2/17/2014 I’ve noticed that people seem to see the environmental impact of air travel in four fundamentally different ways.
The lost-cause or too-late position Somehow, I can accept someone believing that the world is beyond saving so why not indulge oneself before the ship goes down. By the way I’m sure this is how the very rich justify their greed. Together with other initiatives we’re talking about tourist travel every chance we get or can afford. I must admit that this is a rational argument and a view that’s difficult to challenge except that I’m of the opinion that if we start to act thoughtfully and with compassion for future generations we might just be able to save the biosphere.
The hypocrisy position This is someone who is aware of the problem and understands that we should adjust our lifestyles but we do nothing about it. This leads to cognitive dissonance, holding two conflicting thoughts in our head at the same time. It’s not pleasant because holding guilt is tiring.
The ignorance position This I find hardest to accept. This is a person going about their lives oblivious to the knowledge that their actions, such as frequent air travel, has a heavy negative impact on the environment while there is abundant evidence that this is so. I think ignorance is inexcusable in this age of information. If a person is in denial that is really the hypocrisy position not the ignorance position.
The technology-will-save-us position This person understands the problem but feels that human ingenuity will save the planet before environmental degradation becomes terminal. This to me is wishful and dangerous. If this person is wrong we’re fucked.
Along with any environmentalist I know of it’s my view that a reduction in air travel is part of what we must do if we seriously want to prevent an environmental catastrophe within the next few decades.
It’s all about reducing CO2 emissions. However, some people do not see increasing CO2 emissions as a big issue. If that’s correct then air travel is not so much of an environmental threat. I however go along with the scientific consensus which states that the increase in CO2 emissions is a very serious problem indeed. And this is a key point: the chances of technological advances making a reduction in emissions for aircraft appear to have reached it’s limits while future automobile emissions will likely become far less of a problem with advances such as electric cars that are on the near horizon. We’re approaching a time where driving a car will have little environmental impact while air travel will continue to be significant problem.
I’m not suggesting no air travel I think a big concern today is the increase in “frequent-flyers”. I would add that many people in the world should fly MORE because there is no question that some world travel can certainly be educational and can enrich their lives. It’s too bad that over 90% of the world’s population have never flown. So yes, we are the privileged few. The person that flies every two or three years is not so much of a problem compared to the frequent-fliers who fly several times a year. And lets face it: most tourist travel is about stretching-out on a nice, warm beach in Puerto Vallarta. Or sipping coffee in a charming Parisian café. Great if you’ve done it but how enriching or educational is it if you keep coming back year after year? And when it becomes a frivolous self-indulgence should we not ask ourselves if it’s worth being a large part of the global warming problem? Should we care? Do we care?