Carbon offsetting - the debate
Loic Robertson July 2nd, 2008
Craig Burkinshaw, MD of Audley, argues that effective carbon offsetting should be an obligatory part of the ticket price for all air passengers around the world.
The issues, however, are complex and in some cases, controversial:
- Carbon offsetting schemes are the most obvious and simple solution, but how effective are they?
- Make airlines pay more duty and VAT on fuel - but how much extra cost would travellers be prepared to pay?
- Planes could fly lower and slower to reduce the effect of emmissions but would passengers accept longer flight times?
- Is emmissions trading the answer?
Join in the debate. If you have a view on this subject we would love to hear from you - simply write in the box below.
- Carbon Debate
- Comments(3)
The planet certainly needs saving, but some of us see carbon offsetting as a red herring. When Al Gore wrote “An Inconvenient truth” he set in motion a huge bandwagon dedicated to the notion that carbon emissions are the world’s greatest threat: before long, the message was that “everyone agrees with” Gore’s message.
Not so. Although rarely given airtime by the media, much scientific opinion is deeply sceptical about the “carbon myth”, pointing out that historically there have always been climate swings, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas compared with water vapour, and that we have many more pressing threats to worry about. Please read a full account of these competing theories.
Now to your suggestion that “environmental damage from aviation….would be reduced by flying lower and slower”: I was an airline pilot for 25 years and the reason we always flew as HIGH as operationally possible was that this SAVED fuel. The jet engine is very inefficient at lower altitudes, so to fly lower would greatly increase fuel consumption - the opposite of what we want! As for flying slower, the thin air at altitide means that an aircraft can only reduce its speed by a small amount before it approaches the stall and falls out of the sky - again not a very desirable prospect! The aviation industry has for years been very conscious of the need to save fuel and most of what CAN be done already HAS been done.
My personal view of the “Save the Planet” debate is that by far the greatest threat is PEOPLE - far too many people. This of course is the great taboo subject, but one that will have to be opened up if we are really to save the planet. When i was born, world population was 1 Billion: it is now 6 Billion and rising rapidly, mainly in the third world. We can’t go on like this, yet no one dares mention the subject.
As for the travel industry, well done Audley for focussing on responsible travel - the opposite of my particular bugbear “getto tourism”, where tourists simply vegetate in their resort (or cruise ship) ghetto, with little contact or gain to the community they are visiting.
Finally, we very much enjoyed our recent visit to your HQ at New mill, but there was no sign then, or mention in your article, about energy saving solar panels. I like to think that I was years ahead of the game, when I installed solar panels on our house some 35 years ago (!): I know it takes ages (forever?) to recoup the capital costs, but solar panels don’t actually cost much compared with other energy saving devices. So… solar panels for New Mill?
Well said, Rolf Richardson. The problem of uncontrolled population growth is the reason for pressure on the world’s resources, deforestation, loss of animal habitats, etc., etc. Failure to confront this issue - the great taboo, as Rolf Richardson remarks - means that the symptoms are addressed, not their cause. The Duke of Edinburgh raised the subject many years ago and, as I recall, was roundly abused for his pains. Perhaps people and politicians should have paid more attention to him.
Hi Rolf, good to see you the other week, did you know that the tailor-made arrangements I put together for you in Vietnam many years ago were the first ever Audley tailor-made trip! Delighted you are still travelling with us!
I completely agree that there are a lot of unknowns in the climate data. I have done quite a lot of maths and stats in my time mainly linked to economic data but I fully appreciate how hard is to “prove” or “disprove” something with so many effects in the system over such a short time period. Personally, I certainly don’t know the answer but I currently hold the view that a clear majority of scientists with expertise (as far as you can have expertise in this area) believe that human actions are having a significant impact on the current global warming “trend”. I think that the total evidence while certainly not proof justifies taking strong precautionary measures because the potential consequences are so serious. It may be only say 20% probable that global warming will create acute problems in the longer term, but by the time we find out it may be too late.
I don’t personally agree with the “flying lower and slower” idea, I just mentioned it as one idea that is being floated as a potential partial solution to the problem.
Theorywise while I am no expert, I read a lot of scientific journals and magazines so I have read a lot of articles on different aspects of the issue. It is from this reading that I have concluded that the balance of scientific opinion is in favour of reasonably strong precautionary action immediately while we continue to monitor and study the problem.
I completely agree that world population is the biggest single problem - I have been saying this for many years. This should be an important part of the debate but it is a very tough problem. Even if we agree that a steady and controlled reduction in world population is necessary, achieving this any free society whether it is India or the UK though would be very difficult. Personally, I think our society should move towards a position where it is considered irresponsible to have more than two children, this would lead to a steady decline in population. This problem though is worldwide. At the same time given that we are unlikely to reduce population significantly in the next 100 years we need to apply other more short term strategies to combat warming.
In summary, I don’t disagree with anything you say really. When you are next coming to the office, tell me and I will take you out for lunch and we can discuss it further. Regards, Craig