Dilemma
If you need to fly, is it possible to go green?
Observer
24th June 2007
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,,2107507,00.html
Dilemma Bigger planes, impact codes, pack-'em-in policies ... the battle for the most ethical
airline takes off, says Lucy Siegle
Sunday June 24, 2007
The Observer
The green airline is an oxymoron; air travel will be the fastest-growing source of carbon
emissions by 2050. By 2020 we'll take half a billion flights annually (up from 189m in 2002), and
aviation does far more damage than its perceived 2 per cent of UK emissions when you factor in
radiative forcing: at altitude, the negative effects of burning kerosene are amplified to the power
of three. Despite this it has a rather charmed life: no VAT, no fuel duty and is exempt from the
climate-change levy.
The only thing to spoil the in-flight party is whingeing by eco types - typically described by
Ryanair's Michael O'Leary as 'hairy environmentalists'. But even Ryanair wants to express its
eco credentials, claiming it has halved its carbon emissions per passenger in five years thanks
to a new €10bn fleet of Boeing 737-800s. But easyJet says it is the greenest, emitting 27 per
cent fewer greenhouse gases per passenger kilometre than traditional airlines, having ordered
100 new Airbus A319s and retired 22 old aircraft last year. And you won't notice airlines
voluntarily retiring routes rather than planes, even the half-empty ones which led Plane Stupid
(planestupid.com) to expose the way some airlines enjoy running empty craft between regional
airports to keep hold of landing slots.
The battle for greenest airline focuses on pimping planes, eco style. According to Ian Poll,
professor of aerospace engineering at Cranfield University, bigger planes like the Airbus 350 will
reduce fuel consumption per passenger by 25-30 per cent. Boeing claims its 787 Dreamliner is
27 per cent more efficient in terms of fuel consumption. Virgin Atlantic has ordered 15
Dreamliners to be delivered by 2011. Then there's Aer Arran's 'eco plane'. The new ATR 72500s boast 'fuel consumption per passenger up to 15 per cent lower than a typical European car
on a 200-mile sector'. Again, no mention of that radiative forcing. Further fuel economy is gained
by 'packing in the passengers on all the flights' (Ryanair's terminology), so going business
means a heavy carbon burden for everyone else. Not that the no-frills carriers have much more
of a halo - they created the problem of rising passenger numbers: according to Civil Aviation
Authority figures, 3.1m travelled from the UK to Europe on a 'no-frills' airline in 1996. By 2005, it
was 51.5m.
What you need is a league table, preferably colour coded, where you could have some idea of
impact at the time of booking. Flybe labels aircraft from A (good and fuel efficient) to F (very
poor). Forty-six Flybe jets rate well and 34 rather badly. But this is an in-house initiative, so how
objective can it be? If you have to fly, ask as many questions as you can when booking. Make a
nuisance of yourself. Airlines have scant regulatory pressure on them; it's time they felt the heat
of the consumer spotlight.
lucy.siegle@observer.co.uk