This is not my... Focus
 |
Bring Back the Blimp
"Who can deny the joy it brings... You're flying without wings" |
Flying is bad for the environment* and the amount that we fly is increasing.
No shock there - but the question is though...
What are we going to do about it?
First things first. We can stop flying so much.
Until restrictions on air travel are universal it is harder to convince people to give it up.
If everyone else is still jetting off to Ayrs Rock and getting naked in Magaluf you might think that there little point. But it is something you might want to have a think about.
In the UK we are seriously fortunate in having so much on our own door step.
We have fantastic scenery, amazing architecture, diverse cuisine and incredible events.
Plus, if you don't think so, we are also only the Euro star away from the excitement of Paris or a ferry ride from Ireland, Holland or Spain.
Would a holiday in Cornwall be so bad? What about visiting friends who live in another part of the country you always wish you could see more of? Can we travel to Europe in more comfort by train? Do we really have to fly from London to Birmingham? (Still can't believe that some people do that!?)
There is a very good argument to say that the only way we can seriously reduce the climate impact of air travel is to stop air travel.
Planes are massive polluters. The huge amount of fuel it takes to run them increases at high altitudes and in addition the water vapour they emit leads to something called contrails - which are also damaging to the atmosphere.
A wise man once said: "You must be the change you want to see in the world."
And unlike some of my previous quotations this was neither the Why Don't You Club nor Primal Scream - but Gandhi.
It is a good point. How can we expect anyone else to make the changes we want if we ourselves wont sacrifice for them.
Take recent efforts by the Government to maintain its environmental credentials as it tries to build new run ways, panders to big business, toys with nuclear power and announces that it will miss the emissions targets it has set for 2010. As suspicious as Dawn French next to an empty cake stand I'd say.
If you want to make a proper sacrifice then why not sign up on the Plane Stupid site.
If you don't please have a wee think about at least cutting down on your flying habits.
Instead of a weekend break and all of the crazy airport mayhem it requires, why not spend a weekend holidaying at home.
Try out The Big Chill or a bit of Open Air Theatre in Regent's Park or nip up to Hampstead Heath for the Kenwood House Concerts (free if you sit off to the side a wee bit). Savour some of that oxygen.
If you just have to get away - then there is always the option of offsetting carbon.
This has come up for criticism of late. Some suggest that if trees are planted in areas which can not sustain them they deplete the soil of minerals, lead to erosion and potentially die prematurely - if they don't get burnt in a forest fire anyhow.
Oh and of course that they aren't, in fact, as good a carbon sink as we think that and that those which are planted would probably have been planted anyway.
Basically - that they will not benefit us nearly as much as we hope they will. And that by thinking that they will, we are fooling ourselves that we are doing something environmentally positive.
I am sure that there is some merit in this.
But in this topsy turvy world I would argue that some offsetting has got to be better than none.
Since the government is linked into international treaties that stop it from levying proper taxes on aviation (which mean UK tax payers who don't travel help to pay for the holidays of those who do) the price of travel is still low.
We are in the midst of a consumer frenzy where we happily spend money that we don't have and we are not asked to limit our personal carbon emissions.
Realistically we are not going to decrease air travel in the very short-term. So why not at least contribute to things that can.
Climate Care have a wider range of carbon off-setting schemes than simple tree planting such as investment into education and renewable's.
We could always do a bit of self offsetting by saving up for a new energy efficient boiler or getting our insulation improved. Saves a bit of money in the long-term too.
If you travel a lot and would be giving quite a substantial chunk then you could always take it and add a much needed cash injection into alternative technology research.
I am quite convinced that there has to be a lot of potential return from this anyway - though I should point out that I have absolutely no qualification to back the feeling on!
In the medium term we can keep our fingers crossed that the Cap on Air Travel Emissions proposed by the EU will be agreed and not blocked by the US. From this we may see some real results.
In the UK when the economy takes a down turn (as predicted) over the next couple of years it might also serve to deter us from mini-breaks and short hops in any case.
If the environmental impact of air travel is untenable the same is claimed of our keen consumerism when it comes to the economy.
In the long-term though I am hoping that there is going to be a technological break through that can help us to reduce pollution from air travel.
Some, such as our own Mr Branson are looking into ethanol fuel for their fleet (oh to have a fleet... makes it sound a bit like something from Star Wars...)
According to Sci Fun's 'Chemical of the Week' explanation "Ethanol has been made since ancient times by the fermentation of sugars" and is apparently quite dangerous to drink. It is a bio-fuel made from grain and has been heralded by the US as the answer to the fuel crisis, now that Bush has admitted that:
"…we have a serious problem. America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.”
(Something he worked out rather brilliantly following the two wars in Iraq.)
Ethanol is made currently made from cereals but research suggest that if we want this to have a greater environmental impact we need to make the ethanol from woody fibrous plants as they would provide more energy.
Regardless, whether made from corn or fibrous plants we would need to find farm land on which to grow it. Which means we need to find a balance between crops for food and crops for fuel.
And of course - we must avoid clearing land that currently has trees on it - as that somewhat destroys the purpose!
Check out recent criticism for the creation of bio-fuels in Asia for an example of how not to do it.
So while it may be that in the West we can find some fallow land to make some bio fuels we have make sure that we don't a) accidentally destroy our biosphere in the process or b) create a dependency on a fuel that will eventually be unsustainable, as we will need the land it is made on to feed our ever expanding population.
Which brings me to the solution.
Yes, that old blimp again.....
I am very very excited to find that Jamais Cascio (whoever he is) is in full agreement when he notes that:
"alternative models of air travel, including next-generation airships, could make flight cleaner and more like a cruise ship than a sardine can."
Apparently aside from the Hindenberg disaster and the rise of the plane the reason that the airships lost their dominance was because America has the biggest helium reserves and pre-WWII and stopped supplying this to Germany.
That would solve George's fuel dependency concern.
It has also been argued that there is actually no danger using hydrogen powered dirigibles as, despite common misconception, this was not what actually caused the Hindenberg disaster.
So that could be an option too.
Plus people are working on new modern airships right now - they are bigger, faster and safer than their predecessors. As well as a pretty darned amazing way to travel thrown in.
So there you go.
The time has come.
Bring Back the Blimp
You know it makes sense x
*The Guardian Reported last year that:
"Pollution from aircraft is set to grow so rapidly that all homeowners, car drivers and businesses will have to reduce their carbon dioxide output to zero for levels to remain safe, a new study warned today.
The study, carried out by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, says that even if the growth in air travel were halved, the rest of the economy would need to cut greenhouse gas emissions far beyond the government's target of 60% by 2050."
Past Focus
