In reference to my previous complaint against the easyJet Advert in the Sunday Times which called for a more intelligent approach to aviation, I attempted to do what was suggested in the advert, namely to "push airlines to buy the next generation of more fuel efficient airlines."
I checked the easyJet web site to find contact details. Alas, all I could find was the press office email address. I have emailed this address (see attached) to suggest that they buy Bombardier Q400s instead of Boeings, but I have received no reply. I have had similar problems contacting other airlines.
EasyJet most certainly have not acted on my pressure to buy the most fuel-efficient planes on the market. I therefore conclude that I will be entirely ineffective by pressing easyJet to buy the most fuel efficient planes as suggested by the advert. Thus, easyJet’s advert is clearly misleading by claiming that I can impact purchasing policy and also misleading by implying that easyJet operates the most efficient airplanes available.
Regards,
Kevin Lister
Kevin Lister
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:06:56 +0000 (GMT)From: Kevin Lister
Sirs,
Your advert in the Sunday Times, 23rd December, demanding a more intelligent approach to aviation suggested that passengers should push airlines to fly the most fuel efficient planes.
As such, I am sending this email to press you to buy Bombardier Q400 planes. Being turbo props these are considerably more fuel efficient than the Boeing 737-700s that your advert portrayed.
Also, as these do not have the same range, their emissions will be even lower.
Regards,
Kevin Lister
6 comments:
You sound a bit dim - how can you expect a company to stop trading, as you're expecting them to - when you can't even get your family to take your campaign on board?
Have you ever thought of targeting an industry which contributes more than 4% of greenhouse gas emissions? Taking up a campaign that isn't media-hyped might earn you a little respect from your friends and family.
What about the power companies - shouldn't you turn off your computer and stop using greenhouse gas causing power in such a wasteful way?
Or even cows - they emit more greenhouse gases than humans.
Dear Asitis,
Thank you for taking the time to read my blog, but I would suggest that you go and read a book, or even the IPCC report.
The fact that members of my family have flown is all the more reason to have misleading adverts such as easyJet’s challenged. If people were fully aware of the critical situation facing us, then they would not fly and companies, such as easyJet, that belittle the message being given us by the science would be recognised as the criminally irresponsible organisations that they are.
If you are upset by me expecting a company such as easyJet to stop trading, then you tell me how you expect the planet to avoid runaway global warming if organisations such as easyJet are going to be allowed to continue increasing their emissions year on year.
And on power companies and cows, they need to be targeted as well. However, it may have escaped your notice that it is a lot easier to survive without a weekend break in Spain than it is without power to your house. If the rest of society took your stupid attitude and refused to give up even the most frivolous of activities, then we have no chance of collectively making the bigger and more difficult decisions.
As for the argument of 4%, it is irrelevant when the IPCC report makes it clear that we need to make cuts in excess of 100% of current levels of CO2.
You will probably continue to think that I am dim. However, your opinion on this is the normal position for people to take when they do not like or understand the message being given, i.e. shoot or discredit the messenger. Given the bleakness of our future if no action is taken, I would like you to give me a solid and robust argument as to why I am wrong.
Expecting the whole world to totally change their lifestyle is a bit of a dreamer's notion. However, getting people and comanies to adapt their behaviour is something than can be done, and should be done to help save the environment.
People are going to continue to fly, whether that be for business or pleasure. If they don't fly to Spain for their holiday, they'll just drive to Cornwall - a journey which will surely emit more greenhouse gasses than their share of the flight to Spain.
You making the bad boy out to be an easyJet, a Ryanair, a Wizzair etc etc is a crazy argument. Low cost airlines, by the nature of their business models, fly with more full planes than the "traditional" airlines such as BA. Because of their lower revenues per seat, they can't afford to run routes where the planes are half-full - so routes with low demand aren't flown. They also use newer, cleaner planes than the likes of BA. So they emit far fewer gasses per journey.
You probably think that the low cost airlines have accelerated growth in air travel - they haven't. Many studies have shown that the rate of growth of the airline industry has stayed relatively constant and the growth of the low cost airlines has been at the expense of the traditional, more polluting, airlines.
