• CSCC Newsletter - May 2024

    Available now. Includes details of upcoming CSCC Annual General Meeting 10th May 2024

    Click here for more info

Carbon offsetting for expeditions

ChrisJC

Well-known member

Other examples available through the menu.
I'm interested to know (and couldn't find out from the website) whether the calculations for carbon saved include the carbon footprint of 'nursing' the tree from a seed, transporting it to site, and planting it (including the carbon footprint of the people doing all of this).

Chris.
 
Do you just offset the CO2 for your flight, or do you include the taxi journey to the airport? Do you include the taxi driver's detour to pick you up? What about the extra CO2 burnt rushing about packing?

You know what. Absolutely nobody is checking how much you paid. I guess it's like any charity donation and you pay what you want. If you'll feel guilty not paying something, and paying something helps you ignore the guilt and enjoy the trip, then why not?

Everyone justifies the shit they get up to in their own way.
 

hannahb

Active member
I'm interested to know (and couldn't find out from the website) whether the calculations for carbon saved include the carbon footprint of 'nursing' the tree from a seed, transporting it to site, and planting it (including the carbon footprint of the people doing all of this).

Chris.

It includes emissions from "establishment activities" and "management" but I don't know how far back along the tree production chain it goes. I can try to find out for you; I work for a related organisation. All opinions I give here are my own :)
 

hannahb

Active member
I'm interested to know (and couldn't find out from the website) whether the calculations for carbon saved include the carbon footprint of 'nursing' the tree from a seed, transporting it to site, and planting it (including the carbon footprint of the people doing all of this).

Chris.

Those emissions are indeed included. They are in the different parts of the spreadsheet.
 

wookey

Active member
Ooh. One of my favourite subjects!
I'm still wading through all the posts here, but I thought it would be useful to post the report I wrote for the GPF in 2020 about expedition carbon accounting and offsetting. http://wookware.org/docs/GPF_offsetting.pdf
That has useful info on the relative contributions of gear and travel, the various offset providers and certification systems and the relative degrees of bullshit and utility, and some comments on what low(er)-carbon caving actually looks like (essentially as-local-as-possible, at least until travel is decarbonised).
I also gave a talk at Eurospeleo 2016 (Yorkshire) which contains some of the same numbers and some perspective on why this is something we have to take seriously: http://wookware.org/talks/eurospeleoclimate/
 

2xw

Active member
It's very heartening, reassuring and soul-calming to know that Malthus was incorrect, and that human population numbers/growth per se are nothing to worry about and that carbon offset voluntary/mandatory taxes will resolve everything. Sleeping well at night is important and my earlier concerns about unchecked human population growth being an issue which required addressing can now be set aside. I am totally AOK with going along with this and will forevermore STFU about the topic*


* Probably ;-) Although I'm still a bit fuzzy about how the planet will provide 30bn meals per day by 2050, but hey ho,... not my bad/prob. Yayski.
We already provide 30bn meals a day quite easily, the problem is distribution - which is not the same as overpopulation.


If you and Chris really want to reduce world population the answer is probably a mixture of feminism (more equality for women = less births) and increasing the retirement age to within a few years of average mortality so that humans remain productive for the majority of their lifetimes.
 

cap n chris

Well-known member
I like that there is actually no problem with this and an additional few quid per flight solves everything nicely. Net Zero is achieveable if you have more than zero in the bank. Win.
 

ChrisJC

Well-known member
If you and Chris really want to reduce world population the answer is probably a mixture of feminism (more equality for women = less births) and increasing the retirement age to within a few years of average mortality so that humans remain productive for the majority of their lifetimes.
Both of those seem perfectly reasonable to me... Not a high cost at all.

Chris.
 

wookey

Active member
It's very heartening, reassuring and soul-calming to know that Malthus was incorrect, and that human population numbers/growth per se are nothing to worry about and that carbon offset voluntary/mandatory taxes will resolve everything.
OK, lets start by getting this one out of the way, as it's actually quite a good news item.

Population is (at this point) essentially a solved problem and not something we particularly need to worry about. Climate change is a consumption issue, not a population issue: literally thousands of people living low-carbon lives have the same emissions as one high-carbon private-jet using globetrotter. The problem there is not the thousands of people it's the one using a couple of order of magnitude more than their fair share. So consumption matters a lot more than population does.

