Friday 3 April 2020

Why we need to fly a lot less




It is well known that transport is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to the fact that most forms of transport are powered by fossil fuels, the burning of which leads to the release of carbon dioxide and other waste products, some of which are also greenhouse gases. In the UK, for example, 22% of greenhouse gases come from road vehicles.

However, the increased popularity of flying is a fast-growing problem. If an express coach takes 50 people from London to Edinburgh, the total emission of carbon dioxide will be around 460 kilograms. If those 50 people fly, the journey will be a lot faster, but they will be responsible for depositing no less than 4820 kilograms of CO₂ into the atmosphere – more than ten times as much.

If they let the train take the strain the emissions would come to 595 kilograms – more than by coach but far less than by air. Given the fact that trains run from city centre to city centre and therefore save a huge amount of time that has to be used in getting to and from airports, checking in and collecting baggage, it may indeed turn out that the train is the quicker option.

The annual figure recorded by the Department for Transport for emissions by aircraft is 2.5 million tonnes. However, this is just for domestic flights; if the UK’s share of international aviation is included (i.e. half of all flights taking off or landing in the UK) then the figure is more than ten times higher.

Another factor to bear in mind is that aircraft create pollution high in the atmosphere and not just at or near ground level. How much difference this makes is uncertain, but conservative estimates put aviation as being responsible for 13% of the UK’s total impact on climate change.

What can be done to cut these figures?

Clearly there needs to be a lot less flying done, both within the UK and internationally. This applies to business and leisure flying and also air freight.

A major change in recent years has been the growth of “no frills” cut-price aviation companies that have encouraged more people to take flights and on more occasions. People now think nothing of hopping on a plane to take a weekend break as well as several week-long holidays in places such as Majorca, the Greek islands and Turkey. Many people look even further afield and regularly cross the Atlantic for a holiday. Even if they only took one foreign holiday break a year, and stuck to the UK for other breaks – not involving flights – they would make a huge difference to carbon emissions.

The Government could certainly encourage such a trend by making flights more expensive through increased taxation, as well as abandoning any proposal to build new airport capacity in the London area.

Given the increasing use of the Internet for doing business, such as international video-conferencing, is it really necessary for so many business flights to take place? Surely there is room for huge savings in carbon emissions from the business community alone, simply by executives asking themselves the question: “Is your flight really necessary?” and answering No more often than Yes.

The ordinary food consumer could also make a huge contribution by ceasing to demand items that are out of season in the UK but can be imported from overseas relatively cheaply via air freight.

Granted, some crops cannot be grown locally, but, for those that can be, there is no excuse for demanding access to them throughout the year. We need to go back to the days when dietary habits varied according to season and imported food came via ship rather than aircraft.

We also need to cut out practices such as that of flying shellfish from the UK to Southeast Asia so that it can be packed by cheap labour before being flown back for sale in supermarkets only a few miles from where it started!

It is high time that common sense prevailed over raw economics. The climate is far more important than filling the pockets of wealthy businessmen, which seems to be the only criterion that some people are taking seriously.

© John Welford

No comments:

Post a Comment