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.
Even those who fly once or twice a year on holiday can’t help but feel a growing sense of guilt, while those opting for trips by car, train or ferry have a self-righteous spring in their steps.
(1) Now, however, the backlash is beginning. The tourism and aviation industries are mobilizing, and pointing out some awkward facts. Did you know that some ferries emit far more carbon dioxide than some planes? That driving can release twice as much carbon as flying? A new report from Balpa, the pilot’s union, even claims that planes can be better than train.
(2) While there are the campaigners who plot their camp at Heathrow to protest the air travel, in Kenya plans are being drawn up for a very different camp. Looking out from a cliff over the deserts of Samburuland is a stunning hotel, the O1 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 conservation site. More impressive still is the O1 Malo eye project. Up to 80 per cent of adults in the area suffer sight loss, so the O1 Malo Trust runs regular surgical camps, bringing doctors from the UK to treat them. In January, the camp gave 102 people back their sight. “It’s very simple—all of our visitors fly here,” said Julia Francombe, the founder. “If they stopped coming, it would kill us.”
One thing on which all sides agree is that aviation is booming, so it becomes crucial to develop new and less polluting aircraft. Airbus’s claim that it can save the world with the A380 may be far-fetched, but its (3) “gentle giant” plane is far more efficient and quieter than those of 20 years ago.
Some environmentalists, however, scorn these advances, saying such measures are a (4) “delusion.” “The aviation industry is likely to vastly overstate the gains that can be made from technological improvements but sadly a climate friendly plane isn’t on the horizon,” says Emily Armistead of Greenpeace.
(5) So the question is: who do you believe?
