Flights of fantasy

Clouding the issue: Volcanic ash can't obscure demand for cheap and convenient air travel

SOMETIME in the next day or so, the airspace above Wales and southern England may open, and tens of thousands of Welsh and British people currently stranded abroad will begin long overdue journeys home. For days, stories of enforced extended holidays, madcap long distance cab journeys and speculation about the price of cut flowers has filled those column inches not dedicated to the UK’s own Orange Revolution. The costs – financially at least – of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano eruption are substantial; an estimated £130 million a day for the air transport sector alone, some £2.5 million per day for the Kenyan economy, and as yet unknown costs to the wider economy of the UK and much of the rest of Europe. Schools have been thrown into chaos from teachers and pupils unable to return from Easter sun, untold rendezvous have been postponed, and everything from the Chinese Grand Prix to local opera recitals have been disrupted or canceled.

But for some, there is cheer in this bedlam. Communities under flight paths have experienced quiet, empty skies and a stunningly lovely weekend during which to enjoy them. Ferry operators, Eurostar and Dan Snow made hay while the sun shone. Others, meanwhile, have rubbed their hands at the prospect of the aviation industry, already teetering due to recessionary pressures, suffering some sort of cataclysm more enduring than plumes of Icelandic volcanic ash.

For many green campaigners, air travel occupies a uniquely prominent position in the lexicon of environmental crimes. Despite contributing a modest share of global CO2 emissions (in 1999 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated it to be around 2%) aviation’s total contribution to man-made climate change may be as much as four times higher due to the release of other greenhouse gasses at altitude, and the warming effect of condensations trails. Moreover, due to the overall growth in the volume of flights, aviation is the fastest increasing source of these emissions, and could account for 15% of all climate change impacts by 2050.  The UK also does worse than many others – aviation accounted for 6% of our CO2 emissions in 2006.

Nonetheless, if the objective is to cut carbon, the fact remains that there are other, more serious offenders. Industrial and domestic usage and road transport together account for approximately 78% of UK CO2 emissions, or half of the UK’s total contribution to all climate change. Some large power stations lose as much as half of all energy they produce before it leaves the facility. Short, often unnecessary, car journeys increasing make up our mileage. Eliminating large scale power production and road transport is clearly not an option, but even modest reductions – through improved public transport or microgeneration – could do more than relatively drastic cuts in air travel. Even the 1.2 million tonnes of carbon not released due to the enforced grounding of most European flights pales next to the some 26 billion tonnes produced each year worldwide

If the issue were one of straightforward calculation about the best means to scale back emissions, air transport would be a mid-table target. But it isn’t. Flying is in the frame often because it is still perceived as the preserve of the wealthy and frivolous, and because the way air transport is taxed and subsidised is poorly understood. The latter is partially understandable; the issues are certainly complex. The former is rather less forgivable, given the evidence that anyone who passes through a major airport can see for themselves; flying is something enjoyed and experienced on a regular basis by a huge cross-section of society, and for all sorts of purposes. It makes a poor target for class warriors and anti-capitalists. Some campaigners now reluctantly concede this fact, but argue that affordable, mass travel is an unwelcome manifestation of globalisation, turning remote parts of the planet into trampled tourist traps and consigning the developing world to a western economic model.

Many such advocates are sincere and committed in their beliefs. They have an alternative perspective on the development and future sustainability of humankind and attempt to live it through voluntary no-fly pledges, as well as other self denying ordinances. Others merely preach. For these individuals, opposition to air travel adds up to little more than a desire for other people to forgo their freedom to fly such that they themselves may continue to enjoy it. Celebrity eco-hypocrites are well known; John Travolta notched up to 30,000 flying miles, many in his collection of private jets, before warning the world of the environmental impact of aviation. Rock group The Kaiser Chiefs declared their opposition to the expansion of Stansted shortly before jetting off for a tour of Australia. Coldplay’s Chris Martin’s short hop private flights were calculated by George Monbiot to help him towards a carbon footprint 250 times that of an average Briton. And we haven’t even mentioned the legions of politicians flying to Copenhagen to talk about how to cut greenhouse gas emissions or the broadsheets’ one-off flight-free travel supplements stuffed with airline ads.

But these are the mere poster boys for the astonishing hypocrisy of the less celebrated but much more numerous chattering classes. This is the group for whom cheaper, more available air travel is to be opposed, but who still insist on taking two or three foreign holidays a year, together with any number of short-haul flights. These are the group who regard easy access to a major airport to be a bonus, but seem to believe that it should not affect their lives in any other way. This are the group for whom “food miles” is an interesting topic of discussion over a dinner comprised of fresh ingredients from every corner of the globe, and who have had the nerve to celebrate the recent empty skies while keeping a close eye on the prospects of their next city break.  This mass cognitive dissonance would be bad enough, but the prescription (other than a general presumption that others’ air travel is less important and more expendable than their own) is to simply choke off supply by halting expansion of London’s major airports. For people in Wales, Heathrow remains by far the airport of choice, and is creaking at the seams. It has not acquired a new runway in the reign of this Monarch, and despite the opening of Terminal 5 remains dilapidated elsewhere. Halting its growth without seriously curtailing demand will merely cram more people into these already hideously overcrowded facilities. That isn’t a solution, it’s a recipe for even greater chaos, disruption and misery.

Celebrating a few days of enforced air silence, or wondering wistfully what it would be like to have a bit more of this doesn’t address demand. In a few days or weeks, the ash from Iceland will settle, but people will want to fly as much as ever.