SAVE ITdining expenses

THAT’S GONNALEAVE A MARKyour travel carbon footprint

STUFF ITbackpack europe

ALASKASee it before it melts

winter 2012

16 Organizing Your Suitcases by Sandy Larsen Filler text. A restaurant that does not have a trained chef will have significantly lower quality food than one that is proud of the chef on staff.

23 Holiday Traditions by Steven Johnston Filler text. A restaurant that does not have a trained chef will have significantly lower quality food than one that is proud of the chef on staff.

42 Before You Leave by Jennifer Hanson Filler text. A restaurant that does not have a trained chef will have significantly lower quality food than one that is proud of the chef on staff.

47 Dont Forget by Jacob Bleyl Filler text. Chef trained? A restaurant that does not have a trained chef will have significantly lower quality food than one that is proud of the chef on staff.

AWAYALASKASee it before it meltsDespite such well-founded misgivings, polokilism bested scientific data, and the world settled on the two-degree target – indeed, it’s fair to say that it’s the only thing about climate chanthe world has settled on. All told, 167 countries responsible for more than 87 percent of thorlds carbon emissions have signed on to the Copenhagen Accord, endorsing the two-degree target. Only a few dozen countries have rejected it

winter 2012

LIVE5 THAT’S GONNA LEAVE A MARK the carbon footprint you leave behind

SPECS11 HOW AMERICA PREFERS TO TRAVEL

PLANES TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES WHATS YOUR CHOICE

DINE7 SAVE IT DINING EXPENSES

EXPLORE9 STUFF IT BACKPACKING EUROPE

Away

SAVE ITcutting dining expenses

THAT’S GONNALEAVE A MARKthe carbon footprint you leave behind

STUFF ITbackpack europe

ALASKASee it before it melts

Editor in Chief Frank ThomasAssistant to Editor William PerryArt Director Jeff HaleAssistant Art Director Anne Hansen Photo Director Garret YorkAssistant Photo Director John Larsen

AWAY winter 2012

32 Planning Your Holiday Travels

CONTENT

DEPARTMENTS

THAT’S GONNA LEAVE A MARKCounter acting your travel carbon footprint

“So here is what I’m advocating -Individuals should plant trees on public land.”

Recently I’ve begun to wonder how much damage that my traveling has done to ecology of

the world and collectively how much damage we have caused through global warming.And most importantly what I, as a single human could do to help reverse this phenomena. I guess that the insane weather we have been experiencing and the collective lack of action from those who have power (and the unwillingness to do anything due to their own self interest) have helped formulate the conclusions of this article. I’m not going to go into the pros and cons on whether global warning is man-made or not, as far as I’m concerned any person can see for them-selves the pollution, environ-mental degradation caused by man. If you have had the pleasure of being on this earth for more than 20 years you have something to compare with.We seem to be pushing at both ends as well. Not only are we building more cars, more roads, more factories and more power stations but we are also cutting down more trees as well. The backyards of houses that always had a number of trees are now too small and then there is deforestation due to forestry and the forests being burnt in Indonesia. And I won’t mention Africa and the Amazon rainforest. I’ve noticed that there are companies that will plant trees on your behalf to offset your carbon footprint but person-ally I don’t buy it. Capitalism is based on greed and can you tell me these companies that are growing trees are now too small and then there is deforestation due to forestry and the forests being burnt in

Indonesia. And I won’t men-tion Africa and the Amazon rainforest.I’ve noticed that there are companies that will plant trees on your behalf to offset your carbon footprint but personally I don’t buy it. Capitalism is based on greed and can you tell me these companies that are grow-ing these trees are not going to cut them down in 15 years time when people have long forgotten they have bought the tree. It’s the nature of the beast. They will cut them down and make more money and then ask for more money to grow more trees. So I can safely say that these schemes are not the answer. I was shocked when I started offset your carbon footprint but personally I don’t buy it. Capitalism is based on greed and can you tell me these companies that are grow-ing these trees are not going to cut them down in 15 years time when people have long forgotten they have bought the tree. It’s the nature of the beast. They will cut them down and make more money and then ask for more money to grow more trees. So I can safely say that these schemes are not the answer. I was shocked when I started to research the topic just how many trees it tSinga-pore 3 times is 18,000 milesPlus a few other flights as well – I’m going to say as an estimate 100,000 miles. The calculations are made more difficult as each source has plant ~1 tree every month to offset this amount of travel.Now I have to add there are a number of assumptions. These include,travel was based on a Boeing 747 with an average amount of passengers – now I’ve flown on one jet for 1000km that had 6 people on

board!Tree offset is calculated that of 5 trees planted 1 lives to become 40 years old. The older and bigger the tree the more carbon it can sequest. I have tried a number of other calculators and they say about the same thing – About 1 tree per month for the amount of traveling I’ve done. How can I plant 1 tree per month? Here is a problem many people will have I don’t own a house and if I did, after the first year I would run out of room.So here is what I’m advocating.

INDIVIDUALS SHOULD PLANT TREES ON PUB-LIC LANDSo you ask where? I live in a city there is no land. Well here’s where I’d start – there may not be land in the city but if you go 20 miles out of the city I think you would find places.Now when I say public land I mean these types of places Please don’t plant trees on people’s private property, farmland or National Park Should you ask permission? No! Did anyone ask our permis-sion to cut all the trees down in the first place and I realize this a bit of a public disobedience campaign I’m trying to start but if we leave it to govern-ments and the rich we are all doomed! The only way global warming can be beaten is by individuals taking control of their own situation to either decrease their energy usage or plant trees to offset their usage. I realize that some of these trees will be pulled down (and this is assumed in the calcula-tions) but I think a lot of trees won’t particularly if you follow these stepsPlant trees that are native to the area.

- Written by David Cronk

The 5 trees that best offset carbon

Maple

AmericanBeech

Pecan

Tulip Tree

London Plane Tree

SAVE ITcutting dining expenses

Dining out on vacation often becomes costly with no guarantee of receiving a good meal. This frustrates tourists and ruins vacation memories,

especially if the expensive meal proves to be horrible or nothing special. Researching the restaurants online typically doesn’t help since many reviews are posted by the eateries themselves or by a patron who had a single negative experience not truly representative of the restaurant. These reviews are often unreliable regardless of whether they are positive or negative, so the after reading online reviews it is best to call ahead to the restaurant and ask questions. Do they offer discounts for tourists? Do they have any awards? Where was the chef trained? A res-taurant that does not have a trained chef will have significantly lower quality food than one that is proud of the chef on staff. Knowing someone that lives in the area helps vacation-ers choose the best places to eat on vacation. Not knowing anyone in the area means there is no local to ask for a real opinion on dining out on vacation - or does it?Speaking with the hotel concierge prevents spending too much money while dining out on vacation and also provides solid informa-tion regarding quality of the local eateries. A local resident, the concierge knows the good and bad places in town and in addition to offering the best spots in town to dine out on vacation, can also tell vacationers which places to steer clear of. The concierge likely knows how long the restaurant has been in business as well as its reputation. Ask the concierge for his personal favorites instead of those that are endorsed or supported by the hotel and an off-the-beaten path dining experience awaits. Instead of simply ask-ing for his choice of eatery, ask questions that provide more details for the type of restaurant desired. Hotels that don’t have a concierge usually have tourist kiosks filled with brochures and coupons that provide insight and savings for dining out on vaca-tion. Any brochures set up in the lobby are supported by the hotel. Most hotels will not simply allow an eatery to place brochures in the lobby unless management is familiar with the restaurant. Grab a tourism guide and flip

through the pages acation. Any brochures set up in the lobby are supported by the hotel. Most hotels will not simply allow an eatery to place brochures in the lobby unless manage-ment is familiar with the restaurant. Grab a tourism guide and flip through the pages aca-tion. Any brochures set up in the lobby are supported by the hotel. Most hotels will not simply allow an eatery to place brochures in the lobby unless management is familiar with tto locate discount meal coupons aimed at visitors. Be sure to call the restaurant ahead to check for any restrictions before finalizing dining ou acation. Any brochures set up in the lobby are supported by the hotel. Most hotels will not simply allow an eatery to place brochures in the lobby unless management is familiar with the restaurant. Grab a tourism guide and flip through the pages acation. Any brochures set up in the lobby are supported by the hotel. Most hotels will not simply allow an eatery to place brochures in the lobby unless management is familiar with the restaurant. Grab a tourism guide and ough the pages acation. Any brochures set up in the lobby are supported by the hotel. Most hotels will not simply allow an eatery to place brochures in the lobby unless management is familiar with tto locate discount meal coupons aimed at visitors. Be sure to call the restaurant ahead to check for any restric-tions before finalizing dining ou acation. Any brochures set up in the lobby are supported by the hotel. Most hotels will not simply allow an eatery to place brochures in the lobby unless management is familiar with the restaurant. Grab a tourism guide and flip through the pages acation. Any brochures set up in the lobby are supported by the hotel. Most hotels will not simply allow an eatery to place brochures in the lobby unless manage-ment is familiar with the restaurant. Be sure to call the restaurant ahead to check for any restrictions before finalizing dining ou aca-tion. Any brochures set up in the lobby are supported by the hotel. Most hotels will not simply allow an eatery to place brochures in the lobby unless management is familiar with the restaurant. Grab a tourism guide and flip through the pages acation. Any brochures set up in the lobby are supported by the hotel. Most hotels will not simply allow an eatery to

place brochures in the lobby unless manage-ment is familiar with the restaurant. Grab a tourism guide and ough the pages acation. Any brochures set up in the lobby are sup-ported by the hotel. Most hotels will not simply allow an eatery to place brochures in the lobby unless management is familiar with tto locate discount meal coupons aimed at visitors. Be sure to call the restaurant ahead to check for any restrictions before finalizing dining ou acation. Any brochures set up in the lobby are supported by the hotel. Most hotels will not simply allow an eatery to place brochures in the lobby unless management is familiar with the restaurant. Grab a tourism guide and flip through the pages acation. Any brochures set up in the lobby are supported by the hotel. Most hotels will not simply allow an eatery to place brochures in the lobby unless management is familiar with the restaurant. Grab a tourism guide and Vflip through the pages.Any brochures set up in the lobby are supported by the hotel. Most hotels will not simply allow an eatery to place brochures in the lobby unless management is familiar with the restaurant. Grab a tourism guide and flip through the pages to locate discount meal coupons aimed at visitors. Be sure to call the restaurant ahead to check for any restrictions before finalizing dining out vacation.

Ask your concierge-Which establish-ments are within a certain price point?

-Are there any restaurants that have been highlighted on television?

-Where do you go to eat for a celebration?

-Where can I go to get the best of a certain type of food?

-Which restaurant do you take your partner to for a romantic meal?

-Which restaurants are family friendly?

Most hotels will not simply allow an eatery to place brochures in the lobby unless management is familiar with the restaurant.

