Carbon – A View from the Fence
There has been a great deal of media interest lately in the topic of global warming and greenhouse gases, and the emerging villain to finger for all this eco-unfriendliness is aviation. This is fast becoming one of the most controversial issues to face the travel industry and so we felt it was time to jot down a few of our thoughts and provide a few facts around this subject.
What's the problem?
It’s pretty simple really. Natural gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour act as an insulating layer around the earth which allows the sun's radiation through but prevents heat radiating out. This is the ‘greenhouse’ effect, this is a natural and vital to life on earth. The gases move between the oceans, forests and atmosphere in a natural cycle and the amount rarely varies. More carbon is locked away in the form of fossil carbon (oil, coal, etc) and does not naturally come into contact with the atmosphere until we dig it up and burn it, at which point it is released permanently. It is now believed that growing amounts of these gases being pumped into the atmosphere are increasing the greenhouse effect causing temperatures to rise and resulting in ‘global warming’. This, in turn, may affect climate change, alterations to rainfall patterns, rises in sea levels and cause habitat change.
A little perspective
The media and various pressure groups would have us believe that aviation is one of the main culprits responsible for all this trouble. In fact aviation accounts for only 3% of global greenhouse gases. In the UK, domestic and international aviation accounts for around 6% of total output whereas households in the UK account for around 25% and road transport produces another 24%.
At the other end of the spectrum, the travel industry is one of the largest industries on the planet and if we were to stop flying and holiday at home, many destinations that have come to depend on tourist revenue would suffer great hardship as a result.
That said, 6% is still 6% and we cannot ignore the impact of our business on the environment. But until the carbon-neutral aircraft engine is developed there are a number of other initiatives we can consider to try and mitigate the consequences of our flying.
Thomas Cook Airlines
The bulk of our flying is done with Thomas Cook Airlines who are at the leading edge of fuel economy with a specific fuel consumption of only 2.9 litres per 100 passenger kilometres. This is due to state-of-the-art aircraft, a comparatively high seating density and a high utilization rate. The airline carries more people, further, for less fuel than most other airlines. In addition, Thomas Cook Airlines have signed up to the Sustainable Aviation Initiative, which covers the environmental, social and economic impacts of aviation in the context of the UK. It lists 8 goals and 34 commitments designed to continue progress towards these objectives.
In September 2010 Thomas Cook further demonstrated its commitment to the environment by becoming the first and only airline in the UK to achieve the internationally recognised ISO 14001 accreditation. Some examples of the airline’s initiatives include an onboard recycling programme, the introduction of winglets (vertical extensions of wingtips that improve the fuel efficiency), and implementing energy efficiencies at the airline’s hangar such as an improved heating plant and new power supply.
Taxes on flying?
There have been many calls for ‘green taxes’ to be levied on aviation. In fact each passenger is already paying ‘a tax’ which, according to a Treasury declaration, is an ‘environmental charge’. Air Passenger Duty raises over £900M per annum which is equivalent to 1.5 times the government’s own estimated carbon costs of the flights on which it is levied. However, this doesn’t influence any demand for flights and currently has no impact on climate change.
Carbon Offsets
It is interesting to consider that carbon, one of the biggest perceived environmental threats of modern times, has become just another tradable commodity. According to the World Bank, the estimated global carbon market was worth $11 billion by the end of 2005.
Amongst all this lie a number of carbon offset schemes, the best known of which is tree planting. This is a scheme whereby you calculate the amount of carbon your journey will generate and then plant a number of trees to absorb that amount of carbon, and so, ‘neutralising’ your flight. A number of issues have arisen around this idea, however. Trees provide only temporary storage for carbon but allowing for the storage idea to work, the storage is only for the life of the tree and then the carbon is released again. There are questions about the manner in which some of the tree plantations are managed too, such as where did the land come from that was acquired for planting the trees and what was growing there before? Are the trees indigenous to that area and will they support the local eco-system? What is the survival rate for the trees? Will they be cut down later for charcoal or paper (losing the carbon storage in the process)?
Trees for Life
Trees can absorb carbon, however, and as an interim measure it may be worth considering. Trees for Life are an award-winning conservation charity dedicated to the regeneration and restoration of the Caledonian Forest in the Highlands of Scotland. Their vision is to restore a wild forest, which is there for its own sake, as a home for wildlife and to fulfil the ecological functions necessary for the wellbeing of the land itself. If you wish to sponsor them to plant a tree for you or to find out more, check out the work of Trees for Life
What else can you do?
If you don’t want to go for an offset scheme, you might consider ways to cut down your own carbon emissions. For example, did you know that:
- Leaving your mobile phone charger plugged in when not in use still draws 5 watts of power?
- Leaving your PC on standby overnight uses enough energy to microwave six dinners?
- The display clock on your microwave uses as much energy as the microwave itself?
- Turning your thermostat down by 1% will reduce your heating bill by up to 10%?
- Low energy light bulbs use only a quarter of the energy of normal light bulbs and last around eight times longer?
- It is no longer true that turning fluorescent lights on and off uses more energy than leaving them on?
- It takes 95% less energy to recycle an aluminium can than to make a new one?
- A British Standard lagging jacket on your hot water tank costs around £10 and will save you around £20 a year on your energy bill?
- 50 to 80% of car tyres are under-inflated so that each car wastes around 5% of its fuel consumption?
Not convinced by the climate change debate?
Then maybe we should consider this: There is compelling evidence to suggest that we will reach peak oil production by 2012. We may even have reached it already but we will not know this until up to two years after it has happened. We have already seen huge increases in the price of oil and this is set to continue; as oil reserves dwindle and the costs of recovering it rocket, oil will never be cheap again. This is surely a very strong argument in favour of reducing our consumption and finding alternatives?
And finally...
We hope this discussion illustrates that we have looked into various aspects of carbon emissions in some depth and while we may still be on the fence regarding offset options, we know there are other areas where we can make a difference and we will try to concentrate our efforts on those. As ever, we welcome your views on this or any other aspect of our responsible business policy and activities. Please let us have your comments via our chatroom or email us at responsiblebusiness@neilson.com
September 2006
Updated October 2010