Summer Holidays
For most of us summer holidays are a fading memory. As the evenings draw in
we begin to think about next year, dreaming of sun-kissed beaches and exotic
locations. Or how about a winter break; Christmas shopping in Prague or a
romantic weekend for two in Venice? The world is our oyster. Air travel has
never been cheaper or easier; it is now possible to fly to Dublin for less than
the cost of the taxi to the airport! Flying has become the equivalent of
catching a bus and, for many, it has become the preferred way of getting from A
to B.
On the other hand, if you take a flight from
to Sydney you personally will produce as much carbon dioxide (the
green-house gas contributing most to global warming) as the average car does in
an entire year: the rule of thumb being that, for every passenger
aboard, a plane produces as much carbon dioxide as a car covering the same
distance. Commercial aviation is growing at seven per cent per year and it has
been estimated that, even if the growth in air travel were halved, the rest of
the economy would need to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2050, far more
than the government’s target of 60% (a target we’re already failing to meet),
just to compensate. In other words we would have to become carbon neutral in
almost every other aspect of our lives.
What is going on? Well the simple answer is that it’s all a bit of a muddle.
For a start the impact of highflying aircraft on the atmosphere is complex and
confusing. The role of carbon dioxide is fairly well understood; it stays in the
atmosphere for an average of a hundred years, which is why the damage we have
already done will take at least that long to stabilize and why it is so
important not to add to the problem. As well as carbon dioxide, however, planes
also emit water vapour, nitric and sulphur oxides, methane and soot. The
familiar condensation trails (contrails) we see in the sky are ice crystals
formed in the dry upper atmosphere. How much they contribute to global warming
isn’t clear. Nor is the exact impact of the nitric and sulphur oxides that, in
some circumstances, produce greenhouse gases and, in others, may actually reduce
them. However, a scientific consensus is emerging and suggests that
the total effect of all aircraft emissions is two to
five times greater than that of carbon dioxide alone (although the
other chemicals emitted remain in the atmosphere for far shorter periods). Not
good news.
And then there’s the politics and economics of the situation. Because flying
crosses national boundaries and takes place in the world’s commons (the
atmosphere, which isn’t ‘owned’ by any government), its impacts are usually
conveniently ignored when nations look at their greenhouse gas emissions. It is
also a fuel intensive service (as opposed to the more labour intensive
railways – which currently produce a third of the
pollution per passenger kilometer but could be run from entirely
renewable sources of energy) and, as long as aviation fuel remains untaxed (the
UN body, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, forbids any country to
impose a kerosene tax) it will enjoy an unfair advantage over other forms of
transport. There is no VAT on tickets and many international airports are seen
as symbols of national prestige and heavily subsidised as a consequence. A
combination of cheapness and aggressive advertising by budget airlines ensures
that occupancy levels are at a level railways and buses can only dream of.
It is a recipe for uncontrolled growth leading inevitably to the
environmental and noise damage associated with building new airports, as well as
the cultural impact of tourism on indigenous cultures around the world. And the
debt driven nature of globalisation, coupled with the need for the world economy
to keep growing to service it, means that this situation isn’t about to change
any time soon.
There are, however, chinks of light. The European Union is considering
proposals for a variable landing charge based on the length of an incoming
flight and the levels of greenhouse gases emitted. Soaring oil prices and doubts
about the security of supplies are causing airlines considerable pricing
headaches that can only result in higher fares.
At the end of the day, however, it comes down to
individuals and the choices we each make. We are in a uniquely
privileged position. In the entire history of the human race there has never
been the combination of general wealth coupled with the sheer range of choice
(provided by technology) that we in the West enjoy today. If we are to ensure
that something like that quality of life is available to our children and
grandchildren then we must accept that with that power comes responsibility. We
must begin to take stock of the way we live and the burning of fossil fuels is
one of the places we must start. We all need holidays but they shouldn’t
and needn’t cost the earth. The decisions we each make today will impact on the
future. The choice is ours.
Go to top
What you can do
As with any form of travel that releases greenhouse gases the first question
to ask is "is our journey really necessary?"
If the answer is ‘yes’ then we should try
and choose the method with the least impact;
flying will usually come at the bottom of the list.
If there is no practical alternative to taking a
plane then there are steps that can be taken to
mitigate the damage. Web sites such as Future
Forests (www.futureforests.com)
provide a way of offsetting the carbon dioxide emitted
through carbon neutral forestry and climate friendly energy projects;
a carbon neutral calculator estimates the number of trees you should plant for
the journey you are taking (you might wish to plant your trees locally via
www.redroseforest.co.uk).
You could also investigate the possibilities of ethical and sustainable travel
at
www.ethical-junction.com and click on “Transport and Travel”.
Go to top
