Seems like an easy way of reducing CO2 emissions. Looking forward to the results on this - could get a lot of backpackers if they cheapen the tickets as well.
Would this be enough for me to totally ditch checked baggage on the inbound flight? Probably not. So I will pay 40US$ but probably still need more baggage than what I can carry in a backpack.
And for sure I will need baggage to take stuff back home (actually when I go to Japan I carry an empty bag in my checked baggage just to fill it up with stuff that I buy in Japan, but of course YMMV).
So are my 40$ really having some positive impact on the environment, or is this more like virtue signalling but with little actual result?
If you are extremely concerned about sustainable travelling, maybe the Lufthansa alternative is just more practical (for the customer) while it is really difficult to determine if the Japanese idea is actually better for the environment (they also reduce textile waste, but for me it is really difficult to figure out how much of an impact this has).
If you are concerned about environmental impact of your travels, then fewer long-distance flying would have a much much bigger effect than futzing with clothes packed or not.
Not saying you shouldn't travel the world if you can (personal choice). But the CO2 impact is right there as a result of that flying. CO2 compensation? Ehm.. whatever. Mostly greenwashing imho.
Interesting concept though. I'd be up for the logical extreme: travel naked, at destination obtain clothes as needed.
The Lufthansa offer is no greenwashing via CO2 compensation. It is CO2 neutral fuel ("SAL"). This is the way to go. The downside is that it is a (currently) very expensive option.
Then again, if I would be a movie star or the like, I would check this box every time I fly.
>If you are concerned about environmental impact of your travels, then fewer long-distance flying would have a much much bigger effect than futzing with clothes packed or not.
Since most readers here are probably American, I wonder what the difference in CO2 is between 1) flying to Japan and spending 2-3 weeks there, and riding some trains while you're there, and 2) staying in the US and driving your 6000-lb SUV across the country to someplace for your vacation, or 3) staying at home, driving your SUV around town as usual, and keeping your 6000-square-foot house heated or cooled that whole time.
I'm not so sure flying intercontinentally is really that bad compared to even the regular daily CO2 output of most Americans.
Yes, actually I would be more interested if this was more radical.
I have been to Japan 4 times already (last one was in February).
For the kind of travel I am interested in, renting 99% of my stuff at the arrival would be fine. But:
1) there are some things (e.g. contact lenses liquid, aikido uniform) who may not be included anyway because somehow of a "niche" requirement.
2) I still need to take back much more stuff than what I took with me on my incoming flight. Of course most of it could just be sent by post (and surface travel, i.e. by ship, would still be ok for most of it).
But until I get enough incentives to do it, I don't think I would make my life more complicated to save the equivalent of 7-10kg of cargo.
Would this be enough for me to totally ditch checked baggage on the inbound flight? Probably not. So I will pay 40US$ but probably still need more baggage than what I can carry in a backpack.
And for sure I will need baggage to take stuff back home (actually when I go to Japan I carry an empty bag in my checked baggage just to fill it up with stuff that I buy in Japan, but of course YMMV).
So are my 40$ really having some positive impact on the environment, or is this more like virtue signalling but with little actual result?
Compare this with Lufthansa, for example, who lets you pay a surcharge to your ticket in order to use eco-friendly fuel (https://www.lufthansagroup.com/en/responsibility/climate-env...).
If you are extremely concerned about sustainable travelling, maybe the Lufthansa alternative is just more practical (for the customer) while it is really difficult to determine if the Japanese idea is actually better for the environment (they also reduce textile waste, but for me it is really difficult to figure out how much of an impact this has).