Number of people flying these days

abbas5001

Hi all,

I just wanted to start a discussion on the number of people flying in recent times and especially, this summer. With all the debate on global arming and the mass of environmentally friendly initiatives by corporations and the encouragement we receive to do our bit and save energy etc. it surprises me that so many people are flying.

I know traditionally everyone has jetted of soon after the summer starts (and families as soon as the schools end) but quite literally everyone I've spoken to in the past month about their plans for summer has said they are flying abroad. It feels as though the number is much greater than the past which i do find a little bit worrying.

Moreover, i work part-time as a supervisor in Sainsbury's whilst at uni and i find that many customers bring their own bags and so on and when i speak to them about it they say 'just doing my bit for the environment' and so on. However, when i ask them their plans for the summer, or it just comes up in general conversation half of these people tell me they've just come back from Dubai, Spain, America and so on. I'm left really curious by their contradictory behaviour - do they not realise the little benefits they create of using their own bags and recycling are nothing compared to the damage they cause by flying which isn't the worst pollutant but still very bad for the environment?

Now i am not criticising - i am no eco-warrior but i am don't deny the danger of global warming, i just want to get other peoples opinions on the matter.

Cardew

I understand the point you are making, but why single out travel by air?

It is one thing to adopt environmentally friendly practices that do not impinge on our desired lifestyle. It is, to use your example, no big problem for any of us to re-use plastic bags.

However when people start to suggest/advocate/pressurise us into giving up our ‘extravagancies’, where do you draw the line?

How many of us really lead a minimalist lifestyle?

Should we give up our cars? Modern appliances(TV/DVD etc etc) Any holiday at all.
Most of us have far more clothes than we will ever need.

As has been said before, those on this forum who proudly proclaim their green credentials and seem ready to criticise the wasteful practices of others, do so using a computer and the internet; not high on the list of ‘essentials’ in my book.

Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone;)

morg_monster

i agree with both of you (and tend to agree with all of cardew's posts on this board) - i like to think of myself as green - i use reusable bags for my shopping, recycle, try to reduce what I buy, try to cook things from scratch, use a mooncup, take the train for trips in the UK, use low energy light bulbs, etc etc.
But then I consider that I took 2 shorthaul flights already this year (1 for work) and will be taking a longhaul flight in september and I think, why am I bothering with the small stuff when clearly I'm not ready to make this big sacrifice to not travel by air?
I'm sure this applies to many many people and probably most people who you see with their bags for life at your checkout. most are willing to make small changes that make them feel good & smug and don't impact on their lives very much, but making bigger changes takes a new level of dedication. They (and I) won't be willing to give up their holidays abroad, the bigger car they "need", etc, its just too much of a leap.
What would make me stop flying? Probably having small kids (cut down on the convenience), or some more tax hikes on tickets (cut down on affordability). Its purely a convenience and money thing for me, I love to travel, and flying is the easiest and cheapest way to get there. However saying that, I would not take a domestic flight anymore.
Anyway, it troubles me that I'm not willing to give up flying yet, but thats where I am at the moment. :-(

thescouselander

I would dispute that flying is so damaging. Apparently flying causes only 4% of man made CO2 emissions. Ok, flying is on the increase but even if it increased by 100% flying would still only account for 8% for total emissions. Thats nothing compared to the emissions from powerstations etc.

Of course, what is often overlooked is that there is only limited capacity for planes to take off and land and the skys are already pretty crowded, I doubt a 100% increase in flights would even be possible.

Volcano

thescouselander wrote: »

Of course, what is often overlooked is that there is only limited capacity for planes to take off and land and the skys are already pretty crowded, I doubt a 100% increase in flights would even be possible.

Apparently the UK aviation industry is looking at increasing passenger movements from 200 million (at present) to 470 million by 2030.

Critically, it is where these emissions are being produced. Injecting stuff so high in the atmosphere means there is far more chance of interaction with incoming sunlight, increased greenhouse effect etc.

moonrakerz

I really can't take very seriously these people who lecture me about the evils of air travel.
Especially when these same people, Al Gore, John Travolta et al are the biggest hypocrites on the planet when it comes to jet travel and reducing individual carbon output.

Some years ago I was informed (by the pilot) that a Boeing 757 used about 800 gals of fuel to do London/Edinburgh. With about 200 souls on board, that 4 gals per person, even in the most economical car you would use twice that, and airliners have become even more efficient since then. I at least travel in a full, modern, fuel efficient, aeroplane unlike Mr Travolta who has FIVE jets, one of them an elderly Boeing 707.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23390848-details/With+five+private+jets,+Travolta+still+lectures+on+global+warming/article.do

morg_monster

yeah but no need to worry about global warming, the solution is in outer space and we can live on "other planets and dome cities"

What a nutcase!

morg_monster

moonrakerz - interesting figures, I didn't realise that.
i agree in your specific example, that 1 London businessman going to edinburgh could fly more efficiently than drive, but - he should probably get the train to be even more efficient.
And what of the people like me who go fly 2 or 3 times a year on holiday. I don't NEED to do that like the business NEEDS to go to Edinburgh. I guess that's where the environmentalists get on their high horse (and in these cases I think its justified - although they probably think that the businessman should have a teleconference instead).
It would be better for me to drive to Cornwall for a holiday than fly to Canada (but I wouldn't have as much fun...)

Cardew

morg_monster wrote: »

And what of the people like me who go fly 2 or 3 times a year on holiday. I don't NEED to do that like the business NEEDS to go to Edinburgh. I guess that's where the environmentalists get on their high horse

If you start worrying about censure from the ‘Green Police’ where do you stop?

You just ‘wasted’ several Watts of power with your last post; and I with this one.;)

The only thing that has(and will) change habits is economic pressure. Put petrol up to £3 a litre and a lot less fuel will be consumed. – Sure it will be totally unfair and I am in no way advocating that ‘solution’.

However if economic pressure is to be applied, make sure it is not an ‘own goal’ like the recent doubling of the already high airport tax.

All that has done is stopped some tourists coming to UK, or businessmen routing to Europe through UK. Some simply travel by ferry to/from Dublin or Paris to avoid the tax.

I have interests in the USA and it is cheaper for me to fly an extra return journey to Dublin, or a number of European cities, and onward to the USA, than fly from UK.

Whilst I am fully aware of the argument that we in UK should set an example, if we totally went back to the stone age and consumed absolute no energy at all, within a year all the saving that made would be cancelled out by the increased consumption from China alone.

moonrakerz

Cardew wrote: »

I have interests in the USA and it is cheaper for me to fly an extra return journey to Dublin, ..............................., and onward to the USA, than fly from UK.

and no queuing in the US to clear immigration !

thescouselander

Volcano wrote: »

Apparently the UK aviation industry is looking at increasing passenger movements from 200 million (at present) to 470 million by 2030.

Critically, it is where these emissions are being produced. Injecting stuff so high in the atmosphere means there is far more chance of interaction with incoming sunlight, increased greenhouse effect etc.

That may be true but I still stand behind my original statement. Such and expansion would need a large expansion in airports within the UK all of which would need planning permission. What are the chances of this permission being granted given the public opposition to such projects.

Also, there is only so much capacity to handel air traffic in our airspace. I fly quite often for work and I'm often delayed by restrictions put in place by air traffic contol due to congestion.

Doubling passenger numbers is not as easy as just buying twice as many aircraft!