Carbon credit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit 

A carbon credit is a generic term for any tradable certificate or permit representing the right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide or the equivalent amount of a different greenhouse gas (tCO₂e).

Carbon credits and carbon markets are a component of national and international attempts to mitigate the growth in concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs). One carbon credit is equal to one tonne of carbon dioxide, or in some markets, carbon dioxide equivalent gases. Carbon trading is an application of an emissions trading approach. Greenhouse gas emissions are capped and then markets are used to allocate the emissions among the group of regulated sources.

The goal is to allow market mechanisms to drive industrial and commercial processes in the direction of low emissions or less carbon intensive approaches than those used when there is no cost to emitting carbon dioxide and other GHGs into the atmosphere. Since GHG mitigation projects generate credits, this approach can be used to finance carbon reduction schemes between trading partners and around the world.

There are also many companies that sell carbon credits to commercial and individual customers who are interested in lowering their carbon footprint on a voluntary basis. These carbon offsetters purchase the credits from an investment fund or a carbon development company that has aggregated the credits from individual projects. Buyers and sellers can also use an exchange platform to trade, which is like a stock exchange for carbon credits. The quality of the credits is based in part on the validation process and sophistication of the fund or development company that acted as the sponsor to the carbon project. This is reflected in their price; voluntary units typically have less value than the units sold through the rigorously validated Clean Development Mechanism. The European Union's carbon credits traded from $7.78 to $25.19 averaging $16.21 per tonne in 2018.

Definitions

The Collins English Dictionary defines a carbon credit as “a certificate showing that a government or company has paid to have a certain amount of carbon dioxide removed from the environment”. The Environment Protection Authority of Victoria defines a carbon credit as a “generic term to assign a value to a reduction or offset of greenhouse gas emissions.. usually equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e).”

The Investopedia Inc investment dictionary defines a carbon credit as a “permit that allows the holder to emit one ton of carbon dioxide”..which “can be traded in the international market at their current market price”.

Types

There are two main markets for carbon credits; Compliance Market credits Secondary / Verified Market credits (VERs) 

Background

The burning of fossil fuels is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, especially for power, cement, steel, textile, fertilizer and many other industries which rely on fossil fuels (coal, electricity derived from coal, natural gas and oil). The major greenhouse gases emitted by these industries are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), etc., all of which increase the atmosphere's ability to trap infrared energy and thus affect the climate.

The concept of carbon credits came into existence as a result of increasing awareness of the need for controlling emissions. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has observed^[9] that:

Policies that provide a real or implicit price of carbon could create incentives for producers and consumers to significantly invest in low-GHG products, technologies and processes. Such policies could include economic instruments, government funding and regulation,

while noting that a tradable permit system is one of the policy instruments that has been shown to be environmentally effective in the industrial sector, as long as there are reasonable levels of predictability over the initial allocation mechanism and long-term price.

The mechanism was formalized in the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement between more than 170 countries, and the market mechanisms were agreed through the subsequent Marrakesh Accords. The mechanism adopted was similar to the successful US Acid Rain Program to reduce some industrial pollutants.

Emission allowances

Under the Kyoto Protocol, the 'caps' or quotas for Greenhouse gases for the developed Annex 1 countries are known as Assigned Amounts and are listed in Annex B.^[10] The quantity of the initial assigned amount is denominated in individual units, called Assigned amount units (AAUs), each of which represents an allowance to emit one metric tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent, and these are entered into the country's national registry.^[11]

In turn, these countries set quotas on the emissions of installations run by local business and other organizations, generically termed 'operators'. Countries manage this through their national registries, which are required to be validated and monitored for compliance by the UNFCCC.^[12] Each operator has an allowance of credits, where each unit gives the owner the right to emit one metric tonne of carbon dioxide or other equivalent greenhouse gas. Operators that have not used up their quotas can sell their unused allowances as carbon credits, while businesses that are about to exceed their quotas can buy the extra allowances as credits, privately or on the open market. As demand for energy grows over time, the total emissions must still stay within the cap, but it allows industry some flexibility and predictability in its planning to accommodate this.

By permitting allowances to be bought and sold, an operator can seek out the most cost-effective way of reducing its emissions, either by investing in 'cleaner' machinery and practices or by purchasing emissions from another operator who already has excess 'capacity'.

Since 2005, the Kyoto mechanism has been adopted for CO₂ trading by all the countries within the European Union under its European Trading Scheme (EU ETS)^[13] with the European Commission as its validating authority.^[14] From 2008, EU participants must link with the other developed countries who ratified Annex I of the protocol, and trade the six most significant anthropogenic greenhouse gases. In the United States, which has not ratified Kyoto, and Australia, whose ratification came into force in March 2008, similar schemes are being considered.

Kyoto's 'Flexible mechanisms'

A tradable credit can be an emissions allowance or an assigned amount unit which was originally allocated or auctioned by the national administrators of a Kyoto-compliant cap-and-trade scheme, or it can be an offset of emissions. Such offsetting and mitigating activities can occur in any developing country which has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and has a national agreement in place to validate its carbon project through one of the UNFCCC's approved mechanisms. Once approved, these units are termed Certified Emission Reductions, or CERs. The Protocol allows these projects to be constructed and credited in advance of the Kyoto trading period.

The Kyoto Protocol provides for three mechanisms that enable countries or operators in developed countries to acquire greenhouse gas reduction credits^[15]

• Under Joint Implementation (JI) a developed country with relatively high costs of domestic greenhouse reduction would set up a project in another developed country.
• Under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) a developed country can 'sponsor' a greenhouse gas reduction project in a developing country where the cost of greenhouse gas reduction project activities is usually much lower, but the atmospheric effect is globally equivalent. The developed country would be given credits for meeting its emission reduction targets, while the developing country would receive the capital investment and clean technology or beneficial change in land use.
• Under International Emissions Trading (IET) countries can trade in the international carbon credit market to cover their shortfall in Assigned amount units. Countries with surplus units can sell them to countries that are exceeding their emission targets under Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol.

These carbon projects can be created by a national government or by an operator within the country. In reality, most of the transactions are not performed by national governments directly, but by operators who have been set quotas by their country.

Emission markets

For trading purposes, one allowance or CER is considered equivalent to one metric ton of CO₂ emissions. These allowances can be sold privately or in the international market at the prevailing market price. These trade and settle internationally and hence allow allowances to be transferred between countries. Each international transfer is validated by the UNFCCC. Each transfer of ownership within the European Union is additionally validated by the European Commission.

Climate exchanges have been established to provide a spot market in allowances, as well as futures and options market to help discover a market price and maintain liquidity. Carbon prices are normally quoted in Euros per tonne of carbon dioxide or its equivalent (CO₂e). Other greenhouse gasses can also be traded, but are quoted as standard multiples of carbon dioxide with respect to their global warming potential. These features reduce the quota's financial impact on business, while ensuring that the quotas are met at a national and international level.

