First time here? Check out the site's "greatest hits" or read a random post from the archives. Feel free to ask a question, and consider subscribing to the latest posts via RSS or e-mail. Thanks for visiting!

Both Expedia and Travelocity rolled out similar features yesterday, allowing travelers buying airline tickets to placate their guilt over the environmental effects of air travel by purchasing carbon offsets. The way it works: You pay money to pay for trees and carbon-dioxide reducing environmental projects. The price you pay depends on the distance flown.

The programs are fully voluntary, and link up with existing programs such as TerraPass, which has been pushing carbon offsets for some time.

Amusingly, both Expedia and Travelocity claimed to be the first online travel agency to offer such a service. (If it’s a battle between press releases, Travelocity’s hit the wire an hour earlier. First to the gate!)

My question: Should they charge premium cabin passengers more than they charge economy passengers? On the one hand, you take up more room on the plane, as measured by square footage. On the other hand, you’re not really adding any more weight to the equation, so your presence in the front vs. the back doesn’t change the fuel requirements. Any ethicists out there want to take this on?

–

Separately, the European Union is pushing for limits on the amount of greenhouse gases which airlines legally produce each year. Treating airlines like power plants, the system would allow for “carbon trading” — companies that go over their emissions quota are required to buy “credits” for their overage from cleaner competitors. Since companies thereby have incentives to reduce emissions, both by avoiding fees, and by potentially profiting off the sale of credits, emissions trading schemes are widely viewed as successful. We’ll see how it works in aviation.

Related:
- Are open skies dirty skies?
- Buy, not fly, green

tags: travel | environmentalism | Expedia | Travelocity