Aqui temos um péssimo exemplo da glorificação de uma das
maiores fontes de poluição no presente, que apresenta um ritmo de crescimento
assustador na sua pegada ambiental e que é totalmente insustentável para o
Planeta.
“Perhaps the biggest single thing individuals can do on
their own is to take fewer airplane trips… just one or two fewer plane rides a
year can save as much in emissions as all the other actions combined.”
“There were 3.6 billion individual passenger flights in 2016
— the number is expected to double by 2035”
“There are 7 billion people on our planet, but the billion
with the largest carbon footprint includes the most frequent fliers. I belong
to the top billion. So do many of you. If all 7 billion had a carbon footprint
as large as ours, global carbon dioxide emissions would increase from the
current 38 billion tons per year to 150 billion tons — a trillion tons every
seven years, according to “Bending the Curve,” a 2015 University of California
report. That trillion would translate into a catastrophic spike in global
warming — an increase of 33 degrees Fahrenheit every seven years.”
OVOODOCORVO
To fly or not to fly? The environmental cost of air travel
Though air travel is more popular than ever, the vast
majority of people in the world have never been on a plane. As that dynamic
slowly changes, the environment stands to suffer. Is flying less the only
solution?
When was the last
time you traveled by plane? As little as three percent of the global population
flew in 2017, and at most, only about 18 percent have ever done so. But things
are changing.
According to International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) estimates, there were 3.7 billion global air passengers in 2016 — and
every year since 2009 has been a new record-breaker.
By 2035, the International Air Transport Association (IATA)
predicts a rise to 7.2 billion. Like the planes themselves, the numbers just
keep going up. And given the damage flying does to the planet, that is food for
thought.
Not just the CO2
Many estimates put aviation's share of global CO2 emissions
at just above two percent. That's the figure the industry itself generally
accepts.
But according to Stefan Gössling, a professor at Sweden's
Lund and Linnaeus universities and co-editor of the book Climate Change and
Aviation: Issues, Challenges and Solutions, "That's only half the
truth."
Other aviation emissions such as nitrogen oxides (NOx),
water vapor, particulates, contrails and cirrus changes have additional warming
effects.
Beyond emissions made solely in flight, manufacturing
effects within the aviation industry add considerably to its overall footprint
"The sector makes a contribution to global warming that
is at least twice the effect of CO2 alone," Gössling told DW, settling on
an overall contribution of five percent "at minimum."
But IATA spokesperson Chris Goater told DW the science
behind this so-called 'radiative forcing' is "unproven".
Even if we accept the two percent emissions figure as final,
if only three percent of the world's population flew last year, that relatively
small group still accounted for a disproportionate chunk of global emissions.
A few years ago, environmental group Germanwatch estimated
that a single person taking one roundtrip flight from Germany to the Caribbean
produces the same amount of damaging emissions as 80 average residents of
Tanzania do in an entire year: around four metric tons of CO2.
"On an individual level, there is no other human
activity that emits as much over such a short period of time as aviation,
because it is so energy-intensive," Gössling explains.
The WWF carbon footprint calculator is instructive in this
regard. Even a serious environmentalist who eats vegan, heats using solar power
and rides a bike to work, but who still take the occassional flight, wouldn't
look very green at all.
Just two hypothetical short-haul return flights and one
long-haul round-trip in a given year would outweigh otherwise exemplary
behavior.
As awareness of the need to reduce our individual and
collective carbon footprints in order to prevent climate catastrophe grows,
several industries have come under sustained pressure to find clean solutions.
The aviation sector made its own promises — in October 2016,
191 nations agreed a UN accord which aims to cut global aviation carbon
emissions to 2020 levels by 2035. Another ambitious target of that agreement is
for the aviation industry to achieve a 50 percent carbon emission reduction by
2050, compared to 2005 levels.
Goater says there are four ways in which the aviation
industry intends to achieve these things: through carbon offsetting in the
short-term, the continued development of more efficient planes, deeper
investment in sustainable fuels — such as biofuels — and through better route
efficiency.
"Basically air traffic control is very
inefficient," he explains. "It creates unnecessary fuel burns and
more efficient use would create a 10 percent reduction in emissions."
He also highlights the fact that a number - albeit very few
- of commercial flights are now powered with sustainable fuels every day,
despite the fact that the first such flight took off less than a decade ago.
"That was something that happened much faster than
anyone was expecting," he says. The key now, in his view, is for the
industry to prioritise investment in the area and for governments to commit in
the same way they have to e-mobility in the automobile sector.
But Gössling and many of his peers remain unconvinced.
There were 3.6
billion individual passenger flights in 2016 — the number is expected to double
by 2035
A plane launches in front of two contrails in the sky.
"I think that essentially we need price hikes," he
says. "We did interviews with industry leaders a few months ago and many
of them agreed, secretly — they were anonymous interviews — that if we don't
have a major price hike for fossil fuels, then there is no way alternative
fuels could ever make it."
Daniel Mittler, political director of environmental NGO
Greenpeace, agrees that fossil fuels need to be more expensive. "The first
step is to end all fossil fuel subsidies, including those going to aviation and
to properly tax the aviation industry," he told DW.
For Goater, that is not realistic. "Fuel is already a
significant proportion of an airline's costs," he says. "Believe me,
if we could fly without oil we would."
The hard truth?
So what's to be done? Gössling, who has devoted more than 20
years of research to the subject, sees only one solution.
"Do we really need to fly as much as we do, or is the
amount we fly induced by the industry?" he asks. In addition to
artificially low airplane ticket prices, the industry also promotes a
lifestyle, he argues.
"Airline campaigns project an image where you can
become part of a group of people who are young, urban frequent flyers, visiting
another city every few weeks for very low costs," he says.
Yet for Goater, the idea of dictating who can fly and when
is as unrealistic as it is outdated.
Two passengers ride a
tandem bicycle in Berlin, Germany
Can we look toward simpler methods of transport than jet-fueled
airplanes?
"Reducing emissions needs to be balanced with allowing
people the opportunity to fly — I believe that's a settled consensus amongst
the mainstream for many years," he says. "It's not up to people in
one part of the world to take it on themselves to deny people in other parts of
the world those opportunities."
For Mittler, it comes down to individual choice as much as
anything else and he believes that while efficiency gains are vital, the first
step is to reduce the amount we fly.
"We need to move towards a more sharing and caring way
of living on this planet," he says, adding that doing without the weekend
shop in New York might be one of the least painful ways of contributing to
that.
"We need a prosperity that is based on community and
based on real wealth of collective vision, rather than one that is based on
relentless consumption. Aviation is a symbol of the kind of consumption that we
need to leave behind."
How to save the planet: cut holidays, sell the car and don't
have as many children, say scientists
A single
trans-Atlantic flight is as damaging for the environment as failing to recycle
for 20 years
Sarah Knapton, science editor
12 JULY 2017 • 12:01AM
Jetting off on just one summer holiday is so bad for global
warming that it wipes out the benefits of 20 years of recycling, a new study
has shown.
Although householders are encouraged to save and sort their
rubbish, new research from the University of Lund, Sweden, and the University
of British Columbia, Canada, has shown that it has far less impact when
compared with cutting down on flights, ditching the car or switching to a
vegetarian diet.
In its green strategy, the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs, (Defra) claims recycling is vital for lowering greenhouse
emissions and councils have brought in an array of complex rules and bins for
collecting and separating refuse. The UK has also signed up to EU targets to
recycle at least 50pc of household waste by 2020
But the new study, published in Environmental Research
Letters, argues that governments and schools must do more to communicate the
most effective ways for people to reduce their carbon footprint rather than
concentrating on practices which have little impact.
Household bins in Newcastle under Lyme CREDIT:
RUI VIEIRA
Instead of encouraging recycling of waste, or switching to
energy saving light bulbs, they say the public should be advised to avoid air
travel, live car-free, eat a plant-based
diet and have smaller families.
“Those of us who want to step forward on climate need to
know how our actions can have the greatest possible impact,” said lead author
Seth Wynes, a doctoral student of the University of British Columbia.
“This research is about helping people make more informed
choices. Living car-free saves about 2.4 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year,
while eating a plant-based diet saves 0.8 tonnes.
