Aviation generates about 5 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions but their warming effect is up to four times greater at high altitudes according to Jonathan Leake writing last weekend in The Sunday Times.
The article entitle, ‘A green snag they emitted to mention…’ suggests that environmental leaders are amongst the highest greenhouse gas emitters in the world because they like flying to exotic locations for their holidays and conferences. According to the article:
“Among those with the highest air miles is Bob Napier, chief executive of WWF, formerly the World Wildlife Fund, one of the best-known environment groups. In the past 12 months he has visited Spitsbergen, Borneo, Washington, Geneva, and Beijing on business trips and taken a holiday in the Falklands, generating more than 11 tons of carbon dioxide. A typical British household creates about six tons of CO2 a year.”
And did anyone notice how many planes Al Gore got on and off, and how many places he boasted he had visited to give that lecture, in that movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. I lost count.
Anyway, someone sent me this link to a piece published by USA Today entitled ‘Gore isn’t quite as green as he’s led the world to believe’.
It doesn’t add up the plane trips, but it does suggest that Mr Gore is another one of those environmental leader who doesn’t practice what he preaches.
For photographs visit www.whalephoto.com.
———————
I’ve a series running on that movie, the last post, part 3 can be read by clicking here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001641.html .
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
A good post Jennifer,
This is a huge problem among enviro groups, employees travelling or jetsetting around the world to participate in various conferences and meetings etc.
For example, the King of Sweden, a board member in WWF travels around the world almost every possible day of the year using his own private jet plane.
At the same time he is a great advocate of giving lectures to other common people to reduce their personal foot prints and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Last week he warned that climate change was the biggest threat to humankind in the opening speech of the Parliament, demanding that every person should make personal steps to reduce greenhouse emissions…
“every person should make personal steps to reduce greenhouse emissions…”
Is this a popularist call for mass-suicide?
Does not environmental popularism champion global sustainability without people?
What more can educated Earthlings possibly contribute?
Generations of successively lesser parasitism? Environmental agents provocateur?
But what of ourselves?
How do we make a difference?
Neil – probably not a lot without suffering a fairly big hit in your lifestyle (well most people’s). You could use more efficient compact fluoro light bulbs, turn the extra lights off, turn off stand-by power appliances, reduce the air-con, buy a more fuel efficient car when it’s time to trade, take your bicycle, insist new houses you might build are more energy efficient for heating and cooling, and skip that overseas holiday. Maybe that’s already too much for many of us.
But is it enough – nowhere near it. We need major technological changes to transport energy and power generation. And need to to make it available globally especially in China and India.
Phil,
I use 11 watt compact fluoro light bulbs and reiterateviy turn extra lights off.
Over the past 10 months, I have generated almost 4kwhr through renerwable sources (hydro & solar) and approximately half as much though the the inefficiency of engine-generation.
Living within the only Australian comunity legislated off the grid and by necessity, turning off stand-by power appliances, reducing air-con, more fuel efficient cars (when it’s time to trade), taking bikes and insisting on new houses that are more energy efficiency for heating and cooling, and also, skipping that overseas holida, etc.
When is it enough?
I susoect; o where near!In the interests of priopiety …
I thought our Phil went bushwhacking months ago.
Neil; for those depending on the electricity grid, the bottom is probably reached when disposable systems, torch batteries or candles whatever alternatives cost more than your little fluoros. The cost of an electrical appliance is a consideration; much like our thoughts about another motor car. Fuel and tax on the other hand is something we just bear.
The rest of our world remains switched on regardless while we think about it. Also there will be winners and losers in every race. Make sure you get your share of the prises at the far end of the track which ever direction you decide to run.
Sitting on the fence becomes a bad habit.
If you look at Btus per passenger per mile, air travel is vastly less efficient than other modes of transportation, and therefore produces more CO2 per passenger mile. Rail travel seems the most efficient, but useless for international travel. I haven’t been able to find any comparisons of air vs. water transport for Btus/passenger/mile, probably because international water transportation is used mainly for freight, not for people.
If one is to complain about the CO2 emissions of airplanes, one must necessarily be in favor of a lower-emission alternative.
I would rather not see the world return to the use of boats for international travel. They are far more dangerous, and vastly slower besides.
If you do a cost-benefit analysis, you need to compare the benefits of reducing the world’s CO2 by five percent to the costs of a general (and likely vast) reduction in international travel due to the slowness, discomfort and danger of water transport.
From EnviroSpin Watch (UK) http://greenspin.blogspot.com/
The 10 final proofs of ‘global warming’…..
You should believe in ‘global warming’ when…..
(1) apocalyptic academics stop flying round the world to conferences and for their extended summer holidays – er, sorry – ‘field research’;
(2) The Guardian and The Independent stop advertising cheap flights and holidays;
(3) the Cameroonian middle classes give up their holiday villas in Provence, Tuscany, the Caribbean, etc.;
(4) the BBC stops flying hundreds of duplicate reporters and staff round the world for each separate programme and channel;
(5) the European Parliament stops ‘toing-and-froing’ between two parliament buildings of equal glassiness, and the French drop agricultural subsidies;
(6) Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, et al.; Japan; Canada; and all the rest come anywhere near to meeting their Kyoto targets;
(7) Canadians turn off the lights and switch off the heating/air conditioning when not in a room, China gives up coal, and everybody agrees to cut the ‘wine miles’ to zero;
(8) politicians stop canvassing by helicopter, plane, and battle bus, and Al Gore finds it “inconvenient” to travel about lecturing on ‘global warming’;
(9) Prince Charles travels about in a G-WIZ with just one member of staff – and squeezes his own toothpaste. Also, John ‘Two-Jags’ Prescott can fit into a G-WIZ;
(10) the glitterati, the popocracy, the metro elite, and all the politicians really do believe that it all applies just as much to them as to the world’s bedint.
There you have it: ‘global warming’ doesn’t exist. QED.
In the energy crsis of the 1970’s a big drag racing meet in Los Angles produced rumblings from that administration of banning on the grounds of saving of fuel.
Until it was pointed out that just one of the major league teams based there used more fuel in aircraft travel in their competition.
Broncos to Sydney on bicycles – would that fly?
Increasing fuel efficiency will not necessarily reduce fuel consumption – as populations grow in number and in wealth travel becomes more frequent.
Only solution – travel less.
the ‘rebound effect’ it’s called rog
An aging population could reduce emissions by up to 40%, play tennis or golf instead of backpacking around Europe and Asia.
http://tinyurl.com/g6kmv
Al Gore offsets the emissions from his air travel – he isn’t that stupid. A couple of minutes on google would have revealed this.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the other big high flying environmentalists do the same.
He buys carbon credits from elswhere, he doesnt lower his own production of carbon, he pays others to conserve carbon.
Doesnt stack up, to me.
Is he still not running for Pres?
To make it stack up Al would have to plant, or contract to plant, NEW trees or otherwise sequester additional carbon by means such as ??
But we actually need to go further (if you’re a believer) by nett reductions – not simply balancing where we are now. So as Monbiot says – how much reality can you take ? http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/09/21/how-much-reality-can-you-take/
Wealth and carbon sequestration don’t mix !
At the end of the day a market and carbon credits only assists and facilitates efficient carbon sequestration and making carbon a commodity of value. If no new carbon is sequestered, or there are loopholes, workarounds, unintended or perverse outcomes, or send activities off-shore to emit, then only the lawyers, accountants and share traders make a profit and the environment gets lip service.
That is if it matters – coz if AGW is all bunk it’s not important at all and the whole matter just a waste of time. Shall we do Rio this year ?
On October 19, Australia’s own environmental guru will be in the USA to receive an award for being an environmental activist
see http://ran.org/give/revel/
How much global warming will this shindig create, has RAN done an audit of the environmental footprint of their celebration?
Sorry Woody, just de-blocked your comment.
You are being dishonest about Gore, Ms Marohasy. He is involved in a scheme in which he offsets his carbon footprint with carbon credits obtained through tree planting etc..
Unless you have hard evidence that Gore isnt offsetting his carbon footprint, I suggest you retract your shameless lie.
Steve Munn
You are really rude. I was quoting a USA Today piece that makes mention of his carbon offsetting and concludes:
“For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film’s distributor, pays this.)
Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.”
If you want to explain why you disagree that’s fine, but please refrain from posting false and nasty comments.
Jennifer Marohasy,
Quoting the square footage of Gore’s abode is an irrelevant and underhand appeal to envy. It is very easy to link to some nasty smear and sneer piece- the net is full of such tripe. How about you provide some actual evidence that Gore is a fraud. If you are able to furnish suitable evidence I’ll be the first to acknowledge it. If you can’t then you owe Gore and your readership an apology.
If Big Al doesn’t travel – to Australia at least – who will our State Premiers have to wag their little tails ,fawn over and suck up to?
