Causes.com
| 12.4.23
Should Carbon Passports Be Introduced to Limit Travel?
Do you support carbon passports?
What’s the story?
- In a recent report on the future of sustainable travel, Australian company Intrepid Travel stated that "carbon passports" should be introduced and mandated by 2040 to ensure the tourism industry survives in a climate-conscious world.
- A carbon passport would assign each traveler an annual carbon allowance that must not be surpassed, effectively rationing travel.
- The report said:
“By 2040, it will be unusual to see members of Generation Alpha without a carbon-footprint tracker on their smartphones. Every Uber ride, plane journey, and trip to the supermarket will be logged in their devices, noting their carbon footprint in real time.”
- Darrell Wade, co-founder and chairman of Intrepid Travel, said:
“The direct, catastrophic impact of climate change has for too long been viewed as something distant in the future. But this is no longer an impending event; it’s happening now."
Arguments for carbon passports
- The tourism industry contributes a high portion of greenhouse gas emissions that are responsible for the climate crisis — approximately 10%.
- To meet the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting global temperature rise to below 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) above pre-industrial levels, experts recommend individuals limit their yearly carbon emissions to 2.3 tons, equivalent to a round-trip from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. However, the average annual carbon footprint is currently considerably higher, with the U.S. at 16 tons per person, Australia at 15 tons, and the UK at 11.7 tons.
- According to Intrepid Travel, a flight from New York to London results in 986 kg of CO2 emissions per passenger, which is more than the average person in 56 countries produces annually.
Arguments against carbon passports
- The UK Parliament considered a similar concept, "personal carbon trading," in 2008, where all adults would receive a tradable carbon allowance for household energy and/or personal travel emissions.
- The public resisted this idea, arguing that carbon "rations" were an unwarranted attempt to regulate behavior, leaving the concept abandoned.
Do you support carbon passports?
-Laura Woods
(Image credit: Unsplash)
The Latest
-
The Long Arc: Taking Action in Times of Change“Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle.” Martin Luther King Jr. Today in read more... Advocacy -
Thousands Displaced as Climate Change Fuels Wildfire Catastrophe in Los AngelesIt's been a week of unprecedented destruction in Los Angeles. So far the Palisades, Eaton and other fires have burned 35,000 read more... Environment -
Puberty, Privacy, and PolicyOn December 11, the Montana Supreme Court temporarily blocked SB99 , a law that sought to ban gender-affirming care for read more... Families -
Women Are Shaping This Election — Why Is the Media Missing It?As we reflect on the media coverage of this election season, it’s clear that mainstream outlets have zeroed in on the usual read more... Elections
Climate & Consumption
Health & Hunger
Politics & Policy
Safety & Security
Difficult to implement fairly with low yield on carbon emissions savings since flying is only 2.8% of carbon emissions while road travel is 18%. Why not target electric power generation which is 25% of emissions or manufacturing that is 23%
How would it be implemented? Carbon banks established, by person or family, trade offs between air and ground travel, ticket purchases require authorization just like credit cards? Seems like a very extensive implementation similar to a credit card system?
However policy makers may see it as easier to limit air travel than try to get people to convert to EVs and deal with auto and oil industry lobbyists and campaign contributions versus airline and travel industry. Or target electric power or manufacturing and their lobbies.
"Flying produces about 2.8% of global greenhouse emissions"
"road transport produces 18% of the global CO2 emissions. Much more than flying. Wouldn’t it make sense to track these ones instead?"
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
https://turbli.com/blog/why-carbon-passports-are-a-very-bad-idea/
Carbon passports?
How about investing in making greener airplanes?
or, making electric vehicles more affordable? (Cars are the biggest carbon emitters)
or, reducing meat consumption? (Responsible for 3.4% of emissions)
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport
As nice as this idea is this plan won't work...
What we need is a program to develop all electric commercial air travel. It will take decades but it will provide clean, efficient, non-polluting air travel.
Works for me if it will help decrease our carbon emissions and save our planet from total destruction. Yes, I know this will add additional cos onto travel expenses, but if we don't do something NOW the cost is going to be a lot higher than just money. We;ll see more loss of life, destruction of property, along with the short and long-term impact on health, our ofood supply, etc. Climate change is serious and we have to get our headas out of the sand and deal with it.
This is dumb idea. Countries and corporations need to be held accountable. Individuals can't do all the heavy lifting. Some people have to travel for their jobs. Others do not. This would put people on an unequal footing.
Corporations and countries need to be held accountable. This is just trying to pass the buck.
This is how governmental control truly starts to take over the everyday citizens life. We all know the elite and those in top tier government won't abide by these rules
While I love to travel and do so often, I see the need for ways to limit the environmental impacts of air travel, at least until we have solar or electric-powered airplanes that do not emit carbon exhaust.
I would be willing to participate in a carbon passport program if it were applied to all travelers equitably. In this world where the rich get their own set of rules and the rest of us have to defer to them, I need to know that the ultra-wealthy would not be allowed to jet around in their private vehicles while the common folk have limits.
But yes, if it's equitable and fair, I'll participate gladly, even if it means less travel for me.
My hope is that a resolution like this will push hard for a transfer to renewables.
A great blog, it has a lot of useful information to me.
Village Talkies is a top quality professional <a href="https://www.villagetalkies.com/top-5-3d-architectural-visualization-and-rendering-companies-in-abu-dhabi-uae/"> 3D architectural walkthrough animation company in Abu Dhabi</a> and best 3D Rendering Company in Abu Dhabi and also best 2d, 3d <a href="https://www.villagetalkies.com/best-5-animation-agencies-in-abu-dhabi-uae-for-business-videos/">animation agencies in Abu Dhabi</a>, providing Marketing & Sales videos, <a href="https://www.villagetalkies.com/top-5-safety-video-production-companies-in-abu-dhabi-uae/">Safety video production</a>, <a href="https://www.villagetalkies.com/top-5-post-production-and-video-editing-companies-in-abu-dhabi-uae/"> Post production and video editing services</a>, 3D Architectural Visualization and Walkthrough Services along with <a href="https://www.villagetalkies.com/top-5-interior-design-companies-in-abu-dhabi-uae/"> luxury interior designs and exterior designs</a> and more.
this is only for the little people. the billionaires who are most democrats are not going to limit their travel. This is the sad thing about the scam is we are being told to change our way to save the evinoment but, do we ask our representatives who actually goes home mostly Republicans does. ask democrats who decides to come home how did they get home but, i don't think anyone will have that opportunity to ask a DEMOCRAT
All this will do is increase costs and hurt many of those it claims to help.
Will it reduce travel, sure. It could also encourage more people to push for wfh offerings, which hurts cities. It will increase costs for those trying to stay below their cap. If the weather is bad and someone meets their cap, should we turn off the electricity to their house, maybe prevent them from fueling their car. Try that in the winter months or on a 100+ day and I am sure the lives lost will have a positive influence on the economy and the environment.
What a completely horrific idea. Limiting the free movement of people is the end of a free society. You might as well tell the middle and lower class to stay in their homes. Oh, and stop eating meat as well. All while the elite move about freely. It would also devastate economies around the world, especially tourism based economies. The cost of goods would skyrocket as the exorbitant cost of transportion is passed along to consumers. This is quite possible the most dangerous and inhumane idea I've ever heard.
You guys need to pay attention to Virgin Atlantic news story on clean energy fuel transatlantic
Limit incendiary E V's
It is a big ask but quite possible if all else fails because, while extreme if used in defense, the Supreme Court has said in simple terms "if what your doing would hurt others you are forbidden from doing it" now I know that alone would definitely be challenged in court...again...but if you think about it in simplest terms we may in near future have a Legal limit on how much carbon or pollution we can expel per day or week, ect. Simply because it could hurt a lot of people in the future. I know it seems unthinkable and probably is but if it gets as bad as they say and no other options are available (example being stopping use of all fossil fuels) then this is entirely possible simply because it is already technically valid.
yes, I propose the same