|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
05 April, 2007 |
Adjust font size:  
|
| |
| ‘Health warning’ call to highlight airlines' impact on environment |
| Comments: 9 |
Categories:
Breaking News, SustainableTourism, Travel Agent News, Tour Operator, Airline News, Business Travel News, Destination
| | | USER COMMENTS | | | Robert Lilly
10 April 2007, 12:14:24 GMT
Another case of travel industry denial
Like retailers moaning about direct selling and the internet - this issue is met with a load of denial by everyone in travel - who have a vested interest in pretending that that there isn't a problem with aviation.
1. Every activity that produces CO2 needs curbing. Flights get a special attention because like cars they are on a big growth curve.
2. Flight CO2 is released at high altitude and is more damaging than ground lvel CO2 - some estimate this as being 4 times more damaging - so the effect actually is reasonably large.
I could go on... but instead of everyone complaining about the inevitable (higher tax on flights) get on with the job of coping with it.
 | | |
Get out the ant-powder!
When I was researching this topic a year ago for a speech, I discovered raw data that listed the total emissions from all significant sources or all important greenhouse gasses.
My calculations from that raw data suggested that methane emissions from the world's termite mounds produced enough methane to cause a greater contribution to global warming than did all the carbon dioxide produced by all the USA's ground transport.
I don't have time presently to update my research but I have no reasons to believe that the statistics have changed.
So I call for a worldwide swatting campaign (no aerosols as they cause ozone depletion - or so we're told) until all these polluting insects are destroyed.
| | |
Perceptions & Politics
Richard English's points are well made. We are all aware of the need to address the Greenhouse Effect. There is definitely the need for debate. However, contributions to that debate from single issue factions and politically biased sources are not helpful in arriving at practical and long-term solutions. The Stern Report was cynically used by the Government to make it appear politically correct to increase taxes from travellers and airlines. This was despite the acknowledged tiny contribution to global CO2 emmissions by the industry. Its a classic political strategy of politicians to create a perceived external threat in order to achieve their political agendas with the support of the voters.
CO2 is not the only culprit as Richard pointed out. Methane is a major contributor to the Greenhouse effect. Most of it comes from human related activity. The largest methane emissions come from the decomposition of wastes in landfills, Livestock digestion and manure management associated with domestic livestock; natural gas and oil systems, and coal mining are further contributors. Amazingly US Cattle alone contribute an estimated 5.5 million metric tons of methane annually.
Demonising the airline industry to get away with higher taxation might help fill Mr Brown's coffers and pay for the IPPR's biased research but it will not solve global warming.
Having tuned a Nelsonian blind eye to the major CO2 contributors, what can we next expect from the IPPR? Proposals for health warnings on cattle farms' gates - or more unlikely because of the loss of tax revenue, perhaps on petrol pumps.
Only the Chinese have come up with a more bizarre (but practical) suggestion for air travellers to help reduce aircraft emissions. One Chinese airline now requests its passengers to go to the loo before boarding as they calculated every in- flight "flush" costs about 10 litres of fuel. Now there's a practical thought for the IPPR!
| | |
Catherine Mack
05 April 2007, 12:19:12 GMT
when can trains be given a chance to gain?
Health warnings are a it late when you are on board. Especially when it only cost you £5 for a ticket. The Government is now taxing cigarettes to the hilt and banning them in public places. Putting a health warning on a plane is like putting a plaster on fracture. The crisis must be dealt with by providing realistic alternatives and supporting a rail network for the 21st century. Stop attacking the airline industry and support the rail industry then maybe people will have a practical and enjoyable alternative to air travel.
Catherine Mack, travel writer, responsible travel
| | |
Tom Buncle
05 April 2007, 12:02:02 GMT
Let's get real
Let's get real! Yes air travel contributes towards climate change - we need to accept that. But let's get it in perspective: so do private cars, trucks that deliver our food to shops....and what about the factories and industrial processes that produce the food we eat, the houses we live in, the beds we sleep in, not to mention the plethora of "unnecessary" items that we consume every day - from plasma screens to fashion clothing. Do we want to have a health warning on everything that uses non-renewable energy (in our cars, on our furniture, our computers, our clothes?). Or should we maybe indulge in a more ratiional debate that, instead of seeking to make social pariahs out of everyday activities that provide jobs for people in our own, and in developing, countries, raises the debate above the hysterical and takes a balanced look at the way we live our lives. Let's develop a real "climate change balance sheet" that takes into account everything that affects climate change, assess the relative impact of each activity, identify how essential each activity is in terms of employment, economic and social development, rate them on a scale of importance/superfluity, and then decide how damaging (or constructive) travel is.
Until we do so, we will have no moral authority to participate in the climate change debate. Perhaps more significantly, we will lose credibility in tackling climate change, because the easy target of air travel will divert attention from the bigger issues that affect climate change.
| | |
More misleading statistics, I see.
Quote "...We know that smokers notice health warnings on cigarettes, and we have to tackle our addiction to flying in the same way..."
And do smokers take the slightest notice? Not if my own observations of the numbers of schoolchildren I see walking the streets, coffin-nail in hand. And in any case, the whole idea of putting a "health warning" on flights is as unfair as it is ineffective.
As others have said, focussing on airlines' contribution to global warming whilst ignoring others industries' contribution is unfair.
If industries are to be taxed for their contribution to global warming, then those who contribute the most should pay the most. And don't restrict the witchhunt to those who produce carbond dioxide. Other global warming gasses such as methane (23 times as effective as carbon dioxide) and nitrous oxide (296 times as effective)are usually ignored in this discussion but their effect is massive.
Much nitrous oxide comes from manure and massive amounts of methane come from gastro-intestinal fermentation in cattle.
The international meat industry contributes 18% of the world's greenhouse gasses and the dairy industry probably nearly as much.
So why do we subsidise farmers and tax transportation providers?
Fair shares for all, please!
| | |
Jonathan Brown
05 April 2007, 10:24:25 GMT
Stand up to the eco-fascists
Well said Easyjet. The industry must make a stand against the persecution from those whose agenda is to destroy the airlines. Unfortunately, bodies such as the IPPR will never let the facts get in the way of their goals.
| | |
Julian Fisher
05 April 2007, 10:24:15 GMT
Knee jerk reactions
I had to check my watch to make sure it wasn't 1st April - all over again. Whilst these statements are just proposals and agitate the debate on what to do their ideas are senseless. What next, a sticker on all our heads... warning people pass wind and cause climate change..! If you are going to act on airlines then you need the same for all modes of transport... even bicycles which in their manufacture require the burning of fuel. Nonsense..!? Yes, but where does it stop? Responsible travel and the actions by our industry to reduce CO2 emissions is a known imperative. Care more don't care less. Julian Fisher www.wecare-travel.org
| | |
Contradiction
I agree that consumers should be aware of the impact on the environment, but taxation is not the solution. I don't understand how the Government can introduce air travel taxation to save the environment whilst simultaneously lobbying to expand almost every airport in the UK.
Surely it a scheme to raise more money, when only a small percentage will actually go back into environmental protection, like all other taxes.
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
ADVERTISEMENT
 |
|
|
|
|
 WHO'S WHO |
Meet the TravelMole community
Are you listed? This directory of TravelMole users is a valuable source of information about who is who in the travel and tourism industry. Create your own listing and join the TravelMole network - It's free! |
|
|
TravelMole TV Box
|
|
|
|
