'Take the Train', or 'Screw Them, Let's Fly'? - Guardian Vs Spurt
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA on 03.23.07
Discussion of aviation always seem to provoke a heated debate among Treehuggers (our post on George Monbiot’s views received 80 comments!). It appears the issue is not going to go away, at least if the climate in the UK is anything to go by. Spurt (who we previously covered here) have been at it again, taking out full-page ads in national newspapers, and a billboard on the main railway approach to Heathrow Airport, declaring their motto “Screw Global Warming. Let’s Fly.” They have also been questioning government and industry figures on the true climate impact of aviation, claiming it may be as high as 18.5% of the UK’s emissions footprint. Meanwhile, for those wishing to avoid flying, there are alternatives.
The Guardian recently published a list of 50 plane-free holidays. It includes some very sensible suggestions. Incredibly though, given the article’s focus on ethics, many of it’s top choices involved extended cruises as an alternative, with no mention of previous discussions in the same newspaper of the equally horrendous footprint of cruise liners. For those who are really serious about reducing their travel footprint, we would recommend the train wherever possible (some research suggests that the train from London to Paris, for example, emits 10 times less CO2 than the equivalent flight). Excellent information on global train travel can always be found at Seat 61 (covered, of course, by Treehugger here and here). Keeping it local would be even more effective in avoiding emissions, so why not unplug the phone and tell everyone you're in Barbados? We won't tell...
SPURT is amusing, but it comes worryingly close to reality sometimes. Michael O'Leary (Mr Ryanair) recently refuted criticism of budget airlines in Europe with regard to climate change. He went so far as to claim that Ryanair was the greenest airline in Europe as they are investing in aircraft which reduce emissions by 50%. That sounds fantastic until one realises he was combining the reduction in CO2 emissions with a reduction in engine noise to produce his 50% figure.
Read here:
http://www.rte.ie/business/2007/0105/ryanair.html
And follow the link at the top to listen to interview where he makes the claim on the News at One
Speaking of facts, I would like to see a specific assessment of all the greenhouse gas sources to determine whether or not the common assertion by the anti-travel and NIMBY movements, that aviation has the fastest-rising greenhouse gas emissions of any industry.
Read Michael O'Larey, CEO of Ryanair, retract his lies here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6310571.stm
Excuse me, but this seems like a pretty manufactured "lie" to me. If the airline has cut emissions by 50% per passenger, it suggests either that (a) RyanAir operated some very dirty planes before buying the new ones, or (b) RyanAir has realised some very significant efficiencies, which should change the way we frame the debate, or (c) RyanAir still hasn't come close to revealing the truth about its emissions.
Aviation provides enormous benefits. If we can obtain these benefits without incurring unacceptable costs, we ought to. We should at the very least ensure we get the truth about the effect of technological change, and make policy based on the facts.
The issue with aviation isn't the efficiency of its aircraft, it's the expansion of aircrafts, enabling more flights
Even if the airlines increased the efficiency of their aircraft by 50%, it still wouldn't eliminate the fact that expansion (in the UK) is set to triple, therefore wiping out any gains and still increasing emissions significantly.
The aviation industry will be lucky to achieve gains of 1% - 2% per annum in efficiency.
The aviation industry should be on a trajectory to reduce emissions by 60%, like the rest of us, not eliminating any chance we have to tackle climate change.
John Spragge - What enormous benefits does aviation provide us with? Curious to gather the views that are out there. Thanks.
Who wrote that every sector of the economy has to make the same carbon reductions? That strikes me as a highly irrational position. Surely if one sector can make reductions more easily than others, then it makes sense for that sector to make them. If a sector, such as aviation, cannot easily reduce its footprint beyond a certain point, then it makes sense to balance the reductions in aviation we cannot make against those, in other sectors, that we can.
It bears repeating, once again, that all aviation emissions fall under the most pessimistic baseline proposed by people such as George Monbiot. In other words, we could keep aviation completely unchanged, and still reduce our civilisation's output of greenhouse gasses by 90%. The standard complaint of the anti-aviation, anti-travel, and NIMBY movements relate to the supposed future of aviation. Its status as consumer of 1-3% of the world's fossil fuels makes it a less urgent threat than agriculture, cars, cargo ships, and home furnaces. If the CEO of RyanAir has indeed managed to reduce his emissions by 50% per passenger, then he can double his passenger load without emitting another kilo of CO2. If (a big if) airlines do achieve efficiencies of that magnitude, that has to affect the claim that aviation provides the "fastest growing" source of greenhouse gasses. I would just like to see some arguments based on hard facts and figures. Before we throw out the highly beneficial (and magnificent human) achievement of aviation, I'd like to have the hard facts, not insupportable hyperbole such as the claim that maintaining aviation means "eliminating any chance we have to tackle climate change."
As for the benefits of aviation: maybe you should ask George Monbiot what benefit he got out of his visit to Vancouver a year or so ago. I doubt he got there by a slow boat from China. Ask the millions of people who chose to fly last year what benefit they received. I think this discussion has to start by accepting that millions of people have cast their lot with air travel over the years. If anyone has to justify their position, I think the anti-aviation movement ought to, particularly considering the inconsistent stands of many of the people who speak for them, as well as their conspicuous lack o support from either the voters, or the travelling public, or the facts.
I certainly achieved considerable benefits from getting together with my family at a relative's funeral. Aviation knits the world together, makes it possible for different cultures to mix, meet, and cross-fertilize in a way they could not before. It reduces the destructive isolation of small communities around the world, makes delivery of medical services possible (in a huge number of ways; air ambulance, patient transfers, and organ freighting to name the most obvious).
Does that mean we should expand air travel willy-nilly? Of course not. For every proposed application of air travel, we should ask ourselves if we have any good alternative, if the benefits outweigh the costs. In many cases, they do. World's fairs, for example, represent a very dubious application of aviation in the age of the World Wide Web. Aviation between many, perhaps even most European cities already well served by trains has very dubious value. But weighing the advantages and costs of a given application of aviation differs tremendously from the irresponsible calls to shut off air travel.
john spragge is right in saying that, 'For every proposed application of air travel, we should ask ourselves if we have any good alternative, if the benefits outweigh the costs. In many cases, they do'.