DIA passengers could pay to erase carbon footprint
By Chris Walsh, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published January 18, 2008 at 3:07 p.m.
Feeling guilty about the amount of carbon dioxide your upcoming flight will pump into the atmosphere?
Soon you might be able to fork over some extra cash at Denver International Airport to invest in projects intended to help negate your share of the environmental damage caused by air travel.
DIA is looking to become one of the first airports in the nation to offer passengers the ability to buy carbon offsets in its concourses. The offsets would pay for renewable energy and power-saving projects that help cut down on greenhouse gas emissions.
The airport is soliciting proposals from companies interested in setting up and running an offset program in all three concourses. The offsets could be offered through kiosks, booths, computer terminals or other means.
It's all part of the airport's renewed focus on the environment, which dovetails efforts by the city and state to implement energy-saving procedures and technology.
"Airports and airlines are under more and more scrutiny regarding greenhouse gas emissions and how they can offset climate change," said Janell Barrilleaux, DIA's director of environmental programs. "This offers a small step in the right direction to raise awareness and let people know that airports want to do the right thing."
The airport will award a three-year contact that is non-exclusive, meaning other providers could eventually set up shop in the airport as well.
DIA hopes to have the offset program up and running by August.
Under the plan, interested passengers would provide the details of their flights — such as the cities involved and the number of stops — to determine how much in offsets would erase their "carbon footprint" or amount of carbon emissions.
The offsets could be used for a variety of projects, such as installing solar panels in India or planting trees as part of reforestation efforts in Brazil.
An individual passenger could pay anywhere from a few bucks to more than $50 to offset their "share" of the carbon emissions of their flights.
Carbon offset providers use varying methods to calculate flight emissions and the amount of money needed to offset them. The airport said it will thoroughly vet any program to ensure that it funds valuable, effective projects and that it uses an accepted method of calculating how much a passenger should pay. DIA also wants a third-party to verify that the money is invested in the right kinds of projects.
The airport would get a share of the money collected: 10 percent of the first $1 million, 12 percent of the next $1 million and 14 percent of sales above $2 million, according to airport documents.
Carbon offsets are becoming increasingly popular, and several carriers — including Denver-based Frontier Airlines — have implemented or plan to offer such programs. Consumers can also buy them through a variety of Web sites.
But there are plenty of critics, some who argue that carbon offsets are simply a way for consumers to feel better without taking tangible steps to reduce global warming. The environmental value of the projects also is debated, and some have actually emitted more greenhouse gases than they were supposed to negate.
Additionally, it's a largely unregulated market.
The Federal Trade Commission, which is looking into the industry, even said last week that it's tough to track whether or not these programs are effective.
Supporters of carbon offsets say the key is to use a reputable operator that is overseen by a third-party company and has strict guidelines for the projects it invests in.
"I think DIA is going to want to work with a company with a good track record, folks that have been involved developing best practices in the industry," said Susan Innis, manager of the Colorado carbon fund program for the Governor's Energy Office.
DIA acknowledges the criticism surrounding carbon offset programs but said it intends to thoroughly scrutinize all proposals, including the calculations used to determine emissions and costs.
Barrilleaux said the airport doesn't have any specific projects in mind. Rather, it wants companies interested in running the program to pitch their ideas.
"Maybe we'd even have a menu of projects that (passengers) can pick from," Barrilleaux said.
The airport said it won't rule out "sequestration" projects that involve storing carbon underground, but the company or organization would have to provide "sufficient scientific and economical justification."
Some critics could take issue with the fact that DIA will get a portion of the money passengers pay for carbon offsets.
The airport, however, said it can't provide such services for free. It'll also use some of the revenue to cover expenses incurred in choosing an operator and tracking the success of the program.
"There is going to be a cost to the airport associated with this," said DIA spokesman Jeff Green, adding that officials don't yet know how much that will be. "We have to cover those expenses."
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Holiday Lights
Is your house the jolliest on the block? Submit your holiday lights display.
-
Holiday Gift Guide
Looking to get a jump-start on the holiday shopping season?
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's midweek rant on the Chiefs.
-
Broncos Video
Get the latest from Dove Valley as the Broncos prepare for Sunday's matchup.
-
Calendar wallpaper
Download this month's desktop wallpaper calendar
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Stirrin' the Soup with Matt Iseman
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
Read the Rocky's coverage of Colorado's cannibal, Alfred Packer, in 1886.
January 18, 2008
3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oh_Wise_One writes:
Yes, please send those payments to OhWiseOne@paypal.com. Visa, Mastercard or American Express accepted. No Discover Cards.
