March 12, 2007
Air Travel: Flying Less Has Advantages For Mother Earth
Travel the world for your own leisure and pleasure or travel less to save mother earth. This is choice recently presented to globe trotting Germans. Should germans vacation at a German North sea resort island or choose for a divers paradise dive resort somewhere in the Indian Ocean? That is the question. The so called the "Sylt or Seychelles" debate may soon extend beyond the boundaries of Germany.
The issue involved is whether we should fly less for pleasure trips in order to reduce adverse affects on climate change. The entire world is growing increasing concerned about global warming. Rightfully so, since our very existence is at stake. But the more we consume “long distance” [tag-cat]air travel[/tag-cat], the more carbon dioxide is produced, with dire consequences for the environment. Quite a dilemma indeed and Germany is caught in the middle since it now holds the European Union presidency and must take the lead in implementing strong actions against climate change. Still, an [tag-tec]air travel[/tag-tec] prohibition seems a bit drastic and will serve to intensify the ongoing debate about how to effectively fight climate change.
So the question remains. Would you give up flying away on vacations in order to save the environment? Please share your thoughts and comments with us by using the comment form below! What is your view on air travel and climate change?
air travel airlines climate change global warming
Comments
March 13, 2007
Karen Bryan said:
I have been blogging about this very issue today, http://www.europealacarte.co.uk/blog/?p=249 i wonder if the percentage of Germans saying that the will cut down on flying will be similar to British travellers with just under one third saying they will fly less because of environmental concerns. I suppose you could say for the British, is to Bognor or Barbados?
admin said:
Hi Karen:
Thanks for your comment.
So far there seems to be strong opposition to the idea of a . The germans seem to favor alternative measures such as penalties for airlines with less efficient engines as well as increasing direct routes/direct connections to the 'dream" vacation destinations.
Barbados does not sound too bad at all!! Great diving, sun , sea, and sand!!
Either way, it is an interesting debate. Since we all call earth "home", I imagine that the public debate should extend beyond the boundaries of Germany and the UK soon.
April 25, 2007
Miss_Sarah said:
I agree, it's an interesting debate and one that is going to get more urgent as the years roll by & the ice caps melt. It will be highlighted again in July with the Global Live Earth event organised by Al Gore. We are getting contradicting signals here in the UK - on the one hand the environmentalists are telling us we should fly less, and on the other hand the budget airlines are offering to fly us up to Scotland for a quarter the price of going by train - you can't blame people for being tempted. The Governments solution is the same as always - Tax the hell out of us. But that's not going to work, you need to offer viable alternatives to gas guzzling Jumbo Jets.
May 22, 2007
Anne said:
To be honest I think that flying is just an obvious and popular target, but that there are so many other things that people could do to reduce emissions instead. If people turned the lights off when they left a room, unplugged devices when they weren't in use, walked instead of drove everywhere, etc, that would have a massive impact. I don't fly for pleasure, although I do extend my stays on business trips so I can holiday at the same time. I take the coach or train across the country, and will take the ferry where possible and practical, but I still fly, and I don't feel bad about it.
May 28, 2007
attagirl said:
I think for the most part that Anne is correct in her comments. That targeting the airlines is really not addressing the problem in whole. You have to be able to reduce emissions such as driving, without accepting the excuse of I have to go to work. Yes that is necessary but if less people were driving by themselves we might see a quicker reduction in smog. If you do not think that you get pollutants in the water from ships and boats, then think again. You need to look at all forms of travel and not just one form of travel.
Cymru Am Byth said:
UK gets air travel lobby A UK lobby group is to represent the travel industry over climate change is set to be launched next month. The group, called Flying Matters, is chaired by former CBI chief Sir Digby Jones and includes a number of industry representatives, such as airport operator BAA and airlines British Airways, easyJet and Virgin Atlantic, according to 'The Independent on Sunday'. It will also represent aerospace firms Airbus and Rolls-Royce, unions such as T&G, and travel agents. Former UK energy minister Brian Wilson has been appointed as vice-chairman. The move comes as the airline industry has found itself in the firing line from environmentalists over their carbon emissions and impact on climate change. Ryanair, British Airways and easyJet reported falling load factors.
May 31, 2007
sunshine said:
Airlines though are one of the largest producers of Co2 and travel in the UK is projected to double again by 2020 creating another 2,000,000 tons of carbon annualy (uk only dont forget). So what the world figure is though, gos alone knows….. One flip side side and its important, air travel actaully help cool the planet though its due to the vapour trails we see in the sky reflect heat back into pace the same way as clouds - the more air travel the more cloud cover the greater the cooling effect, strange but true!