andrzej

Air Canada is offering it's paxs a chance to reduce the impact on environment during their flight(s).

During reservation, the pax will have a chance to contribute to a non-profit organization that operates carbon offsets programs.

Would you?


http://biz.yahoo.com/cnw/070528/e_ai...sets.html?.v=1

LarryJ

No.

I did think that Imus really missed an oppertunity to save his radio show and career. When the story broke about his racist comment about the basketball players he just should have bought some racism offsets the proceeds from which would have been used to fund enough affirmative action programs to offset the damage that he did with his comments.

dankyone

It is an interesting idea, and I´m sure some people will pay this.

I would not.

TravelingWookiee

I'm not convinced by companies that trade in carbon offsets. To me, it seems like a way for someone to profit from companies' and people's desire to just feel better about their environmental impact. You'd be better served donating your money to organizations that protect the natural environments we have left or that help promote alternative or more efficient energy sources.

jimbo99

I think in theory its a good idea in the interim, but I don't really trust the regulation of this faddish industry.

In the end I agree with a "polluter pays" principle rather than a guilt-massage driven system. So if CO2 emissions from planes are a problem (as seems likely) then airlines should pay for the effect to be reversed and this should be part of their cost structure... not another "surcharge" or fee.

Much better this way than governments handling things. Taxes departing the UK are so ridiculous, there is certainly no need to pay anything towards offsets departing there. The UK gov should put the money towards offsets (or whatever). Since they don't, and the sneering masses don't seem likely to hold them to account for it, I'm not going to pay again for something that will benefit the sneering masses at my expense.

TheTrustedTraveler

Thats what these companies are trying to do.

A fad is only a fad if it fades away. Environmental issues will not fade away. People have been preaching this for 200 years. I commend these non-profits for trying to do something. My Company is signed on and we'll see. But to stand back and say I wont do it is short sighted. At least research it and make a "fair and Balanced" descision. Not to sound like a total tree hugger, but take a look at your own house and start there, light bulbs, recycling, composting, if everyone did their part we wouldnt be in this environmental mess.

jimbo99

(emphasis added)

Is this what you would call "fair and balanced" ?

J-M

No

old_vine_zin

No, I would not contribute. I have to fly because of my job, if I don't work, my family doesn't have food, shelter, health care, etc. Air Canada is trying to guilt me into something they won't do. If they are truly concerned, upgrade the ancient fleet of aircraft or show me where they are purchasing "carbon offsets". They are expecting more of their passangers than they expect of themselves.

The entire "you use too much, you should buy carbon offsets" is borderline extortion.

etch5895

BA does this as well through their website. Expedia also offers for sale carbon offsets when you book travel. I did it once through BA and have felt like a sucker ever since.

If the airline were to match my donation, it would be one thing, but guilting me all alone won't work again. If this were to become a mandatory fee in the price of an airline ticket, I would support it if that money went solely to advancing or emplacing a technology that will reduce our dependance on fossil fuels. Hopefully a time will come soon when there is a technology that allows airplanes to fly on something other than fossil fuels.

htb

Environmental mess? Sounds fair and balanced to me.

HTB.

TravelingWookiee

I think I may not have been clear with my comment.

My issue is not with tackling environmental issues, but with using "carbon offsets" as a panacea for environmental woes. Carbon offsets by themselves do little to help and merely mask the problem. We should be tackling problems directly instead, both through more efficient use and new energy technologies.

The latter half of your argument, about recycling, etc., is completely in line with what I had in mind.

suitcasejockey

Preach on my new friend.

That's exactly right. Selling credits is a crock at this point. If they want to help they will swap out their fleet and retire planes. They would put winglets on their long hauls. They would redesign their arrival procedures so planes land and go straight to the gate instead of idling on the taxiway. There is so much they could do to save carbon, but instead they try to come off "clean" and pretend they are helping. If I want to buy carbon credits I'm not buying them from AC. It's fraud.

schmare

I like the idea of optional carbon off-sets, but I'm always wary when an organization like Zerofootprint can't/won't say how much of your purchase is actually being used for environmental efforts. From their website:

"It is impossible to determine exactly how much of an offset’s value goes directly to the project it funds...."

It does go on to give a shaky explanation of the statement above, and assures people that their overhead is low, but I'd feel more comfortable knowing exactly what percentage is going to offsets and what is being used for zerofootprint's operating expenses.

(http://www.zerofootprint.net/offsets/faq)

nako

I don't see the whole idea of carbon credits as anything different than the practice of buying indulgences from the church from years gone by, but maybe that's just me.

Mike