Currently there are five exchanges trading in carbon allowances: the European Climate Exchange, NASDAQ OMX Commodities Europe, PowerNext, Commodity Exchange Bratislava and the European Energy Exchange. NASDAQ OMX Commodities Europe listed a contract to trade offsets generated by a CDM carbon project called Certified Emission Reductions (CERs). Many companies now engage in emissions abatement, offsetting, and sequestration programs to generate credits that can be sold on one of the exchanges. At least one private electronic market has been established in 2008: CantorCO2e.^[16] Carbon credits at Commodity Exchange Bratislava are traded at special platform - Carbon place.^[17]

Managing emissions is one of the fastest-growing segments in financial services in the City of London with a market estimated to be worth about €30 billion in 2007. Louis Redshaw, head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital predicts that "Carbon will be the world's biggest commodity market, and it could become the world's biggest market overall."^[18]

Setting a market price for carbon

Unchecked, energy use and hence emission levels are predicted to keep rising over time. Thus the number of companies needing to buy credits will increase, and the rules of supply and demand will push up the market price, encouraging more groups to undertake environmentally friendly activities that create carbon credits to sell.

An individual allowance, such as an Assigned amount unit (AAU) or its near-equivalent European Union Allowance (EUA), may have a different market value to an offset such as a CER. This is due to the lack of a developed secondary market for CERs, a lack of homogeneity between projects which causes difficulty in pricing, as well as questions due to the principle of supplementarity and its lifetime. Additionally, offsets generated by a carbon project under the Clean Development Mechanism are potentially limited in value because operators in the EU ETS are restricted as to what percentage of their allowance can be met through these flexible mechanisms.

Yale University economics professor William Nordhaus argues that the price of carbon needs to be high enough to motivate the changes in behavior and changes in economic production systems necessary to effectively limit emissions of greenhouse gases.

Raising the price of carbon will achieve four goals. First, it will provide signals to consumers about what goods and services are high-carbon ones and should therefore be used more sparingly. Second, it will provide signals to producers about which inputs use more carbon (such as coal and oil) and which use less or none (such as natural gas or nuclear power), thereby inducing firms to substitute low-carbon inputs. Third, it will give market incentives for inventors and innovators to develop and introduce low-carbon products and processes that can replace the current generation of technologies. Fourth, and most important, a high carbon price will economize on the information that is required to do all three of these tasks. Through the market mechanism, a high carbon price will raise the price of products according to their carbon content. Ethical consumers today, hoping to minimize their “carbon footprint,” have little chance of making an accurate calculation of the relative carbon use in, say, driving 250 miles as compared with flying 250 miles. A harmonized carbon tax would raise the price of a good proportionately to exactly the amount of CO₂ that is emitted in all the stages of production that are involved in producing that good. If 0.01 of a ton of carbon emissions results from the wheat growing and the milling and the trucking and the baking of a loaf of bread, then a tax of $30 per ton carbon will raise the price of bread by $0.30. The “carbon footprint” is automatically calculated by the price system. Consumers would still not know how much of the price is due to carbon emissions, but they could make their decisions confident that they are paying for the social cost of their carbon footprint.^[19]

Nordhaus has suggested, based on the social cost of carbon emissions, that an optimal price of carbon is around $30(US) per ton and will need to increase with inflation.

The social cost of carbon is the additional damage caused by an additional ton of carbon emissions. ... The optimal carbon price, or optimal carbon tax, is the market price (or carbon tax) on carbon emissions that balances the incremental costs of reducing carbon emissions with the incremental benefits of reducing climate damages. ... [I]f a country wished to impose a carbon tax of $30 per ton of carbon, this would involve a tax on gasoline of about 9 cents per gallon. Similarly, the tax on coal-generated electricity would be about 1 cent per kWh, or 10 percent of the current retail price. At current levels of carbon emissions in the United States, a tax of $30 per ton of carbon would generate $50 billion of revenue per year.^[20]

How buying carbon credits propose to reduce emissions

This section includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please help to improve this section by introducing more precise citations. (August 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

See also: Economics of global warming

Carbon credits create a market for reducing greenhouse emissions by giving a monetary value to the cost of polluting the air. Emissions become an internal cost of doing business and are visible on the balance sheet alongside raw materials and other liabilities or assets.

For example, consider a business that owns a factory putting out 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in a year. Its government is an Annex I country that enacts a law to limit the emissions that the business can produce. So the factory is given a quota of say 80,000 tonnes per year. The factory either reduces its emissions to 80,000 tonnes or is required to purchase carbon credits to offset the excess. After costing up alternatives the business may decide that it is uneconomical or infeasible to invest in new machinery for that year. Instead it may choose to buy carbon credits on the open market from organizations that have been approved as being able to sell legitimate carbon credits.

We should consider the impact of manufacturing alternative energy sources. For example, the energy consumed and the carbon emitted in the manufacture and transportation of a large wind turbine would prohibit a credit being issued for a predetermined period of time.

• One seller might be a company that will offer to offset emissions through a project in the developing world, such as recovering methane from a swine farm to feed a power station that previously would use fossil fuel. So although the factory continues to emit gases, it would pay another group to reduce the equivalent of 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere for that year.
• Another seller may have already invested in new low-emission machinery and have a surplus of allowances as a result. The factory could make up for its emissions by buying 20,000 tonnes of allowances from them. The cost of the seller's new machinery would be subsidized by the sale of allowances. Both the buyer and the seller would submit accounts for their emissions to prove that their allowances were met correctly.

Credits versus taxes

Carbon credits and carbon taxes each have their advantages and disadvantages. Credits were chosen by the signatories to the Kyoto Protocol as an alternative to carbon taxes. A criticism of tax-raising schemes is that they are frequently not hypothecated, and so some or all of the taxation raised by a government would be applied based on what the particular nation's government deems most fitting. However, some would argue that carbon trading is based around creating a lucrative artificial market, and, handled by free market enterprises as it is, carbon trading is not necessarily a focused or easily regulated solution.

By treating emissions as a market commodity some proponents insist it becomes easier for businesses to understand and manage their activities, while economists and traders can attempt to predict future pricing using market theories. Thus the main advantages of a tradeable carbon credit over a carbon tax are argued to be:

• the price may be more likely to be perceived as fair by those paying it. Investors in credits may have more control over their own costs.
• the flexible mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol help to ensure that all investment goes into genuine sustainable carbon reduction schemes through an internationally agreed validation process.
• some proponents state that if correctly implemented a target level of emission reductions may somehow be achieved with more certainty, while under a tax the actual emissions might vary over time.
• it may provide a framework for rewarding people or companies who plant trees or otherwise meet standards exclusively recognized as "green."

The advantages of a carbon tax are argued to be:

• possibly less complex, expensive, and time-consuming to implement. This advantage is especially great when applied to markets like gasoline or home heating oil.
• perhaps some reduced risk of certain types of cheating, though under both credits and taxes, emissions must be verified.
• reduced incentives for companies to delay efficiency improvements prior to the establishment of the baseline if credits are distributed in proportion to past emissions.
• when credits are grandfathered, this puts new or growing companies at a disadvantage relative to more established companies.
• allows for more centralized handling of acquired gains
• worth of carbon is stabilized by government regulation rather than market fluctuations. Poor market conditions and weak investor interest have a lessened impact on taxation as opposed to carbon trading.

Creating carbon credits

The principle of Supplementarity within the Kyoto Protocol means that internal abatement of emissions should take precedence before a country buys in carbon credits. However it also established the Clean Development Mechanism as a Flexible Mechanism by which capped entities could develop measurable and permanent emissions reductions voluntarily in sectors outside the cap. Many criticisms of carbon credits stem from the fact that establishing that an emission of CO₂-equivalent greenhouse gas has truly been reduced involves a complex process. This process has evolved as the concept of a carbon project has been refined over the past 10 years.