More importantly you should go the gapminder.org site and take the quiz, watch a couple of Hans Rosling videos, then finish up by reading 'Empty Planet' by Bricker and Ibbitson https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37585564-empty-planet#other_reviews
This will help you understand that we passed 'peak child' 15 years ago now and fertility is declining all over the world. Most countries are already well below replacement level and the ones that aren't will be soon (barring a few basket cases like Mali, and even those are declining). We are no longer on track for 11 billion people in 2070, but less than 9 billion in 2050 or so, before the _global_ population starts to decline. Now that's rather more people than is ideal (because it really doesn't leave much space for all the other species and it generates a lot of climate and ecosystem damage), but it's not hard to feed them all, and the point is that we got it under control some time ago and the trends are all quite encouraging. Unlike climate change which we are still making _more_ worse every year, never mind actually making it worse by less each year.

Video interview to save you reading the Bricker/Ibitson book:
Gapminder tools and surveys: https://www.gapminder.org/
Hans Rosling explaining global population a few years ago:

Of course massively declining population gives you a different set of issues to deal with but getting beyond 'population grows forever' is clearly a good thing.

So in summary: climate is a epic problem with a significant risk of destroying civilisation as we know it. Population growth is barely a problem at all any more. We're already at 8.1 billion, and may not get over 9 (the UN revised their estimate last year from 11.2 billion to 10.2 billion, but they've been doing their sums wrong for some time so 'about 9' remains a better estimate). So we are already 90% of the way to peak population - I think we can handle the last 10%, although it will be a bit of a squeeze.
 

wookey

Active member
I was thinking of the effect of the long distant flights to certain caving expedition areas abroad. Mulu, Mexico, Megahalaya to name a few. Other than not flying so far, or at all, how do you calculate your carbon use and what can you do to offset it? I've seen various companies which charge to offset it for you but that seems a bit, er, like it doesn't really help.

Anyone offer any advice on this subject?
Getting back to the actual question. Having done quite a lot of research on this I would recommend using the Atmosfair calculator: https://www.atmosfair.de/en/offset/flight/ primarily because it uses the most accurate estimate of actual emissions and climate forcing (which is almost a factor of 3 over the simple CO2 emissions - I'll cover this in another post). And all their offset projects are things that are reasonably convincing and very likely reduce total emissions, and they explicitly exclude tree-planting projects for all the reasons that have been discussed about how they are prone to being a) complete bullshit and b) at risk of just burning up at any moment.

The only offset scheme which _actually_ takes CO2 out of the atmosphere and sequesters carbon, and thus _definitely_ works, is Climeworks, which does Direct air capture and buries the CO2 in the form of carbonate rock in basalt. It's in Iceland. Their system is subscription-based, although I see they are now allowing specific-amount offsets too. The idea is to use it for your life in general, rather than just specific items. It's also 30-100 times more expensive than most other offsetting options at a bit more than £1/Kg, so offsetting one flight to Mulu or a pretty low-carbon life in the UK (3.5 tonnes) would cost you about 4 grand. https://climeworks.com/

As I explain in the GPF paper, the distribution of offset prices is rather odd. There is Climeworks at ~£1000/tonne, then there is _everything else_ at £5-£40/tonne. There is nothing in between, despite the social cost of carbon being somewhere in the £100/tonne range, and the EU carbon price now being around €90/tonne. https://ember-climate.org/data/data-tools/carbon-price-viewer/
Atmosfair's price is currently £23/tonne.

One thing I definitely _wouldn't_ use is the little tickbox your airline provides 'offset this flight'. They are likely to be using the lowest possible estimates of emissions (with a climate factor of 1) and the cheapest and potentially useless-est forest-based offsets at laughable prices like £2/tonne. Some airlines (Ryanair, I'm looking at you) I wouldn't trust to not just keep the money and laugh at you for being so gullible.

There are probably other suppliers that are worth using; the market has no doubt moved on in the last 3 years. The above is what I found in 2020, with the prices updated for today. (The EU carbon price has more than doubled since then, Climeworks price has gone up 22%, Atmosfair's price is the same).

You should be aware that one of the biggest difference between suppliers is how they calculate the emissions. It's important to allow for the fact that high-altitude burning significantly increases the warming effect in comparison to just burning some fuel on the ground. The effect is quite variable, depending on weather, route, plane etc. A realistic number is in the 2-3 range, probably nearer 3. Pick an offsetter, or emissions calculator, that has a realistic climate factor (atmosfair for flights). For other travel: trains, cars and coaches calulators still vary a lot. I'd use ecopassenger.org for train or 'average car' numbers.
 

nobrotson

Active member
In response to the discussion that has been occurring here, I've organised this session at Hidden Earth:

I hope that many of you who have contributed here will be able to attend, so that we can discuss the best way for GPF to consider carbon emissions of expeditions when allocating funding :)
 

Badlad

Administrator
Staff member
I am unable to attend HE this year but have given this subject some thought. I'm also in the process of organising a trip to Mulu and applying for a MEF grant which considers the carbon footprint of expeditions.