Thanks.
January 18, 2008
4:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
anya writes:
I think this is a GREAT idea - let's collect a bunch of money from suckers and send it to India to help the Indians purchase and install solar panels so that THEIR country won't be dependent on fossil fuels!!! I'm also sure that the Brazilian loggers will be grateful for all of the trees.
I always thought that the televangelists had the best scam EVER, but the environmentalists' carbon credits make the preachers look like amateurs. Put ya' bible over your heart and put ya' hand on the nearest tree and I will pray for you (and then you need to send in a lot of money). At least the Video Bible Thumpers are happy with ten dollars; the carbon credit people want fifty.
January 18, 2008
6:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Chadley25 writes:
At least they're having a third party involved to ensure the money is spent properly. That said, I'd rather them spend the cash developing more fuel-efficient, less-polluting jet engines than to outfit businesses in India with solar panels.
January 18, 2008
7:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
jaybyrd writes:
Flying is evil! I feel guilty already. If the geniuses at DIA are so concerned about alleged carbon emissions, why don't they a)shut down the airport, or b) take up residence in the airport, or c) provide some improved mass transportation other than the antiquated RTD routes that are now relied on (see Newark, JFK, London, Paris, and Munich, among others, for inspiration)? Knowing that none of these options are feasible, it would be better if they stuck to the basic mission(s) of their jobs and quit fretting every time some hack politician or pseudo-scientist raises this issue. Send money to underdeveloped countries? Yeah, like the money will ever get there. As a frequent traveler thru DIA, I will be certain to leave my loose change in my car in the parking lot so as to avoid even the slightest temptation to contribute.
January 18, 2008
10:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
david.miller writes:
What a scam. DIA was intentionally built on the scale that it was because former Denver Mayor and Energy Secretary Pena obviously didn't care about leaving a huge carbon footprint. Now that the nightmare has come true, DIA officials have the audacity to ask airport patrons to kick in to help mitigate what must be viewed as Mr. Pena's massive environmental mistake, supposing you buy-in to the need to reduce carbon emissions. I find that I agree with others: if DIA's role is to contribute to a looming environmental catastrophe, let's simply do away with DIA and make the world a better place. Of course, one of the consequences might be that some environmentally minded people would be put out of work; but wouldn’t it would be worth it if we could save just one polar bear?
January 19, 2008
12:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
clyde writes:
I can't believe that our society has been dumbed down so far as to believe any of this Algore sideshow. Carbon offsets indeed. Send money, keep polluting, and assuage your guilt while enriching some of the most irascible scammers ever. "There's one born every minute."
But.. but... but... Algore said it was right.
January 19, 2008
6:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
sampson writes:
Lets see... The airport takes 10 to 12 percent off the top. The company contracted at the airport takes an additional 25 to 40 percent. Then there's the "third" party who's contracted to "verify" that the money's invested properly, another 15 to 20 percent. Finally (perhaps), the contracted company that happens to have the connections to bring these moneies to their part of the world who will actually perform the tasks of reducing carbon feetprint, 20 to 30 percent. "Ain't gonna buy a lot of trees with what's left".
January 19, 2008
7:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Theoldguy writes:
Send the money to ME and I will use it for solar energy to free myself from Excel and power most of Denver.
January 19, 2008
7:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
I DO believe in global warming and think that we need to do something about it. I don't, however, believe that this is the right approach. There is no control or accountability.
It would be far better to act as locally as possible. Put the money into your own home by buying new cfl bulbs or attic insulation. Think about how you waste energy everyday and act to mitigate it. That keeps the money in our economy, we have control and it cuts out governments and middlemen! I can plant my own trees, thank you!
January 19, 2008
9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
AF writes:
let's see $50 for a plane ride,
$5 for smoking,
$10 each to Haggard and Swagart,
6 hail Marys for impure thoughts,
Man, no matter what i do , I'm on the way to heaven.
Af
January 19, 2008
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
JustSayin writes:
Who was it that said "there's a sucker born every minute."? Was that Mark Twain? P.T. Barnum? I'm too lazy to Google.......
January 19, 2008
10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
TreeBanker writes:
Bravo DIA,
Ragardless of what the naysayers have posted here the simple fact is that Global Climate Change will begin affecting everyone's lives in the near future.
Washington recently required the EPA to start treating carbon dioxide as air pollution. The senate recently passed a bill that laid out the groundwork for a cap and trade system. Unfortunately it was shot down in the house of representitives but the future is clear. There will be some sort of carbon tax in the near future.
DIA is taking a proactive approach to the inevitable.