Movies such as “Eurotrip” and “Chasing Liberty” glorify backpack-ing trips through

Europe. Many university students and recent high school gradu-ates have followed suit, packing up their lives and traveling the continent by foot. The trip itself is not as simple as it may seem on the surface. Following a few tricks and tips of the trade can make your trip more enjoyable and affordable.Traveling throughout Europe is relatively easy, even if you are a penny-pinching traveler with your life strapped to your back. Eurail connects the majority of the continent, and low-season passes offer great travel deals. If you want to save even more money, you could consider traveling by bus;

however, this option is longer and much more cramped. Local bus lines and international ones, such as Eurolines, generally offer bus connections across the continent and passes comparable to Eurail’s. If time is an issue, flight carriers Ryanair and easyJet offer afford-able options. Both airlines charge for extra baggage and the baggage size constraints on the luggage you are allowed to bring are restrictive. Another easy way to save money is to travel by night so you don’t have to pay for a place to stay. They often have storage rooms, and al-low you to store your things before and after your stay. If you are able, take advantage of the lower prices many hostels offer for longer stays--upwards of a week. Home stays and work exchange programs allow getting to know the locals, while

working for rather than paying for your lodging. Websites such as HelpX.net connect backpack-ers with locals willing to give up their home for a helping hand. Couchsurfing.com offers a similar but generally shorter-stay option, and work around the house usually is not expected.Playing While backpacking, you might find you have a day or eve-ning layover between trips, giving you a short opportunity to check out the city. With your backpack in tow, however, this can be quite dif-ficult. Embassies and city welcome centers often have storage centers where you can keep your things, sometimes free. Private facilities also operate storage facilities in most major European destinations. Eating Having a backpack while you travel gives you the added

opportunity to store and carry food with you, which tends to be less expensive than eating out. Buy eas-ily preserved foods, such as peanut butter, canned tuna or crackers and bread. Not only is this method inexpensive, but it gives you the opportunity to sample truly local foods from farmer’s markets, which are tourist attractions in their own right. Practical Information Public transportation systems can be crowded at times, and you can walk your way around most Euro-pean cities easily. When you have your backpack, you may very well choose to walk rather than ride. Choose a backpack that is comfort-able to walk with, and ensure that it sits comfortably and the straps of the backpack are snug.

STUFF ITbackpack your way rough Europe

Not only is backpacking inexpensive, but it gives you the opportunity to sample truly local foods from farmer’s markets, which are tourist attractions in their own right.

75% of Americansprefer to travel by comercial airline.

50% of Americanmen prefer to travel by comercial airline.

50% of Americansprefer to travel by vehicle.

25% of Americansprefer to travel by public transit.

50%

25%

75%

50%

How Americans Travel

85% of Americanwomen prefer to travel

by comercial airline.

35% airline travelersfly first class.

65% airline travelersfly coach class.

15% of vehicle travelersprefer to rent a vehicle.

85% of vehicle travelerstravel with their personal vehicle.

25% of public transit travelers travel by bus.

75% of public transit travelers travel by subway or train.

25%

75%

65%

35%

85%

15%

85%

How Americans Travel

ALASKAsee it before it melts

If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven’t convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard

numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. Meteorologists reported that this spring was the warmest ever recorded for our nation – in fact, it crushed the old record by so much that it rep-resented the “largest temperature departure from average of any season on record.” Not that our leaders seemed to notice. Last month the world’s nations, meeting in Rio for the 20th-anniversary reprise of a massive 1992 environmental summit, accomplished nothing. Unlike George H.W. Bush, who flew in for the first conclave, Barack Obama didn’t even attend. for a general audience about global warming way back in 1989, and since I’ve

spent the intervening decades working ineffec-tively to slow that warming, I can say with some confidence that we’re losing the fight, badly and quickly – losing it because, most of all, we remain in denial about the peril that human civilization is in. When we think about global warming at all, the arguments tend to be ideological, theologi-cal and economic. But to grasp the seriousness of our predicament, you just need to do a little math. For the past year, an easy and powerful bit of arithmetical analysis first published by financial analysts in the U.K. has been making the rounds of environmental conferences and journals, but it hasn’t yet broken through to the larger public. This analysis upends most of the conventional political thinking about climate change. And it allows us to understand our precarious – our almost-but-

not-quite-finally hopeless – position with three simple numbers. The First Number: 2° Celsius. The world’s nations had gathered in the December gloom of the Danish capital for what a leading climate economist, Sir Nicholas Stern of Britain, called the “most important gathering since the Second World War, given what is at stake.” Amid considerable chaos, President Obama took the lead in drafting a face-saving “Copenhagen Accord” that fooled very few. Its purely voluntary agree-ments committed no one to anything, and even if countries signaled their intentions to cut carbon emissions, there was no enforcement mechanism. Its purely voluntary agreements committed no one to anything, and even if countries signaled their intentions to cut carbon emissions, there was no enforcement mechanism.

“Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight,” an angry Greenpeace official declared, “with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport.” Headline writers were equally brutal.The accord did contain one important number, however. It was as conventional as conven-tional wisdom gets. Some context: So far, we’ve raised the average temperature of the planet just under 0.8 degrees Celsius, and that has caused far more damage than most scientists expected. A third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone, the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and since warm air holds more water vapor than cold, the atmosphere over the oceans is a shocking five percent wetter, loading the dice for devastating floods. Given those impacts, in fact, many scientists have come to think that two degrees is far too lenient a target. “Any number much

above one degree involves a gamble,” writes Kerry Emanuel of MIT, a leading authority on hurricanes, “and the odds become less and less favorable as the temperature goes up.” Thomas Lovejoy, once the World Bank’s chief biodiversity adviser, puts it like this: “If we’re seeing what we’re seeing today at 0.8 degrees Celsius, two degrees is simply too much.” NASA scientist James Hansen, the planet’s most prominent climatologist, is even blunter: “The target that has been talked about in international negotiations for two degrees of warming is actually a prescription for long-term disaster.” At the Copenhagen summit, a spokes-man for small island nations warned that many would not survive a two-degree rise: “Some countries will flat-out disappear.” When delegates from developing nations were warned that two degrees would represent a

“suicide pact” for drought-stricken Africa, many of them started chanting, “One degree, one Africa.” Despite such well-founded mis-givings, political realism bested scientific data, and the world settled on the two-degree target – indeed, it’s fair to say that it’s the only thing about climate change the world has settled on. It was as conventional as conventional wisdom gets. Some context: So far, we’ve raised the average temperature of the planet just under 0.8 degrees Celsius, and that has caused far more damage than most scientists expected. Given those impacts, in fact, many scientists have come to think that two degrees is far too lenient a target. Despite such well-founded misgivings, political realism bested scientific data, and the world settled on the two-degree target – indeed, it’s fair to say that it’s the only thing about climate change the world has settled on.

So far, we’ve raised the average temperature of the planet just under 0.8 degrees Celsius, and that has caused far more damage than most scientists expected.

In Paragraph 1, it formally recognized “the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below two degrees Celsius.” And in the very next paragraph, it declared that “we agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required... so as to hold the increase in global temperature below two degrees Celsius.” By insisting on two degrees – about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit – the accord ratified positions taken earlier in 2009 by the G8, and the so-called Major Economies Forum. All told, 167 countries responsible for more than 87 percent of the world’s carbon emissions have signed on to the Copenhagen Accord, endorsing the two-degree target. Only a few dozen countries have rejected it, including Kuwait, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Even the United Arab Emirates, which makes most of its money exporting oil and gas, signed on. The official position of planet Earth at the moment is that we can’t raise the temperature more than two degrees Celsius – it’s become the bottomest of bottom lines two degrees. But, in fact, computer models calculate that even if we stopped increas-ing CO2 now, the temperature would likely still rise another 0.8 degrees, as previously released carbon continues to overheat the atmosphere. That means we’re already three-quarters of the way to the two-degree target. How good are these numbers? No one is insisting that they’re exact, but few dispute that they’re generally right. The 565-gigaton figure was derived from one of the most so-phisticated computer-simulation models that have been built by climate scientists around the world over the past few decades. We’re just fine-tuning things. I don’t think much has changed over the last decade.” William Collins, a senior climate scientist at the Law-rence Berkeley National Laboratory, agrees. “I think the results of this round of simula-tions will be quite similar,” he says. “We’re not getting any free lunch from additional understanding of the climate system.” We’re not getting any free lunch from the world’s economies, either. With only a single year’s lull in 2009 at the height of the financial crisis, we’ve continued to pour re-cord amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, year after year. In late May, the International Energy Agency published its latest figures – CO2 emissions last year rose to 31.6 gigatons, up 3.2 percent from the year before. America had a warm winter and converted more coal-fired power plants to natural gas, so its emis-sions fell slightly; China kept booming, so its carbon output (which recently surpassed the U.S.) rose 9.3 percent; the Japanese shut down their fleet of nukes post-Fukushima, so their emissions edged up 2.4 percent. “There have been efforts to use more renewable energy and improve energy efficiency,” said Corinne Le Quéré, who runs England’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. “But what this shows is that so far the effects have been marginal.” In fact, study after study predicts that carbon emissions will keep growing by roughly three percent a year – and at that rate, we’ll blow through our 565-gigaton allowance in 16 years, around the time today’s preschoolers will be graduating from high school. “The

new data provide further evidence that the door to a two-degree trajectory is about to close,” said Fatih Birol, the IEA’s chief econo-mist. In fact, he continued, “When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of about six degrees.” That’s almost 11 degrees Fahrenheit, which would create a planet straight out of science. So, new data in hand, everyone at the Rio conference renewed their ritual calls for serious international action to move us back to a two-degree trajectory. The charade will continue in November, when the next Conference of the Parties (COP) of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change convenes in Qatar. This will be COP 18 – COP 1 was held in Berlin in 1995, and since then the process has accomplished essentially nothing. Even scientists, who are notoriously reluctant to speak out, are slowly overcoming

their natural preference to simply provide data. “The message has been consistent for close to 30 years now,” America’s ExxonMo-bil, for instance, which lead the list of oil and gas companies, each would release more than 40 gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmo-sphere. Collins says with a wry laugh, “and we have the instrumentation and the com-puter power required to present the evidence in detail. If we choose to continue on our present course of action, it should be done with a full evaluation of the evidence the sci-entific community has presented.” He pauses, suddenly conscious of being on the record. “I should say, a fuller evaluation of the

evidence.” So far, though, such calls have had little effect. We’re in the same position we’ve been in for a quarter-century: scientific warn-ing followed by political inaction. Among scientists speaking off the record, disgusted candor is the rule. One senior scientist told me, “You know those new cigarette packs, where governments make them put a picture of someone with a hole in their throats? Gas pumps should have something like that.” The third number: 2,795 gigatons this number is the scariest of all – one that, for the first time, meshes the political and scientific dimensions of our dilemma. It was highlighted last sumer by the carbon footprint level master. The number describes the amount of carbon already contained in the proven coal and oil and gas reserves of the fossil-fuel companies, and the countries think Venezuela or Kuwait that act like fossil-fuel companies. Tracker Initiative, a team of London financial analysts and environmen-talists who published a report in an effort to educate investors about the possible risks that climate change poses to their stock portfolios. The number describes the amount of carbon already contained in the proven coal and oil and gas reserves of the fossil-fuel companies, and the countries think Venezuela or Kuwait that act like fossil-fuel companies. In short, it’s the fossil fuel we’re currently planning to burn. And the key point is that this new number 2,795 is higher than 565. But for the biggest companies, the figures are quite exact: If you burned everything in the inventories of Russia’s Lukoil and America’s ExxonMobil, for instance, which lead the list of oil and gas companies, each would release more than 40 gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But what this shows is that so far the effects have been marginal. But what this shows is that so far the effects have been marginal But what this shows is that so far the effects have been marginal.

“I think the results of this round of simulations will be quite similar, we’re not

getting any free lunch from additional understanding of

the climate system.”