“These actions, therefore, have much greater potential to
reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling
which is four times less effective than a plant-based diet or changing
household light bulbs, which is eight
times less effective.”
The research analysed 39 peer reviewed papers, carbon
calculators, and government reports to calculate the potential for individual
lifestyle choices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Although recycling does little to help emissions compared to
cutting down on flying, it does prevent plastic ending up in the ocean
CREDIT: JENNIFER LAVERS
They also looked at school textbook and government advice
from across Europe, Canada the US and Australia and found that most policies
focussed on the strategies which had the least impact.
Having multiple children was found to have the largest
impact on climate, with each child creating nearly 60 tonnes of C02 each year.
Avoiding a one-way transatlantic flight could save around 1.6 tonnes of carbon
dioxide emissions, while a round-trip to Australia would prevent 4 tonnes - 20
times the saving made by a year’s recycling, which is around 200 kg a year.
Likewise drying washing outdoors, rather than using a tumble
drier saves just 200 kg a year, while switching to energy saving light bulbs
prevents just 100 kg of CO2 entering the environment annually.
Experts pointed out that recycling also brings benefits
aside from cutting emissions, such as reducing landfill and preventing plastic
polluting the oceans.
But Hannah Martin Head of Energy at Greenpeace said: It's increasingly important for us to make
informed choices, whether that's about the car we drive, the transport we take,
the food we consume or the products we buy."
Opting for a smaller family can also help the planet, say
scientists CREDIT: THOMAS BARWICK
The researchers said advising people to change their diet,
or have fewer children may seem controversial but it is crucial for the future
of the planet.
Study co-author Kimberly Nicholas, of Lund University said:
“We recognize these are deeply personal choices. But we can’t ignore the
climate effect our lifestyle actually has.
“Personally, I’ve found it really positive to make many of
these changes. It’s especially important for young people establishing lifelong
patterns to be aware which choices have the biggest impact.
“We hope this information sparks discussion and empowers
individuals.”
Last year Defra figures showed the amount of household waste
being recycled by British families has fallen for the first time, official
figures show, amid warnings that people are increasingly confused about how to
clean and separate rubbish properly.
Common mistakes such as mixing cans and bones from meat in
with other recycling, and attempting to save food-encrusted cardboard, are
causing tonnes of waste to be rejected by recycling units.
Last year UK recycling fell by 0.6 per cent from 44.9 per
cent of total household rubbish.
However campaigners said it was up to big business and
governments to tackle climate change rather than leaving it up to individuals.
Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Simon Bullock said:
“The biggest responsibility to meet the challenge of climate change lies with
corporations and governments.
“Individual lifestyle changes do count - but the really
significant changes needed to keep temperatures within limits should come from
governments and industry.”
Defra said only one fifth of waste from councils now ends up
in landfill
For the love of Earth, stop traveling
“ There are 7 billion people on our planet, but the billion
with the largest carbon footprint includes the most frequent fliers. I belong
to the top billion. So do many of you. If all 7 billion had a carbon footprint
as large as ours, global carbon dioxide emissions would increase from the
current 38 billion tons per year to 150 billion tons — a trillion tons every
seven years, according to “Bending the Curve,” a 2015 University of California
report. That trillion would translate into a catastrophic spike in global
warming — an increase of 33 degrees Fahrenheit every seven years.”
An illustration of plane pollution. (The WorldPost)
By Jack Miles November 2, 2017
Jack Miles, a
Pulitzer Prize and MacArthur “genius” award-winning author, was a contributor
to the University of California’s “Bending the Curve” report on climate
stability. His forthcoming book is “God in the Koran” (Alfred A. Knopf 2018).
According to former U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres,
we have only three years left in which to “bend the emissions curve downward”
and forestall a terrifying cascade of climate-related catastrophes, much worse
than what we’re already experiencing. Realistically, is there anything that you
or I can do as individuals to make a significant difference in the short time
remaining?
The answer is yes, and the good news is it won’t cost us a
penny. It will actually save us money, and we won’t have to leave home to do
it. Staying home, in fact, is the essence of making a big difference in a big
hurry. That’s because nothing that we do pumps carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere faster than air travel. Cancel a couple long flights, and you can
halve your carbon footprint. Schedule a couple, and you can double or triple
it.
Atmosfair is a German public interest group that recommends
limiting your air travel to about 3,100 miles per year — if you live in Los
Angeles, that’s one round-trip flight to Mexico City. If you must exceed that
limit, Atmosfair invites you to compensate by sending conscience money on a
prorated basis to support climate stabilization efforts around the world. Last
fall, having accepted an invitation to speak in Morocco, I used this online
calculator to determine the carbon cost of my trip. My seats alone on the
round-trip flights from Los Angeles to Casablanca (with a layover in Paris)
helped emit about 8,400 pounds of carbon dioxide, prorated, into the
atmosphere. Double that because my wife accompanied me. In sum, our seats alone
on the planes to and from Morocco helped unload about 16,800 pounds of carbon
dioxide. And this, of course, was just a small fraction of the emissions cost
of the flight as a whole.
To put this into perspective, my wife’s and my annual carbon
footprint in Orange County, California — counting gas, electricity,
transportation and waste disposal — is about 33,000 pounds, according to the
carbon footprint calculator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (To
put that total into further perspective, the average Indian’s annual carbon
footprint is just 3,000 pounds.) By taking one optional international trip that
helped emit about 16,800 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, my wife
and I increased our 2016 carbon footprint by more than a third. The harm we did
with one international trip surely neutralized any good that we did all year as
recyclers, eco-consumers and financial contributors to environmental
organizations.
To put our flights’ 16,800 pounds of carbon dioxide further
into perspective, the average American generates about 1,300 pounds of carbon
dioxide a year through beef consumption. Minute by minute, mile by mile,
nothing that we do causes greater or more easily avoidable harm to the
environment than flying, which more often than not is optional or merely
recreational.
The delegates meeting in Bonn, Germany next week for the
U.N. climate conference recognize this. “The lion’s share of greenhouse gas
emissions” from the COP23 conference, the organizers note, “is from
long-distance air travel.” After the conference, a COP23 sustainability task
force will tally up the overall carbon footprint and seek to offset as much as
possible by buying certified emission reduction credits, many of which will go
to green development projects in small island states in recognition of Fiji
holding the presidency of this conference.
There are 7 billion people on our planet, but the billion
with the largest carbon footprint includes the most frequent fliers. I belong
to the top billion. So do many of you. If all 7 billion had a carbon footprint
as large as ours, global carbon dioxide emissions would increase from the
current 38 billion tons per year to 150 billion tons — a trillion tons every
seven years, according to “Bending the Curve,” a 2015 University of California
report. That trillion would translate into a catastrophic spike in global
warming — an increase of 33 degrees Fahrenheit every seven years.
So for the love of the Earth, our common home, our only
home, start conducting more remote work meetings and training sessions
virtually. Inform those jet-setting friends that you won’t attend their
destination wedding in the tropics — you’ll send a gift in the mail. Tell that
conference organizer that while you’re honored to be invited, you would prefer
to participate in live online sessions instead. Start taking vacations by train
or car, rather than flying to Paris or beyond. Explain to your ecological
public interest group that the Galápagos will be much better off without you. And
please, all you professionals bouncing between New York City and Washington
D.C., take a train, not a plane.
The 17th-century poet Andrew Marvell warned his “coy
mistress” and himself that life was brief and youth briefer. They could wish it
otherwise, but:
…at my back I always hear
Time’s winged chariot hurrying near;
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity.
In our day, the winged chariot that is hurrying near is
species extinction. The deserts of vast eternity that lie before us are the
wastelands of the planet itself as we send it to its death. But there is
something you can do about all that — something big, something easily within
reach, something that won’t cost you time or money.
Take a deep, slow breath, and throw away that bucket list
for good. You are needed at home, my friend, urgently needed. For the love of
the Earth and of those who will inherit it when you are gone, stay right where
you are.
This was produced by The WorldPost, a partnership of the
Berggruen Institute and The Washington Post.
Correction: This op-ed has been updated with revised
emissions calculations for the author’s flight to Casablanca.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário