Voos de ida e volta por 10 euros !?
Em função da pegada de caborno que cada voo implica e
respectiva contribuição para as Alterações Climáticas e Aquecimento Global,
cada voo devia estar a 1000 euros !
Ler artigos em baixo
OVOODOCORVO
Ryanair lança promoções para toda a Europa: há voos de ida e
volta por 10€
19/11/2018
Ryanair lança promoções para toda a Europa: há voos de ida e
volta por 10€
A Ryanair lançou hoje, 19 de novembro, uma semana de
descontos e promoções, a «Cyber Week». Os voos têm partida de Lisboa, Porto,
Faro e Ponta Delgada.
O primeiro dia desta promoção inicia com ligações de ida e
volta, na Europa, e com descontos até 30 euros em reservas até à 23h59.
O diretor de comunicação da Ryanair, Robin Kiely, afirmou:
«esta é a época mais deslumbrante do ano e para a celebrar, lançámos uma
gigantesca semana de descontos, a «Cyber Week». «Reduzimos os preços em cerca
de 30 euros nos voos de regresso dentro da Europa, entre abril e setembro de
2019. Também temos um desconto de 10 por cento em todos os check-ins de malas,
realizados esta semana», concluiu Kiely.
De Lisboa, por exemplo, há voos de ida desde 4,89€ para
Eindhoven (Holanda), Hamburgo (Alemanha), Marselha (França), Pisa, (Itália) ou
Bruxelas (Bélgica), entre muitos outros destinos e tarifas.
Do Porto, por 4,89€, há voos para Barcelona e Madrid
(Espanha), Bordéus (França), Colónia (Alemanha), Cagliari (Itália), Manchester
(Reino Unido), Malta, entre outros destinos e tarifas.
De Faro há voo de ida para Berlin Tegel e Dusseldorf Int.
por apenas 0,97€ e para Frankfurt-Hahn e Düsseldorf (Alemanha) por 3,90€, ou
4,60€ para o Porto, assim como Colónia (Alemanha), Bristol e Edimburgo (Reino
Unido).
Flying Is Bad for the Planet. You
Can Help Make It Better.
By Tatiana Schlossberg
July 27, 2017
Take one round-trip flight between
New York and California, and you’ve generated about 20 percent of the
greenhouse gases that your car emits over an entire year.
If you are like many people, flying
may be a large portion of your carbon footprint. Over all, the aviation
industry accounts for 11 percent of all transportation-related emissions in the
United States.
According to some estimates, about
20,000 planes are in use around the world, serving three billion passengers
annually. By 2040, more than 50,000 planes could be in service, and they are
expected to fly more often.
If you’re flying, you’re adding a
significant amount of planet-warming gases to the atmosphere — there’s no way
around it. But there are some ways to make your airplane travel a little bit
greener.
First, fly less.
The most effective way to reduce
your carbon footprint is to fly less often. If everyone took fewer flights,
airline companies wouldn’t burn as much jet fuel.
According to the World Bank, the
average American generated about 16.4 metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2013;
according to some calculations, a round-trip flight from New York to San
Francisco emits about 0.9 metric tons of carbon dioxide per person. For an
American, that represents about one-eighteenth of your carbon emissions for the
year.
Should you drive instead? The
longer the distance, the more efficient flying becomes, because cruising
requires less fuel than other stages of flight. So it’s certainly better to fly
cross-country than to drive solo. If you’re taking a short trip, it may be
better to drive.
Flying nonstop can help, too: The
more times you take off, the more fuel you use. According to a 2010 report from
NASA, about 25 percent of airplane emissions come from landing and taking off.
That includes taxiing, which is the largest source of emissions in the
landing-takeoff cycle.
Some research suggests that flying
in warmer temperatures is less efficient, since hot air is thinner and makes it
harder for planes to get enough lift to take off.
If you fly, offset it.
When you buy carbon offsets, you
pay to take planet-warming carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in exchange for
the greenhouse gases you put in. For example, you can put money toward
replanting trees, which absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
You can buy offsets through some
airlines — Delta, United and JetBlue, among others. But they don’t necessarily
make it easy during the booking process; some airlines offer offsets only on
separate sustainability pages. You can also buy offsets through other
organizations.
To offset the almost 0.9-metric-ton
carbon footprint of a single passenger traveling on United from New York to San
Francisco in July and back again, Sustainable Travel International, which runs
United’s offset program, offers two choices: Donate $8.95 to a wind farm in
Texas or donate $10.75 to a forest conservation program in Peru.
There’s some debate about the best
way to offset — where and when tree-planting programs should occur for maximum
effect, for example.
“Offsets can provide a useful way
to help reduce your climate footprint,” said Peter Miller, a scientist with the
Natural Resources Defense Council. “But it’s important to make sure that you’re
getting credible and actual real emissions reductions.”
To make sure that an offset program
really does what it says, it has to meet several criteria, including that it be
verified by an independent third party. All of the programs used by the major
airlines are verified by such groups to make sure they provide the carbon
reduction effects that the companies claim.
Fly coach.
According to a study from the World
Bank, the emissions associated with flying in business class are about three
times as great as flying in coach.
In business class and first class,
seats are bigger, so fewer people are being moved by the same amount of fuel.
The study estimates that a first-class seat could have a carbon footprint as
much as nine times as big as an economy one.
At last, coach passengers have
something to be happy about: smaller carbon footprints.
Listen to the flight attendants.
Apparently, some of the rules about
lowering and raising your window shades could help cut emissions.
When you land at a warm
destination, flight attendants might ask you to shut your window shades, said
Christine Boucher, a director of global environmental sustainability for Delta
Air Lines.
The reason? It reduces the amount
of fuel used to cool the aircraft when it’s sitting at the gate, she said.
This won’t do anything to counteract
all the emissions the plane created while flying. But it’s an example of how
far airlines will go to save fuel when they can. That helps their bottom lines,
but also the environment.
Know your fuels.
Commercial airlines have been using
biofuels in some passenger flights since 2011, mixed with conventional
petroleum-based fuels in varying amounts. The biofuels, which can come from
sources like natural oils, seaweed and agricultural waste, can help reduce
planet-warming emissions from aviation.
Last year, United Airlines started
using biofuels in all of its flights out of Los Angeles. The biofuel, made by a
company called AltAir Fuels, is estimated to cut at least 60 percent of
greenhouse gas emissions compared to regular jet fuel, according to United. (It
cuts the emissions used to make the fuel as well as the emissions from burning
it.)
Other companies and the American
government are working to develop alternative biofuels to use in the airline
industry. So far, however, a viable commercial market has not been developed.
In October, more than 190 countries
agreed to reduce the carbon footprint of air travel through a combination of
offsets and improvements in efficiency.
You can check the fuel efficiency
of the airlines you fly. According to a report from the International Council
on Clean Transportation, Alaska Airlines and Spirit Airlines were the most
efficient domestic carriers in 2010. American Airlines and Allegiant Air were
at the bottom of the list of the 15 largest airlines.
To fly or not to fly? The environmental cost of air travel
There were 3.6 billion individual passenger flights in 2016
— the number is expected to double by 2035
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.
New tech can't solve everything
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
"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.
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.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário