Nature Air - The World's Only Zero Emission Airline?
by Warren McLaren, Sydney on 05.16.07
It’s great that the big players can talk about all the great things they are going to do, but sometimes it is the little guys that quietly get off their bums and do something about the issues before them. Nature Air being a case in point. Long before Virgin Airlines announced they were maybe, gonna, look at alternative aviation fuels this tiny little fleet of seven planes walked their talk. They took measurable steps to become, what they term as, ‘the only zero emission airline in the world.’ Last year Outside magazine explained how they went about: “Nature Air first uses its yearly fuel consumption to calculate emissions—some 4,650 tons in 2004. Then, working with the Costa Rican government, it assigns that number a monetary value. Last December, when the company started the project, Nature Air offset its 2004 emissions with a $12,322 investment in reforestation and habitat-protection projects on the Osa Peninsula, one of Central America's most biologically diverse rainforests.” More recently the airline was looking to support alternative energy projects, including ethanol and pig waste (methane, maybe?) as another way of offsetting their client’s travel. They also note that that their fleet of mostly de Havilland Twin Otters, are “acclaimed to be the quietest and most fuel efficient engine option available.” But they do appreciate the very real irony of flying off on nature trips (their staple service) with all the air travel that involves. That’s why the company has been represented at the Global Ecotourism Conference currently underway in Oslo, Norway. "There is no other industry that has more to gain or to lose from climate change," said Alexi Huntley, Marketing Manager. :: Nature Air, via Edmonton Journal.
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- O.A.R. to Headline Campus Consciousness Tour
- GreenBuild: Big Ass Fans
- The Smoke-Free, Nicotine-Free and Now Organic Swedish Snuff
- Top 7 Green Categories of 7 Green Lists of 7 Green Things
First Ever Solar & Wind Powered Cell Network By Motorola
|
Find Your Power: Self-help Addressing Global Issues
|
Are they confusing zero-emissions with carbon-neutral? There is no mention of how they are removing the particulates and other noxious pollutants.
4,650 tons = Zero tons? Hmmm. Maybe everyone should fly more.
Maybe everyone should fly more.
They should. The world would be a better place.
"Are they confusing zero-emissions with carbon-neutral? There is no mention of how they are removing the particulates and other noxious pollutants."
Agreed
When you consider the usual alternatives to eco-tourism, mainly resource extraction, then the effect of this small airline, with or without offsets, actually reduces greenhouse and particulate emissions. As well, the same planes that support eco-tourism also provide access to isolated communities for medical personnel, teachers, and engineers. For isolated small communities, aviation provides far more environmentally friendly access than road building or all-terrain surface vehicles.
People can (and do) legitimately argue against expanding cheap holiday package flights, particularly in the many cases where trains and ships offer a viable alternative. But that does not mean that aviation does not have a legitimate, indeed essential role to play in connecting isolated communities and fostering critical economic development.
No, this is horseshit.
The last thing we of the privileged first world want to give up is air travel. Yet, we must. To think that this airline represents a model that the big airlines can follow is to imagine that they'll just whip out checks for billions of dollars and that will somehow make the contrails and water vapor and kerosene and all the other foul nastiness just d i s a p p e a r.
Air travel is by far the worst way to travel and we're going to either have to realize that, indeed, we may actually have to make sacrifices to save the planet, or we'll continue to ignore the tough subjects like air travel because we're NOT REALLY committed to doing what it takes.
George Monbiot took a lot of, well, heat for his chapter on air travel in his book 'HEAT' but it isn't deserved. He's simply pointing out that we've no other option other than to reduce air travel very, very significantly. Those of us who are hooked on flying rebel at the thought - but ask yourself, what are you really rebelling against? That's right - your personal luxuries being impinged against.
Tough. You either give a damn or you don't. Which is it?
As Monbiot has pointed out in a similar context, the atmosphere does not respond to our hopes, our desires, or our intentions. It only responds to what we put in to it. We make a grave mistake if we cast it as either an indulgent provider or an avenging judge. To put that point another way, only the numbers really matter. So what do the numbers say about the claims Todd Briiliant makes about air travel:
In the aggregate, they refute him quite comprehensively. The total greenhouse gas emissions from aviation come to less then three (or six, depending on what you calculate) percent of the total greenhouse emissions load. If we will indeed need to reduce our greenhouse emissions by 90%, we can keep our flights, but not our cars. If you look at emissions per passenger kilometer, forms of air travel also produce fewer emissions, on average, than road travel, even when you ignore the enormous environmental harm done by building roads and manufacturing hundreds of millions of private cars, and even when you factor in the claims about radiative forcing from contrails, and don't factor in the terawatts of energy roads trap and radiate as heat.
Attacking aviation won't solve our problems with global warming. If we follow the numbers (the only things the atmosphere responds to) we will have to confront our infatuation with the automobile. While we do not have the same need to eliminate the 3% of greenhouse gases emitted by global aviation, we do need to set priorities, and replace air travel with travel by ship where it makes sense to do so. But the use of aviation by an outfit such as Nature Air, in providing services and sustainable economic development opportunities to isolated communities, provides a wholly positive contribution to the environment. They deserve applause, not attacks from people who want to condemn a whole mode of transportation and who don't choose to deal with the real facts and the hard numbers.
