We still have time, but not for long - it all comes down to us now.' There is no doubting the seriousness or sincerity of the protesters putting the final touches to plans for a campaign of direct action next month. Sometimes their communications even assume a biblical tone: 'Should we not change our ways, we'll see forests burn, soils decay, oceans rise and millions of people die.' Their methods, including a huge protest camp and co-ordinated civil disobedience, echo those of past campaigns against the Vietnam War, nuclear weapons, and oppressive regimes abroad. But this time, the mission is not to stop wars, bombs or torture, it's to stop people going on holiday.Thousands of activists are expected to descend on Heathrow for the Camp for Climate Action from 14 to 21 August. There will be workshops on issues from carbon offsetting and biofuels to campaign strategy and skills for direct action, and the week will climax with a day when demonstrators will try to disrupt the airport as much as possible.
Never before has flying been so controversial. In the space of two years, the environmental damage done by planes has gone from being something quietly discussed by scientists and committed environmentalists, to a headline-grabbing issue no one can ignore. Politicians are pilloried in newspapers for flying to meetings abroad. Travellers checking in for domestic flights are confronted by Greenpeace campaigners urging them to take the train instead. Travel agents' shops are daubed in protesters' paint and travel magazines get hate-mail...
One thing on which all sides agree is that aviation is booming. Today there are around 17,700 commercial aircraft in the world. Over the next 20 years, manufacturers expect to deliver 25,600 new planes, with massive growth coming from China, India and Russia as economies develop and flying is deregulated...
Moreover, with China building two new power stations per week, mostly coal-fired, it's easy to wonder if it's worth agonising about whether you should go for that long weekend in Tuscany. According to last year's government-commissioned report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern, power stations account for 24 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, shipping, train and road transport account for 12.3%, while flying accounts for just 1.7 per cent. Compare this with deforestation, which accounts for 18 per cent (half of which is attributed to the destruction of rainforests in two countries: Indonesia and Brazil).
That's not to say we're damned anyway, so let's get on the plane and keep partying till the world goes up in flames, but it does put the issue into balance - should we devote nine times more effort to fighting deforestation than flying? And being aware of the balance should steer us away from extreme positions - refusing to fly at all or ignoring the issue completely - towards taking practical, realistic steps to a solution...
Dark green' environmentalists argue there is a bankrupt logic in this kind of carbon offsetting - you are doing the equivalent of donating to the RSPCA so you can keep kicking your dog, as the saying goes. You could, after all, take all those carbon-saving steps, and still cancel your holiday in Barcelona.
Except that assumes tourism is a frivolous, self-indulgent activity which is as pointless as leaving your TV on standby. Even putting aside the benefits to the tourists themselves, this is clearly not the case. Tourism employs around 231 million people, and generates 8-10 per cent of world GDP.
While the campaigners plot their camp at Heathrow, in Kenya plans are being drawn up for a very different camp. Looking out from an escarpment over the deserts of Samburuland is a stunning hotel, the Ol Malo Eco-Lodge. Revenue from the small number of visiting tourists has allowed the 5,000 acres around it to be transformed from over-grazed cattle ranch to a pristine conservation site, but that is just the start. The tourist-funded lodge provides the infrastructure and backup for a range of vital community work. Around 100 women are employed in the workshop making traditional beadwork for export, and the children come along to paint for fun.
More impressive still is the Ol Malo eye project. Up to 80 per cent of adults in the area suffer sight loss, caused by the infectious and preventable disease Trachoma, so the Ol Malo Trust runs regular surgical camps, bringing doctors from the UK to treat them. In January, the camp gave 102 people back their sight, and final plans are now being made for another camp this autumn. 'It's very simple - all of our visitors fly here,' said Julia Francombe, the founder. 'If they stopped coming, it would kill us...'
However, as the pollution from planes is emitted high in the atmosphere, its effects are far worse, and vapour trails (or 'contrails') lead to the formation of cirrus clouds, which stop heat escaping from the earth.
Most scientists agree that this 'radiative forcing' effect is real - and point to the significant cooling in America after all planes were grounded on 9/11 - but few agree on the scale of its effects. Current estimates are that before comparing a plane's emissions to those of a car or train, you would first have to double or triple them. 'The big problem is that there is no consensus on this and people seem to be becoming split along ideological lines with NGOs accepting the multiplier and industry not,' said Upham.
His Manchester-Guernsey calculation has made him the unwitting poster boy for the pro-aviation lobby, but his actual views are very different: 'Taking into account the contrails, flying is usually about nine times worse than taking the train, and three times worse than a car with two passengers.'
You might also be interested in the British Air Line Pilots Association (BALPA) putting out a new guide saying that the effects of air travel on the environment are (surprise!) rather exaggerated:
Most of us who operate aircraft never lose our sense of awe at the beauty of our planet. We care for it deeply and many of us have children who we want to be able to grow up seeing it in all its glory.
During the last five years, air travel has been under attack, being accused of almost singlehandedly destroying this beautiful planet. And now airline passengers are being made to feel guilty about taking holidays abroad.
BALPA has launched a campaign to inject some rationality into this debate and for 3 main reasons:
Firstly, to put the debate into context and to give some facts about aviation’s impact.
Secondly, to look at some of the policy and operational options that will help limit our contribution to environmental damage.
Thirdly, to stimulate debate - amongst our own members and their colleagues operating in other countries; within our industry – especially those in air traffic control, engineering and operations; and amongst policy makers and politicians.
Pilots recognise that we have a part to play but we want practical and “joined up” solutions that enable aviation to continue to be a source of social and economic advancement, equality and great pleasure for the many people who are transported to the corners of this beautiful planet.
The New York Times has a related article on this topic. It discusses how dark greens are becoming wary about light greens' attempts to make the green movement into a consumer fad. While dark greens (or deep ecologists) fear that this fad is mere "co-option," their more mainstream counterparts see it as a way for environmentalists to connect with the mainstream and avoid the "extremist" tag. Naturally (heh), I favor the latter approach, though I do appreciate that lifestyle changes need to follow on from mere fad. We cannot use the excuse that some miracle future technology is eventually going to solve our pollution problems:
Here's one popular vision for saving the planet: Roll out from under the sumptuous hemp-fiber sheets on your bed in the morning and pull on a pair of $245 organic cotton Levi’s and an Armani biodegradable knit shirt.Stroll from the bedroom in your eco-McMansion, with its photovoltaic solar panels, into the kitchen remodeled with reclaimed lumber. Enter the three-car garage lighted by energy-sipping fluorescent bulbs and slip behind the wheel of your $104,000 Lexus hybrid.
Drive to the airport, where you settle in for an 8,000-mile flight— careful to buy carbon offsets beforehand — and spend a week driving golf balls made from compacted fish food at an eco-resort in the Maldives.
That vision of an eco-sensitive life as a series of choices about what to buy appeals to millions of consumers and arguably defines the current environmental movement as equal parts concern for the earth and for making a stylish statement.
Some 35 million Americans regularly buy products that claim to be earth-friendly, according to one report, everything from organic beeswax lipstick from the west Zambian rain forest to Toyota Priuses. With baby steps, more and more shoppers browse among the 60,000 products available under Home Depot’s new Eco Options program...
Consumers have embraced living green, and for the most part the mainstream green movement has embraced green consumerism. But even at this moment of high visibility and impact for environmental activists, a splinter wing of the movement has begun to critique what it sometimes calls “light greens.”
Critics question the notion that we can avert global warming by buying so-called earth-friendly products, from clothing and cars to homes and vacations, when the cumulative effect of our consumption remains enormous and hazardous.
“There is a very common mind-set right now which holds that all that we’re going to need to do to avert the large-scale planetary catastrophes upon us is make slightly different shopping decisions,” said Alex Steffen, the executive editor of Worldchanging.com, a Web site devoted to sustainability issues.
The genuine solution, he and other critics say, is to significantly reduce one’s consumption of goods and resources. It’s not enough to build a vacation home of recycled lumber; the real way to reduce one’s carbon footprint is to only own one home...
The issue of green shopping is highlighting a division in the environmental movement: “the old-school environmentalism of self-abnegation versus this camp of buying your way into heaven,” said Chip Giller, the founder of Grist.org, an online environmental blog that claims a monthly readership of 800,000. “Over even the last couple of months, there is more concern growing within the traditional camp about the Cosmo-izing of the green movement — ‘55 great ways to look eco-sexy,’ ” he said. “Among traditional greens, there is concern that too much of the population thinks there’s an easy way out.”