UKH

Bronwyn Hodgins, a professional rock climber and guide from Canada with a deep-rooted love for all facets of climbing, is the embodiment for boundless energy. Her unwavering passion has fueled her exceptional achievements in various realms of climbing, spanning from sport climbing to trad climbing, multi-pitch climbing, and expeditions to remote and wild places.

Read more

I would be really interested to hear what can realistically be done to reduce the impact of expeditions as opposed to offset, for which credibility as a solution appears to be reducing. Possible article (not press release, like this one) idea maybe?

Delving through Rab's website there is the suggestion of a link where I can find this out but it doesn't seem to work for me. I'm not totally bought into the suggestions that athletes on expedition can be (from their website) 'eyes and ears on the health of the planet' – presumably climate scientists are best placed to do this.

I'm not pretending I'm perfect by the way (having been on expeditions in the past myself, hopping on the occasional plane, having children, etc.), and I'm not trying to poop on the (what the optimist in me hopes is a) good intention. 

Nice interview of a wonderful athlete.

Of the films I have seen of her, she is alway smiling, even when it is looking very grim.

This business of carbon offsetting by people who go on amazing adventures does seem to me to be rubbish - greenwashing is the term I think.

Why can't people who fly a lot just accept that they are adding to global heating & ultimately causing harm.

I am writing this while in the back of an electric car while being driven to Bangkok airport.

Tomorrow I fly back to the UK is a large aircraft that will burn a lot of kerosene that will add to the adverse affects of global heating.

If I really wanted to reduce my carbon footprint I should have stayed at home.

"Think of flying – if you believe that your flights are carbon-neutral, you will continue to take more of them." Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate change at the University of Manchester. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/greenwashing-or-net-zer...

Bronwyn admits that she is conflicted about her frequent flying. Perhaps she & Rab should be a bit more honest about their impact on global warming?

"Once the weather starts to turn less favorable, I head off to warmer destinations." She lives in Squamish - stay local and winter climb there instead. Cognitive dissonance?

By criticizing her (or her sponsors) are you not just trying to make yourself feel better for acknowledging the costs of your choices? Your position from just what you've said here feels sadly rather nihilistic. I ask this because I clicked on your link and read it, and that's the opinion of one of the three scientists interviewed. The other two are hardly cheerleaders for offsetting being the be all and end all, but both suggest it can help if done well. 

I think flying is getting a bad rep to some extent. Its carbon footprint is roughly equalled by shipping (both cargo and cruises) and the Internet. Vehicle usage is far worse. None of these are sustainable or desirable but demonising one over others is unhelpful. 

All three scientists in the Guardian article acknowledge to complexities of carbon offsets, but all say reducing carbon is more effective.

My point is that Rab & Bronwyn are saying that her Greenland trip carbon emissions were completely offset via the South Pole company.

I maintain that carbon offsetting is essentially greenwashing.

Furthermore, it would appear that a major part of South Pole's offsetting was very controversial.

They have recently withdrawn from a scheme and are laying off staff.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/sci-tech/swiss-carbon-offset-giant-pulls-plug-...

Bronwyn says that she is open to challenge about her carbon offsetting.

It would be nice to hear her more detailed view about this.

I still think that she is a great athlete and that Rab are a good company.

However, I still think that they should be more honest about their carbon footprints.

Part of the problem with offsetting is that even well managed offsetting generates some emissions at start up, then it slowly draws down the amount of carbon specified over several years (I think there may be offsets that work on funding equipment that reduces emissions in the first place, however this also acts over time).

If we reach a tipping point in temperature rise significant amounts of CO2 will be released into the atmosphere due to permafrost melting, so 10 tons of CO2 now can rapidly become 100 tons (the actual values are not important and are arbitrarily selected) due to its immediate impact before the carbon drawdown from the offsetting project occurs, and suddenly the offset flight is no longer offset. 

This is not even touching on the scammy nature of some offsetting schemes.

Reducing emissions is crucial.

I think the important point is made by Kevin Anderson. If a flight today puts X tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere and enough trees are planted to absorb the X tonnes, this won't happen for many years, perhaps 50, perhaps more, in the future.

In the meantime the carbon is having a warming effect on the planet. The beneficial effects of offsetting are always going to be years behind the problem.

Dave

That was what I was getting at, thanks for stating it more clearly.