Magnum Blog / The photographer and CO2 - A case for carbon emission offsets?

On my way to Indonesia for a month-long assignment in Jakarta, I look out the window of Northwest Airlines flight 07 and take in a sight I used to enjoy. The graceful sweeping wing, the engine humming underneath, and beyond them the gentle gradients of color where the Pacific Ocean meets the atmosphere. But I sit less easily on jet planes now than I used to. It's not that I suddenly harbor fears of terrorist bombs or mechanical errors. Rather, I am assaulted by the reality of some simple, but brutal, numbers:

Right now, by occupying this one coach class seat, I am personally accountable for the release of about eight metric tons of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. That is roughly the same amount as the total CO2 emissions if I drove a Hummer H2 SUV every day for an entire year, based on the American suburban annual average of 19,300km.

I, like so many of us in photojournalism, do a lot of flying. Earlier this year, I worked in seven countries on three continents within a five-week period. I enjoy Elite Frequent Flyer status on all the major carriers. Truth be told, if I quit traveling like I do, I could probably maintain a fleet of ten sports utility vehicles, leave all the appliances in my apartment on 24/365, and still come out carbon-cleaner than I do right now.

That does not mean the work I do on these trips isn't meaningful. This year, much of it has focused on stories of poverty and exclusion, as well as documenting the activities of socially responsible philanthropic organizations. And I love every bit of the travel. But no matter how laudable the work is, my heavy reliance on long-haul air travel forces me to ask myself difficult questions. Overall, we photojournalists often see ourselves as the principled guardians of public opinion, the conscience of international affairs, the valued providers of context. We are the "eyes of the world," seeking out urgent stories of wrongdoing. We are talented at muckraking where governments or corporations do harm. But what happens when we turn the mirror unto ourselves?

It has become clear to me that we have a duty to mitigate the environmental impact of our work. We should think about which of our trips are essential and which are superfluous. And we should make our clients, who profit from our work, pay for Carbon Emission Offsets.

If a photojournalist from another planet landed on Earth, he would probably pay little heed to our countless wars, the hunt for al-Qaida, or the conflicts in the Middle East, writing them off as tiresome squabbles over land and resources, along the same template as humans have kept to over the last 5,000 years. He would quickly report back to his editors that there is only one urgent story here right now - how the industrial revolution and technology spurred a mega-binge of consumption, population growth and energy expenditure, resulting in a grand and perilous experiment of altering the planet's energy balance.

Our dilemma is that per passenger-mile, cars and jet aircraft emit roughly the same amount of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. But we don't board 747s to go to the supermarket - we tend to fly 7,000km at a time, and back again. In addition, CO2 is only one part of the jet set's dirty laundry. Airliners also release Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Methane (CH4) gases at high altitudes, which are per unit much more harmful than CO2 itself. Add to that the heat-trapping cirrus clouds resulting from jet planes' contrails, and we arrive at this fact:

According to the European Commission, aviation contributes between 3.5 and 7.4 percent of all human activity-related greenhouse gas emissions, a figure that is projected to double over the next decades, making it the fastest growing greenhouse gas emitting industry on the planet. Indeed, every time I fly through a major hub, I feel like I spot a barrage of new low-cost carriers.

How do we as photographers reconcile ourselves with the true ecological cost of our travel? I am not advocating that we all stop working. Our industry is important and relevant, and photography and journalism do matter. There are stories that should be told, projects that are bigger than just ourselves. Likewise, there are stories and assignments that are better left undone, for instance travel pieces aimed at convincing thousands of other people to cram themselves into low-cost air carrier seats for faraway holiday destinations.

Or perhaps that trip from New York to the international photo festival in Perpignan seems slightly less urgent, once we learn that just one seat on that jet accounts for more emission harm to the planet than if one took an old 1992 Mazda 323 and drove it from Perpignan to Beijing (about 2.5 metric tons of CO2 for the drive, versus 2.7 for the return flight).

There is no question that in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, the work that we do comes at a grave cost. Flying less could be an important contribution to the fight against climate change, and no mitigation scheme can replace not getting on the next flight. But for the flights that are essential, is there anything we can do to mitigate the environmental cost of our business? The answer is yes, and I propose we push for its adoption as an industry standard.

There is a system for trading carbon emission-mitigating 'offsets.' The principle is that if I take a flight where my share of emissions amounts to 4 tons, I can moderate that damage by purchasing carbon emission offsets from a third party dealer. The fee I pay this company is put towards clean energy projects such as solar and wind farms, which replace carbon-based energy generation, or projects that otherwise enhance energy efficiency. The fee I pay is calculated per ton of CO2 my share of the flight emits, and I can thus help make my flight carbon neutral.

I propose that when a magazine sends a photographer on an assignment, it should be an industry standard that the purchase of carbon emission offsets becomes an accepted part of the photographer's invoice, along with all the other expenses such as car hire, hotel bills, room service, digital fees etc. If I am being sent to do a job for a magazine, it is logical that they are also responsible for my added CO2 emissions. For the round trip from New York to Jakarta that I am on right now, the cost for the offset comes to about $200.

Carbon offset trading has over the last half decade become a fast-growing cottage industry. For sure, there are plenty of dubious players out there, bad accounting, and questionable results. However, there is a certification system in place that identifies offset dealers that conform to the highest standards. This, the CDM Gold Standard (cdmgoldstandard.org), is an oversight agency endorsed by the WWF, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and 40 other non-governmental organizations. Dealers certified by the Gold Standard are used by the United Nations Environment Programme and the United Nations World Climate Research Programme, for offsetting their own business travel. The criteria for Gold Standard endorsement is that the project is scientifically sound, sustainable, and meets 'additionality' requirements (it has to be proven that the offset project would not have existed if it wasn't for offset purchases). Forest planting schemes, for instance, do not qualify for the Gold Standard, due to longevity concerns - if the forest burns or is logged in the future, the Carbon Dioxide that was absorbed by the trees is released back into the air.

I've brought up my proposal with several clients and magazines, with mixed results. There is a certain unwillingness to hear any initiative that will increase their budgets, however small the amount. One senior editor at a major international publication with which I am working countered my proposal with a deferral of responsibility - "We all agree that we should try to save the planet," the editor wrote, "but if an individual feels he should do something for the environment he should do it voluntarily, and with their own money."

But if I am performing work on an organization or magazine's behest, then surely it is a logical and legitimate expense to invoice them for the carbon offsets? Climate change must be fought on a structural level-to leave it in the hands of the individual is clearly insufficient. We expect other industries to take responsibility for their pollution, and there is no compelling reason why ours should be exempted. A simple and relatively small offset self-taxation should thus be an accepted part of any assignment agreement with a magazine.

Photographers need to discuss and think about this issue as a group in order to make a difference and I invite all members of our community to give their thoughts on this blog on our role as polluters, our responsibilities, and my modest proposal that we bill our clients for carbon offsets. What stories, projects and trips are worth the environmental cost? Do you think carbon offsets for assignments is a worthy proposition? Speak up. Do you think it is hubris to think we can buy our way out of a problem caused by over-consumption? Speak up, loudly.

My aim is to get us to talk about this dilemma, and come up with a way to deal with it constructively.

Over to you.

Jonas Bendiksen

Links:
Gold Standard: www.cdmgoldstandard.org

Some Carbon Offset dealers with Gold Standard Certification:
MyClimate: www.myclimate.org
Atmosfair: www.atmosfair.de
Climate Friendly: www.climatefriendly.org
My carbon usage calculations are made using the online emission calculators on these websites.

Joint Statement from WWF, Friends of the Earth, and Greenpeace regarding Gold Standard and Offsets: www.agreenerfestival.com/WWF-GP-FoE_on_offseting.pdf

Reader comments (22)

Subscribe to this article's comments via RSS

Well written, Jonas.

To be honest, I did not expect such a constructive and pragmatic take on a very relevant and important issue.

