Airline calls for balance on climate change

EasyJet is calling for a balanced debate on the effect of flying on the environment, after criticism that the industry is causing climate change.

The low-cost airline has labelled comments that flights across the globe are adversely affecting the environment as "hysterical persecution".

The remarks come as the European Low Fares Airline Association (ELFAA) releases a report assessing the economic issues of changes to aviation legislation, which also includes an appraisal of the impact low-cost airlines have on the environment.

Andy Harrison, chief executive of easyJet, said: "Contrary to the views of many, aviation is not the environment’s biggest enemy – not today and not tomorrow."

He added: "The report published today shows that aviation accounts for only four per cent of EU-15 CO2 emissions and will account for five per cent of EU-25 CO2 emissions in 2030 – these numbers are based upon the European Commission’s own numbers.

"This shows that too much of the debate has been based upon inaccurate and one-sided information.

“We are calling for an end to the hysterical persecution of aviation by those that seek to wrongly blame airlines, particularly low-cost airlines, for climate change.”

Mr Harrison further stated that those who lay the blame of climate change solely on the shoulders of low-cost airlines were "wrong, wrong, wrong".

easyJet supports the Economic Union's Emissions Trading Scheme, Mr Harrison said, and stressed that flying new aircraft, with high load factors, means they are one of the world's most environmentally-efficient airlines.

© Adfero Ltd

Comments

[Davids Meanwell]

Air travel is the world's fastest growing source of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, which cause climate change.

The percentage figures quoted in the article are misleading. Globally the world's 16,000 commercial jet aircraft generate more than 700 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2), the world's major greenhouse gas, per year. Indeed aviation generates nearly as much CO2 annually as that from all human activities in Africa. Mile for mile aircraft are more polluting than motor vehicles and emissions are expected to double in the next ten to fifteen years.

Worst of all, aircraft emissions remain high up in the atmosphere, exacerbating their effect on the Earth's climate.

[Karl]

The easyJet comments are so clearly at odds with measurable reality (aka science) that even to describe them as greenwash would be to give them too much credit. Nobody with a modicum of sense is going to swallow this. If anyone claims they do, I can only imagine it is because they are really desparate for an excuse to stick their heads in the sand. Science has reached its conclusion. There is no longer room for debate. What is needed now is action to cut flights.

[Dan Pearce]

I am currently studying for a doctorate in Environmental Technology. The subject is aviation emissions and dispersion and the comment by Andy Harrison that air travel “is aviation is not the environment’s biggest enemy” is certainly a just one given the current state of scientific knowledge.

World wide the production of electricity produces greenhouse emissions that are factors above that of the aviation industry, but I don’t see why this has even the slightest relevance to whether or not aviation should be forced to do their utmost to reduce emissions. It shows a complete ignorance as a company to take responsibility. For them to openly comment that their business is in fact not only contributing, but continuing to increase its contribution to global warming while attempting to shift focus to other areas of industry (which must be pointed out are subject to considerably more stringent regulation that any airline company) is weak and will hopefully have the effect of attracting even more attention.

The fact is that science still has quite a vague understanding of the full effects of high-altitude emissions. Even at the low level where we can put equipment in place to attempt to measure aircraft-related effects, the source dynamics and complex chemistry involved are at a level where even the most advanced computers would struggle to provide a reasonable estimate. As such it would be ignorant of anyone to claim they had a definitive value of the true impact of flight on the global environment. It could just as easily be significantly worse than we currently understand.

His final comment relating to the perceived victimisation of low-cost airlines over their higher-priced counterparts is another fundamentally flawed point. It is the low-cost airlines that are increasing the number of flights. If flights were not so cheap then people would look to take the usually considerably less polluting train or coach equivalent. It should also be pointed out that it is easyJet's specialist area (short-haul flights) that have the maximum impact of all aviation on the environment. With fuel burn at its highest during take off, and with taxi and stacking having the greatest effect on a local and regional scale, efficiency is only recovered to levels equivalent to other forms of transport for flights in excess of approximately 2,000km. Even this assumes that flight conditions are optimum when in fact many low-cost airlines have been found to take off with enough unnecessary additional weight in fuel for a return trip (reducing the time required for the aircraft to remain on the ground at the cost of additional weight and fuel burn is a financially viable for short haul flights even though it increases fuel burn).

My final comment would be to the easyJet Chief Executive Andy Harrison. Mr Harrison, would you allow anyone to threaten the life of your grandchildren? To threaten the life of your great grandchildren? Because low as the percentage currently is, you are openly commenting that your company's increasing contribution to global emissions and possibly notable reduction in the quality of the life they are capable of leading is nothing more than "hysterical persecution".

[Jonathan Essex]

I am worried about the suggestion that we need "balance on climate change". We cannot sit on the fence on this issue. Balance, or fudge as many would call it, muddies the waters. When my grandchildren ask me "what did you do in the fight to stop the Great Warming" I don't want to answer "helped cause it". This is ultimately not just a technical issue, but one of consciousness. We are either acting in the right responsible way or not. We might claim to be "just good enough", but I am not prepared to have the lives of the poorest today and future generations on my conscience. One day we have to live with the choices we make, and look inside and decide that we are happy with those choices.

Our future, demands that we prioritise climate change today. The way to make these decisions is to look wider than economics, which puts short-term profit ahead of our common future. We need to consider impacts of our decisions not in economic terms, but in terms of people and the planet. We need to choose what sort of future we would like to see in the world (climate change or low-carbon, national security or global justice). If we choose not to act fast enough through trying to balance climate change with other issues than our comfortable lifestyle will cause ever greater misery, through climate-caused changes worldwide. Climate change requires a framework that addresses the interconnected mass of social inequity and overconsumption together - through limits and equality of resource use.

It is not always easy to choose to do what is right, but that is no excuse. It is our responsibility to act through our capacities as leaders (such as Andy Harrison) and citizens. The aims of business that puts benefit of shareholders and employees and clients at the expense of all people's rights to a life and the future of our planet is, a tragedy, a tragedy of the Commons. I would argue we need to act within our environmental limits (e.g. one tonne carbon per year, which means not to fly), and allow an equal quality of life for all. Then our children and all humanity might share those rights that we enjoy now. If we choose comfort instead of action based on climate justice then our balanced decisions will claim lives today, future generations and will be nails in the coffin on life on earth I dare not imagine. If we act based on what is right then once we have climbed Mount Sustainability as a civilisation then civilisation and rights and values may well have survived with us. We all make this choice, but our leaders with greater responsiblity, comes perhaps harder choices.

[Ian]

To think that us mere humans can have such an effect on the earth's climate is an arrogant and ignorant view. Human additions to greenhouse gases account for about 0.3 per cent of the greenhouse effect, with the rest coming from gaseous water vapour and natural matter. We know the earth has cycles of ice ages interspersed by short warmer periods such as the one allowing humans to live at the moment. The earth will once again dip into an ice age in a few thousand years and nothing we can do will speed that up or slow it down. The earth also goes through known periods of global warming and cooling and we are currently in a warm period fuelled by a strong sun cycle. This will come to end soon and the climate will begin to cool down again. CO2 levels have been rising for the past 18,000 years, long before we ever started contributing through transport.

Of course, our CO2 emissions do contribute to climate change, but only at a very tiny level and airlines contribute a very tiny level of that. Industry will of course evolve and invent cleaner and more efficient powers and fuels and this is a good thing for our health, wallet and reserves of natural fuels.

The government, the media and the green lobby should all educate themselves more about the history of the earth (before we walked this land) and about our insignificance within the earth's life.

[Simon Booth]

There are three myths being advanced within this article and the last comment from Ian that cannot go unchallenged. They are: the notion of balance; the supposed arrogance of humans in believing they can have an effect on the earth's climate; and that a technological fix is inevitable.

On the notion of balance: of course you would always want a balanced debate, one that weighs up the relative merits of various points of view and comes to a reasonable conclusion. What we are being asked to do by easyJet here though is to balance their business interests against the economic and welfare interests of our grandchildren. This is not reasonable, it is immoral.

For me there is no question on which way the scales should be balanced. And, to add insult to injury, to hold such a view is considered by easyJet to be "hysterical".

On supposed human arrogance: this is irrelevant. Nature does not respond to arrogance. Science does not concern itself with arrogance. The effect human activity is having on the atmosphere is a measurable fact. We may find it suprising, inconceivable or even arrogant, but it remains a fact.

On the assumption of a technological fix: this flies in the face of the evidence of history. History tells us that new technologies can take decades to develop and introduce widely, time we cannot afford. It also tells us that new technology can create as many problems as it solves, and that the we often fail to anticipate the problems until they're upon us.

Aeroplane technology is a perfect example of this. It brings us amazing benefits, but it is now clear that it has a hugely significant and growing downside. A technological fix to this downside is considered to be many decades away, and certainly isn't contained within new aircraft with "high load factors" which, as anyone who has flown with them will know, is easyJet speak for packing more people in.