Its an interesting decision - does a sitter withdraw an application for a sit where the HO is flying somewhere. I aim to keep my air miles to a minimum and not fly, but I’m not brave enough to turn down a sit tfor this reason. Maybe I could ask if they’ve considered carbon offsetting their travel.
The main point I’ve been trying to get to here, is that whatever individual decisions we make, for example taking our own non-toxic products with us to sits, nomads foregoing flying and moving by train, bike, EV, etc, the idea of THS as a business being considered part of “sustainable travel” feels like a paradox. I have a combined membership. Because I can get sitters without spending a lot of money, I am able to increase the amount of travel I do. Much of that travel will involve flying. Because I’m in a popular location, most of the sitters I’ve invited have come from far away and many of them have flown directly to my sit or had already flown here or had plans to fly here maybe for additional sits. They might not have been taking those trips if THS didn’t exist. If I did take a local THS sitter with a home base, that person might even be “sharing” their apartment during the sit encouraging even more travel! I also sit for leisure and most of those trips are extra trips that I can afford because I’m not paying for accomodations. If THS or similar services didn’t exist, I would travel less and have sitters who didn’t have to travel – probably neighbors paid or unpaid.
It’s possible someone could start “sustainable travel pet/home exchange” where members made pledges and were willing to commit to certain practices, but this model is not that.