Jeremy Leggett Stirs Up the Aviation Debate
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA 
on 04.15.07
It seems we aren’t the only ones to stir up vehement debate every time we mention the growth of aviation as a climate risk. The Guardian is once again covering this issue, with John Vidal, the paper’s environment correspondent, attacking Ryanair’s plans for cheap transatlantic flights costing as little as £7 (US$14). Vidal also criticizes the UK and EU governments for failing to address airline growth while claiming to be serious about reversing climate change. Meanwhile Jeremy Leggett (whom we interviewed here), explains why he is asking his employees to boycott Ryanair:
“If by 2010, knowing what we know now about the climate change threat, airlines are allowed to grow to the point where under the "open skies" agreement there are cheap day trips to Manhattan, we can forget about our children enjoying anything approaching civilisation. Global warming will be on course to wash across economies and ecosystems like a host of invading armies. Indeed, our species may end up deserving a very scathing headstone from any future space traveller who happens upon the rubble. Airline emissions may be small now, compared with all the other sources. But even if we succeed in cutting emissions from power, land transport and all the other big sources, projected airline growth drowns out a good deal of the benefit.”
Of course it didn’t take long for the comments box to start filling up. Some readers were supportive of Leggett’s stance:
"An obvious example of why business, and free market economics, will be of little use in preventing climate change,"
However, others were much less sympathetic. A choice selection is included below:
“Go back to Russia.”
“Another lecture from a holier-than-thou puritan. I suspect his employees aren't allowed to run a car as a condition of employment. When China starts worrying about 'Climate Change' then so will I.”
“This is an incredible mixture of pomposity, self importance and hysteria. If I had any employees I would be asking them not to buy anything from solarcentury, whatever that is. I'm sure it's done much less to increase the sum total of human happiness than Ryan Air.”It seems aviation and climate change is a subject that stirs up passionate debate wherever it is covered. And we thought it was just us...
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Build a Greenhouse without Going Broke
- Forget Going Green Because It's the Right Thing to Do—Go Green to Make Your Neighbors Jealous
- UFO Sighting in VA Makes Us Ask: Could We Just Move to Another Planet?
- Trust Stella McCartney: Meat-Free Mondays are Hip, not Hippie!
- 5 Ways Climate Change Will Affect Your Health, Plus How to Cope
- How to Cure Green Apathy in Friends and Family
While Global Warming is something very bad, global air travel is something very good. Air travel has brought cultures and people together in unimaginable way compared to before it's existance.
As far as I'm concerned it is one of the greatest achievements of man. The fact that the world is so much closer today than ever was is one of the greatest achievements of man.
Quite frankly, its so good and worth while its even worth drowning over.
I agree, this hysteria needs to chill. Aviation clearly has negative externalities, but overall it's a good thing. The best solution is to just let the dang price of petrol rise so that people fly less and that it's more of a special treat. If we didn't spend half our tax dollars fighting wars to keep the price of oil down, the problem would probably go away.
BY the way RyanAir is by far the worst airline in the world, and after taxes and fees I can guarantee you that $14 trip will be more like $300. Still cheap as dirt, but wait till you experience the service on board!
Air travel, as many socially positive aspects it may have, still plays a special part in the whole climate change debate as we litereally dump the stuff where it can cause the most harm.
Comments like "when China does, I will" is just utterly childish.
I think that people will soon wake up to the fact that flying is no longer glamourous--after an initial thrill it becomes apparent that it's actually a hellish experience, and the world is becoming more homogeneous anyway--people will easily adapt to a more sparing flying regime. Family and the like. People will soon discover that there's much more value in a well-thought-out, value-added "local" vacation than a faux-cheap weekend flight.
Shouldn't we be hastening this day?
Once it happens, it will be hard to argue that global warming is unimportant?
After the crops stop growing and the ice sheets melt, the population surely would be lowered substantially.
Then the Earth can heal. Those who adapt and survive will surely have a better planet because of it.
Preventing global warming is not the answer. Hastening it is.
Air travel is species suicide or maybe genocide THEN suicide. There is no possible way that sustained levels of air travel can be justified in the face of Global Warming.