You touched on a very good point about photographers doing "travel pieces" that aren't quite necessary. But you must take into account how much that industry grosses in revenue and then at the mentatility of the citizens who are taking such trips, and then you have a very sad realization that any change will not likely come from the average American citizen.

All these things to help the environment is great and all, and don't get me wrong, I'm 100% behind you on that, but it's the mentatility that needs to shift in this country if we're to step down as the biggest polluter on the planet.

-Mustafah

Comment posted by Mustafah Abdulaziz on February 9, 2007

Then again, there's travelling and travelling. Through your work as a photojournalist, you are introducing many readers and viewers all over the world to regions and places they'd never see or know about, otherwise. So maybe you'd have to divide your CO2 "production" through the number of your readers, because each time, you're travelling as a photojournalist, you'd be virtually taking thousands of people with you. In the end, your greenhouse gas mileage will be comparable to that of a bicycle leaning on a wall in Beijing.

Comment posted by roboter on February 10, 2007

Jonas, I think your point is spot on, but I can't see the chances of the line-item strategy catching on, in the photo industry or any of the myriad others that involve lots of travel. There will be random instances of the expense being approved, but nothing wide-scale for exactly the reasons that editor stated - no one really gives away money voluntarily.

This really got me thinking though, and it seems to me that what really needs to happen is that the airlines should build the cost of carbon offsets into the ticket price to begin with. That would solve all of the problems - the added cost would be further disincentive for frivolous travel, the expense would always be approved for photographers and everyone else traveling on the corporate dime, and it wouldn't really be that much extra money for the majority of trips. These really are costs that should be internalized to begin with; as it stands, society as a whole is paying to deal with the pollution from the airline industry (or rather suffer its consequences). I'm sure I'm not the first person with this same general idea.

There are other similar issues at hand too - what about all the trees used to make paper for magazines and newspapers our photos help to sell? Ah, the internet rides to the rescue...

Comment posted by Brendan Hoffman on February 10, 2007

then again the answer could be to fly less. Offsetting does not immediately negate the damage done by that flight you took to wherever. The benefits of offestting lie in the future. The immediate effect of the flight is still very damaging.

Saving the environment demands we all make sacrifices. The true cost of flying is not in the ticket price, Airline fuel is not taxed in many countries, cities, regional governments, and countries subsidize airline travel to attract tourists and business. and many other factors are hiding the true cost of flying.

One of the answers is to travel less. period. For many photojournalists it will hurt their business but its no less of what we ask corporations to do when we ask them to look beyond the bottom line.

In london many NGOs are asking if flying staff all over the world is negating the beneficial aspects of their work. We as photojournalists may have to base ourselves more and more in areas we want to work in as opposed to flying there and back. There is not one answer but many of which offsetting will play a part. But we just can't pass the negative cost of flying on to the people that commission us. The future is bleak at the moment and we can't exempt ourselves from the sacrifices everyone will have to make.

Photojournalists may have to look closer to home to find subjects and stories that are important to them and maybe magazines and newspapers will have to start looking for local talent to illustrate stories about far flung places.

One of the privilages of being a photographer for me was getting paid to travel and see the world and hopefully communicate what i saw to a mass audience. Like Jonas i once loved flying but now travelling by air troubles me very much. Its great that Jonas started this debate.

Comment posted by Antonio Olmos on February 10, 2007

I think another, maybe even greater impact of photography that we all have to look at is the mounds of industrial waste it takes to produce what we do. Of course, the continuing transition to digital has mitigated some of that, but how many people recycle their inkjet cartridges, or know just what exactly goes into making the cameras, harddrives etc? I'm a long time film shooter (I still prefer it) but feel guilty every time I see the amount of garbage I produce (particuarly with medium format) sometimes in order to produce just one image. I feel personally I'm suffering from long term exposure to darkroom chemicals (not to mention the environment) and now find it very diifficult to go anywhere near one. And to what end? Fill the pages of some publication which then goes on to fill some landfill (or hopefully be recycled). Put a piece of art on someone's wall? Of course one can spiral out about the amount of impact one has living in the modern world, photographer or not, to the point of wanting to go live as a sadhu in a cave somewhere.
What's going to be difficult is getting businessmen, family members, vacationers, commuters, celebrities, etc to cut down on their airtime, let alone a handful of photographers. As long as bad things remain affordable, and personal awareness at an all time low, it's going to be an uphill battle.

