Join! it's $20

CO2 on international travel.. no sea options are left.

CO2 on international travel.. no sea options are left.

If a visitor wants to visit NZ they have no option but to fly and cause the resulting CO2 emmissions. We need to use air travel arrival and departure tax to fund a free boat from Australia to NZ which is a signal for the future back to a slower paced life style which is sustainable. This would put NZ on the world stage in terms of climate leadership.

Showing 12 reactions

How would you tag this suggestion?

Sign in with

Or sign in with email

    Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
    • Alan Barraclough
      commented 2016-11-28 06:27:07 +1300
      Hi Alan Dawn, Thats an interesting idea about DOC.. possibly the idea of increasing the Carbon sink and habitat size could be specifically part of their objectives. I note for example that it cant be taken for granted that branches of government are on board with the low carbon future. eg Auckland Council in the way they “maintain” their regional parks with sheep.
    • Alan Dawn
      commented 2016-11-27 22:33:13 +1300
      I don’t agree with funding a free boat, but adding the cost of carbon to the airfare both ways sends a message. The revenue could be given to DOC to maintain (pest control, etc) the carbon sinks they are responsible for.
    • Alan Dawn
      tagged this with interesting 2016-11-27 22:33:12 +1300
    • Tim O’Donnell
      tagged this with dislike 2016-11-26 22:24:29 +1300
    • Alan Barraclough
      commented 2016-11-26 11:09:46 +1300
      Hi John, I like the whole evidence based basis of this party. If what you say is true ..that even on a modern engine boat.. that the CO2 emmisssions are the same as flying , then i withdraw my suggestion :-)
    • Graeme Kiyoto-Ward
      commented 2016-11-26 10:13:48 +1300
      There’s a number of concerns I have with this. I applaud the sentiment but the concerns are.
      1. Where does the boat leave from and go to. It’s at risk of being an Auckland/Sydney boat.
      2. It’s three days by boat and just over three hours by plane. If you could the lost wages and cost of feeding and entertaining yourself over a three day voyage it probably comes out more than flying. Except for those that pack their own lunch (do to speak) who would use it.
      3. If it is used by the poorest in society then we may find it is not welcomed by the Australians as hundred of people I’ll prepared for time overseas disembark.
      4. Finally. Boats are expensive to procure and maintain. Especially if there was in imbalance in patronage (I suspect to Australia would be fuller than from Australia.
      There’s a lot of concerns to address there and I wouldn’t make this a top seven policy.
    • Graeme Kiyoto-Ward
      tagged this with dislike 2016-11-26 10:13:48 +1300
    • John Rusk
      commented 2016-11-26 09:50:12 +1300
      Is there any evidence that travel by sea generates lower carbon emissions per passenger mile? Obviously it would be for sail boats, but I presume you mean a powered boat (for reliability). I quick google found this “a cruiseliner such as Queen Mary 2 emits 0.43kg of CO2 per passenger mile, compared with 0.257kg for a long-haul flight”
    • John Rusk
      tagged this with dislike 2016-11-26 09:50:12 +1300
    • Richard Wyles
      commented 2016-11-26 02:43:45 +1300
      Not realistic
    • Richard Wyles
      tagged this with dislike 2016-11-26 02:43:45 +1300
    • Alan Barraclough
      published this page in Suggestions 2016-11-25 18:04:47 +1300