Ultimately reducing emissions will be about reducing consumption. Already climate change is killing people in marginal climates and rendering the livelihoods of many others moot.
When the wealthy take their vanity trips around the planet they are sentancing others to death as surely as if they shot towards a crowd of people where you can't distinguish the individuals. The fact that it is generally northern white people who fly and southern brown peoples who will die due to warming makes the injustice all the more galling.
I got mine is no excuse for killing others.
You're right, we should stop cheap airtravel and stop letting those brown people fly to attend western universities in an effort to stop them from becoming successful and wealthy. After all, to stop global warming we need to stop people from becoming successful.
Alternative BIofuel for Jets
Air traffic as such is a good thing, as the fuel consumption per mile and passenger is lower than a Prius. Problem is that the exhaust occurs at 30,000 feet height....
The airline industry is very much aware of the problem and is seriously working on solutions.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13427343/
Unfortunately all tests with the alternative fuels for cars went dead for jets. Ethanol is too heavy and has too little BTUs, biodiesel starts solidifying at too high temperatures and hydrogen requires a totally new generation of planes and is difficult and dangerous to handle.
There seems to be a new solution on the horizon - real jet fuel from waste and cellulosic materials - not cellulosic ethanol).
http://www.energy-visions.com/C_our_company.htm
These guys have an interesting approach to the problem of feedstock availability. They don`t use corn or canola, but organic waste and trash.
If this venture succeeds and is/becomes economically viable, we may have an intelligent solution for air AND road travel - carbon neutral fuel from waste material.
Ttrash we have enough in the US.
Ok, Anonymous (#2) I assume you've done the following: abandoned the frivolous habit of heating your house, sold your car and started a campaign to have the local roads pulled up, started a boycott of George Monbiot (he doesn't advertise it loudly, but he HAS recently flown), restricted yourself to "green" electricity, and foregone most manufactured and packaged products. (And meat, can't forget that) Because if flying equals genocide, then so does (non-solar) home heating, running a car, buying large amounts of manufactured/packaged products, or generally taking any significant part in the global economy does as much or more damage as aviation.
Now, let's address the real meat of the issue. Aviation pollutes far less than the driving millions of us do. We know that. It pollutes less than home heating, less than most manufacturing, and a lot less than industrial agriculture. The real clue to our disagreement lies in your statement, which I quote here:
You state that you consider travel "vanity"; I consider it essential, one of the central physical, emotional, and spiritual activities of my life. Do I consider the personal and collective benefits of air travel more than offsets the 3% contribution it makes to global warming? Absolutely. Even if you buy George Monbiot's pessimistic assmptions, we could cut our emissions by 90% and still preserve air travel with very little change.The last time I spoke about making responsible decisions about air travel on this forum, I got someone saying they agreed with that part of my post but no other. So this time, I'll phrase my comment more carefully; we can talk about the sensible use of air travel. We can talk about setting priorities, getting the least carbon and the most benefit out of every single flight. But we have to start with two understandings:
I applied for a job at SolarCentury and they did make it clear that you are encouraged to use a car as little as possible, so boycotting a particular airline is hardly revolutionary.
A little bit of flying doesn't do much harm - but everyone expecting cheap flights to wherever they please IS decadent
"You're right, we should stop cheap airtravel and stop letting those brown people fly to attend western universities in an effort to stop them from becoming successful and wealthy. After all, to stop global warming we need to stop people from becoming successful. "
That's a straw man. I think that very few people will argue against flying once every few years to get something as important as an university degree. The main problem is all the flying just to go on a quick vacation in some tourist trap or whatever.
See the ad's in today's UK newspapers. They are also on http://www.enoughsenough.org
Apparently UK citizens' flights are already almost 20% of the UK total climate damage.
If, as the UK Gov says, they are setting out to set an example for the developing world, then this is the worst possible example.
On top of this their Gov wants to triple passenger numbers from the UK. If their goal is to reduce emissions from their economy by 60%, then aviation growth is clearly going to wipe out any gains.
They don't include aviation in their targets.