Transportation Dialogue 2

The Environmental Impact of Transportation Conference took place in October and early November 2003. Discussion continues in the forum and we are updating links to other websites. For those who find these resources of value, we ask for a voluntary $50 contribution via check or Pay Pal

BEYOND THE CONCORDE

Antonis B. Petropoulos

The End for Concorde, today, hurray! Check the BBC: "Concorde has taken off from New York for the final flight to London, ending three decades of supersonic travel. The plane, carrying 100 celebrities, is one of three Concordes flying on Friday to celebrate its retirement. " I think it will be only mourned by these 100 "celebrities".

Some Concorde Statistics:
Fuel capacity: 95 tons
Payload weight: 10.6 tons -- i.e. its fuel was 9 times as heavy as the things it could carry ! Exactly the reverse from typical small sized car: 45 kg fuel, 320 kg payload. [Moderator's note: The Concorde had fuel for 5,000 or 6,000 miles on board. A small car might need 10 or 15 tanks of fuel to go that far. But that still means the car uses 450-600 kg of fuel for 320 kg of payload.]

On the topic of why international flights have been excluded, and no national responsibility has been defined for emissions resulting from international travel, the reason is clearly political: Most countries have "national champion" airlines (e.g. British Airways, Air France, Alitalia, Lufthansa) that they want to subsidise for national pride, for subsidising their technology / defence sector, etc. Otherwise it would be the easiest thing to tax: there are precise data on the number of flights, the types of aircraft, passenger numbers, etc. etc. It is very easy to measure emissions, far easier than for example the aggregate emissions of accommodation, or even of land transport. Not to mention that the whole airline industry is dominated by just two huge suppliers, Airbus and Boeing. On the other hand such airlines are all too happy to create small fry awards for "responsible travel" etc, and some major NGOs, that you would normally expect to be making a fuss, all too happy to receive or distribute those awards, some in kind (i.e. free travel). I expect these NGOs to become more vocal, when airline funds dry up, or say when Boeing Solar opens... ( not totally a joke)

John Shores

Here are some interesting excerpts from Towards Sustainable Aviation. 2003.
Edited by Paul Upham, Janet Maughan, David Raper, and Callum Thomas.
Earthscan, London, UK and Sterling, Virginia, USA. 248 p.

From the press release: The book sets out to "give voice" to a range of opinions ... involving "stakeholders in academia, industry, government, and NGO's." From the Preface: "In the longer term, the continuing growth of civil aviation is unsustainable given current technologies and operating systems.

Governments therefore face very major challenges in trying to meet air traffic demand in a sustainable manner." Four major challenges:
1. global climate change
2. aircraft noise disturbance
3. resource use
4. waste production

"One thing is clear: sustainability within the aviation industry will not be achieved through 'business as usual'" (page xiv) "Passenger traffic since 1960 has grown at nearly 9% per year, 2.4 times the rate of global average GDP growth." (page 4)

"As GDP rises, countries shift to FASTER modes of passenger traffic." (emphasis added) "Although global aviation emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are a small percentage of carbon emissions worldwide, they are still roughly equivalent to the carbon emissions of industrialized nations like Canada or the UK. More locally, aircraft and airport operations generate noise from take-off and landings, engine testing, surface transport, and construction, so that noise is widely considered to be one of the most serious environmental problems of aviation." (page 4)

"Locally, noise is the most serious environmental effect of aviation, plus land, surface, and groundwater contamination from fuel, de-icers, waste, airport expansion, and ground transport to service the airports." (page 5)

Chapter 2: Organizational and growth trends in air transport by Ian Humphreys "Today there are over 18,000 commercial aircraft in service, around 1,300 airlines, over 1,192 airports open to international aviation, and worldwide, over 3 billion passenger kilometers were flown in 1999." (p. 19)

[elsewhere this author cites this as 3 TRILLION revenue passenger kilometers for 1999.] "The proportion of passengers flying for leisure purposes varies by route. Generally speaking, in Europe 50 per cent of passengers are flying on leisure and 50 per cent on business; for Europe-North Atlantic routes, it is estimated that 80 per cent fly on leisure and only 20 per cent on business. The geographical distribution of air transport reflects global economic wealth: North America and Europe account for around 70 per cent of world passengers; Asia currently accounts for 21 per cent and is likely to exhibit the strongest growth; Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and the Caribbean account for 9 per cent. ... The potential for growth in terms of passenger trips is massive given that only around 1 per cent of the world's population has ever flown." (p. 20)

"Airlines have concentrated passenger traffic on the points that offer the most attractive market in terms of yield... This is why 32 per cent of world passenger traffic passes through the 25 busiest passenger airports, 17 of which are in the US." (p 21)

"Currently an estimated 40 per cent of global trade by value is moving by air." (p. 22)

Sami Grover

A number of the introductory postings to this conference have brought up the issue of carbon offset services, so I thought I'd throw a few thoughts in. As Antonia and Claudia both pointed out, there is something slightly worrying about the concept of purchasing the "right to pollute" with the swipe of a card, yet on the other hand, these schemes can provide valuable revenue for important renewable energy/ energy conservation/ re-forestation projects that might otherwise not receive funding.

I have heard a number of people argue that, as our governments are unwilling to put a tax on air-travel, then this simply amounts to a voluntary self-taxation which goes someway towards combating the damage done by a persons travel. This can also prove a useful tool in making people aware of the massive impact that every flight can have, and can provide a concrete illustration of the relative impact of airtravel compared to car-use, train travel etc. So far so good, the problem, as far as I see it, occurs when these services are seen as "wiping the slate clean", i.e. "I've paid my dues, so I can pollute with a clean conscience."

The companies themselves send out a mixed message on this front, often emphasising the need to cut emissions at source first and foremost, and then using offset on those emissions that can not immediately be avoided (which will, of course, be a very subjective judgement!), yet they do suggest that their services do somehow exonerate the polluter. I am certainly aware that patenting of such terms as "Carbon Neutral" by Future Forests has created a lot of ill feeling amongst the environmental movement. Surely any "get out of jail free (or cheaply)" card is likely to encourage further air-travel, or at least diminish the incentive to look for alternatives?

It would certainly be interesting to learn more about how these services are actually perceived by the customers, and how do they effect traveller's travel choices i.e. would those who shell out on offset schemes be less likely to make the flight in the first place if the service was not available? Does anyone know of anyone who has done any research on this? I am not aware of any research within the tourism literature, aside from passing mentions to carbon offset in papers to do with energy consumption in general. Any references would be greatly appreciated.

Another issue which was alluded to in a couple of intro messages, and which I would be very interested to hear views on, is the types of projects that money from offset schemes goes to. The better known schemes seem to concentrate on re-forestation, yet it is precisely these schemes that seem to attract the most scepticism from environmentalists. As far as I understand it the science of using trees as carbon sinks causes concern as they are not particularly secure forms of storage -- logging, disease, drought and fire can all release this carbon back into the atmosphere - and ironically many of these risks will only increase with climate change. A system which seems more secure, and which attracts less criticism, is funding technological offset, e.g. the money goes to replace incandescent lightbulbs with energy efficient bulbs in villages using high carbon power sources such as diesel generators. not only do these schemes provide easily quantifiable carbon savings, they are also more immediate, and provide social benefits of energy security, reduced local air-pollution etc. having said that, re-forestation has obvious conservation benefits.

I would be very interested to hear further opinions from delegates on this issue, and would greatly appreciate any leads on further research on this issue.

Michelle Kirby & Andres Hammerman

I am curious as to statistics around airlines emissions and pollution. How do these emissions compare to city traffic? To rush hour traffic? To industry? To electricity production?

I also wonder what is the percentage of airline use for luxury travel/vacation compared to business travel? Does Frequent Flyer mean Frequent Polluter? I would imagine that the airline industry depends on business travel more than tourism, but I could be wrong. In any case I am only trying to get to a "lesser of two evils" point of view...

In my first post I talked about: 1). Working for the Green Tortoise Adventure Travel Company, a bus company based out of San Francisco. I also mentioned my experiences working in various transportation fields: truck driver, limousine driver, sailboat deliverer and farm tractor driver. I will continue with the second point that I wanted to bring up in this conference: 2). Transportation for tourism is more than just moving people from place to place, but also logistics of obtaining merchandise and food products. This will also address how people get to the Black Sheep Inn, and what transportation we rely upon. Later I will address: 3). Comparing different types of travel methods and looking at society as a whole... this will be a philosophical look at transportation and our new view of the world.#2) I never thought I would feel guilty for choosing to live rurally and managing my property in a sustainable way. But because we rely on tourism for an income, and our guests must travel sometimes half way around the earth to get to us, we therefore are contributing to polluting the planet with carbon emissions! Obviously this is offset by our guests high nitrogen contributions in our composting toilets.

People arrive at the Black Sheep Inn by various means of transport: public bus is the most common, but as we attract clients with larger budgets we are beginning to see more people arrive by private transport or rented vehicles. We also have people arrive hiking, biking and on horseback. The majority of clients we receive have flown internationally to Ecuador and many of them also fly three hours each way to the Galapagos. A large part of tourism transportation also has to do with the transport of the products needed to cater to tourism clients. In the Galapagos this is extreme. All food products should be brought in and all garbage and waste should be taken out. It should be extreme because the visitors to the Galapagos should not rely upon the Galapagos to sustain their needs, nor should the tourist leave a trace. The islands should be able to continue to evolve with or without visitors. The real problem in the Galapagos is the amount of full time Ecuadorian Residents on the islands, now around 20,000 people!

On a number of occasions the Black Sheep Inn has been isolated by countrywide transportation strikes here in Ecuador. The price of fuel goes up and the people simply block the roads all over the country. The daily bus stops coming and life at the Black Sheep Inn becomes very quiet. Sometimes it has been for one day, and sometimes up to a week. We have had guests unable to arrive, and we've had happy guests that felt good about being stuck in such a nice location. We also had people walk out or hitch rides between road blocks. The national transportation strikes are NOT common occurrences, but they have happened approximately five different times in the nine years we have been living here. The main thing that we notice when the bus stops coming is what it is that we rely upon from the outside world.

Actually, we, at the Black Sheep Inn, do very well with the products that we have here locally or on site. We could probably hold out for a couple of months with no bus. One aspect of sustainability is working towards the ability to never need products from the outside world. Although, as a tourism business, the one product we would rely upon is the tourist. We have tried to buy Ecuadorian products both for building and for maintaining the Inn. If possible we have used natural local materials for building such as clay for homemade adobe blocks, cut down our own trees for eucalyptus beams, paramo grass/straw and clay tiles for roofing. In the past we have wanted recycled paper products and biodegradable cleaning products, but we were reluctant to import them because of the absurdity of burning such a large amount of fossil fuels to bring in ECO products. Now, we are glad to have found a good variety of ECO products here in Ecuador.

Transportation strikes, power black-outs, and droughts can be extremely enlightening. They point out what it is that we rely upon. Imagine wherever you live suddenly having no fuel for transportation. How would life change? What would happen both immediately, and then how would you begin to problem solve? I think that we are dealing with bigger issues than clean transportation for just tourism, but clean fuels for maintaining long term human settlement on earth. OK, that was big! But maybe ecotourism can be a leader in bridging the gap between idealistic liberal clean technology and sustainability and the mainstream public... that would be great!

Tim Burford

Here are a few rather anecdotal figures, culled from newspaper articles and so on, about CO2 emissions and so on. It1s a bit of a ragbag, from various years, so I make no claims of consistency or correctness. There is also a brief article by Tom Morton of Climate Change, which I presume he won1t mind being used here. In 1993 aircraft produced 3.5% of CO2 emissions; now the figure is c10%, causing c7% of global warming; by 2015 aircraft are expected to be responsible for 15% of global warming, as the number of flights per year is still increasing by 5% pa. Air transport was excluded from the Kyoto deal, which of course doesn1t cover the US anyway.

By 2030 or 2040 the number of flights per year is expected to be three times the level of 2000 - they might only double if fuel were taxed; at the moment aviation benefits from about £8bn pa in subsidies/tax breaks, which for the UK is equivalent to 2p on income tax. Airlines are said to produce as much CO2 as all human activity in Africa; each passenger from the UK to Florida is responsible for 1.8 t of CO2 emissions. For comparison, the average British car emits 0.3kg of C02 per mile, ie 0.2kg/km; one barrel of oil releases 400kg (0.4t) of CO2. Railfreight releases 0.005kg of CO/t-km, road freight 1.47kg, inland water 0.16kg. Aviation's contribution to climate change: This article was submitted to TravelMole by Tom Morton, Climate Care The aviation industry is undergoing a period of structural adjustment. However, yet another issue is looming on the horizon - aviation1s contribution to climate change. Aviation accounts for 13% of the carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere from transport, or 2% of man1s total. By 2050 aviation1s contribution to global warming could increase by 500%, perhaps contributing as much as 10% of man-made global warming. The problem is compounded because jet aircraft release a cocktail of gasses into the sensitive upper atmosphere, which has a global warming effect somewhere between 2 and 4 times that of carbon dioxide alone. To give an idea of the scale: on a return trip from London to South America a 747 will release the equivalent of 1,300 tonnes of CO2.

Over the last ten years serious concern over climate change has lead to the Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol may have its flaws and omissions, the most widely publicised being the non- participation of the United States. But another major polluter that is not included is international aviation. For a source of emissions that match those of Canada, currently 7th in the international league tables, the time for hiding is running out. The last 30 years has seen advances in fuel efficiency per passenger flown but despite the current downturn, the rise in demand is far out stripping these gains. The UK government acknowledges the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution1s statement that in order to avoid an environmental catastrophe, society needs to reduce emissions by 60% by 2050. To achieve this the aviation fleet would need to improve fuel efficiency by 5% every year for 50 years, clearly an impossible task. As aeroplanes can1t run on rubber bands, how will real emissions reductions be made? There have been many calls for aviation fuel to be taxed - but this would probably line the pockets of government without addressing the climate.

A more progressive option is to engage in emissions trading. Airlines would be given emissions limits and if these where exceeded 'emissions reduction units' would have to bought in the market. ERUs would be created either by other companies making reductions or from individual projects such as renewable energy schemes. In buying reductions to offset increases, the net contribution of aviation to climate change would be reduced. Trading offers a cost-effective way of addressing the problems of rising emissions that cannot be accounted for by better fuel economy.

The industry is slowly waking up to the issue and early action could influence regulation in aviation1s favour. In January, ICAO called for further work to be done on market based mechanisms including a trial trading scheme. The final cost to industry and passengers will depend on the emissions ceilings set. Many would argue that an industry that doesn1t pay fuel tax or VAT on tickets can afford to pay for the environmental damage it causes. One thing is for sure: the emissions issue won1t be going away. Tom Morton works for Climate Care, a company working with the tourism and travel industry to 3offset2 passengers1 emissions when they fly. Climate Care undertake to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by the same amount as their clients emit - through renewable energy, energy efficiency and reforestation projects. For air travel this costs just 80 pence per passenger per hour. Carbon offsets offer a low cost entry into the emissions trading market and an opportunity for industry to take the initiative.

Sami Grover

As far as I understand it, airline emissions present a significant problem over and above their carbon emissions. Due to a combination of the altitude that they pollute at, other gasses emitted in edition to carbon, and also the warming effects that the aeroplanes' contrails have on the climate, air-travel's contribution to man-made climate change may be 3 times that of simply the amount of carbon it emits. As to how all this compares to other forms of transport, I believe the answer is not very well, particularly considering that flights are considerably longer than most road trips (however, if you look at it mile for mile, the longer a flight the cleaner it is, as disproportionate amounts of fuel are used for take-off and landing). As you can see, it's a little complicated and I have seen many different estimates for the effects. One good site with info on this is Choose Climate which includes an emissions calculator for flights. We did publish a paper in the Journal of Sustainable Tourism by Susanne Becken which estimated that if aircraft emissions were taken into account when calculating New Zealand's overall carbon "footprint" then they would increase it by 11% (I am working from memory, so forgive me if this figure is not exact, it was definitely around that number).