The first step in determining whether or not a carbon project has legitimately led to the reduction of measurable and permanent emissions is understanding the CDM methodology process. This is the process by which project sponsors submit, through a Designated Operational Entity (DOE), their concepts for emissions reduction creation. The CDM Executive Board, with the CDM Methodology Panel and their expert advisors, review each project and decide how and if they do indeed result in reductions that are additional^[21]

Additionality and its importance

This section includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please help to improve this section by introducing more precise citations. (August 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

It is also important for any carbon credit (offset) to prove a concept called additionality. The concept of additionality addresses the question of whether the project would have happened in the absence of an intervention in the form of the price signal of carbon credits. Only projects with emissions below their baseline level, defined as emissions under a scenario without this price signal (holding all other factors constant), represent a net environmental benefit. Carbon projects that yield strong financial returns even in the absence of revenue from carbon credits; or that are compelled by regulations; or that represent common practice in an industry; are usually not considered additional. A full determination of additionality requires a careful investigation of proposed carbon offset projects.^[22]

It is generally agreed that voluntary carbon offset projects must demonstrate additionality to ensure the legitimacy of the environmental stewardship claims resulting from the retirement of carbon credits (offsets).

Criticisms

The Kyoto mechanism is the only internationally agreed mechanism for regulating carbon credit activities, and crucially, includes checks for additionality and overall effectiveness. Its supporting organisation, the UNFCCC, is the only organisation with a global mandate on the overall effectiveness of emission control systems, although enforcement of decisions relies on national co-operation. The Kyoto trading period only applies for five years between 2008 and 2012. The first phase of the EU ETS system started before then, and is expected to continue in a third phase afterwards, and may co-ordinate with whatever is internationally agreed at but there is general uncertainty as to what will be agreed in Post–Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions. As business investment often operates over decades, this adds risk and uncertainty to their plans. As several countries responsible for a large proportion of global emissions (notably USA, India, China) have avoided mandatory caps, this also means that businesses in capped countries may perceive themselves to be working at a competitive disadvantage against those in uncapped countries as they are now paying for their carbon costs directly.^{[citation needed]}

A key concept behind the cap and trade system is that national quotas should be chosen to represent genuine and meaningful reductions in national output of emissions. Not only does this ensure that overall emissions are reduced but also that the costs of emissions trading are carried fairly across all parties to the trading system. However, governments of capped countries may seek to unilaterally weaken their commitments, as evidenced by the 2006 and 2007 National Allocation Plans for several countries in the EU ETS, which were submitted late and then were initially rejected by the European Commission for being too lax.^[23]

A question has been raised over the grandfathering of allowances. Countries within the EU ETS have granted their incumbent businesses most or all of their allowances for free. This can sometimes be perceived as a protectionist obstacle to new entrants into their markets. There have also been accusations of power generators getting a 'windfall' profit by passing on these emissions 'charges' to their customers.^[24] As the EU ETS moves into its second phase and joins up with Kyoto, it seems likely that these problems will be reduced as more allowances will be auctioned.

Some sources ^[25] show that UK financial service wins a lot from Carbon credit trade (which is designed to be profitable). The profit is evident if one check the statistics: London has secured dominance on the global carbon trading market, with net value $64bn in 2007, according to the report by International Financial Services London. London controlled about 90% of the exchange market (Carbon credit vs money) in 2007. London-based companies made about 59% of the purchases of Carbon credits issued by the UN. And some of the Carbon credit's system creators are from UK, for example, the economist, former Senior Vice-President of the World Bank and government economic advisor in the United Kingdom Nicholas Stern, Baron Stern of Brentford who has founded a consultancy-trading agency "The Carbon Rating Agency (CRA)" ^[26] on the Isle-of-Man (controlled by firm IDEAglobal Group ^[27] there Stern was a Vice Chairman at that time ^[28]) for Carbon credit evaluation and firm's rating and making money on that. ^[25]

Fraud allegation

In 2019, a fraud trial began. Eight men were accused of a £7m carbon credit fraud at Southwark Crown Court in England. It was alleged that a fraud had been perpetrated on members of the public who were persuaded to make investments, including the purchase of carbon credits, which were 'effectively worthless'. The trial collapsed because the judge ruled that the prosecution's expert witness 'did not have any relevant qualifications'.^[29]

Mitigation of aviation's environmental impact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitigation_of_aviation's_environmental_impact 

Emissions from aviation are continuing to grow despite advances in aircraft efficiency. Currently 2% of global emissions are created by the aviation industry.

Aviation affects the environment due to aircraft engines emitting noise, particulates, and gases which contribute to climate change and global dimming. Despite emission reductions from automobiles and more fuel-efficient (and therefore less polluting) turbofan and turboprop engines, the rapid growth of air travel in recent years contributes to an increase in total pollution attributable to aviation. In the EU, greenhouse gas emissions from aviation increased by 87% between 1990 and 2006.

At present aviation accounts for 2.5% of global CO₂ emissions. Due to projected growth in air travel, in the most technologically radical scenarios for having a better than 50% chance of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, in 2050 aviation will make up 15% of global CO₂ emissions. In more conventional scenarios its emissions will exceed the entire global carbon budget before then. This presents governments and the operators of aircraft with a responsibility to reduce the aviation industry's emissions.

General aviation reduction methods

Some methods aim to mitigate aviation's environmental impact by reducing aviation in general. This can be achieved through various means, such as route optimization, emission caps, short-distance restrictions, increasing taxation and decreasing subsidies.

Route optimization

Currently, air traffic corridors that aircraft are forced to follow place unnecessary detours on an aircraft's route forcing higher fuel burn and an increase in emissions. An improved Air Traffic Management System with more direct routes and optimized cruising altitudes would allow airlines to reduce their emissions by up to 18%.

In the European Union, a Single European Sky has been proposed for the last 15 years so that there are no overlapping airspace restrictions between countries in the EU and so reduce emissions. As yet, the Single European Sky is still only a plan but progress has been made. If the Single European Sky had been created 15 years ago, 12 million tons of CO₂ could have been saved.

Emission caps

In the EU, aviation will be including the European Emission Trading Scheme from 2012 onwards. The scheme places a cap on the emissions an aircraft operator can emit and forces the operator to either lower emissions through more efficient technology or to buy "Carbon Credits" from other companies who have produced fewer emissions than their cap. It is thought that this will reduce aviation's net environmental impact.

Short-distance restrictions

In the 2010s and 2020s, several governments have imposed restrictions and even prohibitions on short-distance aviation, stimulating or pressuring travellers to opt for more environmentally friendly means of transportation, especially trains.

•  Austria: As part of its COVID-19 crisis support programme for Austrian Airlines in June 2020, the conservative–green coalition government introduce a special tax of 30 euros on airline tickets for flights spanning less than 350 kilometres (an unprecedented environmental measure within the EU), while airline connections that covered distances that could be travelled within three hours by train were henceforth prohibited.
•  France: On 3 June 2019, French MPs proposed to prohibit airline connections covering distances that could be travelled within 2.5 hours by train. French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire stated in April 2020 and repeated in May 2020 that negotiations between the government and Air France–KLM on such a 2.5 hour short-distance ban were underway. On 9 June 2020, as part of its COVID-19 crisis support programme for France's aviation sector, Le Maire confirmed that 2.5 hour short-distance flights would be prohibited, while Air France–KLM's domestic flights would be reduced by 40%.
•  
•  Netherlands: In June 2013, Dutch MP Liesbeth van Tongeren (GreenLeft, previously Greenpeace Netherlands director) proposed to prohibit domestic flights in the Netherlands with the argument that they are needlessly inefficient, polluting and expensive, but Environment Secretary Wilma Mansveld (Labour Party) said such a ban would violate EU regulations that allow airlines to fly domestically. In March 2019, the House of Representatives of the Netherlands voted to prohibit commercial flights between Amsterdam Airport Schiphol and Brussels Airport (Zaventem). This distance of about 150 kilometres was covered by five return flights a day, most of them feeder flights: passengers from Brussels go to Amsterdam to embark on a long-distance flight from there, or vice versa. However, Infrastructure Minister Cora van Nieuwenhuizen (VVD) stated that such a ban was contrary to the European Commission's free market regulations and was thus not implemented. Although almost all Dutch parliamentary parties agreed that train travel should replace short-distance aviation, there were also some practical problems to be solved before trains could become a viable alternative, such buying a combined train/plane ticket, the lack of a direct Thalys connection from Amsterdam Central and Paris-North to Brussels Airport (forcing passengers to switch trains in Brussels-South), and the fact that the Benelux train (which does directly connect Schiphol and Zaventem) takes over 2 hours (mostly due to the lack of a high-speed rail between Antwerp and Brussels).

Combined train/plane tickets

One way to reduce feeder flights is to make it easier for passengers to buy a combined train/plane ticket. As of March 2019, Lufthansa and Air France already offer this possibility:

• A passenger who books a trip from Cologne to Madrid via Lufthansa is routed to Frankfurt with a Deutsche Bahn train ticket, from where they will fly to Madrid with Lufthansa.
• A passenger who books a trip from London to Strasbourg with Air France only flies as far as Paris, where they transfer to a TGV train to Strasbourg.

In March 2019, Dutch Infrastructure Minister Cora van Nieuwenhuizen stated the government was working on a combined train/plane ticket, so that 'a Mexican wanting to go to Brussels via Amsterdam could book their journey from Mexico via NS International or Thalys in one go,' making an Amsterdam–Brussels flight unnecessary.

Taxation and subsidies

Methods of mitigating aviation's CO₂ emissions

Mitigation of aviation's environmental impact can be achieved through a variety of measures, the most obvious and arguably the most economical of which is to reduce the fuel burn of the aircraft as this accounts for 28% of an airlines costs. However, there is a wide variety of other options available to minimise aviation's growing impact upon the environment as are listed below:

Aircraft efficiency

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner promises to provide 20% lower fuel burn than current-generation aircraft.

As stated previously, reducing the direct fuel burn of an aircraft is the most obvious and arguably the most economical way of reducing emissions attributable to aviation. Over the years 1977–2007, commercial jet airliners have become 70% more fuel efficient, and have been predicted to be another 25% more fuel-efficient by 2025 according to Giovanni Bisignani.

The next-generation of aircraft, including the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Airbus A350 and Bombardier CSeries, are 20% more fuel efficient per passenger kilometre than current generation aircraft. This is primarily achieved through more fuel-efficient engines and lighter airframes & supporting structures made of composite materials but is also achieved through more aerodynamic shapes, winglets, a "one-piece" fuselage and more advanced computer systems for optimising routes and loading of the aircraft. 

Biofuels

British Airways will be using half a million tonnes of waste annually to create biofuels for commercial use from 2014 onwards.

Biofuels are fuels derived from biomass material such as plants and waste. Plant derived biofuels offer large savings in CO₂ emissions as they absorb Carbon Dioxide and release it as Oxygen when they grow and so in a life-cycle, emissions can be drastically reduced. A number of airlines have operated biofuel test flights including Virgin Atlantic Airways, which flew with one engine operating on a blend of 20% coconut oil and 80% traditional jet fuel, and Continental Airlines which flew with one engine operating on a blend of 44% Jatropha oil, 6% Algae oil and 50% traditional jet fuel. Other airlines to demonstrate biofuels include Air New Zealand and Japan Airlines.

In the Continental Airlines test, the engine running partly on biofuel burned 46 kg less fuel than the conventionally fuelled engine in 1 and a half hours while producing more thrust from the same volume of fuel. Continental Airlines' CEO, Larry Kellner, commented "This is a good step forward, an opportunity to really make a difference to the environment" citing jatropha's 50–80% lower CO₂ emissions as opposed to Jet-A1 in its lifecycle.

From 2014 onwards, British Airways, in co-operation with Solena, is going to turn half a million tonnes of waste annually that would normally go to landfill from the City of London into biofuel to be used in the British Airways fleet. Waste derived biofuel produces up to 95% less pollution in its life-cycle and so therefore this measure will reduce emissions by the equivalent of taking 42,000 cars off the road every year. 

Improved operating procedures

Scandinavian Airlines is operating their 737 aircraft at slower cruising speeds to reduce emissions by 7–8%.

Airlines and airports are looking at ways of reducing emissions and fuel burn through the use of improved operating procedures. Two of the more common ones in operation are a single-engine taxi to and from the runway and the use of a Continuous Descent Approach, or CDA, which can reduce emissions significantly during the operations in and around an airport. Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) is now operating its Boeing 737 fleet at a slower cruising speed to help reduce emissions by 7–8%.

Methods of mitigating aviation's non-CO ₂ emissions

Aviation produces a number of other pollutants besides carbon dioxide including nitrogen oxides (NO_X), particulates, unburned hydrocarbons (UHC) and contrails. A number of methods to reduce the level of these pollutants follows:

Nitrogen oxides (NO_X)

Nitrogen oxides have a far stronger impact upon climate change than Carbon Oxides and are produced in small quantities from aircraft engines. Engine designers have worked since the start of the jet age to reduce NO_X emissions and the result is ever reducing levels of nitrogen oxide emissions. For example, between 1997 and 2003, NO_X emissions from jet engines fell by over 40%.

Particulates

Particulates and smoke were a problem with early jet engines at high power settings but modern engines are designed so that no smoke is produced at any point in the flight.

Unburned hydrocarbons (UHC)

Contrails formed by high altitude aircraft.

Unburned hydrocarbons (UHC) are products of incomplete combustion of fuel and are produced in greater quantities in engines with low pressure gains in the compressors and/or relatively low temperatures in the combustor. As with particulates, UHC has all but been eliminated in modern jet engines through improved design and technology.

Contrails

Aircraft flying at high altitude form condensation trails or contrails in the exhaust plume of their engines. While in the Troposphere these have very little climatic impact. However, jet aircraft cruising in the Stratosphere do create an impact from their contrails, although the extent of the damage to the environment is as yet unknown. Contrails can also trigger the formation of high-altitude Cirrus cloud thus creating a greater climatic effect. A 2015 study found that artificial cloudiness caused by contrail "outbreaks" reduce the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures. The former are decreased and the latter are increased, in comparison to temperatures the day before and the day after such outbreaks. On days with outbreaks the day/night temperature difference was diminished by about 6F° in the U.S. South and 5F° in the Midwest.

In the three days following the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, when no commercial aircraft flew in the United States, climate scientists measured the daily temperature range over 5000 weather stations across the USA. The results showed a 1 ° Celsius change in the average daily temperature range for those days of the year, thus showing contrails do have a significant impact on climate. Potential ways of reducing the impact of contrails on our climate include reducing the maximum cruising altitude of aircraft so high-altitude contrails can not form. Cruising at lower altitudes would marginally increase flight time and increase fuel consumption by 4%.

Methods of mitigating aviation's noise emissions

Serrated edges of the nacelle on the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 fitted to the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner "Dreamliner".

One of the by-products of an aircraft's engine is noise and this has become an increasingly important issue which is being dealt with through many different methods:

Engines

Next-Generation engines are not only more fuel-efficient but also tend to be quieter with Pratt & Whitney's PurePower PW1000G fitted to the Bombardier CSeries aircraft being 4 times quieter than aircraft currently in service. Engines can also incorporate serrated edges or 'chevrons' on the back of the nacelle to reduce noise impact as shown in this picture.

Improved operating procedures

A Continuous Descent Approach, or CDA, not only reduces fuel burn but also allows airlines to provide quieter approaches for part of the descent to a runway. As the engines are at close to idle power, less noise emissions are produced and combined with new engine technology, the reductions in noise emissions can be large.

Carbon offset

Money generated by carbon offsets from airlines often go to fund green-energy projects such as wind farms.

A carbon offset is a means of compensating aviation emissions to zero by saving enough carbon or transforming carbon back into oxygen (for example, by planting trees through reforestation or afforestation) to balance the carbon emitted by a particular action. Several airlines have begun offering carbon offsets to passengers to offset the emissions created by their proportion of the flight. Money generated is put to projects around the world to invest in green technology such as renewable energy and research into future technology. Airlines offering carbon offsets include British Airways, easyJet, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Lufthansa and Qantas although there are many more carriers participating in such schemes.

British Airways' scheme

British Airways' carbon offsetting scheme involves paying a fee dependant on aircraft type, class of travel and distance flown and therefore prices vary. Funds generated are currently awarded to three renewable energy projects around the world: Bayin'aobao wind farm in Inner Mongolia, Faxinal dos Guedes hydroelectric power plant in Brazil and Xiaohe hydroelectric power plant in Gansu Province, China.

Continental Airlines' scheme

Continental Airlines' carbon offsetting scheme involves paying a fixed fee of $2 to cancel out emissions through reforestation. Passengers can also choose to pay $50 for offsetting emissions through renewable energy projects.

Ecotourism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotourism 

 

Llano del Muerto waterfall in El Salvador

Ecotourism is catering for holiday makers in the natural environment without damaging it or disturbing habitats. It is a form of tourism involving visiting fragile, pristine, and relatively undisturbed natural areas, intended as a low-impact and often small scale alternative to standard commercial mass tourism. It means responsible travel to natural areas, conserving the environment, and improving the well-being of the local people. Its purpose may be to educate the traveler, to provide funds for ecological conservation, to directly benefit the economic development and political empowerment of local communities, or to foster respect for different cultures and for human rights. Since the 1980s, ecotourism has been considered a critical endeavor by environmentalists, so that future generations may experience destinations relatively untouched by human intervention.Several university programs use this description as the working definition of ecotourism.

Generally, ecotourism deals with interaction with biotic components of the natural environments. Ecotourism focuses on socially responsible travel, personal growth, and environmental sustainability. Ecotourism typically involves travel to destinations where flora, fauna, and cultural heritage are the primary attractions. Ecotourism is intended to offer tourists an insight into the impact of human beings on the environment and to foster a greater appreciation of our natural habitats.

Responsible ecotourism programs include those that minimize the negative aspects of conventional tourism on the environment and enhance the cultural integrity of local people. Therefore, in addition to evaluating environmental and cultural factors, an integral part of ecotourism is the promotion of recycling, energy efficiency, water conservation, and creation of economic opportunities for local communities. For these reasons, ecotourism often appeals to advocates of environmental and social responsibility. 

Many consider the term "ecotourism", like "sustainable tourism", an oxymoron. Like most forms of tourism, ecotourism generally depends on air transportation, which contributes to global climate change. Additionally, "the overall effect of sustainable tourism is negative where like ecotourism philanthropic aspirations mask hard-nosed immediate self-interest." That said, carbon offset schemes are being provided by (some) large airlines these days, and passengers can make use of them to eliminate these impacts.

Key points/ Uses/ Benefits of Ecotourism

Seal watching near Malusi Islands in Estonia.

Ecotourism is tourism which is conducted responsibly to conserve the environment and sustain the well-being of local people. It...

• Builds environmental awareness
• Provides direct financial benefits for conservation
• Provides financial benefits and empowerment for local people
• Respects local culture
• Supports human rights and democratic movements such as:
  • conservation of biological diversity and cultural diversity through ecosystem protection
  • promotion of sustainable use of biodiversity, by providing jobs to local populations
  • sharing of all socio-economic benefits with local communities and indigenous peoples by having their informed consent and participation in the management of ecotourism enterprises
  • tourism to unspoiled natural resources, with minimal impact on the environment being a primary concern.
  • minimization of tourism's own environmental impact
  • affordability and lack of waste in the form of luxury
  • local culture, flora, and fauna being the main attractions
  • local people, who benefit from this form of tourism economically, and often more than mass tourism

The International Ecotourism Society defines ecotourism as "responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment, sustains the well-being of local people, and involves interpretation and education". 

For many countries, ecotourism is not simply a marginal activity to finance protection of the environment, but a major industry of the national economy. For example, in Costa Rica, Ecuador, Nepal, Kenya, Madagascar and territories such as Antarctica, ecotourism represents a significant portion of the gross domestic product and economic activity.

Ecotourism is often misinterpreted as any form of tourism that involves nature (see Jungle tourism). Self-proclaimed practitioners and hosts of ecotourism experiences assume it is achieved by simply creating destinations in natural areas. According to critics of this commonplace and assumptive practice, true ecotourism must, above all, sensitize people to the beauty and the fragility of nature. These critics condemn some operators as greenwashing their operations: using the labels of "green" and "eco-friendly”, while behaving in environmentally irresponsible ways.

Although academics disagree about who can be classified as an ecotourist and there is little statistical data, some estimate that more than five million ecotourists—the majority of the ecotourist population—come from the United States, with many others from Western Europe, Canada and Australia.

Currently, there are various moves to create national and international ecotourism accreditation programs, although the process is also controversial. National ecotourism certification programs have been put in place in countries such as Costa Rica, Australia, Kenya, Estonia, and Sweden.

Terminology and history

A hanging bridge in ecotourism area of Thenmala, Kerala in India - India's first planned ecotourism destination

 

Ecotourism is a late 20th-century neologism compounded from eco- and tourism. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, ecotour was first recorded in 1973 and ecotourism, "probably after ecotour", in 1982.

• ecotour, n. ... A tour of or visit to an area of ecological interest, usually with an educational element; (in later use also) a similar tour or visit designed to have as little detrimental effect on the ecology as possible or undertaken with the specific aim of helping conservation efforts.
• ecotourism, n. ... Tourism to areas of ecological interest (typically exotic and often threatened natural environments), esp. to support conservation efforts and observe wildlife; spec. access to an endangered environment controlled so as to have the least possible adverse effect.

One source claims the terms were used earlier. Claus-Dieter (Nick) Hetzer, an academic and adventurer from Forum International in Berkeley, CA, supposedly coined ecotourism in 1965 and ran the first ecotours in the Yucatán during the early 1970s.

Labels and certification

Over 50 ecolabels on tourism exist. These include (but are not limited to):

• International Eco Certification Program
• European Ecotourism Labelling Standard (EETLS)
• Carbon Neutral Certification
• Eco Hotels Certified
• Green Tourism Business Scheme
• EarthCheck
• Green Key
• Green Globe Certification

Improving sustainability

Principles

Ecotourism in both terrestrial and marine ecosystems can benefit conservation, provided the complexities of history, culture, and ecology in the affected regions are successfully navigated. Catherine Macdonald and colleagues identify the factors which determine conservation outcome, namely whether: animals and their habits are sufficiently protected; conflict between people and wildlife is avoided or at least suitably mitigated; there is good outreach and education of the local population into the benefits of ecotourism; there is effective collaboration with stakeholders in the area; and there is proper use of the money generated by ecotourism to conserve the local ecology. They conclude that ecotourism works best to conserve predators when the tourism industry is supported both politically and by the public, and when it is monitored and controlled at local, national, and international levels.

Regulation and accreditation

Because the regulation of ecotourism may be poorly implemented, ecologically destructive greenwashed operations like underwater hotels, helicopter tours, and wildlife theme parks can be categorized as ecotourism along with canoeing, camping, photography, and wildlife observation. The failure to acknowledge responsible, low-impact ecotourism puts legitimate ecotourism companies at a competitive disadvantage.

Many environmentalists have argued for a global standard of accreditation, differentiating ecotourism companies based on their level of environmental commitment, creating a standard to follow. A national or international regulatory board would enforce accreditation procedures, with representation from various groups including governments, hotels, tour operators, travel agents, guides, airlines, local authorities, conservation organizations, and non-governmental organizations. The decisions of the board would be sanctioned by governments, so that non-compliant companies would be legally required to disassociate themselves from the use of the ecotourism brand.

Crinion suggests a Green Stars System, based on criteria including a management plan, benefit for the local community, small group interaction, education value and staff training. Ecotourists who consider their choices would be confident of a genuine ecotourism experience when they see the higher star rating.

Environmental impact assessments could also be used as a form of accreditation. Feasibility is evaluated from a scientific basis, and recommendations could be made to optimally plan infrastructure, set tourist capacity, and manage the ecology. This form of accreditation is more sensitive to site specific conditions.

Some countries have their own certification programs for ecotourism. Costa Rica, for example, runs the Certification of Sustainable Tourism (CST) program, which is intended to balance the effect that business has on the local environment. The CST program focuses on a company's interaction with natural and cultural resources, the improvement of quality of life within local communities, and the economic contribution to other programs of national development. CST uses a rating system that categorizes a company based upon how sustainable its operations are. CST evaluates the interaction between the company and the surrounding habitat; the management policies and operation systems within the company; how the company encourages its clients to become an active contributor towards sustainable policies; and the interaction between the company and local communities/the overall population. Based upon these criteria, the company is evaluated for the strength of its sustainability. The measurement index goes from 0 to 5, with 0 being the worst and 5 being the best.

Guidelines and education

Ecotour guide stands on a kayak spotting dolphins and manatees, around Lido Key

 

An environmental protection strategy must address the issue of ecotourists removed from the cause-and-effect of their actions on the environment. More initiatives should be carried out to improve their awareness, sensitize them to environmental issues, and care about the places they visit.

Tour guides are an obvious and direct medium to communicate awareness. With the confidence of ecotourists and intimate knowledge of the environment, tour guides can actively discuss conservation issues. Informing ecotourists about how their actions on the trip can negatively impact their environment and the local people. A tour guide training program in Costa Rica's Tortuguero National Park has helped mitigate negative environmental impacts by providing information and regulating tourists on the parks' beaches used by nesting endangered sea turtles.

Small scale, slow growth and local control

The underdevelopment theory of tourism describes a new form of imperialism by multinational corporations that control ecotourism resources. These corporations finance and profit from the development of large scale ecotourism that causes excessive environmental degradation, loss of traditional culture and way of life, and exploitation of local labor. In Zimbabwe and Nepal's Annapurna region, where underdevelopment is taking place, more than 90 percent of ecotourism revenues are expatriated to the parent countries, and less than 5 percent go into local communities.

The lack of sustainability highlights the need for small scale, slow growth, and locally based ecotourism. Local peoples have a vested interest in the well-being of their community, and are therefore more accountable to environmental protection than multinational corporations, though they receive very little of the profits. The lack of control, westernization, adverse impacts to the environment, loss of culture and traditions outweigh the benefits of establishing large scale ecotourism. Additionally, culture loss can be attributed to cultural commodification, in which local cultures are commodified in order to make a profit.

The increased contributions of communities to locally managed ecotourism create viable economic opportunities, including high-level management positions, and reduce environmental issues associated with poverty and unemployment. Because the ecotourism experience is marketed to a different lifestyle from large scale ecotourism, the development of facilities and infrastructure does not need to conform to corporate Western tourism standards, and can be much simpler and less expensive. There is a greater multiplier effect on the economy, because local products, materials, and labor are used. Profits accrue locally and import leakages are reduced. The Great Barrier Reef Park in Australia reported over half of a billion dollars of indirect income in the area and added thousands of indirect jobs between 2004 and 2005. However, even this form of tourism may require foreign investment for promotion or start up. When such investments are required, it is crucial for communities to find a company or non-governmental organization that reflects the philosophy of ecotourism; sensitive to their concerns and willing to cooperate at the expense of profit. The basic assumption of the multiplier effect is that the economy starts off with unused resources, for example, that many workers are cyclically unemployed and much of industrial capacity is sitting idle or incompletely utilized. By increasing demand in the economy, it is then possible to boost production. If the economy was already at full employment, with only structural, frictional, or other supply-side types of unemployment, any attempt to boost demand would only lead to inflation. For various laissez-faire schools of economics which embrace Say's Law and deny the possibility of Keynesian inefficiency and under-employment of resources, therefore, the multiplier concept is irrelevant or wrong-headed.

As an example, consider the government increasing its expenditure on roads by $1 million, without a corresponding increase in taxation. This sum would go to the road builders, who would hire more workers and distribute the money as wages and profits. The households receiving these incomes will save part of the money and spend the rest on consumer goods. These expenditures, in turn, will generate more jobs, wages, and profits, and so on with the income and spending circulating around the economy.

The multiplier effect arises because of the induced increases in consumer spending which occur due to the increased incomes — and because of the feedback into increasing business revenues, jobs, and income again. This process does not lead to an economic explosion not only because of the supply-side barriers at potential output (full employment) but because at each "round", the increase in consumer spending is less than the increase in consumer incomes. That is, the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) is less than one, so that each round some extra income goes into saving, leaking out of the cumulative process. Each increase in spending is thus smaller than that of the previous round, preventing an explosion.

Efforts to preserve ecosystems at risk

Some of the world's most exceptional biodiversity is located in the Galapagos Islands. These islands were designated a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1979, then added to UNESCO's List of World Heritage in Danger in 2007. IGTOA is a non-profit dedicated to preserving this unique living laboratory against the challenges of invasive species, human impact, and tourism. For travelers who want to be mindful of the environment and the impact of tourism, it is recommended to utilize an operator that is endorsed by a reputable ecotourism organization. In the case of the Galapagos, IGTOA has a list of the world's premiere Galapagos Islands tour companies dedicated to the lasting protection and preservation of the destination.