He’s one of those GOOD MORAL people who commands respectful belief and admiration – it’s pretty poor form to actually examine if HIS lifestyle is conducive to reducing AGHG’s.
The point is that the uber wealthy can afford to offset the “carbon foorprint” made by their private jets and enormous spreads by buying carbon credits without having to make any adjustment to their own lives. Their activities are still producing carbon today and the offset schemes, how long before those trees grow to maturity? 30 years? 100? Never?
The irony is that the wealthy are preaching restraint to the non wealthy.
I did bite my tongue & wait for others to raise:
a) carbon offsetting
b) the concept of leverage (or tipping points)
c) that lesson about glass towers
And now the 1-liner is criticising offsets via fee, unregulated market mechanisms?!!? Which bit about proxies/substitutes/offsets is most troubling? Paying others to do the hard work for you is a core feature of capitalism so nothing to object to!
So you agree that it is OK to emit as much carbon as you like as long as you activities are coverd by a carbon credit which may contribute to a wind farm or reaforestation project?
Senator Inhofe finds Gores truth inconvenient;
“..The “60 Minutes” segment made no mention of Hansen’s partisan ties to former Democrat Vice President Al Gore or Hansen’s receiving of a grant of a quarter of a million dollars from the left-wing Heinz Foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. There was also no mention of Hansen’s subsequent endorsement of her husband John Kerry for President in 2004.
Many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen’s huge grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation.
The foundation’s money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune. So it appears that the media makes a distinction between oil money and ketchup money….”
http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
Rog,
That’s the point of the AGW quote unquote “debate.” It’s about moving money into other pockets. Killing the airline industry will remove five percent of CO2 from the atmosphere but the point is to drive cashola in the direction of various vested interests.
Government is one such interest. The totalitarian dream is to have a choke-hold on the entire economy. Gripping its throat via energy production, while wrapped in the mantle of Green beneficence, is too good an opportunity to ignore. People trade their money for the “greater good,” and lately, their freedom as well.
Al Gore can excuse his excesses by purchasing carbon credits, but it’s still CO2, and it’s blowing in the wind, but following the money is more significant. There are literally $billions at stake in “the debate” over global warming and the notion of getting even a tiny piece of that massive $pie will easily suborn many into perjury.
No matter what air miles ‘green’ execs travel, those planes will still do their flights and emit their greenhouse gases.
I haven’t been in a plane for 5 years, and before that flight over 10 years.
I have a personal rule – never go on a plane unless I am certain the environmental benefits from me making the trip outweigh the impact of the flight.
I also don’t own a vehicle, and only go places easy to access by public transport. It makes life much less stressful and simpler. ie more enjoyable.
Theses articles and some of the comments have some attributes of “shoot the messenger”. However, there are good facts in thers about global air emmissions that should shock people into changing their personal ecological footprint.
One fact you may consider – there is not enough room on the planet to plant the trees to counteract the impacts of global air travel.
***** Read that a few times and *****
***** think about what it means. *****
I BELIEVE THAT QUOTING THE FIGURES OF THOSE PEOPLES AIR TRAVEL PROVIDES AN EXCUSE FOR ORDINARY PEOPLE TO DO NOTHING. JUST AS QUOTING THE AIR STATISTICS FOR THE US PRESIDENT OR THE CEO OF A MULTINATIONAL WOULD ACHIEVE LITTLE.
WHAT ABOUT A STORY THAT PURELY FOCUSES ON POSITIVE THINGS THAT ARE HELPING OUR GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT, PERHAPS EVEN BY THOSE PEOPLE YOU HAVE DERIDED BY QUOTING THEIR AIR TRAVEL STATS.
Cripes there’s an amazing of utter crap being talked in terms of conspiracy theories. I can hear the astroturf trucks rolling now. Do climate scientists want to take over the world – nope. Get real.
What is totalitarian is being dictated by minority wealth-holding right wing interests as to how we WILL live our lives. A modest green proposal would include elements of increasing energy efficiency in old and new commercial and domestic infrastructure, increasing breaks for forestry and carbon sequestration in rural areas (sandalwood?), and actively chasing down carbon free power and transportation technologies – encouraged by government and undertaken by the free market.
If that means we end up with more choice in my power at home – either from the mains CO2 sequestering power plant or my solar roof panel – I say you’re a totalitarian/fascist to stop me/impede me.
Having a sideline on Gore’s hypocrisy is a really a diversion (and maybe a fun one).
We are also entitled to quality scientific advice on our environment – our choice to endorse the outcomes, or not, as always a democratic political decision.