Reduce your carbon output as much as possible then offset the rest.
January 19, 2008
12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oh_Wise_One writes:
TreeBanker,
The simple fact is that there is Global Climate Change and there ALWAYS has been and there ALWAYS will be.
The complicated fact to you, is that you overrate man's impact. Mother Nature and Father Earth can handle far more than Al Gore can spew.
I don't want to pay for your guilt.
January 19, 2008
12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Oh_Wise_One,
You are not as wise as you think. The evidence is strong, substantial and, frankly, overwhelming. We have decades of satellite imagery, over 100 years of worldwide temperature measurements (both sea and air), almost the same length of soil moisture measurements, and eons of worldwide temperatures that can be determined by ice core samples (and to an extent tree ring measurements) around the world. We have almost 150 years of photographic evidence as well. And there's much more evidence that would take me a week to enumerate.
Many people more intelligent and knowledgeable than both of us have been reviewing this enormous collection of data and over 98% of them are in agreement with each other that the last 100 years of global temperature increase has been primarily caused by human activity. You can choose to stick you head in the sand but I, for one, will continue to research this subject and do everything I can to leave the world better off for my children than it was left to me when I entered it. It's the moral, responsible and right thing to do.
January 19, 2008
1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
KC writes:
Could somebody put in for me, please? I would like to be free of guilt (because I'm an American, there are many, many things I am guilty of) but I'm a little light this month.
January 19, 2008
2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
jamesdenver writes:
Carbon Offset's are a joke. And I say that as a liberal.
Being “green” is more than just buying paper towels labeled green (in a plastic wrapper picturing the earth from space.) It’s about the sum of your individual choices. Your collective life is the denominator of what’s considered “green” or not. Should certain companies even market themselves as environmentally friendly when the products they design can never be considered green in the first place? How can a magazine even consider itself green, when as noted in the Cause Related Marketing blog the entire concept of a magazine - paper, printers, and trucks - is the complete antithesis of what being green is about?
http://www.futuregringo.com/index.php...
January 19, 2008
3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
sqjnk writes:
throw money at the problem and it will go away.
ignore the future for the present.
ignoring factual information because it doesn't jive with my personal view of the world.
god bless america
January 19, 2008
10:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
cakeckh writes:
Modern day snake oil salesmen = carbon offsets!
Can I plant on 100 clear acres and 9000 seeds and make $ 900,000. Yes, in this unregulated industry there are no requirements. Al Gore know this - that's why he now a Managing Partner in a Venture Capital firm specialize in the Green. Most people believe the green is environment...but for Al the green he wants to recycle is dollars...so go ahead and give your hard earn money up for Al.
Global warming is a fraud that is simply about getting more money out of your pockets. If the airport really was interested in getting carbon offsets - they should restrict the number of flights. That would certainly cut emissions right?
January 20, 2008
10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
kemguru writes:
Most of the complainers here are the same folks that preach about individual responsibility and market-based solutions (usually in regard to medical care). Hypocrites!
The free market has to search for solutions; since our current administration was so late to the party (at least they finally arrived; kind of). The US is sitting on the sidelines of one of the largest economic movements in history. It’s a shame we cannot sell credits to Japan right now. Since we’re not part of Kyoto, we are missing out on the global economic opportunities. We could use the money right now. Where is that $800 check coming from, again??
I don’t like the fact that other countries benefit more from our carbon programs. I would like for Americans to experience lower utility bills from the use of solar, for example, but you need to understand why these organizations install these solutions in other countries. Money! Companies can reap the financial rewards of carbon reduction only if you participate in a country that ratified Kyoto. Japan, for example, needs to spend $8 billion real fast, but countries that ratified Kyoto are the only vendors that can participate.
Most of you are so opinionated, but you are just as clueless.
You’re down right happy that we did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, yet you are crapping on the current market-based solutions cropping up due to a lack of regulation. Hypocrites!
Another thing we can agree on is the planting of trees to back carbon offsets. This practice is fraudulent and should be criminal. Other options exist, thankfully. If I want to back research and current solutions with my hard-earned money, what’s it to ya? It’s market-based and does not affect you one iota.
January 21, 2008
10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
TreeBanker writes:
joggle,
Thanks for replying to Oh_Wise_One for me. You articulated my response perfectly. They missed my point completely. The point is, regardless of whether someone "believes in" global climate change or not, carbon taxes are coming.
kemguru,
I agree that market-based solutions are the only answer. We must (and will) innovate our way our of this situation.
I'd like to know why you've formed such a strong opinion regarding tree planting to offset carbon.