Natural resource management

Natural resource management can be utilized as a specialized tool for the development of ecotourism. There are several places throughout the world where a number of natural resources are abundant, but with human encroachment and habitats, these resources are depleting. Without the sustainable use of certain resources, they are destroyed, and floral and faunal species are becoming extinct. Ecotourism programs can be introduced for the conservation of these resources. Several plans and proper management programs can be introduced so that these resources remain untouched, and there are many organizations–including nonprofits–and scientists working on this field.

Natural resources of hill areas like Kurseong in West Bengal are plenty in number with various flora and fauna, but tourism for business purpose poised the situation. Researchers from Jadavpur University are presently working in this area for the development of ecotourism to be used as a tool for natural resource management.

In Southeast Asia government and nongovernmental organizations are working together with academics and industry operators to spread the economic benefits of tourism into the kampungs and villages of the region. A recently formed alliance, the South-East Asian Tourism Organisation (SEATO), is bringing together these diverse players to discuss resource management concerns.

A 2002, summit held in Quebec led to the 2008 Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria–a collaborative effort between the UN Foundation and other advocacy groups. The criteria, which are voluntary, involve the following standards: "effective sustainability planning, maximum social and economic benefits for local communities, minimum negative impacts on cultural heritage, and minimum negative impacts on the environment."There is no enforcing agency or system of punishments.for summit.

Criticism

Definition

In the continuum of tourism activities that stretch from conventional tourism to ecotourism, there has been a lot of contention to the limit at which biodiversity preservation, local social-economic benefits, and environmental impact can be considered "ecotourism". For this reason, environmentalists, special interest groups, and governments define ecotourism differently. Environmental organizations have generally insisted that ecotourism is nature-based, sustainably managed, conservation supporting, and environmentally educated. The tourist industry and governments, however, focus more on the product aspect, treating ecotourism as equivalent to any sort of tourism based in nature. As a further complication, many terms are used under the rubric of ecotourism. Nature tourism, low impact tourism, green tourism, bio-tourism, ecologically responsible tourism, and others have been used in literature and marketing, although they are not necessarily synonymous with ecotourism.

The problems associated with defining ecotourism have often led to confusion among tourists and academics. Many problems are also subject of considerable public controversy and concern because of green washing, a trend towards the commercialization of tourism schemes disguised as sustainable, nature based, and environmentally friendly ecotourism. According to McLaren, these schemes are environmentally destructive, economically exploitative, and culturally insensitive at its worst. They are also morally disconcerting because they mislead tourists and manipulate their concerns for the environment. The development and success of such large scale, energy intensive, and ecologically unsustainable schemes are a testament to the tremendous profits associated with being labeled as ecotourism.

Negative impact

Ecotourism has become one of the fastest-growing sectors of the tourism industry, growing annually by 10–15% worldwide. One definition of ecotourism is "the practice of low-impact, educational, ecologically and culturally sensitive travel that benefits local communities and host countries". Many of the ecotourism projects are not meeting these standards. Even if some of the guidelines are being executed, the local communities are still facing many of the negative impacts. South Africa is one of the countries that is reaping significant economic benefits from ecotourism, but the negative effects far outweigh the positive—including forcing people to leave their homes, gross violations of fundamental rights, and environmental hazards—far outweigh the medium-term economic benefits. A tremendous amount of money and human resources continue to be used for ecotourism despite unsuccessful outcomes, and even more, money is put into public relation campaigns to dilute the effects of criticism. Ecotourism channels resources away from other projects that could contribute more sustainable and realistic solutions to pressing social and environmental problems. "The money tourism can generate often ties parks and managements to ecotourism". But there is a tension in this relationship because ecotourism often causes conflict and changes in land-use rights, fails to deliver promises of community-level benefits, damages environments, and has many other social impacts. Indeed, many argue repeatedly that ecotourism is neither ecologically nor socially beneficial, yet it persists as a strategy for conservation and development due to the large profits. While several studies are being done on ways to improve the ecotourism structure, some argue that these examples provide a rationale for stopping it altogether. However, there are some positive examples, among them the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA) and the Virunga National Park, as judged by WWF.

The ecotourism system exercises tremendous financial and political influence. The evidence above shows that a strong case exists for restraining such activities in certain locations. Funding could be used for field studies aimed at finding alternative solutions to tourism and the diverse problems Africa faces in result of urbanization, industrialization, and the overexploitation of agriculture. At the local level, ecotourism has become a source of conflict over control of land, resources, and tourism profits. In this case, ecotourism has harmed the environment and local people and has led to conflicts over profit distribution. In a perfect world, more efforts would be made towards educating tourists of the environmental and social effects of their travels. Very few regulations or laws stand in place as boundaries for the investors in ecotourism. These should be implemented to prohibit the promotion of unsustainable ecotourism projects and materials which project false images of destinations, demeaning local and indigenous culture.

Though conservation efforts in East Africa are indisputably serving the interests of tourism in the region it is important to make the distinction between conservation acts and the tourism industry. Eastern African communities are not the only of developing regions to experience economic and social harms from conservation efforts. Conservation in the Northwest Yunnan Region of China has similarly brought drastic changes to traditional land use in the region. Prior to logging restrictions imposed by the Chinese Government the industry made up 80 percent of the regions revenue. Following a complete ban on commercial logging the indigenous people of the Yunnan region now see little opportunity for economic development. Ecotourism may provide solutions to the economic hardships suffered from the loss of industry to conservation in the Yunnan in the same way that it may serve to remedy the difficulties faced by the Maasai. As stated, the ecotourism structure must be improved to direct more money into host communities by reducing leakages for the industry to be successful in alleviating poverty in developing regions, but it provides a promising opportunity.

Direct environmental impacts

Ecotourism operations occasionally fail to live up to conservation ideals. It is sometimes overlooked that ecotourism is a highly consumer-centered activity, and that environmental conservation is a means to further economic growth.

Although ecotourism is intended for small groups, even a modest increase in population, however temporary, puts extra pressure on the local environment and necessitates the development of additional infrastructure and amenities. The construction of water treatment plants, sanitation facilities, and lodges come with the exploitation of non-renewable energy sources and the utilization of already limited local resources. The conversion of natural land to such tourist infrastructure is implicated in deforestation and habitat deterioration of butterflies in Mexico and squirrel monkeys in Costa Rica. In other cases, the environment suffers because local communities are unable to meet the infrastructure demands of ecotourism. The lack of adequate sanitation facilities in many East African parks results in the disposal of campsite sewage in rivers, contaminating the wildlife, livestock, and people who draw drinking water from it.

Aside from environmental degradation with tourist infrastructure, population pressures from ecotourism also leaves behind garbage and pollution associated with the Western lifestyle. Although ecotourists claim to be educationally sophisticated and environmentally concerned, they rarely understand the ecological consequences of their visits and how their day-to-day activities append physical impacts on the environment. As one scientist observes, they "rarely acknowledge how the meals they eat, the toilets they flush, the water they drink, and so on, are all part of broader regional economic and ecological systems they are helping to reconfigure with their very activities." Nor do ecotourists recognize the great consumption of non-renewable energy required to arrive at their destination, which is typically more remote than conventional tourism destinations. For instance, an exotic journey to a place 10,000 kilometers away consumes about 700 liters of fuel per person.

Ecotourism activities are, in and of themselves, issues in environmental impact because they may disturb fauna and flora. Ecotourists believe that because they are only taking pictures and leaving footprints, they keep ecotourism sites pristine, but even harmless-sounding activities such as nature hikes can be ecologically destructive. In the Annapurna Circuit in Nepal, ecotourists have worn down the marked trails and created alternate routes, contributing to soil impaction, erosion, and plant damage. Where the ecotourism activity involves wildlife viewing, it can scare away animals, disrupt their feeding and nesting sites, or acclimate them to the presence of people. In Kenya, wildlife-observer disruption drives cheetahs off their reserves, increasing the risk of inbreeding and further endangering the species.

Environmental hazards

The industrialization, urbanization and agricultural practices of human society are having a serious impact on the environment. Ecotourism is now also considered to be playing a role in environmental depletion including deforestation, disruption of ecological life systems and various forms of pollution, all of which contribute to environmental degradation. For example, the number of motor vehicles crossing a park increases as tour drivers search for rare species. The number of roads disrupts the grass cover, which has serious consequences on plant and animal species. These areas also have a higher rate of disturbances and invasive species due to increasing traffic off of the beaten path into new, undiscovered areas. Ecotourism also has an effect on species through the value placed on them. "Certain species have gone from being little known or valued by local people to being highly valued commodities. The commodification of plants may erase their social value and lead to overproduction within protected areas. Local people and their images can also be turned into commodities". Kamuaro points out the relatively obvious contradiction that any commercial venture into unspoiled, pristine land inevitably means a higher pressure on the environment.

Local people

Most forms of ecotourism are owned by foreign investors and corporations that provide few benefits to the local people. An overwhelming majority of profits are put into the pockets of investors instead of reinvestment into the local economy or environmental protection leading to further environmental degradation. The limited numbers of local people who are employed in the economy enter at its lowest level and are unable to live in tourist areas because of meager wages and a two-market system.

In some cases, the resentment by local people results in environmental degradation. As a highly publicized case, the Maasai nomads in Kenya killed wildlife in national parks but are now helping the national park to save the wildlife to show aversion to unfair compensation terms and displacement from traditional lands. The lack of economic opportunities for local people also constrains them to degrade the environment as a means of sustenance. The presence of affluent ecotourists encourage the development of destructive markets in wildlife souvenirs, such as the sale of coral trinkets on tropical islands and animal products in Asia, contributing to illegal harvesting and poaching from the environment. In Suriname, sea turtle reserves use a very large portion of their budget to guard against these destructive activities.

Displacement of people

One of the worst examples of communities being moved in order to create a park is the story of the Maasai. About 70% of national parks and game reserves in East Africa are on Maasai land. The first negative impact of tourism was the land lost from the Maasai culture. Local and national governments took advantage of the Maasai's ignorance on the situation and robbed them of huge chunks of grazing land, putting to risk their only socio-economic livelihood. In Kenya, the Maasai also have not gained any economic benefits. Despite the loss of their land, employment favors better-educated workers. Furthermore, the investors in this area are not local and have not put any profits back into the local economy. In some cases, game reserves can be created without informing or consulting the local people. They only find out when an eviction notice is delivered. Another source of resentment is the manipulation of the local people by their government. "Eco-tourism works to create simplistic images of local people and their uses and understandings of their surroundings. Through the lens of these simplified images, officials direct policies and projects towards the local people and the local people are blamed if the projects fail" (West, 2006). Clearly, tourism as a trade is not empowering the local people who make it rich and satisfying. Instead, ecotourism exploits and depletes, particularly in African Maasai tribes. It has to be reoriented if it is to be useful to local communities and to become sustainable.

Threats to indigenous cultures

Ecotourism often claims that it preserves and "enhances" local cultures. Evidence shows that with the establishment of protected areas local people have illegally lost their homes, and mostly with no compensation. Pushing people onto marginal lands with harsh climates, poor soils, lack of water, and infested with livestock and disease does little to enhance livelihoods even when a proportion of ecotourism profits are directed back into the community. The establishment of parks can create harsh survival realities and deprive the people of their traditional use of land and natural resources. Ethnic groups are increasingly being seen as a "backdrop" to the scenery and wildlife. The local people struggle for cultural survival and freedom of cultural expression while being "observed" by tourists. Local indigenous people also have a strong resentment towards the change, "Tourism has been allowed to develop with virtually no controls. Too many lodges have been built, too much firewood is being used and no limits are being placed on tourism vehicles. They regularly drive off-track and harass the wildlife. Their vehicle tracks criss-cross the entire Masai Mara. Inevitably the bush is becoming eroded and degraded".

Mismanagement

While governments are typically entrusted with the administration and enforcement of environmental protection, they often lack the commitment or capability to manage ecotourism sites. The regulations for environmental protection may be vaguely defined, costly to implement, hard to enforce, and uncertain in effectiveness. Government regulatory agencies, are susceptible to making decisions that spend on politically beneficial but environmentally unproductive projects. Because of prestige and conspicuousness, the construction of an attractive visitor's center at an ecotourism site may take precedence over more pressing environmental concerns like acquiring habitat, protecting endemic species, and removing invasive ones. Finally, influential groups can pressure, and sway the interests of the government to their favor. The government and its regulators can become vested in the benefits of the ecotourism industry which they are supposed to regulate, causing restrictive environmental regulations and enforcement to become more lenient.

Management of ecotourism sites by private ecotourism companies offers an alternative to the cost of regulation and deficiency of government agencies. It is believed that these companies have a self-interest in limited environmental degradation because tourists will pay more for pristine environments, which translates to higher profit. However, theory indicates that this practice is not economically feasible and will fail to manage the environment.

The model of monopolistic competition states that distinctiveness will entail profits, but profits will promote imitation. A company that protects its ecotourism sites is able to charge a premium for the novel experience and pristine environment. But when other companies view the success of this approach, they also enter the market with similar practices, increasing competition and reducing demand. Eventually, the demand will be reduced until the economic profit is zero. A cost-benefit analysis shows that the company bears the cost of environmental protection without receiving the gains. Without economic incentive, the whole premise of self-interest through environmental protection is quashed; instead, ecotourism companies will minimize environment related expenses and maximize tourism demand.

The tragedy of the commons offers another model for economic unsustainability from environmental protection, in ecotourism sites utilized by many companies. Although there is a communal incentive to protect the environment, maximizing the benefits in the long run, a company will conclude that it is in their best interest to utilize the ecotourism site beyond its sustainable level. By increasing the number of ecotourists, for instance, a company gains all the economic benefit while paying only a part of the environmental cost. In the same way, a company recognizes that there is no incentive to actively protect the environment; they bear all the costs, while the benefits are shared by all other companies. The result, again, is mismanagement.

Taken together, the mobility of foreign investment and lack of economic incentive for environmental protection means that ecotourism companies are disposed to establishing themselves in new sites once their existing one is sufficiently degraded. 

In addition, the systematic literature review conducted by Cabral and Dhar (2019) have identified several challenges due to slow progression of ecotourism initiatives such as (a) economic leakages, (b) lack of government involvement, (c) skill deficiency among the local communities, (d) absence of disseminating environmental education, (e) sporadic increase in pollution, (f) conflict between tourism management personnel and local communities and (g) inadequate infrastructure development.

Case studies

The purpose of ecotourism is to engage tourists in low impact, non-consumptive and locally oriented environments in order to maintain species and habitats — especially in underdeveloped regions. While some ecotourism projects, including some found in the United States, can support such claims, many projects have failed to address some of the fundamental issues that nations face in the first place. Consequently, ecotourism may not generate the very benefits it is intended to provide to these regions and their people, and in some cases leaving economies in a state worse than before.