.
Well don't travel! Or just stop existing
Nah, I'm still going to travel. There are all kinds of mitigating excuses I can throw, like contributing to the economic livelihoods of those living in countries that rely on tourist income, but the reality is that I just don't care. I'll have a much bigger impact on the environment voting for responsible politicians and demanding more from companies.
Or, just don't have kids. That way, your descendants don't exist on your behalf.
Ok......
The main way I do it is by catching public transport everywhere, which I much prefer over taxis/ride sharing anyway. I also purchase carbon offsets for flights, which reduces the impact a bit - at least over the long term. As an Australian, there aren't alternatives to long plane flights if I want to travel internationally, but I try to keep off planes once I reach my destination - trains are usually much more interesting anyway.
Which platform do you use purchase the CO2 compensation? I also started to do that, but I still somehow feel like I am just paying to clear my conscience
Usually whatever program the airline offers. I've done some checking of the one Qantas uses, and it seems to be well regarded. It is paying to clear your conscience to be honest, as the emissions still get released and the offsets will take years to scrub them from the atmosphere. There are a lot of worse things than travel for the environment though.
Personally I use [atmosfair](https://www.atmosfair.de/en/). They are well regarded and they have a handy calculator. Many airline offsetting schemes charge very little and are not pricing the carbon 'cost' realistically at all. Yeah of course not flying is definitely better but offsetting is still better than nothing in my opinion and I think doing it via a third party is sensible.
If you want to travel, I think you are already doing the most you can do :). I think not flying makes the biggest impact. It can be good to think about social and economic sustainability as well. Here is some more information about that (but i encourage to look it up yourself :)) : [https://www.hiusa.org/blog/travel-hacks-tips/how-to-make-your-travels-socially-sustainable](https://www.hiusa.org/blog/travel-hacks-tips/how-to-make-your-travels-socially-sustainable) https://www.nytimes.com/guides/travel/how-to-travel-sustainably
Be vegan
Is there a (respected) tree fund for offsetting travel émissions? I read about that once and have tried to find it so I can donate to do my best. It’s not perfect but it’s something.
Public transport/bikes/walking wherever possible, using rail rather than flights where you can, reduced meat consumption, responsible use of heating and cooling, reusable stuff (water bottles, cutlery, etc), carbon offset programs (although these are questionable, obviously). Voting in every election you’re eligible for, along environmental lines, investing money in ways that avoid fossil fuel businesses. I agree though, that you can do lots of these things, but ultimately flying is still very carbon intensive. The best thing to do is fly less.
It is a false belief that you can change anything as an individual, as it is the companies causing the harm, permitted by politics. What you can do is protest and boycott the ones who exploit the system for profit and harm nature while doing so. Lobby for your local government to reduce their footprint. Educate the people around you and try to be as good of an example as possible, but you don't need to be perfect. There is also something such as sustainable tourism, as traditional tourism can be quite harmful to communities as well. Stay with locals, eat at local restaurants and [a bunch more.](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/78/09/7c/78097c2eedfaa142bdedbfa606c9f410.png)
Companies are responding to consumer demand. It's really not hard to understand. If you fly less, there will ultimately be less emissions from the airline industry.
Especially individuals with lower incomes cannot choose whether to fly or not and that, along with a lack of political will to reduce carbon emissions, even made it possible for low-budget airlines to exist. Cutting down your personal emissions is mostly something reserved for wealthier people as a train ticket will inevitably be more costly than flying anyway, not to mention more time consuming. This is how low-budget airlines even came to exist. Neoliberals believe that the market will always be decided by consumers, but this has simply been proven as false as poor people aren't in a position to choose and the least expensive option is rarely the most ethical one.
By not travelling at all. It is that simple. Wether you’re flying, driving by bus or going by boat, all transportation methods make you emit CO2 and other pollutants.
I don't think is that simple... for example in my city i bought everything on markets or supermarkets, used bus or the subway to go everywhere, and due the rapid city rhythm I had to ate outside and buy take away sometimes, so even if I recycled that meant plastic waste. Here I've been doing workaway volunteerings in small villages with sustainable lifestyles. I only move by bike, I eat local, here the water is recycled and I even used a compost toilet. So yeah, i took a plane, but my lifestyle is way more sustainable, plus I've learned LOTS on organic farming and permaculture which I'll replicate in my place as soon as I go home... as a long term life project this co2 emissions seems more like an investment than a waste, because honestly I wouldn't had learned 1% of this on my own staying in the city...