As Monbiot has pointed out in a similar context, the atmosphere does not respond to our hopes, our desires, or our intentions. It only responds to what we put in to it. We make a grave mistake if we cast it as either an indulgent provider or an avenging judge. To put that point another way, only the numbers really matter. So what do the numbers say about the claims Todd Briiliant makes about air travel:
In the aggregate, they refute him quite comprehensively. The total greenhouse gas emissions from aviation come to less then three (or six, depending on what you calculate) percent of the total greenhouse emissions load. If we will indeed need to reduce our greenhouse emissions by 90%, we can keep our flights, but not our cars. If you look at emissions per passenger kilometer, forms of air travel also produce fewer emissions, on average, than road travel, even when you ignore the enormous environmental harm done by building roads and manufacturing hundreds of millions of private cars, and even when you factor in the claims about radiative forcing from contrails, and don't factor in the terawatts of energy roads trap and radiate as heat.
Attacking aviation won't solve our problems with global warming. If we follow the numbers (the only things the atmosphere responds to) we will have to confront our infatuation with the automobile. While we do not have the same need to eliminate the 3% of greenhouse gases emitted by global aviation, we do need to set priorities, and replace air travel with travel by ship where it makes sense to do so. But the use of aviation by an outfit such as Nature Air, in providing services and sustainable economic development opportunities to isolated communities, provides a wholly positive contribution to the environment. They deserve applause, not attacks from people who want to condemn a whole mode of transportation and who don't choose to face the real facts and the hard numbers.
As Monbiot has pointed out in a similar context, the atmosphere does not respond to our hopes, our desires, or our intentions. It only responds to what we put in to it. We make a grave mistake if we cast it as either an indulgent provider or an avenging judge. To put that point another way, only the numbers really matter. So what do the numbers say about the claims Todd Briiliant makes about air travel:
In the aggregate, they refute him quite comprehensively. The total greenhouse gas emissions from aviation come to less then three (or six, depending on what you calculate) percent of the total greenhouse emissions load. If we will indeed need to reduce our greenhouse emissions by 90%, we can keep our flights, but not our cars. If you look at emissions per passenger kilometer, forms of air travel also produce fewer emissions, on average, than road travel, even when you ignore the enormous environmental harm done by building roads and manufacturing hundreds of millions of private cars, and even when you factor in the claims about radiative forcing from contrails, and don't factor in the terawatts of energy roads trap and radiate as heat.
Attacking aviation won't solve our problems with global warming. If we follow the numbers (the only things the atmosphere responds to) we will have to confront our infatuation with the automobile. While we do not have the same need to eliminate the 3% of greenhouse gases emitted by global aviation, we do need to set priorities, and replace air travel with travel by ship where it makes sense to do so. But the use of aviation by an outfit such as Nature Air, in providing services and sustainable economic development opportunities to isolated communities, provides a wholly positive contribution to the environment. They deserve applause, not attacks from people who want to condemn a whole mode of transportation and who don't choose to face the real facts and the hard numbers.
So you'll never, ever fly on a plane again, Tod?
As Monbiot has pointed out in a similar context, the atmosphere does not respond to our hopes, our desires, or our intentions. It only responds to what we put in to it. We make a grave mistake if we cast it as either an indulgent provider or an avenging judge. To put that point another way, only the numbers really matter. So what do the numbers say about the claims Todd Briiliant makes about air travel:
In the aggregate, they refute him quite comprehensively. The total greenhouse gas emissions from aviation come to less then three (or six, depending on what you calculate) percent of the total greenhouse emissions load. If we will indeed need to reduce our greenhouse emissions by 90%, we can keep our flights, but not our cars. If you look at emissions per passenger kilometer, forms of air travel also produce fewer emissions, on average, than road travel, even when you ignore the enormous environmental harm done by building roads and manufacturing hundreds of millions of private cars, and even when you factor in the claims about radiative forcing from contrails, and don't factor in the terawatts of energy roads trap and radiate as heat.
Attacking aviation won't solve our problems with global warming. If we follow the numbers (the only things the atmosphere responds to) we will have to confront our infatuation with the automobile. While we do not have the same need to eliminate the 3% of greenhouse gases emitted by global aviation, we do need to set priorities, and replace air travel with travel by ship where it makes sense to do so. But the use of aviation by an outfit such as Nature Air, in providing services and sustainable economic development opportunities to isolated communities, provides a wholly positive contribution to the environment. They deserve applause, not attacks from people who want to condemn a whole mode of transportation and who don't choose to face the real facts and the hard numbers.
they use create-some-space recycling bag hangers in the terminal and hanger.
On Saturday, May 31, I paid a total of $150 (for 2 tickets) to Nature Air for a
June 1 flight from Quepos to San Jose, CR The plane never arrived at the airport and the flight was cancelled. We, along with approx 14 other passengers were refused a refund. I have tried calling numberous times to talk with a "manager" about a refund, but she is always "out"