I love the values of THS but regularly have a bad conscience when I travel, in particular by plane - because of the effects on global warming and the ecology in general. It doesn’t sit well with me to be causing “double travel” (me and the sitter’s) so that my cat gets looked after. As a result, whenever possible, I choose sitters that are already in my area, or who come by train. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
3 Likes
I understand the concern, but much of the appeal of this platform lies in the ability to travel and experience new places and cultures. Sitters who would be traveling by plane will still travel by plane, but they won’t be doing it for you.
4 Likes
Honestly, my thought is this: You are ultimately responsible for yourself and your own choices. When you travel, maybe you can make a decision to travel by something more ecologically sustainable than a plane. You can also then choose sitters who are nearby and likely to be coming by other than a plane.
I don’t see that you are actually off-setting plane travel as the sitters from far away who are looking in your area and planning to fly, will still look in your area and fly. You aren’t “causing” the double-travel. The sitter is making a choice to fly – as are you.
Everybody is trying to solve a problem but I don’t think we’re all thinking about it as efficiently as we could. Case in point: I had a discussion with a sitter a few months ago about paper towels. She doesn’t use them and made a point about using alternatives (which I have) on the sit. I made the point that in my home there were some things that alternatives weren’t acceptable to me for eg cleaning up cat vomit. She agreed to abide by my rules. Here’s the thing though: She lives in a town with very little mass transit. She drives everywhere. Her visit to my town was an experience for her in using mass transit. I would posit that a better use of her energy in terms of saving the planet might come from being more active in terms of advocacy, speaking up and voting to improve mass transit in her city, than in judging my moderate use of paper towels.
If we’re going to get into carbon footprints, owning a pet raises one’s footprint substantially.
9 Likes
A counter point to that is that by staying in a THS instead of a hotel one reduces their impact because hotels do a lot of things that increase resource use:
No kitchen=consuming more takeout
Option to wash linens daily= more water consumption
Small bottled toiletries: more plastic waste
Also, one is reducing their capitalism imprint since it functions as a barter system. A lot of owners also allow the use of bikes, scooters and sometimes cars which uses already available resources.
6 Likes
Hi @Xenia1802 
I thought you might be interested in reading our web page about sustainability - it also includes a link to our 2024 impact report.
2 Likes
I agree. Focusing on small things, like one airplane trip, gives us the illusion of control over a massive and likely uncontrollable problem. I once had a meal with a vegan who got very “blusterous” and lecture-y when anyone else ordered meat, lecturing them about their carbon footprint. He did not appreciate it when I asked him about the carbon footprint of his six children - if he was truly so dedicated to reducing greenhouse gases, having even one child less would have gone much farther toward saving the planet than choosing a vegan lifestyle. (Yes, I know this was rude of me. I’m human and lose my temper sometimes. We never had a meal together again, which was a blessing for both of us I’m sure).
Suffice it to say, @Xenia1802, I don’t think you are “causing” double travel. The sitter would likely have traveled to your area anyway. I think picking those who can come by train is wise in part because they’re more likely to have alternative arrangements available in case their “Plan A” falls through. But doing it for carbon footprint reasons is trying to put out a forest fire with a water pistol.
3 Likes
If you feel guilty, limit your travels and, when you do trips, buy carbon offset credits and/or donate to an ecological nonprofit. To me, it’s pointless to feel guilty — better to do something or change the behavior.
7 Likes
It is a relatively important consideration for me. I am not perfect. I sometimes travel by plane, as well as by car. But for journeys within Europe I try to stick to train travel, and locally most of my journeys are by bicycle or public transit.
I do prioritise sitters who are already in the area or whose journey could be made by train - though I never go as far as asking sitters what their planned mode of transport is as it somehow feels like an intrusive thing to ask.
1 Like
Just remember that there are plenty of other things that you can do (or not do or do less of) beyond travel.
For instance, I started creating hundreds of remote jobs on my own (long before Covid) and then got good enough at it to train all the managers on my team, plus other teams and leaders / founders at other companies on how to hire and lead remotely. So because of that multiplier effect, plenty of folks no longer commute to work on multiple continents and more remote jobs will continue to be created as the managers and other leaders I helped build remotely and train others to do that. In some cases, the companies have since given up their offices, so that’s an extension of impact.
By comparison, anything I do or not individually day to day is a drop in the bucket.
5 Likes
Looking at more comments, I think what doesn’t sit right with me is the initial idea that the host would choose plane travel, but choose a sitter who isn’t travelling by plane. The truth is with this exchange model, hosts get to make all kinds of choices that say an Airbnb host or hotel manager would not get to make. Hosts can choose solo travelers for example, or a specific gender or age group. I often choose people based on logistics – who will have the easiest time getting to my home and is therefore least likely to cancel? But the idea of the host choosing to fly but then not permitting sitters to fly feels like a bridge too far. Could you imagine if you applied to an Airbnb and were then told: “Sorry, due to concern for my planet, I only accept guests who arrive by train or bus.”
I will say that most of the time when I’ve chosen a sitter who is flying, they already have a ticket or a plan to be in my city around my dates.
5 Likes
@Xenia1802 if you are concerned about the negative impact your flights are having on our planet you can look into alternative travel for your own holidays rather than look to control what sitters do.
You live in the perfect country to do this . Switzerland has great train connections to so many countries in Europe and to the U.K.
We have taken the train from Zurich to Como in Italy and to London UK via Paris France. Incredibly beautiful journeys and fantastic destinations.
3 Likes
This… all of it.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
We will just have to do our best. When it comes to carbon-footprint, pets are not the best idea to begin with.
As a sitter I travel where I want to or need to go. If I’m not sitting I simply find other accommodation. Which I also do if a sit is not my good match.
Do your best although not always perfect. and don’t take responsibility for the choices of others. We do our best, too.
1 Like
That’s what I would think as well. I read some time ago for example that 10% of meat consumption in the US is for cats & dogs. The carbon footprint of meat is pretty high (let alone the footprint of all the wet food packaging), so not having a meat-eating pet in the first place is probably the environmentally sustainable choice.
Nonetheless, pets give us lots of joy and many people rescue pets that are already in this world. So it’s not a black-or-white situation. I happen to work in sustainability, it’s my career, and honestly, flying is actually not such a major contributor to the global carbon footprint. Totally responsible for about 2-3% of carbon emissions and this includes cargo flights, private flights, etc.
I’ve never been able to find the exact numbers, but my estimate -based on what I did find- is that commercial passenger traffic by plane ( = excluding cargo & private flights) is responsible for about 1.5% max of global carbon emissions. That means 98.5% of carbon emissions originate somewhere else…
1 Like
Good for me but not for thee!
1 Like
I do the things I can, but I’m not going to stop living my life the way I choose. I very intentionally set up my life so that I could travel full-time. However, traveling full-time means I travel slow. When I fly somewhere I’m staying there for at least a few months. Last year I flew to Europe and stayed for 6-months. I traveled by train, bus, and ferry once there. Most of the people I sit for are flying somewhere for a couple weeks.
Since I work remotely, I’m not commuting to work daily. I had years with drives of 30+ minutes each way. When I sit in the US, I drive to sits, but once there I have many days that I don’t leave the house at all. I try to reduce waste as much as possible, I don’t eat meat, I rarely eat out. I think in general, I do the daily things I can do, but I’m not going to feel guilty about an occasional flight.
4 Likes
Don’t be concerned about the flights. Joseph Poore, A scientist at Oxford University completed a four year study of 40,000 farms worldwide, and their impact on the environment.
He quotes “A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use. It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,”
His findings were so evident that he went vegan after just the first year of the study.
Depends on what a vegan eats. Many would daily eat produce that is imported by plane, with big carbon emissions or consumption of water etc. Fruits, nuts, avocado, tofu. Mushrooms have a pretty dark history when it comes to climate.
Vegans also tend to use a lot of synthetics which has an origin in oil (kind of a paradox as the oil industry has a large impact on nature and animals). So it is quite complex.
I would think «local food» and «lots of vegetables» «in season locally» would do a world of good. Literally. 
It would often be the cheaper option to buy produce in season.
2 Likes
On the contrary, it doesn’t depend on what vegans eat. That is the whole reasoning of his findings. All those foods you mentioned are eaten by non-vegans as well as vegans. But added to that, vegans are non contributing to environmental issues in regards to animal agriculture (or animal cruelty). So, even taking into account that vegans may purchase products from overseas, they (me included) have reduced their impact on the planet.
This is the full results from his study. Good reading.
In my experience, many vegans are also people who do tend to buy produce locally. I’m a vegetarian and I frequent local farmers’ markets to get local produce (one of the things I enjoy about traveling). That doesn’t mean I don’t still buy some produce from grocery stores, but probably less than most people. I personally don’t eat mushrooms because I don’t like them.
I’m curious about the synthetics thing. Why would vegans use more synthetics than meat eaters?