Babs 2 Brisbane - Taking a Stand on Air Travel

Oh boy - you guys are really stuck on this one.

Whether she got on that flight, or on those trains, those planes and trains would still be going and still be consuming energy. Her weight and baggage consumes very little extra energy on those modes.

So, to "save" energy and greenhouse gases (which aren't being saved in reality), everyone should rip out 6 weeks of their life?

Ridiculous. Ridiculous. Ridiculous.

This whole line of false demonization of air travel is a REALLY bad idea. Brings out all the bad stereotypes of greenies.

I just recently made the Move from Toronto Ontario to Victoria B.C. and I opted to go by bus instead of by plane. It took three days and I didn't get much sleep but I did document the trip and saw the country by ground. I've got lots of pictures of environmental devastation throughout the whole country including monoculture tree plantings, huge lakes of salt in the praries and clearcuts in the mountains and rockies and even some pictures of oil in the ocean from the recent oil spill. Was really eye opening and I suggest that anyone who wants to travel across the country do it by ground.

We're stuck on what? People who make choices, and act on them, believing them to cause less harm. Sure we're stuck on them. Are they always right? No. Are they motivated by the greater good, or personal gratification? It would seem the former. Are they hurting anyone else? No. So why the need to "demonise" them?

Air flight is a market driven business, not a public service. The market is driven purely by supply and demand. Less people choosing to fly will mean less flights. Airlines can't afford to put empty planes in the air. Exactly why airline and tourism businesses staggered immediately after 9/11.

Strange how a transcontinental journey might be construed as ripping weeks from one's life. Some might see it as more of a cultural adventure, than that received by sitting for 26 hours in a pressurised cocoon, seeing little but cloud, and transit lounges.

But hey, someone has a different point of view to ours, so let's take the opportunity to ridicule them. Anonymously.

‘The carbon dioxide from air travel is one of the biggest single contributors to climate change,’ said Babs. link

Oh really?

Here are all the things which put out more CO2 than air travel:

Power Generation (29.5%)
Industrial Sector (14.7%)
Road Transportation (14.3%)
Residential, Commercial, and Other (11.3%)
Biomass Burning -Deforestation, Direct Effects (9.2%)
Other Transportation Sector- refineries, coke ovens, gas works, etc (7.4%)
Non-energy Use and Chemical Feedstocks (3.1%)
Building Materials (2.8%)

link

Together, those account for 92.2% of net global CO2 emissions.

Air transport -- which includes freight, military, and other non-travel applications -- accounts for 2.2%

Are they hurting anyone else? No.

I beg to differ.

One of the biggest problems with the environmental movement over the years has been its unrealistic, preachy approach to things. A tendency towards strong-handed, regressive approaches (as Babs is beautifully exemplifying here in the year 2006).

Do you not realize how destructive it is to flog something meaningless like this? How many people are going to stop flying compared to the number who will point at this and say, "See? Not only are those treehuggers irrational, they want all of us to live in little huts without electricity and water (as Babs apparently does) and stop using modern technology (like planes)."

That does a heck of a lot of damage to perpetuate that image of being concerned for the environment. I deal with having to make excuses for that kind of weak-minded, strong-handed, regressive approach all the time. Most of the time I simply avoid telling people that something I'm working on helps the environment, lest they consider me a bleeding heart who can't think.

Strange how a transcontinental journey might be construed as ripping weeks from one's life. Some might see it as more of a cultural adventure, than that received by sitting for 26 hours in a pressurised cocoon, seeing little but cloud, and transit lounges.

That's great. Does that make you feel good to wax poetic like that? How many people can take 6 weeks out of their life every time they need to go somewhere far away?

It's one thing to have a personal adventure, and perhaps feel there's some tangible benefit to the world in doing it (though, again, her action doesn't do squat for the planet and arguably hurts it if she takes little jitneys and cabs along the way). Not to mention the cost of lodging, eating out, and so forth, that comes with a long journey.

There's absolutely no application of this to people on a larger scale, and in and of itself it has dubious environmental benefits, if any.

But hey, someone has a different point of view to ours, so let's take the opportunity to ridicule them. Anonymously.

It has nothing to do with a "point of view". Air travel is a minor contributor to global warming. This is a FACT, contrary to what Babs and you think. It is also a FACT that those planes and trains go whether she's on them or not. So, again, the global warming impact from her choice is NIL.

The fact that you need to lash out at me personally (we're all anonymous, "warren") instead of dealing with the subject just demonstrates that you really have no rational argument to hold up your position.

I apologize. That last part came off poorly, but I really dislike it when someone reaches for an ad hominem attack instead of simply addressing the argument.

It would be nice, too, if Treehugger covered issues in proportion to how much damage or impact they cause, instead of focusing on the trivial outliers.

Have no issue with the notion of 'beg to differ'. A variety of viewpoints leads to better understanding. (Thanks for the later links and the stats.) My response was mostly focused on the less than polite manner used to denigrate one individual's choice to pursue her convictions.

Nowhere did we say Babs had nailed this issue – cancel your plane flights everyone. We're not 'flogging' the story, it's the first time it has appeared here. Sure, we've mentioned air travel before, and as with most TreeHugger posts, we rarely pass them off as being the definite statements on any issue. Nor did we in this instance. Indeed we referenced the previous debate, so readers could see that there are alternative views to Babs.

The only position that I feel a need to argue here, is to respect others who hold a contrary viewpoint.

On reading of Bab's plans, one could say, "Ridiculous. Ridiculous. Ridiculous." Or maybe, "I admire her passion on this issue, but I think her understanding may be flawed, and here are my reasons for thinking this:"

My preferred response is obvious, but no doubt some will think my reasoning also flawed. They are welcome to their (polite) opinion.

A real Warren.
________________
Addendum: Thanks on behalf of TH for the apology. A brave and rare thing in our comments. Too often debates get heated and personal. Apologies if my initial response was taken as a "lashing." I'm bored with the lack of courtesy shown on the net, my final comment was not intended to be 'an attack on the (wo)man', more a general expression of this frustration.

TreeHugger would love to do more in-depth pieces, but our writing contributions are more as 'filters', than as investigative journalists, or researchers. TH is free service, funded in small part by advertising. The resources are simply not there to spend the time going deeper. That said, we do have something exciting coming up, which will hopefully go part way to addressing those concerns.

On reading of Bab's plans, one could say, "Ridiculous. Ridiculous. Ridiculous."

Sorry for that, too. That was referring to the "planes are bad" meme, specifically with respect to global warming, not a personal attack upon her.

I've noted a certain bias against air travel from TH in the past ("flying is dying"). First off I'd like to put my bias on the table: I'm a private pilot. I love flying and I minimize my footprint by flying gliders (though the tow to altitude does require power). I have no economic interest in aviation (in fact to me it's an expense) and no hidden agenda. Nor, in fact, do I think TH does or even TH contributors.

But I've been around a while and I've noted a certain kind of person simply hates flying and aircraft. 40 years ago their rethorical weapon might have been the danger of flight. Today it's CO2.

The reason this matters beyond it being a pet interest of mine is that aviation today is the primary mode of international transport, and we live in a world where international relationships are ever more important, while strong reactionary forces are working hard to make people more insular and xenophobic.

It is my hope that such people receive no aid from the environmental movement, and much less so when what is at stake is at best 2% of all the CO2 output in the world, and when no equivalent replacement is available for overseas flights.

It is plain as day that normal working people simply cannot take six weeks off to make a trip. It would be nice if we could, but we can't. So this idea is simply not useful. The point of TH, in my view, is to present useful solutions, not to take us back to the 14th century.

A second point is that offsets are precisely the solution for this kind of problem, where no near-term alternative is available. Offsets should not be seen as a free pass to waste energy, but as a needed compromise for some things our technology has not yet found replacement for.

I'd also like to note that within aviation there are significant options which can make a difference. For instance, it is now becoming popular among the rich to use private jet aircraft, which may consume some 80 to 200 gallons an hour, in order to avoid airport lines and security. On the other hand, some small aircraft manufacturers have adopted diesel engines, achieving performance in the order of 30 MPG. Since aircraft travel in a straight line, this is equivalent to about 40 MPG by land, or more, without requiring environmentally costly roads to travel on or tires to wear.

Aircraft, even jet aircraft, can also in principle run on specially formulated biodiesel and work should be encouraged in this area. Hydrogen is also a possibility further out, and would be key to reducing pollution in the upper atmosphere.

Should TH publish articles such as this? That's up to you. But what I think is definitely wrong is for all air travel coverage to have the same message on TH, which is "BAD". There is a lot more to this story.

It seems to me that Babs had a third alternative: politely declining to attend the wedding. That would have saved time, money, and petroleum. We have been conditioned by the ubiquity of air travel to travel long distances on a regular basis. One sea change that would have a great - positive - effect on our environment would be for folks to stay closer to home, traveling by plane or train or bus or car rarely if ever, and walking or biking or skateboarding or rollerblading around town.

And don't get me started on the wedding industry, which has caused countless otherwise sane people to feel justified in inviting 300 of their closest friends to travel long distances and buy expensive gifts to commemorate their marriage. I bet that if weddings were scaled back to small, informal affairs, that alone would have a significant impact on global warming!

Nevertheless, it will cause less CO2 emissions for Babs to travel by land and sea, rather than air. That's a good thing, although obviously minor in one case.

It also highlights the issue of CO2 emissions in relation to air travel - which is a highly significant one - seeking to reduce your carbon footprint in other areas of life is pointless if you fly, even infrequently.

She's made the point that this is a very special occasion for her - hence the travel. I don't think she's seriously suggesting that a) We should all travel long distances as frequently as we like AND b) We should take six weeks to do so each time. Rather, it's an argument for really considering why we travel as well as how.

Finally, well, if she lives in a caravan with no electricity, so what? She's a person, not a political statement, and is entitled to live how she likes.

Just who are you 'anonymous'? And why do you always pop up immediately after the airplane subject is mentioned? Would it be unreasonable to assume you are linked to the air industry somehow???

So if she didn't get on that plane, it would have flown anyway? (FACT) Well of course, but to use that as a justification for it's perpetuation is obviously short-sighted. If enough people had her viewpoint, the plane wouldn't fly. You make it sound like the consumer and the airline are helpless pawns in this game. Maybe in the short-term they are, but if the pollution problem is as bad as we are told then we can't blindly bow down to capitalist 'realities'. That really would be ridiculous, ridiculous, ridiculous.

So air travel only accounts for 2.2% of CO2 emissions? (FACT) Well considering most of the other things on your list are connected to everyday requirements, or living, and a lot of air travel is occasional and simply for pleasure I would say it has a disproportional impact. And of course, it's growing. In my view speed of travel, and our increasing reliance on high speed, is accelerating the pollution problems we have today. What you don't have, you don't miss, but Air travel is a sector that proves the psychological flow of Luxury-Habit-Need better than most technologies. I'm sure we could all justify reasons to travel at 2000 mph around the globe - gee, wouldn't it be convenient. But unfortunately the laws of physics dictate that KE=½mv². This means that to go fast, the amount of energy required ramps up dramatically. Why do you think Concorde was deemed uneconomical to fly?

It's the same thinking that deems driving 2½ tons of metal 50 miles a day at 80mph in a 2% efficient machine just to put bread on the table 'normal' (FACT). I got rid of my car because I realised it was self-indulgent, and I didn't want to perpuate such an inefficient, brute force approach. The only other creatures that attempt 10,000 mile air journeys are migrating birds, and somehow they do it on a few berries. Jet planes may be big, but they ain't all that clever.

Maybe you live a life that depends on air travel, maybe your family are widely scattered - that is fair enough. But do you ever really think about the oil required to allow this to happen? And the repercussions of burning it? If you can get yourself a renewably powered plane, that works off current solar income, then great, fly as far as you want. Till then, don't say it's insignificant.

And put at least some sort of name in the box - you're not being fair on the other Anons out there.

MV is fairly anonymous too. There is no link to a email or website so why are you complaining? Planes are very efficient when cruising. Take off and landing they are not. I have a hard time believing that boats, buses and trains have less CO2 impact also. Sure the worlds most efficient engine is a huge marine engine, but it is on a container ship. What did she ride? Was it a cruise ship? The over indulgences in those would surely outweigh a plane flight. And focusing solely on CO2 is a bit shortsighted. What about NOx and particulates expelled by all the diesel?

Seriously, who has six weeks to travel? I have a job that gives me ONE week of vacation, so wherever I go is going to be by plane. I applaud her convictions and determination to take a stand for what she believes in, but I think it's a little misguided to make air travel the poster child for environmental abuse. There's no question that planes emit pollution, but I think they probably have a lot less emissions per person than the same number of people travelling by car or train. And, even better, since you're flying you're not taking roads or rail, which fragment habitat and threaten forests. Perhaps a better tack would be to push the airline industry to put out more efficient and lower-emission airplane designs and creating smaller footprints for airports.

Nevertheless, it will cause less CO2 emissions for Babs to travel by land and sea, rather than air.

No, it won't. Every shared mode she is using will go regardless of whether she personally uses it or not. You also have to factor in the fact that she'll probably be using small connector vehicles (like taxis) along the way - more so than if she simply went by air. That's a marginal use of fuel which wouldn't occur if she didn't make the trip.

It also highlights the issue of CO2 emissions in relation to air travel - which is a highly significant one

Well, since all of air transport accounts for 2.2% of CO2 emissions, and personal air travel is a subset of that, I really wonder how that can be construed as "highly significant".

Finally, well, if she lives in a caravan with no electricity, so what? She's a person, not a political statement, and is entitled to live how she likes.

Whoa - she and her organization are definitely making this into a political statement. I've done plenty of road travel in my day instead of by air, but I don't issue press releases about it, or make blogs about it, including how I live my daily life.

---

If enough people had her viewpoint, the plane wouldn't fly.

Yeah, and you think harping on some minor contributor to global warming by someone who personifies the "hippy" image of those who care about the environment is going to make a whole bunch of people stop flying? Please join reality. In reality, such displays will do more harm than good -- which you and others are having trouble processing. Do you honestly believe people are going to, en masse, forgo air travel because of global warming? We could stop all air transport in the world and it wouldn't stop global warming. Wouldn't even come close to it. So do you think people are idiots and don't realize this? Like Alonso was saying, there are no ready, REALISTIC substitutes for air travel - especially over water. If this were actually a major contributor to global warming, then perhaps there'd be a case for it, but it's not, so there isn't. The only thing this meme is going to do is solidify negative stereotypes about treehugger types and thus undercut the cause of making the planet better off.

we can't blindly bow down to capitalist 'realities'

See? There you go. EVIL CAPITALISM. That's exactly what people get out of these sorts of memes. Treehuggers are really just commies who hate the modern world, money, etc. Is that effective or not?

Well considering most of the other things on your list are connected to everyday requirements, or living, and a lot of air travel is occasional and simply for pleasure I would say it has a disproportional impact.

That's your subjecitve assessment. I suppose you've never receieved a package or letter that came via air. Never bought anything that was shipped to your country via air. Never watched news from other countries. Never travelled to other countries. Never made friends with people from other countries. Have all your family within walking distance of your home. No?

It's the same thinking that deems driving 2½ tons of metal 50 miles a day at 80mph in a 2% efficient machine just to put bread on the table 'normal' (FACT). I got rid of my car because I realised it was self-indulgent

Oh, and I guess you stopped riding in buses, trains, and other people's cars, right? Because those are at least 2 1/2 tons and go at least as fast. Or didn't you notice that? As for the "2% efficient" comment -- what does that mean? Is that some bike activist shorthand or something? Energy conversion is between 20-30% efficient for an ICE. So apparently you're also factoring in what's being hauled. What's the numbers for buses, trains, planes, and your friends' cars? At real use, not full capacity.

But do you ever really think about the oil required to allow this to happen? And the repercussions of burning it? If you can get yourself a renewably powered plane, that works off current solar income, then great, fly as far as you want. Till then, don't say it's insignificant.

Do I think about these things? I guarantee you I know way more about these things, and have spent far more time thinking about them, then you ever will. Air transport is insignificant with respect to global warming. You can bitch and moan about it all you want, but 2.2% is insignificant, and since personal travel is a subset of that number, it's even more insignificant.

Bravo Anonymous for sticking up for air travel as more than just some "luxury item."

I spent my entire childhood in many different countries, something that wouldn't have been possible if we stuck to the 6-week travel systems of yesteryear, and I really do think I'm so much better for it.

and I find it strange that the people who would pish posh plane flight as a luxury never do it for all the other consumerist goodies featured on this site - swimming pools, handbags, eco-vacations (which, OMG, use planes!!!) and countless other things. I'd say that the aviation industry, for all it's fuel problems, has really served to make the world smaller, to connect things on a global scale and I don't appreciate that the only articles that seem to appear on here are all about how it's EVIL.

There's been a lot of changes in aircrafts to make them much more fuel efficient, why can't you guys report on those?

I commend Babs for doing some deep reflection and consciously thinking about her every day choices (or choices that occur every now and then). I believe that focusing on the Most Good, Least Harm philosophy with respect to everyone (other species, other cultures, the planet, our bodies/health)is a good place to start.

"See? There you go. EVIL CAPITALISM. That's exactly what people get out of these sorts of memes. Treehuggers are really just commies who hate the modern world, money, etc. Is that effective or not?"

Evil??! I think that's your word. I mentioned capitalist 'realities' because I think you were trying to educate me on the laws of supply and demand. Funnily enough increasing amounts of people (Babs here included) are realising that there can be more things to consider than money. If other people think that makes you a 'commie', that's their problem. I don't think your perspective will stand for much longer.

"As for the "2% efficient" comment -- what does that mean? Is that some bike activist shorthand or something?"

Yes!! Err..no. Just take a look here:

http://public.fotki.com/MYMYMYMYMY/green/car_energy_efficiency.html

"So apparently you're also factoring in what's being hauled."

Damn right. Why, do you leave it out? Every mechanical form of transport bar one has the vehicle weighing proportionally more than the passenger:

747 - 0.72 tons per passenger
Car - 0.6 tons
Double-decker bus - 0.18 tons
Scooter - 0.1 tons
the exception:
Bicycle - 0.012 tons

All i'm saying is, no engine powered techology is very efficent. Especially with an ICE. Planes are relatively OK...but then again most people wouldn't plan on driving 10,000 miles in a day in a car...

I can't pretend to not have benefitted from air travel, same thing with car travel, and I can't claim to be holier-than-anyone on this. But I realised blissful ignorance is not an option anymore. All our technologies are fine in moderation, but even if the global warming problem can't be helped much, our transport is still massively resource intensive.

So, in summation, let's all ride bikes and stop flying in planes, driving in cars, etc.

Good luck with that.

And to you.

Every creature needs to rest. Giraffes, little babies, elephants, dogs, cats, kids, koala bears, grandparents, moms, dads, and hippos in the jungle - they all sleep! Just like eating, sleep is necessary for survival. WBR LeoP