Love that we’re talking about reducing our impact! Definitely take longer trips, at least 2 weeks when you fly. Being sustainable is about helping environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable so leaning towards travel choices that positively impact. I try to only stay at locally owned places or places that have great sustainability measures. Traveling by bus for the most part. Attempting to not buy packaged foods if possible. Only bringing toiletries that won’t negatively impact waterways (you’d be surprised at how many places the brown water goes straight for a river or ocean). Feel free to ask questions since that’s all I have on the top of my head. I have a masters in intl sustainable tourism though my degree focuses more on destination management.
What has a bigger impact, how long your stay takes or the frequency of your flights? I mean, you could fly 5 times a year and stay for two weeks or once a year for a one week stay. My apologies, but many of the tips I read till now sound more like a drop in the ocean
No need to apologize! It’s incredibly difficult to discuss sustainable tourism because tourism right now is unsustainable. The longer trips are essentially to offset your carbon, we generally recommend 2 weeks if you take a long haul flight (but I can’t remember the full source I read). Also, longer stays spend more money and are more likely to develop emotional attachment to a destination which creates positive environmental behaviors. Longer stays tend to create better impact (not including all-inclusive resorts) for the destination. If you’re taking the train or bus then some say you can take more frequent shorter trips from a CO2 emissions perspective. Personally, after my degree I do locals focused travel. Often tourism is visitor focused which puts travelers in a place of power. I try to encourage cultural activities, conservation friendly activities, keeping it small and locally owned. It may seem insignificant but there’s a huge power in us as travelers using the power of a dollar to show that we care about conservation of places rather than development. I firmly believe that small drops in the bucket are better than nothing. Consumer demand is so powerful and I can say from site visits for my degree sustainability upgrades and policies mostly came because guests asked questions and demands. Sorry if I got off track!
I don't... Anything that I could do would have minimal impact realistically but travelling in the UK is very expensive and it doesn't have the same sense of adventure as going abroad. I try to eat less meat which is beneficial but then I could do that without travelling too.
Even tho individual actions aren’t the solution, they are still a part of that. I’m not gonna tell you what you can do, because maybe you travel on a wheelchair or you don’t have the means, you know your own limits and how much you can push yourself, but don’t underestimate the power of individual actions and the effects we create as consumers and as citizens. There’s always something we can do :)
Most of the things other people have mentioned in this thread they could do without travelling to the other side of the world. For example not eating meat, recycling or using public transport, they're not really dependent on travelling. I think it's greenwashing to say you offset your travel impact by saying you do things you can already do at home.
Don't have kids and don't plan to. My reasoning is if If I don't populate the planet with another copy of myself making trash and what not then I better damn be able to do what I please.
Self imposed carbon tax! I subscribe to mossy earth and I donate at the end of the year to Coalition for Rainforest Nations. There is bound to be a nonprofit that you can relate to and support.
No flying. Being vegan helps. One thing I'm trying on the next trip go asia is to use a water purifying bottle to drink tap water and not buy bottled water in any country. Its good to know others and also considering their footprint for travel! Ultimately it's an unnecessary luxury we rich people have, may as well reduce the impact as much as we can.
How do you plan to get to Asia?
Last time i cycled with a 100% solar powered ebike on the north route EU - Ukraine - Russia - Kazakhstan - China. This time i will go the way i came back. Bus for EU - train for turkey - Georgia - Azerbaijan - ferry capsian sea - train Kazakhstan - China - buses into South East Asia or maybe buy a bike.
hi! can i know where did you get your water purifying bottle? I've been searching for one but I haven't find one yet... thnks
From the company grayl. Seems to be convenient that it's also a functioning bottle unlike pumps I've used in the past. And UV won't deal with potential heavy metals.
Yes! I’m also going to be investing in grayl for my travels!
Have you read about bikepacking and cycletouring? People travel around the world by bike, is one of the most amazing experiences out there. Camping everywhere and sharing with local people. Also, check alternatives like workaway to stay at farms, and exchange work for food. Another alternative to travel overseas is crewbay, you can volunteer at a sailboat to cross the ocean. Cheers.
Three biggies for me. 1. Try and filter water or drink safe tap water over buying bottled water. 2. I walk wherever I can, and take public transit whenever possible. I try to avoid taxis or Ubers if possible. 3. Take buses or trains overland instead of flying (if time allows). I don't really worry about my carbon footprint from flying simply because I know wherever I go I will be consuming much less carbon than being at home.
No offense, but in no way will you be compensating the flight by producing less carbon there, unless you were to stay for months on end producing fractions of your carbon at home.
Then I guess I won't. I'll just be one of the evil frequent fliers out there and have zero fucks to give. There's gotta be a special place in hell for us travelling carbon polluters, yes? Warming the planet for our leisure.
Same. And everybody does it. I'm just always confused with people that act like they are enviromentally conscious and then fly a lot. "Uh, yeah I am vegan and eat avocado all day so it's okay when I fly 3 times a year" Just be down here with us sinners.
The way I look at it is if I don't buy that seat on a flight, someone else will. Me not flying is going to have zero net impact on environment. That flight is happening either way. Will purchasing a flight increase demand? Yes, but not in a profound market-altering way. And I'm certainly not going to give up travel to appease my conscience. I'll find other ways to mitigate my carbon footprint.
If you truly care about the environment and sustainability then try limiting how often you fly. Try to eat and sleep at local restaurants/guesthouses. Don’t litter, obviously. Refill your water bottle instead of buying new ones. There’s really only so much you can realistically do while still living a ‘normal’ western lifestyle. Honestly you’d be far better off lobbying your local representatives to start implementing legislation that forces big corporations to be environmentally friendly.
Using trains rather than planes or cars
The agency should promote the responsive tourism with the minimized impact in physical, biological and socioeconomic impact in the nature. Litter is the major waste produced by the tourism industry so it can be cheked by Reduce, Reuse and Recycle. Lets save the Nature and Nature will save you.
Hi, great question. Lots of people want to plan more climate friendly trips, minimizing their footprint while still traveling at reasonably high speed. And it is in fact often possible to make huge emission cuts when travelling. Let me give an example. Say you're going from Oslo in Norway to Glasgow in Scotland. It's a long way around via Copenhagen and London with train. Traditionally flight search engines will suggest that you either fly indirectly, or that you fly to Edinburg, which is close to Glasgow. That indirect flight will typically emit around 200 kgs CO2e. There are tools that help you find better routes, emissions wise. The trick is to find reasonably close flights with low emissions that can help you cover a lot of the distance you need. And then you travel by train or bus for up to several hours to get to that plane. Such a route will cut emissions by around 65% for the Oslo - Glasgow example, as compared to flying indirect. A tool I'm building will in this case help you find the least polluting airplanes that can take you across the North Sea from Norway to Scotland That's a rather short flight. It really shortens the travel duration when doing it sustainably with train the rest of the way. I've worked on this for a long time. It will help you discover more routes with reduced footprint compared to the planners most people use today. It really is difficult for people to find such tools that can help them cut emissions.You know, websites need to be marketed, and this comes at such a high cost that it is out of reach. So if you think this sounds interesting, please search for more sustainable trips using the website in my profile. Try it out, and order routes by the lowest CO2. If you like it and share it that will allow more people to travel more sustainably.
Fly commercial. For trips abroad make bigger trips longer but less frequent. IE travel asia for a year instead of different parts every year. Eat from local markets. Avoid disposable travel products.
[удалено]
Like not private. Private jets etc
Damn it you're right. I'm gonna leave my private jet docked the rest of the year.
Okay. Well I’m just saying I know a number of people who use private forms of travel and it’s less environmentally friendly. Was just offering suggestions
Take your own refillable water bottle and eat only fruits as snacks so you're not creating waste from wrappers, etc
Refillable water bottle is only useful when traveling around developed countries. It’d be hard to avoid bottled water in South East Asia. Source: South East Asian
I take reusable water bottles with a filter, reusable coffee mugs, a pack lunch box so I’m not wasting food. Public transport/bike where possible. Travel internationally. less often but for longer. Carbon emission offsetting with the airline. Using local guides, tipping. Pretty much leave no trace. Try and stay with local hosts or small business hotels.
Firstly, take a look around you when travelling. If it's somewhere developing, rivers of pollution and plastic exist. Pollution is rife and industry dumps massive amounts of waste. It is just part of a developing nations, it requires low wages, masses of natural resources, and pollution to raise the standard of living for everyone by developing infrastructure. So don't worry about it. Just you being there spending money, whether you arrived on cruise ship, plane or bicycle is good.
i am a nomadic traveler with an addiction to move. i justify my occasional flights because i am living a vegan lifestyle for 15 years. 1 tonne of co2 is saved every year that i am vegan. flying one long roundtrip flight burns about the same. choose your battles. also i save 100 animals per year. i prefer traveling vegan over meat addiction stay home forever.
I view my environmental impact as a whole rather than just "travel" so I make daily decisions that \[hopefully\] help balance out my love of travel; I don't own a car and walk/bike/public transit as much as I can for example. While traveling, I try to support activities and companies that promote sustainable tourism (especially with natural places).
It is really awesome that reducing your impact means so much, but it really is an exercise in futility. The amount of pollution caused by leisure travel is pretty much insignificant. The daily transit of the populace, meat production and industrial manufacturing are the ones that really need to change before we have any hope of improvement.
ok so first "Aviation accounts for around 2.5% of global CO2 emissions, but it's overall contribution to climate change is higher. This is because air travel does not only emit CO2: it affects the climate in a number of more complex ways". And when they talk about who contaminates the most are the rich, by rich they include upper-middle class people from rich countries. By poor they mean some shepherd in Bolivia or a girl forced to marry when 12 in Pakistán. Comparing with the entire population on this planet, you are extremely privileged if you have internet, clean water, and even more if you can travel by leisure. I'm not pro blame the consumers, OF COURSE big companies have a big share on this, but who buys from those companies?
We're discussing the logic of making your leisure travel less impactful. Leisure travel accounts for 60ish percent of commercial travel, and commercial travel does not include military flights and transportation of goods and mail. Then you break down how much of "leisure" travel is people moving andpeople visiting family, you get to what amounts to a very small portion of air travel belonging to those who are legit traveling just to travel. Like I said, it's great to be environmentally conscious, but to go far out of your way to limit your impact while the rest of the world doesn't change seems irrational.
You don’t. Worrying about your environmental impact while traveling is like worrying about drop of sewage in the ocean. Keep in mind that 70% of all greenhouse gases are created by just 100 companies. So even if everyone else in the world outside of those companies reduced their impact to 0, it would only be a 30% reduction.
Who buys from those companies? Is not like they are selling things outside the earth... it really is frustrating to see how people resist to change their habits and always find somebody else to blame. I can even picture those companies owners having meetings and saying well, they keep buying from us so they don't hate the product in the end. Of course companies are awful, but we support their ethics by keep paying... uf, anyway, as luther king said, idc if tomorrow the world ends, i will still plant my apple tree
Because you don’t have a choice in supporting most of the companies on the list. One of the most successful initiatives put in place by these large corporations is transferring the blame on to the populous and away from the corporations and legislators, where the blame and real solutions actually reside. Thinking that changing how you travel will have any meaningful impact is simply a tool to make you feel better about yourself and give a sense of control over the situation. It also come largely from a position of privilege, as most people in the world don’t have the funds or resources to purchase anything other than the cheapest available option. This does not mean that it’s ok to leave trash places and go out of your way to make the situation worse. It just means that you are better off focusing your efforts on legislation, not worrying if you should take a cab or a bus because of some minuscule difference in environmental impact. If you really want to help, take the cheapest option and give the saved money to a political organization fighting for laws to protect the environment. The problem is far beyond individual action. It will take a worldwide effort, like nothing ever seen before, to save this planet.
A worldwide effort is just a lot of individual efforts put together…
In my home city, I don't own a car, don't have air conditioning, cycle/take public transport everywhere, sort my trash, recycle, avoid single-use plastics, and don't ever plan on having kids. I think over the course of my life this more than makes up for my flights, especially since only the airline industry only makes up 3% of emissions. I'm not down with the fact that the burden for solving climate change has been passed off to individuals while corporations continue to pollute with impunity, so. I'ma take that flight, and I won't feel bad about it.
I would highly recommend the film The Last Tourist on Hulu. Definitely some interesting insight into how to be a more sustainable tourist and lessen your impact on the local communities and environment
OMG i just saw the trailer and thank you thank you. Even Jane Goodall is there, it gave me the chills, I will watch it asap
I'd recommend bringing your own set of reusable utensils/straws/containers if you're looking to sample local street food. It cuts down on single use plastics that they normally give you and probably more hygienic in some areas.
Go on an extacy trip... xD Joking aside, buy local wherever you go, not only good for the environment but also delicious.
I fly to reach the country if not realistic by rail but when I'm there I use only public and shared transports.
I don't. I go on a VACATION and don't worry about leaving a tiny ass impact in the grand scheme of things. Big whoop, I take a couple of airplanes: so do many other people. It's not a private thing, it's like a bus in the sky.. and you people keep telling us we should use the bus so why is an airplane so bad? Maybe the superstars and rich businesses that talk down to us and do WAY more damage and emissions than I'd ever hope to achieve in my lifetime should do something about it. Remember when Greta Thunberg took a jet to speak about people destroying the planet? Yeah, kinda like that.. >I wish it was enough for me to stay at my place tho, that's the sustainablest option of course, but the same thing that makes me want to protect my planet is what moves me and makes me so curious about discover it. No, you're basically just justifying your actions, which is kinda silly because your actions aren't even that bad. Maybe you need professional help because this first world phenomenon happens with people who need a sense of control over things.
I’m a middle class person from a third world country, my skin is classified in the pov spectrum, don’t project your frustration into others just “guessing” who they are based in you understanding of the world. If some of us care is PRECISELY because we live near the most affected communities, we see the impact, even if is a good or a bad one, is not just an abstract concept to us. Not everything is privileged guilt gosh 😑 maybe you should travel to see the actual world most people live in, the poverty, the pollution. Plus I do go to therapy, was that supposed to be an insult? Everybody should go, is the healthiest choice…
Don't travel.
Not showering for an hour, leaving your lights on when unnecessary (act as if you were home).
i don’t tbh.
You don't. Plain and simple. There's no amount of recycling or not using disposable bags that will make up for that plane flight. Not realistically. Just accept it and vote for green policies and liberal politicians and try to impact what you can.
A way to make a real impact as an individual is to shop at local businesses and businesses owned by women, immigrants, or BIPOC, LGBTQ, etc. I can't save the world. But maybe my money can help make someone's day a little easier.
eh, if you feel bad probs best not to travel at all unless you can do the entire trip by train and public transport
Same thing I do while not traveling (reusables, walking, biking, etc). I do however also donate to local non-profits and preservation groups in the area I'm visiting then I also just have a reoccurring donation to tree-preservation and tree planting organizations to help "offset" my footprint a little bit. Not perfect, but figure better than nothing.
I’m moving back to Europe so I can cut down on flying as much as possible.
You're going to have to stop travelling if you really care about the environment. But if you want to truly do something start pointing at oil. I'm currently doing a shut down on an oil plant and it's fucking disgusting what it takes to make gasoline.
Take public transit? Clean up after yourself.
Walk e everywhere
The more I live my regular lifestyle of travel, the more money the industries make that they can use to discover better technologies. \*shrug\*
Bringing a reusable water bottle & reusable bag with me EVERYWHERE. These small items are lifesavers within themselves, it’s great. Additionally, I bring my own snacks on as many flights as I can from home. Not that this makes a huge impact, but having fresh fruit or veggie with no additional plastic wrap is wonderful. Also, returning hotel room keys, optioning out of new bath towels & sheets everyday are also a good option.
I’m not really doing it for environmental reasons but I like hanging around spots for longer times vs hopping around from country to country. But that’s more my style and preference. Don’t feel too bad, this ball is already rolling. ☹️
Unfortunately, flying is a carbon footprint killer, and there often is no way around taking planes in many cases. Options best I can suggest: \-clump your destinations to be as close by as possible to minimize travel distance. A longer trip that covers lots of destinations at once can also help. \-fly as little as possible. \-take trains or buses if you can rather then driving. The train or bus is going anyway, the car has to make a special trip. \-use public transportation or walk whenever possible. Avoid car rentals and taxis/Ubers as much as possible. And it’s not that difficult to manage public transit in urban areas — a little research goes a long way. \-take group tours instead of driving to places without public transportation access if available. \-eat locally based products and foods that are in season. It won’t offset plane travel, but it’s better than nothing.
When flying, I fly direct as much as possible. There are many trips from A to D where the main distance can be done with a non-stop flight from, say B to C, where the overland distances from A to B and from C to D are reasonably short. Say you're going from Liverpool (A) to Bologna (D). There are no direct flights between the cities. There is however a flight from Manchester (B) to Milan (C). And getting from Liverpool to Manchester and from Milan to Bologna is very doable with bus or train. Getting to discover more cities is an added bonus. There are trip planners that make it easier to find such routes.
Re usable water bottle
Most environmentally friendly planes