Is flying really evil?
guardian.co.uk
Travel
Tuesday 26
September 2006 17.09 BST First published on Tuesday 26 September 2006 17.09 BST
Staring
global warming in the face ... is ending air travel really the key to saving
the environment? Photograph: Antonio Scorza/AFP
In the
second article of our week of debate on aviation and climate change, Justin
Francis, co-founder of Responsible Travel, argues that the immediate end of air
travel is not only impossible - it would be environmentally counter-productive
too
Next week
I'm flying to Ethiopia on holiday. My plane will emit carbon dioxide and other
gases that will contribute to global warming. The Bishop of London would say
people like me are evil. One leading environmentalist writing in The Guardian
says that people advocating more responsible travel are culpable of
"greenwashing" and that most of the aeroplanes flying today should be
grounded.
Reading the
papers you would think that air travel is the single biggest cause of global
warming. In fact, air travel accounts for less than 5% of carbon dioxide
emissions. We must look to every sector to reduce emissions, but if we really
want to target the biggest culprits then we need to look at homes, which
account for nearer 25% of emissions, and power stations, the UK's largest
coal-fired version of which wastes two-thirds of the energy it generates.
We've shown
before how a few simple changes made in your home can save double the carbon emissions
of a return flight to Egypt. In seeking to reduce our emissions we need to
examine our entire lifestyles, not just our flying habits. The trouble is that
it's sexier to write about planes than lagging your loft.
However, do
not take this as my consent to keep on flying as we have done. In fact, I
believe we are the first travel agency in the world to tell its customers to
fly significantly less. This is because we recognise that aviation is the
fastest growing cause of global warming. The amount of carbon dioxide emitted
by air travel doubled between 1990 and 2004. This is totally incompatible with
the need to reduce carbon emissions by 60% before 2050 (or nearer 70% by 2035
according to the latest research from the Tyndall Centre).
Still, I
believe there are a number of critical points relevant to this debate that some
environmentalists miss.
What happens
if we all stop flying?
The UN World
Tourism Organisation states that one in 10 jobs around the world is in tourism
and that the industry is growing fastest in developing countries. Many of these
countries lack any real alternative since their only real assets are their
cultures and natural environments.
I'd argue
that increased global unemployment and worsening poverty in many developing
countries is not conducive to creating new lower-carbon technologies and
lifestyles. People in poverty cannot afford to take decisions for the longer
term. Businesses in recession cannot afford to invest in research and
development and pay for switching to new lower carbon technologies.
What needs
to happen?
We all need
to fly a lot less. One way to do this would be to cut out the dramatic increase
in short breaks on cheap flights. The only way that this will happen is if the
price of flights rises considerably. We must only vote for parties that are
prepared to make the tough choices required to make this happen.
We all need
to holiday closer to home, and travel more often by train. When we do fly, we
need to ensure that our holiday benefits local communities and reduces other
environmental impacts - and we need to offset our emissions.
But we do
not need to stop flying altogether. That would send us back to the dark ages
with massive unemployment, business recession, and increased poverty.
Will people
listen?
The problem
with many advocates of sustainable development is that they fail to consider
people's emotions when trying to persuade them to change their behaviour.
Telling them they are evil, or that they must all stop flying immediately,
really isn't going to stop families flying off on holiday next summer.
In fact, the
carbon dioxide that we have already put into the atmosphere is going to cause
us immense global problems and we'll need all the tolerance we can find to work
globally to best manage these impacts. Perhaps the cultural understanding that
60 years of international travel has created can help in this.
No forests
means no tourists
When I visit
Ethiopia I'll be visiting local communities in the Bale Mountains National
Park, where the German Development Bank has funded a tourism project to replace
local income previously earned from illegal logging. And there lies the
incentive for local people to halt the deforestation. If we all stop flying,
many national parks around the world will lose their incomes, deforestation
will increase and global warming will accelerate faster.
Will
technology save us?
