I agree … more to bottles than CO2.

However, I disagree that conference delegates, whatever the event, in general have no choices to make when it comes to travel. First, delegates can increasingly choose virtual options and avoid the travel completely and we should encourage the professional conference business to develop these options and enhance the virtual experience.

Next, people can be creative and choose taking train transport where possible. Its more viable than you think. I’m planning a trip to London next week and I am going to try to take the train. I found it takes only 90 minutes longer door to door and I can keep working and be more productive enroute.

Finally, it is possible and important to consider which carriers operate more efficiently when we do have to fly. Real information in this regard is becoming more available in the market place and as consumers we should demand it.

thanks for stopping by and commenting on this.

You are absolutely correct to point out that the air travel by delegates has a much higher carbon footprint than the bottles. However, you need to remember that bottled water does much more damage than just the CO2 emitted in its production and transportation. There is also the environmental damage from the PET bottles themselves, not to mention the detrimental effects on our health of drinking from these bottles.

Also consider that most delegates didn’t have a choice of how they travelled to the venue. Had there been water dispensers available, they would, at least, have had a choice not to damage the environment by merely having a drink.

Lets not forget the elephant in the living room here though – air travel. A typical delegate flying roundtrip within Europe would have to drink around 2500 bottles of water to match the damage done to climate by flying there.