President Obama revealed today the federal government aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from "indirect sources," such as federal-employee travel and commuting, 13% by 2020.
Through the previously issued Executive Order 13514, Obama pushed the federal government to get a little greener with the goals of clamping down on direct and indirect sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
But, should limiting government travel be a key focus?
Looking at it objectively -- as only I can do, of course -- there probably are great arguments on both sides of the question.
The travel industry often reacts reflexively and defensively when any limits on government or business travel are proposed.
What should be done if a policy is good for the environment and bad for the travel industry?
Do we have to make these kinds of choices?
The White House says the executive order mandates that actions by federal agencies to meet sustainability goals should "have a positive return on investment for the American taxpayer."
That's the angle that the U.S. Travel Association takes in blasting Obama's call for limits on federal-employee travel.
Calling Obama administration efforts to curb government travel "short-sighted and counter-productive," the U.S. Travel Association also characterizes the effort as arbitrary and argues it will be costly to taxpayers.
The association cites an Oxford Economics study which found that government travel produces a more than 5:1 return on investment.
"Less government participation in necessary meetings, trade shows and other types of business travel will lead to a decline in federal employee productivity and to job losses for American workers employed in the travel industry," the U.S. Travel Association states.
But, the association, in its response to the Obama administration action, doesn't directly address the environmental issue.
Should the travel industry line its pockets -- OK, few companies are taking in windfalls these days -- while the environment chokes?
Perhaps the association -- and other travel industry organizations and leaders -- should tackle that question head-on.
As one insider offers: "Why not instead look for incentives for greener travel or ways government and the industry can work together? Especially given the proven ROI of government-business travel and travel’s importance to the U.S. economy and jobs."
Meanwhile, the National Business Travel Association -- without offering specifics -- says it "will continue to seek opportunities to work with government agencies to promote corporate travel practices that are environmentally sound."
Michael McCormick, executive director of NBTA, stated, “President Obama’s recent statements calling for a reduction in government travel are troubling for two reasons. First, they are part of a pattern of negative and misguided comments from the Administration that hurt the travel industry at an incredibly challenging time. Second, they seem to imply that cutting travel is the goal. The goal should be to use travel as cost-effectively as possible to meet the needs of the United States. Instead of unilateral cuts, I encourage government agencies to reach out to the industry and learn how to properly manage travel and ‘green’ their travel system.”
So, what do you think?
How can the travel industry promote business or government travel and address the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the same time?
Or are the two goals -- sadly -- mutually exclusive?