Angry in the Great White North

One of the wonders of the modern world is air travel. There is no point on the planet more than a few hours away from any other point.

Of course, that must be a bad thing:

When it comes to climate change, aviation and our flying habits are at the leading-edge of the "Party's over" issue. Until something significant and noticeable is done about flying, all the metaphorical alarums and exhortations in the world are as nothing compared to the overwhelming sense that it's still really business as usual.

Yes, when it's time to kill a good time and declare a party over, then your best bet is to invite an environmentalist over.

Anyway, the NGO Air Travel and Carbon Accounting Survey contacted environmental organizations in the fall and winter of 2006 to have them answer the question of how they planned to reduce the negative impacts of air travel.

Here's what Paul Lingl of Canada's David Suzuki Foundation had to say:

David Suzuki Foundation (Canada)
Contact: Paul Lingl, paul@davidsuzuki.org

1. Does the Foundation have a carbon accounting system (tracking its own greenhouse gas emissions)? If so do you publish the results?

We do have a carbon accounting system. You can read more about it here:
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/What_You_Can_Do/carbon_ neutral_office.asp
and
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/What_You_Can_Do/carbon_ neutral.asp
In terms of publishing the details, we will begin to do that in our Annual Report, beginning with the next one.

2. What's the Foundation's policy on air travel (given the impact on climate) and do you have any targets in this respect?

We do not have a specific policy regarding air travel, except to use it as little as possible, and then offset the emissions we do generate (as per above). In the next few months, we will be creating further reduction targets in terms of CO2 from flights. Right now, we are working on a reduction plan for our electricity use.

3. Have you found ways to do business while reducing air travel, and if so with what results? (If you'd like to share any successes for others to maybe learn from, please do)

We have begun to avoid meetings/conferences when air travel is required and instead asking for minutes & conference proceedings instead. We also participate in most meetings via conference call. We have also recently ordered a new video conferencing system that will allow better interactions with out-of-town colleagues.

So I decided to check out just how well things have gone for David Suzuki, now that the party's over. I used the newsletter archives to plot his travel for a few sample years.

Here's his travel itinerary for 2003:

Kingston, ON
Washington, DC
Hamilton, ON
Vancouver, BC
Charlottetown, PEI
St John's, NL
Halifax, NS
Fredricton, NB
Lethbridge, AB
Pittsburgh, PA
Toronto, ON
Boston, MA
Lindsay, ON

I've stripped out the dates, and just calculated the straight line distance between the points. I've actually underestimated his travel, since for trips separated by weeks, David Suzuki is likely to fly back to Vancouver, then from Vancouver to the next destination.

So with that break in his favour, I've calculated 16,134 miles of travel.

Now Paul Lingl said in the fall of 2006 that they had already begun to restrict air travel. So what happened in 2005?

Toronto, ON
Anchorage, AK
Montreal, QC
Hamilton, ON
San Francisco, CA
Toronto, ON
Thunder Bay, ON
Eugene, OR
Ottawa, ON
Vancouver, BC
Montreal, QC

That is a total of 26,316, or an increase of 26% over 2003.

Not so good. But then they had only started to work on the new plan. What about 2007, when the travel restrictions were in full force?

Vancouver, BC
Cornwall, ON
Ottawa, ON
Montreal, QC
Ottawa, ON
Edmonton, AB
San Antonio, TX
Flint, MI
Pelee Island, ON
Barrie, ON
Victoria, BC
San Francisco, CA
Ottawa, ON
Vernon, BC
Waterton Park, AB
Whistler, BC
Ottawa, ON
Toronto, ON
Montreal, QC

Total travel distance of 24,325 miles. But that list started in April, and did not count the 5,865 miles covered by his recent "If I was Prime Minister" tour. Add that on, and you have 30,190 miles logged.

More travel, not less. A lot more travel.

Of course, not all the trips are by air, but plane, train, or automobile, it's still gas. And what about the promise to stop traveling altogether when possible? Video-conferencing and minutes of meetings and so forth?

This is probably one of those cases where David Suzuki is too important to simply appear by video. He has to be there to press the flesh and rest up in a fine hotel before getting on a plane (business class, of course) to fly across the continent to continue to spread the word. I would expect that people like Paul Lingl will take up the slack and never travel on business on behalf of the Foundation.

For them, the party is well and truly over. But not for David Suzuki, who's partying ways means he's done the equivalent of circling the globe, and then a quarter more again.

Maybe, though, he really is restricting himself. His destinations in 2000 included Australia (to sign books) and Norway (for the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), as well as all points in North America, for an astonishing 40,000 miles of travel. I guess making sacrifices on behalf of the environment is a relative thing.