George Monbiot
argues that there will not be a new fuel or technology to replace kerosene as
airline fuel. Sir Richard Branson's scientific advisors obviously disagree as
he is prepared to invest over £1bn into bio fuels research. While it's unwise
to allow aviation to grow unchecked, I think it's equally unwise to assume that
no new solution will be found.
Are people
like me guilty of green washing?
We give
people who have already decided to travel the choice of a more responsible
holiday. We stress the benefits of responsible tourism to local communities
without hiding the environmental consequences of flying. We believe that people
should fly significantly less, but that it would be detrimental if we were to
stop flying altogether. You make up your mind if that's green washing.
Rise of low-cost flights comes at
high price
· Fastest growing source of carbon dioxide in UK
· Air transport growth puts climate target in doubt
John Vidal, environment editor
Friday 5 January 2007 15.14 GMT First published on Friday 5
January 2007 15.14 GMT
The government's aggressive language about the aviation
industry's failure to get to grips with cutting pollution reflects growing
frustration that its emissions are undermining Britain's strategy on climate
change. Senior ministers are seeking to lead the international debate about
global warming and convince the electorate that the environment is being taken
seriously. But cheap flights, globalisation and the mounting cost of train
travel have made aviation by far the fastest growing source of carbon dioxide
in the UK.
Emissions from UK aviation have increased by nearly 70%
since 1990 and rose by 11% in 2004 alone. While they amount to less than 3% of
national carbon emissions, expected growth will nearly double this within 25
years.
In addition, aviation is the most highly polluting mode of
transportation on earth, and its low share of total emissions hides the fact
that the complex chemical reactions that take place when aviation fuel is
burned at high altitude make emissions from aeroplanes nearly four times as
damaging as those at ground level.
The government is in a double bind. While it is committed to
cutting overall UK carbon dioxide emissions by 60% between 1990 and 2050, its
own research states that this will be impossible if aviation is allowed to
carry on expanding. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research estimated
last year that aviation emissions could account for up to half of the UK's
total emissions target by 2050, cancelling out savings made by individuals and
other industrial sectors.
The Department for Transport has also been found to have
been underestimating UK aviation emissions by not including non-scheduled
flights in its estimates, and by maintaining that half of all people flying out
of the United Kingdom live abroad, when the real figure is nearer 30%.
While the government insists that aviation should pay for
its environmental costs, it also knows that there is no prospect of any major
technological breakthrough that will significantly reduce aircraft emissions.
Gradual improvements to fuel and engine efficiency are the best that can be
hoped for.
Friends of the Earth estimates that a 1.2% a year reduction
in aviation emissions is possible, but this is nowhere near enough to counter
the current growth in UK passengers of 6.4% a year. If Britons continue to fly
as the Department for Transport forecasts, the number of passengers will
increase from 228 million today to 465 million by 2030.
The aviation industry says that it is up to the government
to ensure that domestic policy initiatives encourage greater investment in
cleaner technology. In theory, the EU's carbon trading scheme may allow
aviation giants to buy allocations of emissions from poorer nations. But as the
Stern report on the economics of climate change made clear in the autumn, the
international nature of aviation also makes the choice of carbon pricing
instrument complex. Internationally coordinated taxes are difficult to
implement, and International Civil Aviation Organisation rules prohibit the
levying of fuel tax on fuel carried on international services.
Meanwhile, the government is under growing grassroots attack
for allowing train ticket prices to rise sharply just when it should be trying
to encourage people to switch from aviation, and for encouraging the growth of
nearly all Britain's main airports. Last month the transport secretary, Douglas
Alexander, announced that he would allow airports to keep growing, infuriating
local communities who fear increased noise, traffic, pollution and stress. The
government's insistence that cheap flights are democratising air travel has
also been demolished by figures from the Civil Aviation Authority which show
that the average income of UK leisure passengers at cheap flight hub Stansted
is more than £50,000.
Tuesday, 15 October, 2002, 11:49 GMT 12:49 UK
The high price of low-cost airlines
By Jonathan Duffy
BBC News Online
Cheap flights could be about to get cheaper still, thanks to
Easyjet's bargain deal for 120 new aeroplanes. But not everyone's happy -
cut-price air travel is costing the Earth dear.
