Cheap flights may hurt EU carbon fight
06-22-2008, 08:47 AM
#1
Administrator
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: C-172
Posts: 8,024
Cheap flights may hurt EU carbon fight
Are the European LCCs really doing that well? The last time I was in Italy, we met a German girl who said her flight from Berlin to Palermo was only 15 Euros. I paid that much for a Margherita pizza washed down with agua frissante at this cute little pizzeria in Catania.
From New York Times:
MURCIA, Spain — The boom in low-cost air travel has done more than democratize air travel and offer new vistas to working-class people: It has also opened a new dimension to the global warming crisis.
At a time when airlines are already the fastest-growing source of climate-warming carbon-dioxide emissions — increasing nearly 5 percent a year according to a report last week from the European Environment Agency — the new low-cost industry is pumping a huge amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
"Low-cost carriers are growing at 9 percent a year, and from an environmental point of view that is a problem," said Christian Brand, a researcher at Oxford University who specializes in the mathematical modeling of transportation emissions. "Their cheap prices encourage more travel."
The growth in passengers on European low-cost airlines has been phenomenal, almost doubling to 120 million per year in 2007 from about 60 million per year in 2005, according to the European Low Fares Airline Association.
Flights on many of these budget airlines start around 50 euros with tax, or about $78, but can be as low as 10 euros, about $16, if booked far enough in advance.
A couple flying round trip from Leeds, England, to Murcia would generate about 1,400,000 grams of carbon dioxide, according to Brand's calculations. A traditional driving vacation to the Lake District in central England would generate fewer than 20,000 grams, or one-seventieth of that amount, he said.
And those numbers are multiplied by the staggering increase in the number of travelers at places such as San Javier airport in Murcia: the number of passengers increased to 848,037 in 2004 from 88,608 in 1995, according to Aena, the main operator of Spanish airports.
For many, the economics of flying cheap are proving more compelling than the environmental consequences. With prices for gas and hotels at all-time highs in Britain and Germany, it is, somewhat bizarrely, more economical to fly to Spain, even for a weekend, than to take a traditional driving vacation near home.
"With bed and breakfasts running 80 pounds to 110 pounds a night, it is cheaper to fly to Spain for the weekend than to drive to the Lake District, so there is incredible latent demand," Brand said.
A European Environment Agency report issued this year said that between 1990 and 2005, the last full year from which data were available, total carbon-dioxide emissions from aviation in the European Union grew by 73 percent.
"This could threaten the ability of the EU to meet increasingly ambitious emission reduction targets," the report's authors said.
The European Low Fares Airline Association argues that low-cost airlines are a "green" alternative compared with conventional airlines, because low-cost airlines tend to have newer, more efficient fleets and their flights run nearly full, creating lower average emissions per passenger.
But that does not take into account the huge growth in flying that they have created.
MURCIA, Spain — The boom in low-cost air travel has done more than democratize air travel and offer new vistas to working-class people: It has also opened a new dimension to the global warming crisis.
At a time when airlines are already the fastest-growing source of climate-warming carbon-dioxide emissions — increasing nearly 5 percent a year according to a report last week from the European Environment Agency — the new low-cost industry is pumping a huge amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
"Low-cost carriers are growing at 9 percent a year, and from an environmental point of view that is a problem," said Christian Brand, a researcher at Oxford University who specializes in the mathematical modeling of transportation emissions. "Their cheap prices encourage more travel."
The growth in passengers on European low-cost airlines has been phenomenal, almost doubling to 120 million per year in 2007 from about 60 million per year in 2005, according to the European Low Fares Airline Association.
Flights on many of these budget airlines start around 50 euros with tax, or about $78, but can be as low as 10 euros, about $16, if booked far enough in advance.
A couple flying round trip from Leeds, England, to Murcia would generate about 1,400,000 grams of carbon dioxide, according to Brand's calculations. A traditional driving vacation to the Lake District in central England would generate fewer than 20,000 grams, or one-seventieth of that amount, he said.
And those numbers are multiplied by the staggering increase in the number of travelers at places such as San Javier airport in Murcia: the number of passengers increased to 848,037 in 2004 from 88,608 in 1995, according to Aena, the main operator of Spanish airports.
For many, the economics of flying cheap are proving more compelling than the environmental consequences. With prices for gas and hotels at all-time highs in Britain and Germany, it is, somewhat bizarrely, more economical to fly to Spain, even for a weekend, than to take a traditional driving vacation near home.
"With bed and breakfasts running 80 pounds to 110 pounds a night, it is cheaper to fly to Spain for the weekend than to drive to the Lake District, so there is incredible latent demand," Brand said.
A European Environment Agency report issued this year said that between 1990 and 2005, the last full year from which data were available, total carbon-dioxide emissions from aviation in the European Union grew by 73 percent.
"This could threaten the ability of the EU to meet increasingly ambitious emission reduction targets," the report's authors said.
The European Low Fares Airline Association argues that low-cost airlines are a "green" alternative compared with conventional airlines, because low-cost airlines tend to have newer, more efficient fleets and their flights run nearly full, creating lower average emissions per passenger.
But that does not take into account the huge growth in flying that they have created.
06-22-2008, 09:39 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: I pilot
Posts: 2,049
They do have a point, however the overall carbon emissions footprint of Aviation worldwide is somewhere between 3 and 4% of all carbon emissions in the world. According to this article http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...ky-440632.html
they estimate that the growing aviation sector will eventually contribute a total of 4% of all carbon emissions worldwide, where as in 1990 it was only about 2.4%. So yes, carbon missions are growing due to aviation growth, however there are other bigger players. There are already organizations dedicated to reducing the aviation carbon footprint through advanced engine technology and aerodynamics, alternative fuels, and improved flight profiles that reduces fuel usage. Overall, I think other sources of carbon emissions should be more strongly targeted, such as from automobile emissions. Not only that, the US alone emits 50% of all carbon gases, the US has about 5% of the world population but uses 20% of the petroleum consumption. Here in the states, our cities are designed for people to rely on cars (well most cities), and unfortunately that is something that will be very hard and costly to change. Anyhow, just my .02
they estimate that the growing aviation sector will eventually contribute a total of 4% of all carbon emissions worldwide, where as in 1990 it was only about 2.4%. So yes, carbon missions are growing due to aviation growth, however there are other bigger players. There are already organizations dedicated to reducing the aviation carbon footprint through advanced engine technology and aerodynamics, alternative fuels, and improved flight profiles that reduces fuel usage. Overall, I think other sources of carbon emissions should be more strongly targeted, such as from automobile emissions. Not only that, the US alone emits 50% of all carbon gases, the US has about 5% of the world population but uses 20% of the petroleum consumption. Here in the states, our cities are designed for people to rely on cars (well most cities), and unfortunately that is something that will be very hard and costly to change. Anyhow, just my .02
06-22-2008, 12:39 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 288
Originally Posted by zondaracer
They do have a point, the US alone emits 50% of all carbon gases, the US has about 5% of the world population but uses 20% of the petroleum consumption. Here in the states, our cities are designed for people to rely on cars (well most cities), and unfortunately that is something that will be very hard and costly to change. Anyhow, just my .02
I don’t mind cutting our carbon footprint, but let’s cut out all of our international welfare at the same time!!
Just my 2 cents.
06-22-2008, 01:52 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Seat 1 A
Posts: 195
Where did you get that 80% figure from? I know the US is a very generous nation but that number seemed very high to me. Also. a good deal of Pharmacueticals and technology comes from the EU. I love this country too, but I'd double check your facts.
06-22-2008, 02:00 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Seat 1 A
Posts: 195
My curiousity got the better of me. I checked out how much the US doles out on food and aid and we are by far the largest provider of food to the world's needy, since 2001 we have been sending 60% of the world's needy food through various programs, this according to the GAO office.
06-22-2008, 04:28 PM
#6
Retired
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: whale wrangler
Posts: 3,527
Originally Posted by Hoof Hearted
My curiousity got the better of me. I checked out how much the US doles out on food and aid and we are by far the largest provider of food to the world's needy, since 2001 we have been sending 60% of the world's needy food through various programs, this according to the GAO office.
06-22-2008, 05:20 PM
#8
Retired
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: whale wrangler
Posts: 3,527
Exactly and you know what frosts me at times is when the countries that we helped pull their collective a$$e$ out of the wreck that was Europe and the Pacific after ww2 turn on us and then have the gall to talk smack , you know what, I hope there comes a day that we tell the rest of the world to go pound but I really doubt it as we are such a giving nation and that puts us far above the rest of them in so many ways !
BTW they schould be lucky that ppl in EU can travel at all with the high cost of living .
BTW they schould be lucky that ppl in EU can travel at all with the high cost of living .
Last edited by DYNASTY HVY; 06-22-2008 at 05:27 PM.
06-22-2008, 05:28 PM
#9
Administrator
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: C-172
Posts: 8,024
Hey, guys, this all constitutes thread drift! 
I'd still want to know why the LCCs over there are seemingly doing so much better than the homegrown ones. It just doesn't make sense, unless of course I am missing something, which seems to be happening more often as I get older.
I'd still want to know why the LCCs over there are seemingly doing so much better than the homegrown ones. It just doesn't make sense, unless of course I am missing something, which seems to be happening more often as I get older.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
