iOS app Android app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Anuradha Vittachi

Anuradha Vittachi

Posted: November 19, 2009 04:22 PM

Since Flying is Responsible for Only 5 Percent of Carbon Emissions, I Have the Right to Fly Abroad on Holiday, Right? Wrong.

What's Your Reaction?

Don’t be fooled when airline representatives reassure people in the UK that flying creates "only" five percent of our national carbon emissions, as if it is too small an amount for anyone to get steamed up about. If five percent of a mountain fell on top of you, you’d care.

And if your car were to plough into a group of 20 pedestrians and crush one to death, you couldn’t get away with saying you’d "only" hurt five percent of the pedestrians. Five percents can matter! But it may strike you as going too far to compare the impact of flying with the impact of a car crushing a human body. Is it unfair?

To find out more about the real climate impacts of flying, I turned to George Marshall, founder of the Climate Outreach and Information Network. In his readable and reasonable book, Carbon Detox, Marshall explains why planes are so toxic to the climate. It’s not only because they burn such large amounts of fossil fuels, but it’s also because the fuel burned by jet engines causes nearly three times as much damage as the same amount of fuel burned by a car at ground level.

‘The very high temperatures inside jet engines create nitrous oxides, which are very powerful greenhouse gases,’ says Marshall, ‘310 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.’ So that "five percent" acknowledged by the airlines actually has the impact of something more like 14 percent of the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions. Bad enough? There’s worse. ‘Jet planes also produce vapour trails called contrails… These, too, are heat trapping, especially at night.’

In case that hasn’t pushed the percentage up high enough, Marshall reminds us also that these figures are based on the amount of flying in the mid-2000s, though the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research expects air traffic to double over the next 30 years – and then, says Marshall, its climate impact ‘will swamp all other government targets to deal with climate change’.

That’s a terrifying thought. The UK is supposed to be lowering its emissions 80% by 2050 – and everything its population does to reach that target will be erased by flying! Why is the government not banning planes? Instead, they’re building more air-travel capacity. It makes no sense.

The airlines make weird offers too. Virgin Airlines offered to plant trees to soak up the emissions of the limousines that pick up their first-class passengers. Oh, wow.

Marshall is in no doubt that ‘flying is the single most destructive thing you can do’. And ‘because there is a direct relationship between emissions and impacts, we should be able to predict how many people will die for each additional tonne of C02 we emit’.

He introduces Craig Simmons of Best Foot Forward, who has worked out a rough figure (necessarily very rough, because there are so many variables) that ‘one person could die, be made homeless, require urgent medical attention or face starvation for every 102 tonnes of carbon dioxide we add to the air.’

Let’s get this straight. Since the typical American emits around 20-25 tonnes per year, this means that every four to five years, he or she will have caused, through profligate carbon spending, the homelessness, serious illness, starvation or death of some fellow human being, living in a vulnerable community: someone they have never met, who has never done them any harm. It’s a stunning injustice.

If I had an average UK carbon footprint, I would be making that kind of impact every decade. It’s a terrible thought. I hope that I would do enough in that decade to counteract my anti-social impact, and I might just be able to manage that in the time. As long as I don’t fly.

If I were to fly with our four daughters from the UK to Australia for a fortnight’s holiday, we will have caused as much carbon-related death or suffering between the time we took off and the time we got back home as I otherwise would in a decade. And however much we felt we needed a bit of sunshine, could I really justify sacrificing someone else’s home, health or life, for the short-lived pleasure of a family fortnight on an Aussie beach?

Craig’s calculation yanks out of the shadows and into the light the realization that the plane is a lethal weapon. We should use it sparingly and with the greatest care. George Monbiot, another wonderful writer-activist, talks about the need for 95 percent cuts in air travel.

That leaves…. five percent. But this time the five percent refers to the total amount of plane travel saved up for really essential needs. Now that’s the sort of plane-related five percent that makes sense.

But careful selectivity is far from today’s flying ethos. Politicians still pander to a ‘binge-flying’ culture, where Britons pop over to Tallinn or Berlin for a boozy weekend, or to Spanish second homes without a second thought.

And the phoney arguments about planes "only" emitting five percent of our carbon emissions, or the "rights" of holidaymakers to travel at will on inessential flights, simply deflect our attention away from the shocking consequences of these flights: the entirely unnecessary wrecking of the lives of innocent human beings. What gives any of us the "right" to do this?

When I check through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights I don’t see a "right" to casual flying. Nor to cause starvation through flying, to create homelessness through flying, or to maim or kill through flying.

On the contrary, I see declarations reminding me that that every person has a right to eat, to have a home, to be protected from injury and death. My desire for a sunshine holiday may be great, but those rights are surely greater.

 

Follow Anuradha Vittachi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/oneclimate