Comment posted by Charles Peterson on February 10, 2007

Thanks Jonas, this is the kind of thinking that will move us forward. It surprised me to learn how cheap emissions offsets are-- something between 5 and 20 dollars per metric ton, (http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm). A 7000 km trip could fit into an expense report between breakfast, lunch and film.

Comment posted by Matthew Johnson on February 12, 2007

Thanks Jonas for opening a massively important debate. Eloquently put and perfectly suggested. I kinda agree with Antonio in as far as whenever a tax or payment, in this case an "offset" is put forward I cant help but ask "How is money going to save the environment?" Isn't it industrialisation, capilisation and the pursuit of money that has got us to this point. These schemes are probably very sophisticated and as you note the recently introduced Goldstandard does sort the profiteers from the progressives, but these are industries, they employ and burn carbon too and in doing so even with their own offset are contributing.
Its a difficult one obviously and great that you have given the photography community the chance to look at its own footprint. I suppose at the oment I coem down somewhere between the editor who says make you own mind up (perhaps even stay at home and shoot something local??) and the offset lobby who feel a tax like this will somehow deter travellers or contribute to neutralising their emissions.
Just one final question... why is air travel so bloddy sacred anyway? What will happen if you stay at home for a year? Find a new way to earn a living with photography? Richard Branson's big initiative to green virgin with his money and find a better source of fuel etc doesn't tackle the problem now... too many flight with too many seats for too many passengers. That seems like a simpkle equation to me to solve...have less. But then the economy and all that will suffer... Does the economy matter when there is no environment?? To me its a question of priorities and money is still the main one as far as i can tell.

Comment posted by Jon Levy on February 13, 2007

Superb article Jonas. This is exactly what each of us must do. Find the truth about our impacts and begin to find all the ways we can of reducing them. The stakes are far higher than most people know. Even An Inconvenient Truth is well behind the curve with respect to the latest science, which keeps painting a worse and worse picture of our future if we fail to address this fully.

Vinod Khosla, a Sun founder, believes we can get to $1.25/gallon cellulosic ethanol within three years, Wall Street and government permitting. Its use would cut greenhouse emissions by 90% or more, unlike ethanol from corn starches.

Others state that they expect to be able to grow biodiesel from algae at 100X to 250X more per acre than growing soybeans (which is already done to make biodiesel at roughly $3.50/gallon retail I believe).

Once we commit fully to biofuels, and given a few years to get the ball rolling, we could have biofuels coming out of our ears. Or not, but one can hope and innovation can come through. Many are working hard on this, but it needs to grow with more investment, especially federal. Richard Branson has committed to invest $3 Billion dollars from the profits of Virgin Airlines and his railroad business too, over the next ten years, into his own new company's biofuels research and development. This is roughly the entire expected profit of those business units.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1878492,00.html

Google "richard branson" "biofuels" for many more articles.

Check out Craig Venter's work on hydrogen from sunlight. And Honda Motor Company's on cellulosic ethanol and PV cells. And Rose Street Labs in Phoenix, working to develop a new type of PV cel that would nearly triple the current efficiency, and at low cost, with abundant materials.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/11/rosestreet_labs.html

"Just say no to fossil fuels." ASAP!

Comment posted by Joseph Holmes on February 13, 2007

Interesting stuff indeed.. and thought provoking. I'm not sure if I agree with carbon offsets. I just wish people would realise the harm that emissions are doing to the planet, and where necessary travel by alternative means. I don't think it's a reason to stop traveling altogether though.
Of course in reality, people want to get to places faster, and will be willing to pay more to do so, whether 'green' taxes are imposed or not.
Off the topic - I'm a big fan of plane-view shots. Please feel free to take a look at the last set of plane pictures I took. : )
http://tanya-n.com/?p=18

Comment posted by Tanya on February 13, 2007

I agree that magazines should take more responsibility for their environmental impact. I work for a liberal publication that has written extensively on climate change, yet people here endlessly print out emails, leave computers and lights on, and in general make negative environmental contributions. In theory everybody cares about climate change but adding a carbon tax to our photo budgets would probably never be approved by the higher-ups as the magazine is owned by a large business interest. I agree with the sentiment already expressed that broader cultural change is the only way this can be reversed, but it is continually disappointing to me that my supposedly enlightened colleagues (and myself to a lesser degree I hope) have a daily negative impact.

Comment posted by Horton on February 13, 2007

I commented on this message board about your article...

http://brownswood.5.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=9308&st=60

This was one of the replies...

"So Magnum will get more money for their photographs and commision the growing of trees that can't grow quickly because of global dimming caused by photjournalists flying over them taking photos, which leads to more airborne photos of the growing problem.
Perhaps they could just comission photographers in the country they want a photo of."

As of yesterday i quit my travel photography job and i have started photographing weddings in Basingstoke. But seriously, your article is ever so eloquently put and has made me think about ways i can make changes for the better.

Comment posted by AnselAdamski on February 14, 2007

Well done Jonas for starting a discussion. The more negative side of what you highlight is the fact that there must be thousands of different occupations, all saying how vital it is that they travel. Whilst voluntary offsets are reasonable, my own thinking is that they are an abrogation of responsibility by governments and companies. There must be a coherent package of stick and carrot and a reexamination of the work/life balance - do we all need to work so hard, for so many hours that it couldn't be rearranged to allow 'slow travel'? My air travel days are pretty well over. And this is what I see every day in 'wild' Wales:

http://www.photoblogclub.net/zavaell%2029.

Comment posted by John Ellis on February 14, 2007

Thank you for raising this issue in such a thorough and thought provoking way. I believe that progress needs to be achieved in a practicable way. Otherwise it becomes like that weight losing diet which we are all determined to start but never quuite get round to it because it's too much trouble.

In a world where ao much trouble is caused by misunderstandings between cultures, I don't think that trying to cut down on travel is necessarily a good idea. But we can travel more efficiently. It does not cost us anything to work out which airlines fly more efficient aircraft and to travel with those airlines preferentially. Take a train rather than drive. Buy a more efficient car next time round. These are steps that are not too onerous and will make some difference.

As for carbon offsets, I believe these are best handled at higher levels. The European Commission plans to intrduce carbon offsets to encourage efficiency among airlines. Some US airlines are opposing this. I no longer fly with airlines that oppose these offsets.

Comment posted by Joe Zammit-Lucia on February 18, 2007

Of course there is a lot we can do but more important in my opinion is we start DOING LESS. It means probably a complete different way of thinking. But if you want to tell a story by taking pictures only creativity is the limit and this is something you carry with you already. So forget all travelling, waiting and other waste of time and take pictures instead. Maybe a little of taoism can help you here.

Comment posted by frank visser on February 19, 2007

your idea about a carbon offset charge on the invoice would appeal to Time, Newsweek or whoever - if that amount was tax deductible by the government.

That way, it couldn't hurt the companies bottom line - and the accountants would be happy.

Otherwise, adding an extra $200 to every overseas invoice isn't going to go over very well.

Comment posted by john smith on February 19, 2007

I am glad to see that photojournalists are starting to realise the nefast impact of their air travel on the planet. However don't fool yourselves with the idea that offsetting can make your trips carbon neutral. There is not such a thing!

See www.carbontradewatch.org/pubs/carbon_neutral_myth.pdf

Carbon offsets are the modern day indulgences, sold to an increasingly carbon conscious public to absolve their climate sins. Scratch the surface, however, and a disturbing picture emerges, where creative accountancy and elaborate shell games cover up the impossibility of verifying genuine climate change benefits, and where communities in the South often have little choice as offset projects are inflicted on them.

This report from Carbon Trade Watch argues that offsets place disproportionate emphasis on individual lifestyles and carbon footprints, distracting attention from the wider, systemic changes and collective political action that needs to be taken to tackle climate change. Promoting more effective and empowering approaches involves moving away from the marketing gimmicks, celebrity endorsements, technological quick fixes, and the North/South exploitation that the carbon offsets industry embodies.

Comment posted by Isa on February 20, 2007

I'm a writer, not a photographer, but am nonetheless inspired by Jonas' screed. My thought is that we could launch a coalition of journalists, both photographers and writers. It would entail a lot of planning, but the coalition could launch with a web site and press release and--optimally--one magazine that has nobly signed onto the plan of paying for carbon offsets. What magazine? I don't know. National Geographic would be optimal. Maybe we get Richard Branson, at Virgin Atlantic, to throw us some seed money. Or maybe Virgin could be the "official airline of" and pay for all carbon offsets. Serious.
My notions are vague, but it seems that the group could have a platform, or a mission statement, which would acknowledge the troubling nature of carbon offsets and pledge to:
* reduce air emissions by never flying first class, taking trains and busses, reporting stories locally, tackling several assignments on the same trip from home, travel only for meaningful stories.
* report stories that shine light on environmentally hopeful projects--e.g., cellusoic ethanol.
* deliver content that challenges environmentally damaging paradigms. Obvious examples of such challenges would include, say, stories that blast forest-raping timber companies. But the challenge can come at a more micro level and can be embedded in all kinds of stories. For instance, recently, in reporting a story about Catholic fundamentalists in the swamps of Florida, I didn't rent a car, but rather reported the story on my bicycle and made the bike-riding--and the way the nasty security guards chased me down as I rode--part of the narrative.

I'd be interested in hearing from other journalists who might want to join together on an anti-carbon campaign.

Bill Donahue

Comment posted by Bill Donahue on February 20, 2007

I'd be interested in hearing from other journalists who might want to join together on an anti-carbon campaign.

Bill Donahue

Comment posted by Bill Donahue on February 20, 2007

I think You shouldn't just leave the responsebility to the readers of magazines via the rising of prizes. Because that's undoubtly what would happen anyway if You bill Your clients as You have suggested. Why not reflect on the trade of photojournalism fundamentally and push the idea of developing business for local photographers? Why not sponsor and encourage african, indian - You name it - photographers much more decisively when it is their lives we want to get to know something about? Why not put in question our more than doubtly 'superiority claims' regarding first hand journalism which in this respect is possibly nothing else than some sort of post colonialism on an intelectual level? Why don't photographers report from where they live? Why all that travelling anyway? There's so much to report from Your own surroundings! It night be the 'end' of a MAGNUM-style reportage as we have known it but maybe the beginning of a whole knew era of photojournalism. Maybe far more thrilling than we might expect it possible.

Comment posted by tom baker on May 7, 2007

Agree with Tom Baker. The solution is to contract the photos and news locally. I suppose that the decentralization of news organizations is a first step in the right direction.

Comment posted by Peter on July 30, 2007

We all love to travel on assignment, but I would have to agree... Hire locally. There are plenty of talented shooters out there and it;s easy to stay connected.

Comment posted by Tomas Stargardter on September 22, 2007

Your argument is eloquently put. You’ve put forward a solution that enables you to fly easy and effectively pushes responsibility elsewhere – to your employer.
I work in the public sector. We are always personally accountable as there is no “profit” just winners and losers according to our effectiveness. Funding is according to past performance so every step along the way I have to justify if targets are met.
I challenge you to do the same. If your travel has real impact, if you have saved lives, directed funds to just causes or raised awareness to a level that has actually ensured that the cost justifies your actions then you have no question to answer and neither do your employers.
If however you are just creating awareness without action and therefore more hot air than the plane generates then you have to question if your employer is just feeding the media industry and making bucks, along with you

Comment posted by Claire Carter on February 7, 2008

The photographer and CO2 - A case for carbon emission offsets?

Notifications:

More articles:

Categories:

Recent Comments:

Authors: