Voluntary carbon offsetting has become increasingly publicized by airlines and popular amongst

concerned travelers as a means to mitigate the impact of their air travel. However, these

voluntary carbon offset (VCO) schemes have been criticized on a number of fronts, including

Lack of transparency

Complexity and confusion for the consumer

Variability of the schemes

The reasons for the confusion and lack of transparency are many. Such as

Uncertainties regarding the measurement and permanence of greenhouse gas emission

reductions

Low awareness and take-up of offsetting schemes

Carbon offset providers largely follow their own schemes for validation and verification,

generally with a low degree of transparency

Yet, despite the confusion and lack of transparency, and the arguments against offsetting

emissions from flying by purchasing carbon offsets, there appears to be a committed section of

the flying public who purchase carbon offsets. Small in number, with percentages ranging from

2% or less to 9% of the travelling public, these consumers potentially represent an important

market segment. This paper examines these questions in the Australian context and considers

their implications for the tourism industry and its continuing ability to address climate change.

Method

Data collection and analysis

This research used an online panel to collect the data as part of a larger project examining

business events and climate change. a sample of 500 was requested, which was considered to

be sufficient to carry out the analyses required. The sample consisted of 50% male respondents

and 50% female respondents. An online panel survey company was engaged to complete the

data collection, and 502 completed questionnaires were received, meeting the quotas

identified above for gender and country of survey completion. The official method was online

panel survey. Data were provided in SPSS format, and SPSS 17 was used to analyze the data.

This research set out to examine the following research question – are those consumers who

purchase VCOs more environmentally aware than other travelers?

Results and discussion

Voluntary carbon offsetting

Respondents were asked if they had ever purchased a VCO to offset a flight. The result showed

that only 10% of respondents had purchased a VCO in the past. A total of 80% had not

purchased a VCO before, and 10% were unsure. This figure of 10% for purchasing offsets seems

to be an anecdotal industry average but rather higher than those figures found in previous

academic research.

In order to examine the purchase of VCOs in circumstances other than flying, respondents were

asked whether there was an additional charge (voluntary or mandatory) to offset attendance at

their most recent conference. Only 8% confirmed that there was a charge for offsetting, while

68% stated that there was no offsetting charge. Finally, 24% of respondents were unsure as to

whether there had been a charge to offset attendance. Respondents were also asked whether

they would consider purchasing a VCO to offset their attendance at a conference. Results

showed that 6% of respondents had already offset attendance at a conference, and a further

46% would consider it An additional 16% were unsure whether they would pay to offset a

conference, leaving 31% who stated categorically that they would not purchase VCOs to offset

attendance at an event.

Findings:

This research has demonstrated that those who have purchased carbon offsets in the

past and the majority of those who would consider offsetting in future, do hold eco

centric attitudes.

This research indicates that purchasers are slightly more likely to be male than female,

and are slightly more likely to be younger than non-purchasers. This is important

information for marketers, who may be able to target this eco centric segment.

Despite their ecocentrism, VCO purchasers do not necessarily fit the profile of pro-

environmental consumers.

The research suggests that the purchase was not necessarily made as a result of pro-

environmental attitudes, but rather may have been a form of guilt avoidance.

Conclusion and business implications.

This research indicates that levels of uptake of carbon offsets are around 10%. If carbon-

offset schemes are to be a viable tool for offsetting carbon emissions and mitigating climate

change, they will need to be adopted by much greater numbers of travellers to have any

impact on global carbon emissions levels. Suggestions for how this may be achieved include

making the purchase of carbon offsets mandatory,

building in the price of the offset in the price of the ticket,

or making the airlines themselves responsible, rather than allowing them to pass the

costs of emission reduction on to their consumers.

Carbon offsets are not an appropriate way to mitigate climate change and in terms

of mitigating climate change, structural and behavioral change (including reducing

the number of flights taken) may still be required.

There is a risk that by promoting carbon-offsetting schemes as the easy way to make

a contribution to combat climate change, the tourism industry may unintentionally

remove some of the pressure on these individuals to make these significant

behavioral changes.

The tourism industry must take responsibility for its contribution to climate change

and limiting the potential for reducing overall aviation emissions from tourism by

encouraging the view that offsets are an acceptable substitute for changing flying

behavior. Responses such as “wanting to do the right thing” and “we should take

responsibility for the planet” Demonstrate that at least some consumers realize the

impacts on the environment of their choice to fly.

consumers (who by and large can be identified by their eco centric attitudes) are the

consumers that could be targeted and persuaded to change their behavior by taking

fewer flights and therefore represent the market segment most willing to undertake

the structural change required.