Go to previous story
Email to a friend
Print articleIn a counter-attack, Greenpeace accuse BALPA of 'pure propaganda', saying that the report is ?a dodgy dossier produced by people who should know better.?
At the heart of the issue are statistics that apportion the contribution that aviation makes to global warming emissions. BALPA's contention is that compared to other forms of transport, indeed compared to society as a whole, its contributions is ?is a minor pollutant?.
BALPA draw statistics from a number of sources, including the Stern Report that estimated that Transportation accounts for 14% of global emissions. Of that 14%, air transport is responsible for 12% while car and vans account for 45%.
The report says that BALPA does ?take aviation's environmental footprint seriously. But there are other, bigger, footprints out there.?
The report also contends that not only do other forms of transport make up a larger proportion of the total emissions, but ?many of the other modes of travel that compete with air transport are, according to much scientific research, more polluting than aircraft, both in overall noise and emissions.?
Greenpeace reply that:
?This is simply not true, and BALPA presents no scientific evidence. Indeed BALPA's own graph shows that rail consistently comes out as markedly less polluting. The comparison is flawed because BALPA compares aviation to the Maglev bullet train. But no well known environmental policy group is encouraging the use of Maglevs while all plane versus train comparisons quoted by such groups refer to standard rail as it already exists (which is 8-10 times less damaging to the climate than flying).?
According to Greenpeace:
?The report consistently ignores the effect of 'radiative forcing' - the well-understood phenomenon by which aviation emissions are at least twice as damaging to the climate because they are released at altitude.?
BALPA doesn't ignore radiative forcing, rather it contends that ?in reality the science is not that conclusive.?
The BALPA report leaves the reader with ?some food for thought?: ?if travellers want to 'afford' a flight with reduced CO2 emissions, they could begin to think about eliminating some of the 11 tonnes of annual household emissions.?
According to their statistics, a return flight to Barcelona produces 0.26 tonnes of CO2 per person. Per year, turning down the thermostat by 1?C saves 0.29 tonnes of CO2; not using standby on the TV will save 0.1 tonnes of CO2; and replacing 3 light bulbs with energy saving bulbs will save 0.13 tonnes of CO2. This will save a total of 0.52 tonnes of CO2; double necessary to offset the flight.
Of course, if a family of four were to go to Barcelona you would need to turn the thermostat down by 4?C, turn off four televisions, and replace 12 light bulbs. Not a bad thing necessarily, but it might be a bit nippy during the winter and you will run out of TVs to turn off and light bulbs to change.