Furthermore, Easyjet as a company seems to at least care about the environment (more so than other budget airlines). They unveiled a plane they want to build which will be much greener than anything used now. Given they are trying to be green (in an un-green industry), shouldn't they be congratulated by someone with views such as yourself.
There are many elements of flying which are far more environmentally damaging than they need to be. If you want, I can give you details, but frankly I can't be bothered to type them out unless you're interested in hearing about how the industry should evolve, rather than just how it should shut down.
I just think you, and environmental campaigners in general, have got the wrong targets - there are some really obvious emission increasing practices in the airline industry and they generally don't involve the budget airlines.
I personally don't believe the situation is as grievous as is made out. If 100 models suggest that the sea level will rise by 10cm in 100 years and 1 model suggests it will rise by 100cm in 10 years, which will the media highlight? However, I think we should err on the side of caution and do everything we can to ensure the worst doesn't happen - there's no point
Unfortunately aggressive eco-campaigners do little to help their cause as their antics merely turn off most people in the country*. I initially thought you were one of them, but maybe you're not. Apologies if my confrontational first reply betrayed my thoughts :-)
*The average person who hears about environmental campaigners invading a runway and stopping flights is never going to think "good for them", they're going to think "why" and ignore the message. See also the Fathers For Justice campaigners who have a very strong message buit mess up the propulsion of that message by being a bunch of tvvats! BTW The average person being turned off in this way is just how it is, I'm not saying it's right or wrong.
PS I'm still not sure why you're using greenhouse damaging power for a frivolous activity like your computer ;-)
Dear Asitis,
With a call name like yours, I imagine you to be someone who does not like to beat about the bush and who does not appreciate bullshit. I further imagine from the name that you have given yourself and the arguments that you have made so far that you are someone who is prepared to take the time to properly understand an argument by attacking it from all sides. However, you need to be prepared to have your initial opinions changed to something that you do not necessarily wish to believe as you develop your understanding.
Most of the arguments you have made seem initially to be correct, but on each one there is a disturbing flip side, which I am sure you will permit me to expose for you.
You say, “Expecting the whole world to totally change their lifestyle is a bit of a dreamer's notion.” The flip side, is expecting the current growth in aviation to continue without irreparable damage to the environment that our children will inherit is the notation of a true dreamer.
Mankind managed for hundreds of thousands of years without flying. Flying is no a necessity, it is a luxury that needs to be curtailed.
You say, “However, getting people and companies to adapt their behaviour is something that can be done, and should be done to help save the environment.” Where do you suggest that we start? People are becoming aware of global warming, but as you point out, people are also flying more and consuming more. The actions of one energy profligate person flying to Australia will outweigh the efforts of hundreds of other people who are making best efforts to minimise their carbon footprints. The actions of easyJet and the rest of the aviation industry demonstrate how secondary their concerns for the environment are over their desire to increase profits. Remember, that many of these companies are funded by debt and this requires them to increase their business year on year. We are naïve if we think that somehow these companies will suddenly become benign and considerate custodians of the environment.
You say, “If they don't fly to Spain for their holiday, they'll just drive to Cornwall - a journey which will surely emit more greenhouse gasses than their share of the flight to Spain” Check your maths on this one. A fully occupied car will produce less far emissions than the same people on a flight to Spain and it will also not have the radiative forcing effect due to high altitude emissions. Also those same people may choose to go by train or coach thus emitting even less emissions per person, and certainly far less than a plane to Spain.
You say, “I am making the bad boy out to be an easyJet.” Correction here please. It was easyJet that placed this deliberately misleading advert.
You say, “Low cost airlines, by the nature of their business models, fly with more full planes than the "traditional" airlines such as BA.” When you check the load capacity figures published by the industry, you will see that most airlines are roughly comparable to within +/- 10%. The difference in load capacity is not significant enough to make a major difference in emissions per person, especially when easyJet and other low cost airplane’s business plans necessitate the initial subsidising of seats to ensure that the last seats can be booked at full price.
You say “Many studies have shown that the rate of growth of the airline industry has stayed relatively constant.” You are correct. European passenger air traffic is growing at a steady rate of around 4% p.a., while freight air traffic is growing at a steady rate of around 6.4% p.a. However do the maths and remember that this is exponential growth. At 4% growth, in 17.6 years the number of passengers will double, and in 34 years the number of passengers will quadruple. At 6.4%, the amount of freight transported will double in 11.2 years and quadruple in 22.4 years. What is more important is that the total fuel consumption in this period of doubling will equal the total fuel consumed from the dawn of aviation up to the start of the doubling period.
