Well as you can see, the crack team of branding experts to which we have access here at Flight have finished their work and our blog about aviation and the environment is ready to launch. We're calling it "Aviation and the Environment" - pretty edgy I'm sure you'll agree.
Here's what we're trying to do:
- Quickly and conveniently comment on environmental issues
- Guide visitors around our own and other organisations' published material
- Host an objective debate about environmental issues
Our starting position is that a) air transport is broadly beneficial to humankind but b) it has a negative effect on the environment and c) the resulting issues are complex and require serious debate.
We do think the standard of debate is currently not all it might be. But we're not here to champion the industry, and we truly hope that we'll hear from all sides. We will post all comments received (within the usual bounds of taste and decency) and look forward to hearing from you.
Well done Flight for starting an avblog green!
It's high time people looked at the real issues of Aviation and it's benefits v environmental impact.
On the one hand there is media exageration on the industry's Climate Change impact and on the other a lack of significant action to reduce CO2 emissions from airline travel.
Let's hope this blog promotes good green technology and common sense.
The greens and now the conservatives can't see the wood for the trees! So much for the latter's new logo!
Aviation is a 2 to 5 % global CO2 problem! Cutting down on runway infrastructure will increase pollution! Aviation is the life blood to the UK economy and hundreds of other nations - especially poorer ones. Take away air freight and millions of farmers suffer worldwide.
Having aeroplanes circling in the hold burning tonnes of Jet A1 fuel at their most inefficient altitudes is a far worse for the environment and air quality and local noise than giving them a 2 mile piece of tarmac to land on.
The cost of producing a mile of high speed rail track (186mph) track is £73.5 million per mile and a 3 lane motorway (70mph) is £28.4 million per mile.
The environmental impact of building/revising rail lines to cope with high speed trains is rarely considered in the public domain.
Even eco warrior George Monbiot agrees that flying is more carbon efficient than a high speed train from London to Edinburgh:
Assuming we had the infrastructure (which we cannot afford!) a fast train traveling at 350kph would use the quivalent energy of 22 litres per seat. Today's Airbus A321 would use 20 littres per seat on the same journey and travels at 900 kph !
Oxford university Environmental Change institute said it is more polluting to travel by Eurostar London to Paris than to go by cheap flight!
How about a journey from Manchester to Guernsey:
A Saab 340 turbo prop aeroplane produces 103kg per passenger on that route. A Nissan Micra on the same route would push out 226 kg with one on board.
Target the BIG issues like household energy use , loft insulation, car emissions first and use any green taxes to help develop green technology to improve homes and transport.
2005: UK CO2 emissions:
Road: 120 million tonnes
Energy industries: 208 million tonnes (and we don't have electric cars yet!)
Industry: 99 million tonnes
Residential: 83 million tonnes
Public sector/commercial: 46 million tonnes
Aviation?
8 million tonnes !
So many issues, so little time - in every sense. I hope all these will get debated here in due course. For the moment I'd just say that I do think society has got to address the whole question of managing demand and behaviour - not just in respect of aviation and transport. I suspect there's an important discussion to be had around the question of when it is reasonable to legislate to shape behaviour on environmental grounds.
Right you are and i think nobody doubts the importance of the question. According to some publications at http://rapid4me.com/ , the crisis, that is felt worldwide, has not yet shown its real face! Imagine, how it all can effect environment...