Of course if AGW is all nonsense turn on your 108″ plasma TV, have a beer and watch the car racing.
Luke,
You have things bass-ackward. Do you seriously believe people want to maximize CO2 emissions?
No, they don’t. The natural impulse is to minimize them. Why? Because energy *costs.* Anyone who increases energy efficiency becomes wealthy.
To that extent, Kyoto is redundant and anything beyond that is a neo-Soviet economic power-play.
Well why do so many people not install simple things like compact fluoro bulbs? Why do commercial buildings leave thousands of lights on for all hours after work. And government has a role to play in encouragement – heaven knows they’ve pumped enough money into your inefficient agriculture over the years
Who said anything about Kyoto?
Schiller – with your country’s history of protectionism – any discussion of neo-Soviet power plays is laughable
Luke,
I’ve converted nearly all my light fixtures to compact fluoro bulbs. Why? Because they’re cheaper to run. That’s it, that’s all, and that proves that there’s an economic incentive, which has been around since the Stone Age, to minimize dependence on energy.
Commercial buildings leave the lights on all night to discourage burglars, thieves and activists.
Government should have no role in encouragement to reduce the cost of energy because the private sector works tirelessly on that project.
If you view US agriculture as inefficient, you should compare its output per acre to what is done elsewhere.
Well good on you but most people have not converted. Why – power is still relatively cheap. I knew you or Rog would mention evil burglars but do you need every light on. What about motion detectors? And big computer firms like IBM run their computers lights out in the bunker – only lights on when you need to fix something. But most companies and govt included still waste heaps of power. Interesting now that you can trade powe, mega-grocery giants like Woolworths will play with their refrigeration plant (briefly turn off even) to sell spot power on the market (so I’m told). But you need those “trading mechanisms” for that to happen – do you not !
Discourage activists – hehehehehehe – I must remember to go out and torch a few multinationals later …. hehehehe. Mate – activists want the lights on so the cameras record everything.
Agriculture – well let’s compare your cotton or rice yields per acre with ours. Or better still – megalitres water per acre. Only the Israelis give us a run for it. And you ought to be efficient hiding behind your non-private enterprise non-free market protectionism.
P.S. I think GM cotton is a very good thing !
Having just made a comment about hollow posts on the thread next door I can go easy down this lot with one exception; let’s say here the ranting anti green what ever lobby are attracted to this blog like flies to a flame. Most couldn’t handle a true campaigner if they found one right up their nose. Labelling is the fist sign of exclusiveness in any society and the first stage of weak campaigning. Movers and shakers in my book on either side are made of better stuff from the beginning.
Although this thread starts with the jet setters they are not the pace setters and that’s why I have always campaigned at the grass roots. My feedback comes directly from a wide range of modern consumers as I test the current economy and its resistance to recycling. To put this in perspective, two of my acquaintances today will most likely jet off again this week to Asian markets and trade fairs in their search for quick turnover imports but they both carry something 2nd hand from me that will influence their success one way or another.
What do we really need to live on? Popular items are clothes and music. On hand today; records CD’s and a mouth organ. The best pick in my lot were two large framed hand painted groups of figures on scraps of canvas done on the spot in an African community for one of our government representatives routinely working overseas. Who is the most practical opportunist of us all in this recycle enterprise? Not the original collector.
One chap heading for China with a group tomorrow has been told by his doctor recently he has a very short time frame within which he must achieve. What ever it is we want we can’t take it with us forever. In my arena it comes down to what we are as accumulators and that is not necessarily what we wanna be as we go out that back door.
Breaking down other peoples piles is sometimes quite fascinating but now comes the big correction; my partner says I talk too much all the time. Its not the money that counts in the end either.
What is the fascination that some people have with piles?
Rog: check out Freudian psychology for the common usage of the “A” term then guess where it applies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_retentive
More broadly; it describes some social reasons for individual accumulation within a consumer society. Piles become narrow heaps in this context, products of various cults structured around obsessive compulsive habits, attending our xmas sales year after year. Measuring excess often requires the application of different perspective.
Recycling and jet travel are not normally associated, but that’s how we differ.
We do love being scared or we wouldn’t pay to go on ferris wheels. Gore’s ‘facts’ are that the 10 hottest years on record have been recently but according to NASA he is wrong – satellite data gives a global increase of only .03deg in a decade, or 3deg in 1000 years. Moreover the thermometer was only invented 300 years ago, so we cannot know for sure whether we are in a heating, cooling or normal century. Gore’s film is really a doco about him and conveniently you don’t see the stacks of his books he sells after each show.
If it was up to Gore, every industry that burned any fuel, which means ran an engine, would be taxed. What a victory for the world he wasn’t elected. My advice is don’t see the film, spend the $15 cinema ticket on more gas for your SUV and go for a big long burn, before Gore and his friends make everyone get bikes. The inconvenient truth is that by levying penalties on industries for a non-existent problem, global warming puts more tax dollars into government coffers and state-appointed scientists put meals on the table out of their “research” grants. End of story.
Ken Ring
http://www.predictweather.com
Climate Care, who can organise carbon offsets for travel junkies, has listed globe trotting environmentalists travel itineraries – since published in the Times and Tim Blair (I guess this is the new age shame file);
* Bob Napier, chief executive of WWF: “In the past 12 months he has visited Spitsbergen, Borneo, Washington, Geneva, and Beijing on business trips and taken a holiday in the Falklands, generating more than 11 tons of carbon dioxide.”
* Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth: “Flew to Malaysia, South Africa, and Amsterdam on business and took his family on holiday to Slovakia in the past year. This weekend he is on a business trip to Nigeria. His trips are estimated to have generated at least eight tons of CO2.”
* Graham Wynne, chief executive of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds: “Business trips to Indonesia, Washington and Scotland over the past year, clocking up more than five tons of CO2. He also takes occasional holidays to New Zealand.” Great quote from Wynne: “There are a lot of contradictions like these which organisations like ours have to solve.”
* Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association: “Flown this year to Japan, America (twice) and four European destinations, generating about six tons of CO2.” Extra-great quote: “I am deeply concerned about my flying. I am campaigning for a solution but I am still part of the problem.” We’re not here to judge you, Patrick! We at Flyers Anonymous only wish to help!
* John Sauven, Greenpeace campaigns director: “Has flown his family on holiday to Italy and taken a business trip to the Amazon rainforest in Brazil (total emissions, three tons).”
* Sir John Harman, chairman of the Environment Agency: “Business trips to Germany and Vienna and holidays in Croatia and Cyprus suggest total CO2 emissions of more than 11⁄2 tons.”
* Ashok Sinha, director of Stop Climate Chaos: “Flew to India on holiday and to Montreal on a business trip (emissions, 3.3 tons).” Quote: “The real answer is that people must stop flying.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-210-2383135-523,00.html
Climate Care have a CO2 calculator eg flying Sydney-London-Sydney will generate 4.86 Tonnes of CO2 which can be offset for £36.44, or $AU91.36.
Offset projects include;
* Lighting in Schools in Kazakhstan.
* Disseminating efficient cooking stoves in Honduras.
* Providing finance for renewable energy cooking stoves in schools in India.
* Installing efficient lighting in households in South Africa.
* Biogas Digesters saving tigers’ habitat in India
* Restoring a rainforest in Uganda.
* Efficient cooking stoves in Bangladesh.
* Efficient cooking stoves in Madagascar.
Sounds cheap!
http://www.climatecare.org/about_us/index.cfm?content_id=E168562F-D41F-11ED-A9B906252A24E9C1
Strange Ken Ring that you would trust a satellite with signal drifting and decaying yet not hundreds of thermometers. Also strange that the satellites do show a cooling stratosphere. And what temperature increase would you expect – what’s your estimate?
And interesting that you’re running a service selling a commercial product with no information available on efficacy. Imagine the outcry if the Bureau stopped wasting all that tax payers money and followed suit. Methinks someone would like to do away with the competition.
In any case you’re wrong because the moon does not exist. I’m a moon sceptic.
http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm
And Rog – for once I agree – give’em heaps for hypocrisy.
Not too strange Luke, BOM advise that data pre automated sites might be unreliable.
What? The Moon doesn’t exist, Luke? You can’t be serious..so what do you think that thing is up there? Whatever it is, it is pictured in ancient texts and so the illusion has been around for a while. Can you read – how old are you Luke?
Ha you’ve been fooled. It’s a projection. The ancient texts have been fabricated. It does not exist.
Rog – only “may” – extreme duty of care and not so the reference stations.
So the ancient texts have been fabricated. I suppose only what is seen through Luke’s eyes is real. That means all the nonsense about global warming is also projection, because only Luke can read it as his reality.
Getting back to the debate, what is wrong with CO2 in the atmosphere? Remember at school we were taught that gases don’t accumulate, they progressively dissipate. Space is infinite, remember?
365a94404e2b Keep writing so good posts