Carbon offsetting of a trip as it is proposed by airlines is highly distrusted. Replanting trees, for example, makes no sense. Articles explain how corruption reduces these investments to communication operations. And trees are renewable: they will end up, after a more or less long time, burned and releasing their carbon. On the contrary, oil is not renewable.
Moreover, it takes many years of growth for a tree to become an efficient carbon trap. This does not mean that we should not plant trees, on the contrary. But it is not a solution to greenhouse gas emissions.
The solution is to use less oil. Here is the balance sheet with 10 days to go before the departure of the tour of Australia.
| Activity | Achieved | Estimated CO2 gain |
| Diet (less meat consumption & substitution of margarine for butter) | 400g less meat / week (150 weeks x 0,4kg x 99,5 kCO2 eq /kg of meat) | 5,970 tons |
| Reduction of commuting (diesel car, petrol motorcycle) | Remote working for 3 years (360 days x 40 km x 6l/100km = 864 liters) | 2,073 tons |
| Cold water showers instead of using 60°C water (anecdotal, but cold water is very invigorating 😉 ) | Three years, 5 days 7 (780 days x 25 liters x 52,3Wh/l x 80g/kW | 0,081 tons |
| Heat pump lowered to 18°C instead of 19°C | 290 kWh /year x 7% x 80g/kWh | 0.005 tons |
It is impressive to see how much of an indirect but significant impact food has on CO2 emissions.
Let’s do the math and compare the result at the end of the travel. Fuel is going to be a big post of emission during this road-trip. There will be some gains too: low needs for heating, hot water and electricity. Carbon offsetting this trip should be possible.