That does not mean the work I do on these trips isn't meaningful. This year, much of it has focused on stories of poverty and exclusion, as well as documenting the activities of socially responsible philanthropic organizations. And I love every bit of the travel. But no matter how laudable the work is, my heavy reliance on long-haul air travel forces me to ask myself difficult questions. Overall, we photojournalists often see ourselves as the principled guardians of public opinion, the conscience of international affairs, the valued providers of context. We are the "eyes of the world," seeking out urgent stories of wrongdoing. We are talented at muckraking where governments or corporations do harm. But what happens when we turn the mirror unto ourselves?

It has become clear to me that we have a duty to mitigate the environmental impact of our work. We should think about which of our trips are essential and which are superfluous. And we should make our clients, who profit from our work, pay for Carbon Emission Offsets.

If a photojournalist from another planet landed on Earth, he would probably pay little heed to our countless wars, the hunt for al-Qaida, or the conflicts in the Middle East, writing them off as tiresome squabbles over land and resources, along the same template as humans have kept to over the last 5,000 years. He would quickly report back to his editors that there is only one urgent story here right now - how the industrial revolution and technology spurred a mega-binge of consumption, population growth and energy expenditure, resulting in a grand and perilous experiment of altering the planet's energy balance.

Our dilemma is that per passenger-mile, cars and jet aircraft emit roughly the same amount of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. But we don't board 747s to go to the supermarket - we tend to fly 7,000km at a time, and back again. In addition, CO2 is only one part of the jet set's dirty laundry. Airliners also release Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Methane (CH4) gases at high altitudes, which are per unit much more harmful than CO2 itself. Add to that the heat-trapping cirrus clouds resulting from jet planes' contrails, and we arrive at this fact:

According to the European Commission, aviation contributes between 3.5 and 7.4 percent of all human activity-related greenhouse gas emissions, a figure that is projected to double over the next decades, making it the fastest growing greenhouse gas emitting industry on the planet. Indeed, every time I fly through a major hub, I feel like I spot a barrage of new low-cost carriers.

How do we as photographers reconcile ourselves with the true ecological cost of our travel? I am not advocating that we all stop working. Our industry is important and relevant, and photography and journalism do matter. There are stories that should be told, projects that are bigger than just ourselves. Likewise, there are stories and assignments that are better left undone, for instance travel pieces aimed at convincing thousands of other people to cram themselves into low-cost air carrier seats for faraway holiday destinations.

Or perhaps that trip from New York to the international photo festival in Perpignan seems slightly less urgent, once we learn that just one seat on that jet accounts for more emission harm to the planet than if one took an old 1992 Mazda 323 and drove it from Perpignan to Beijing (about 2.5 metric tons of CO2 for the drive, versus 2.7 for the return flight).

There is no question that in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, the work that we do comes at a grave cost. Flying less could be an important contribution to the fight against climate change, and no mitigation scheme can replace not getting on the next flight. But for the flights that are essential, is there anything we can do to mitigate the environmental cost of our business? The answer is yes, and I propose we push for its adoption as an industry standard.

There is a system for trading carbon emission-mitigating 'offsets.' The principle is that if I take a flight where my share of emissions amounts to 4 tons, I can moderate that damage by purchasing carbon emission offsets from a third party dealer. The fee I pay this company is put towards clean energy projects such as solar and wind farms, which replace carbon-based energy generation, or projects that otherwise enhance energy efficiency. The fee I pay is calculated per ton of CO2 my share of the flight emits, and I can thus help make my flight carbon neutral.

I propose that when a magazine sends a photographer on an assignment, it should be an industry standard that the purchase of carbon emission offsets becomes an accepted part of the photographer's invoice, along with all the other expenses such as car hire, hotel bills, room service, digital fees etc. If I am being sent to do a job for a magazine, it is logical that they are also responsible for my added CO2 emissions. For the round trip from New York to Jakarta that I am on right now, the cost for the offset comes to about $200.

Carbon offset trading has over the last half decade become a fast-growing cottage industry. For sure, there are plenty of dubious players out there, bad accounting, and questionable results. However, there is a certification system in place that identifies offset dealers that conform to the highest standards. This, the CDM Gold Standard (cdmgoldstandard.org), is an oversight agency endorsed by the WWF, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and 40 other non-governmental organizations. Dealers certified by the Gold Standard are used by the United Nations Environment Programme and the United Nations World Climate Research Programme, for offsetting their own business travel. The criteria for Gold Standard endorsement is that the project is scientifically sound, sustainable, and meets 'additionality' requirements (it has to be proven that the offset project would not have existed if it wasn't for offset purchases). Forest planting schemes, for instance, do not qualify for the Gold Standard, due to longevity concerns - if the forest burns or is logged in the future, the Carbon Dioxide that was absorbed by the trees is released back into the air.

I've brought up my proposal with several clients and magazines, with mixed results. There is a certain unwillingness to hear any initiative that will increase their budgets, however small the amount. One senior editor at a major international publication with which I am working countered my proposal with a deferral of responsibility - "We all agree that we should try to save the planet," the editor wrote, "but if an individual feels he should do something for the environment he should do it voluntarily, and with their own money."

But if I am performing work on an organization or magazine's behest, then surely it is a logical and legitimate expense to invoice them for the carbon offsets? Climate change must be fought on a structural level-to leave it in the hands of the individual is clearly insufficient. We expect other industries to take responsibility for their pollution, and there is no compelling reason why ours should be exempted. A simple and relatively small offset self-taxation should thus be an accepted part of any assignment agreement with a magazine.

Photographers need to discuss and think about this issue as a group in order to make a difference and I invite all members of our community to give their thoughts on this blog on our role as polluters, our responsibilities, and my modest proposal that we bill our clients for carbon offsets. What stories, projects and trips are worth the environmental cost? Do you think carbon offsets for assignments is a worthy proposition? Speak up. Do you think it is hubris to think we can buy our way out of a problem caused by over-consumption? Speak up, loudly.

My aim is to get us to talk about this dilemma, and come up with a way to deal with it constructively.

Over to you.

Jonas Bendiksen

Links:
Gold Standard: www.cdmgoldstandard.org

Some Carbon Offset dealers with Gold Standard Certification:
MyClimate: www.myclimate.org
Atmosfair: www.atmosfair.de
Climate Friendly: www.climatefriendly.org
My carbon usage calculations are made using the online emission calculators on these websites.

Joint Statement from WWF, Friends of the Earth, and Greenpeace regarding Gold Standard and Offsets: www.agreenerfestival.com/WWF-GP-FoE_on_offseting.pdf

http://blog.magnumphotos.com/2007/01/the_photographer_and_co2_a_case_for_carbon_emission_offsets.html