At the bottom of this page, we provide the chapter summary for this portion of 'How to Live a Low-Carbon Life'. This provides some of the main conclusions from the material covered in the main text. In the rest of this page, we comment on new products, research findings and offer feedback from customers.
Conservative policy paper on taxing air travel - March 2007
'The aim of reform' the Conservatives say, 'is to reduce overall growth in emissions from aviation'.
Though we have come a long way, we have a million miles to go. The party that may form Britain's next government is not talking about reducing emissions from air travel. No, its ambition is simply to cut the rate of growth. The measures it proposes will indeed provide very little restraint on the future of aviation. And, of course, there is no mention of stopping the construction of new runways.
But first, let's list what the review gets right.
1) The Conservatives acknowledge that the atmospheric impact of air travel is not just from CO2. For the first time, I believe, there is a clear statement that the effects of nitrous oxide and water vapour may well mean that we should multiply the impact of CO2 by three to estimate the true impact.
2) The review uses reasonably up-to-date figures on the percentage of UK CO2 from aviation. The Conservatives say 5.5%, and dismiss the aviation industry's often quoted '2%', which refers to CO2 from air travel as a percentage of worldwide emissions. Multiplied by 3 to account for the 'forcing' from nitrous oxide and water vapour and we are actually now up to about 18% of UK emissions.
3) The Conservatives also accurately report that air travel is very much the preserve of the richer half of the population. My own research suggests that the bottom 60% of the income distribution are only responsible for about 20% of flights and, I guess, may be taking shorter flights, meaning that their CO2 effect is even less. The recent growth in air travel is very largely among the rich. About half the population did not fly last year.
The Conservatives get some important facts wrong.
1) Flying is not 'a uniquely greenhouse-gas-intensive mode of transport'. Judged in terms of just C02 output, flying is considerably better than car travel. Even if we allowed for the other 'forcing' effects, a large car may be worse, particularly over very long distances. No, the problem with air travel is not that it is particularly energy-intensive, it is airplanes travel very long distances. The average car travels 14,000 km a year. This is less than one flight to the west coast of the US.
2) The UK has not 'met' its Kyoto obligations. The Kyoto agreement requires us to meet targets during the period of 2008-2012. If electricity continues to be made from coal in the quantities it is at the moment, and demand continues to grow, the UK will not meet its obligations.
3) Flying is not the only source of growing emissions. Households are using more electricity and gas.
This review is a good start. It comprehends the basic science and it acknowledges the huge momentum behind the growth in air travel. It sees that growth in aviation is largely because the rich are flying more and that taxation of air travel will therefore not be regressive.
But, quite simply, it doesn't go anywhere far enough.
The Ryanair position
(January 10th 2007) Rather than write-off Michael O'Leary as an self-serving apologist for Ryanair, environmentalists need to engage with what he says. His main points are
- aviation is responsible for less than 2% of global emissions
- Ryanair runs an extremely fuel efficient fleet
The first point is entirely correct. However, he refers to global levels of CO2 emissions. In the UK, the figure is nearer 6%. Mr O'Leary also ignores the impact of greenhouse gases other than CO2. The science is not yet entirely robust, but it looks like we should multiply the CO2 emissions from air travel by about 3 to capture the full global warming effect of aviation. This means that about 18% of the UK's emissions are produced by aviation. (This excludes the fuel consumption necessary to support the aviation industry, including the transport to airports and the substantial cost of actually running the ground operations).
More important, the emissions from aviation are probably growing at about 4-5% a year in the UK. (Because aviation is not covered in Kyoto, statistics are little uncertain). For the UK, therefore, aviation is the single greatest source of increases in emissions. If are to stop the continuing rise in greenhouse gas volumes, we have to act on aviation. We need to do other things as well, but aviation must be a target.
What about the 'new, fuel-efficient' aircraft point? The problem with Mr O'Leary's argument is that when he buys a brand-new Airbus and trades in his old model, the older airplane still remains in the sky, and will probably still be carrying passengers in 2025. And he exaggerates the fuel efficiency gains from new planes. Today's models are getting 1% or so better fuel economy every year. This is nowhere near enough to compensate for the growth in travel.
Chapter Summary
Travelling by air, in contrast to the train, is an almost unmitigated disaster for the environment. Although an efficient aircraft, travelling fully loaded, can cover miles with less fuel per person than the average car, aircraft travel covers vastly greater distances than cars. The average car goes 9000 miles (14,500km) a year, with an average of about 1.5 people in it at any time. One return flight to the US will probably exceed the per-person emissions of a year’s car use.
More importantly, air travel is inherently more polluting than car journeys. As well as carbon dioxide, jet engines emit oxides of nitrogen, which are powerful warming agents. In addition, aircraft put out huge quantities of water vapour at high altitude in the form of condensation trails. These contrails are now thought to worsen global warming, although the science is not yet completely clear. As a result of these two extra emissions, most experts now think that air travel emissions are about three times as bad as the simple carbon dioxide output might suggest. A few flights to remote locations, and we have been responsible for tens of tonnes of global warming gases.
Across the world as a whole, air travel is probably responsible for about 3 per cent of carbon emissions. Multiply this by three to account for the nitrogen oxides and water vapour, and we are almost up to 10 per cent. In the UK, the figure is already 5.5 per cent for carbon dioxide alone and 16.5 per cent after the multiplication. Air travel is growing by 5 per cent a year, and although engines are becoming more efficient, carbon emissions are certainly increasing by around 2.5 per cent a year. No one sees an end to this growth – cheap air travel is immensely popular and many governments are willing to build airports to accommodate the extra travel. The consequence of unconstrained growth of aircraft emissions, even at the relatively modest rate of 2.5 per cent compounded a year, is to double aircraft emissions in the next 30 years. In the UK, that will mean average emissions per person of 3 tonnes just for aircraft travel. This is inconsistent with any aspirations to hold back climate change.
The only really significant change to our lifestyle that we need to make to get our carbon emissions down to 3 tonnes is to cease to travel by air. With this single choice, we can make the most important step to meeting the long-term requirement to cut our contribution to climate change.