I think it is a tough question for grant funding bodies. Are they really going to be in the business of dissuading cavers from running expeditions to far flung destinations? Everest and Ghar Parau, they are named after distant destinations themselves. All these bodies hold large sums of donated cash and as mentioned earlier GPF hold a considerable fund just to support Mulu expeditions. It is not really feasible, however right or wrong for society, for these funding bodies to just support expeditions to North Yorkshire or three up car trips to Austria.

Perhaps the best way would be for funding bodies to cover the costs of offsetting with the grant as well as helping with equipment. Advise on methods which actually do good. Work on carbon awareness promotions and perhaps even directly fund some peat bog restoration and tree planting.

Spend heavily now as no point in having 200k in the bank whilst we are all choking and burning. 🔥
 

cap n chris

Well-known member
Thank you Wookey for a fabulously comprehensive response. I'm still working and the moment I finish I'll go to bed but rest assured I will check out your links etc., IDC. First reaction though is that presuming you are spot on with your summary I think it's guaranteed the necessary moves won't be happening so the planet will have to take its chances, as is, and the population will have to live with the consequences. Inertia and pragmatism (even though it may be totally wrong in doing so) will win hands down. Catastrophe will occur, or not, as a matter of course.
 

cap n chris

Well-known member
PPS Global Population Decline royally fcuks into a cocked hat all 1st World Economies' Finances which depend, fundamentally, on growth (be it industry, or population, or spending etc.). The future generations are paying for what we do now. Printing money doesn't work if growth isn't going to occur. Perhaps this is why the WEF/WHO are advertising for their New World Order so everyone gets used to poor people being sidelined (a euphemism for genocide perhaps). It's a damn safe bet that poor people in poor countries will be the ones who have to put up with the consequences and rich people in 1st world economies will last as long as they can before they succomb to diktat, assuming they have to.
 

IanWalker

Active member
I was thinking of the effect of the long distant flights to certain caving expedition areas abroad. Mulu, Mexico, Megahalaya to name a few. Other than not flying so far, or at all, how do you calculate your carbon use and what can you do to offset it? I've seen various companies which charge to offset it for you but that seems a bit, er, like it doesn't really help.
Interesting topic.

It seems that most cavers attend expeditions for their own personal enjoyment, because its how they like to spend their holiday. Are expeditions somehow more worthy of emissions? I'm not so sure. One person attending a Dales caving meet last weekend took a flight from London to Manchester. Many people would consider that excessive, but how is it different from flying to Mulu (say). Nether are likely to change the course of human history, yet both have let the genie out of the bottle, so to speak.

I don't believe 'offsetting' is a good long term framework for reducing our impact. I would rather look up the impact in advance of a trip and decide whether I'm happy with it. I occasionally use online 'carbon calculators' which help to put my holiday travel impacts in perspective. For example I looked this week at surface travel route to Norway. I feel individual action (or non-action) is important whilst we wait for systemic change bringing the big benefits.

Not directly related to flights abroad, but here is a thought provoking website that estimates how many earths would be needed if everyone lived your lifestyle. Mine was 3.2 today.
 

IanWalker

Active member
New World Order


1693949712191.png
 

Loki

Active member
Interesting topic.

It seems that most cavers attend expeditions for their own personal enjoyment, because its how they like to spend their holiday. Are expeditions somehow more worthy of emissions? I'm not so sure. One person attending a Dales caving meet last weekend took a flight from London to Manchester. Many people would consider that excessive, but how is it different from flying to Mulu (say). Nether are likely to change the course of human history, yet both have let the genie out of the bottle, so to speak.

I don't believe 'offsetting' is a good long term framework for reducing our impact. I would rather look up the impact in advance of a trip and decide whether I'm happy with it. I occasionally use online 'carbon calculators' which help to put my holiday travel impacts in perspective. For example I looked this week at surface travel route to Norway. I feel individual action (or non-action) is important whilst we wait for systemic change bringing the big benefits.

Not directly related to flights abroad, but here is a thought provoking website that estimates how many earths would be needed if everyone lived your lifestyle. Mine was 3.2 today.
That’s interesting. I thought I was relatively eco and got 4.1. By reducing driving to 40 miles a week and removing the work flights (I’ve not flown for holidays since 2019) I got it to 3. I usually train it to work anyway. Speleobikepacking it is then 😂.
Thing is I wonder what people who cummute miles every day and have heating on 23• with two holidays flying a year score? It must be American as no gas mentioned and my decent sized house is apparently medium.
 
Top