To put this into further perspective, I quote from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeucom/107/10705.htm,
“In 2000, aviation in the United Kingdom was responsible for around 11% of the total climate change impact of the United Kingdom. United Kingdom forecasts suggest that the United Kingdom's combined domestic and international aviation emissions could account for up to a quarter of the United Kingdom's total contribution to global warming by 2030.”
You say, “Furthermore, Easyjet as a company seems to at least care about the environment.” I am sure that they do, most of the managers of easyJet probably have children and wonder what future they are bequeathing to them. Interestingly, in my time campaigning in for the environment, I am constantly amazed how many aero engineers and oil industry executives I come across. I personally have a degree in Aeronautics and have worked in the oil industry. It is sobering to see the size and volume of oil production from an offshore platform. But, just because you are concerned about it and try to reduce your emissions a small amount does not mean to say that you are doing the right the thing. If easyJet were to bring out their super efficient plane, do you think that it would result in any reduction on total emissions from the company? It would simply encourage more people to travel and total emissions would continue to rise. Remember that the aviation industry keeps telling us how much more efficient their planes are than they used to be; yet total emissions keep on rising. Do you really expect this plane to buck the trend?
Your say, “I just think you, and environmental campaigners in general, have got the wrong targets - there are some really obvious emission increasing practices in the airline industry and they generally don't involve the budget airlines.” You are correct. Singapore Airlines, for example has just bought the A380 and this same airplane has been sold as a private jet to an Arabian Prince. I have written to complain to Airbus about this sale, perhaps you would like to do the same. However on this specific entry on my blog, EasyJet have made them selves a target by distorting the facts.
You say, “I personally don't believe the situation is as grievous as is made out.” On what evidence do you base your opinion? I would suggest that you very carefully read through the IPCC report. This is the consensual opinion of the world’s top scientists and signed of by representatives of the world’s governments. The A1FI scenario within the report predicts temperature increases of an unimaginable 6.5deg C increase by 2050. This is the most likely scenario that we face. This will lead to the end of most life on earth, including humans. I would argue that the world’s governments and press have been remiss in not reporting the findings of the IPCC accurately enough.
You say, “Unfortunately aggressive eco-campaigners do little to help their cause as their antics merely turn off most people in the country.” The campaigning in this country has all been peaceful protest and entirely non aggressive, and has been totally ineffective. Despite the Climate Camp, despite the climate march, despite numerous other campaigns we have a government that has vowed to go ahead with runway 3 at Heathrow and Terminal 6, nation wide airport expansion, road building programmes, etc. By contrast in the Bloomberg news today, there are reports of the Philippines Communist Party military arm attacking Xstrata Plc's proposed $2 billion copper and gold mine to protest against the plundering of their resources. In case you think they are over reacting, read about copper mining’s appalling history of environmental destruction around the world. Xstrate and other western companies are now threatening to pull out of the Philippines, just as other major western countries are now pulling out of Niger. I ask you to wonder which is the best approach, continued peaceful protest whilst trying to persuade and pacify the global warming non believers who will claim that any action we take will alienate the wider population because they do not want to change, or the out right attack being used elsewhere in the world?
You say, “I'm still not sure why you're using greenhouse damaging power for a frivolous activity like your computer” Correct. But, if the world were a better place I would not have to use my computer.
In the 60s, I was told to be worried about global cooling. I thought 'we'll adapt'. Now I'm suddenly told to be afraid of global warming, when the mean global temperature has not increased since 1998. Apparently the increase up to 1998 was nothing to do with the upward trend that started at the end of the last Little Ice Age. And it doesn't matter that Ice Cores show temperature rises lead CO2 rises by about 800 years.
This year I've not been told to be afraid of 'global warming' but to be afraid of 'climate change' because evidence of warming is very thin on the ground. If only the IPCC allowed in the many scientists that disagree with its research. If only governments weren't after an excuse to get more tax.
AsItIs, I doubt we'll get listened to, but thanks for pointing out this blog.
Post a Comment