Booking a low-cost flight is seldom as cheap as the headline
figure, with taxes, handling fees and surcharges. But there's one fee you won't
find on your ticket - the cost to the planet.
Cheap air fares have broadened our travel horizons and
spawned a trend for weekend breaks in exotic locations, but for the environment
it is proving a nightmare.
Burn rate: Air travel produces more carbon dioxide per km
travelled for each passenger than car travel
Passengers: Numbers passing through UK airports expected to
double to 400m by 2030
Expansion: Plans are afoot to expand Britain's airports and
maybe build new ones, but firm decisions have not yet been made
Source: Aviation and Global Climate Change report
Air travel is growing globally at about 5% a year and by
2030 the number of Britons flying is expected to more than double.
At the forefront of this revolution are the low-cost,
no-frills carriers such as Ryanair, Easyjet and Buzz, which are growing at a
phenomenal rate.
In June, Easyjet passenger numbers were up more than 50% on
the same month last year. Ryanair increased by 34% and Go saw an incredible 72%
rise.
The lesson learned from these airlines, especially post-11
September, is as clear as it is simple - the cheaper your fares, the more
people will fly.
The result has been a price war which has sucked in flag
carriers such as British Airways.
Now Easyjet is promising further price slashing, following
its deal to buy 120 new planes. The company claims to have secured such a good
deal, it will pass on cost-savings to passengers.
All of which is great news for holidaymakers, who account
for almost three-quarters of air passengers.
Easyjet plane
120 more in the pipeline
But if air travel is allowed to grow unchecked in this way,
it will spell disaster for the planet, say environmentalists.
More flights mean bigger, busier airports, which in turn
means more noise and growing problems with air quality for those who live and
work close to airports.
But perhaps the biggest concern is the effect on global
warming. Burning aviation fuel releases carbon dioxide (CO2) into the
environment, causing the Earth to heat up.
Clouding the issue
And aircraft burn a lot - one return flight from the United
Kingdom to Florida produces, per passenger, as much CO2 as a year's driving by
the average British motorist, according to environmental campaign groups.
Check-in
One thing is for sure - longer queues
Flying also releases nitrogen oxides and sulphur oxides, and
even the vapour trails - contrails - left by planes are thought to be a hazard.
It's been suggested that they add to the insulating effect of cirrus clouds on
our climate.
The problem for environmentalists is that while efforts are
being made to cut CO2 emissions from cars and industry, nothing is being done
to rein in the airlines.
While travellers in the UK do pay an Airport Passenger Tax,
there is no tax on aviation fuel, which allows airlines to be wasteful. Also,
no VAT is charged on airline tickets.
Expectations raised
The situation is unsustainable, says Simon Bishop, who is
about to publish a report on sustainable aviation.
Stansted
Stansted is planning for 10m more passengers
"Lower prices have raised people's expectations - we
now all want to fly abroad for a short break, and do so several times a year.
But the government is doing nothing to inform people of the environmental
impact of flying," says Mr Bishop, of the Institute of Public Policy
Research.
The tax advantages mean that, in effect, the aviation
industry is being subsidised to the tune of about £6bn a year in the UK, he
says.
In 1992, 3.5% of global warming was attributed to flying,
yet by 2050 the UN thinks this will rise to 7%. Optimists, including Easyjet,
pin their hopes on technology to make planes more efficient.
Easyjet is developing an environmental policy "based on
buying new aircraft".
Petrol pump
You pay tax at the pump, but airlines don't
"This will mean our planes are more efficient, quieter
and have less environmental impact," said a company spokeswoman.
But progress here is being outstripped by the growth in
passenger demands, says Mr Bishop. The result is that air travel will undo much
of the good work done by the Kyoto protocol to curb pollution elsewhere.
Easyjet also says rather than expanding the air travel
market, it is attracting many passengers who would normally use other airlines.
And it rejects the idea of a tax on aviation fuel, saying passengers are
already pay through the airport tax.
But if the environmental lobby get their way, in future we
could be taking a few more holidays at home. Skegness anyone?
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário