Today's Guardian has an interesting piece today on the environmental impact of air travel. See
here. This is a topic that irks me particularly when, as now, I prepare to make the trans-Atlantic trip home. How can I cope with the guilt of vomiting several tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere? Why is the airline industry so selfish and why do they treat passengers so terribly? Why don't people on the west side of the Atlantic seem to understand that cheap cross-country air travel is not a constitutional right?
[Updated to remove direct reference to a fellow Kossack, with apologies.]
A dKos regular and environmentalist alerted me to the principle of green lifestyle and carbon-neutrality, however, as the lead Guardian article in the section
notes:
Equally, carbon neutralising our flights is a nice, cuddly idea that on the surface is a positive action to take, but ultimately planting trees in Scotland or handing out eco-light bulbs in Honduras is no substitute for getting planes out of the skies. It also carries the risk that people will think "job done" and simply carry on flying regardless.
The real task is to stop people flying. Even the prospect of environmentally friendly air travel should not be held to too dearly. I once had the pleasure to meet an engineer at Boeing, who assured me they were very interested in studying alternative fuel sources for aircraft. Of course they were. But, from the same article:
An aviation fuel expert at Shell dispelled any real hope that a paradigm shift is within reach whereby planes will no longer be powered by highly polluting kerosene but instead by a much cleaner alternative. Liquid hydrogen is pure fantasy, he said, for at least another 50 years. And forget any hope that biofuels, as is the hope with cars, could come to the rescue. Ethanol, he said, is a poor performer as an aviation fuel.
[...]
The bottom line, he said, is that kerosene will be the preferred fuel for the next 30 years. And hearing Boeing assert that new planes being bought today will have a service life of up to 60 years, it appears that we are now "locked-in" to this technology - and its resultant emissions - for the long-term.
Imagine a world which was not a slave to the air industry, an industry I have heard it said has a net deficit over the course of its history (I would be delighted if someone could supply a reference to confirm or deny this). Communications technology could be used to render many short business trips a waste. People could return to the old ways of driving or taking a train to their holiday destination (with that destination being closer to home). There is a lot to see within 300 miles of where you live, unless you live in Texas.
To return to my specific concern. I'm a grad student in America for five years. After that I might settle over here. Do I need to return home twice a year to see my family? I would be happy with once a year, they less so. Even with air travel as cheap as it is the impact on my stipend is significant, but some of my Californian colleagues make the trip home four times a year. It's almost as far as flying to Britain, but much less expensive because the taxes are lower and the competition is fairer.
It's not that I'm bitter. I just hate air travel.