In the last post I started to consider peoples attitudes towards flying. I am going to bring the topic of aviation and climate change closer to home in this post and look at the attitudes of British tourists, and how climate change influences their travel decisions. I will be looking at the findings of Hares et al. (2010) and Gössling and Peeters (2007) .
It has been estimated that from an average British holiday that involves air travel, 60-95% of the holiday's contribution to global warming can be attributed to the flight. (Gössling and Peeters, 2007). With the number of international tourists and number of people flying only predicted to increase, (Hares et al. 2010) look at behavioural changes of tourists flying as a way to potentially reduce aviation related emissions. Behavioural changes comes in a list that also includes technological changes and market based changes. They estimate technological changes will reduce aircraft emissions by approximately 20% by 2050, and mention the unpopularity of market based approaches such as fuel taxes, which have been opposed in the past.
There is a general consensus that people talk about tourism travel and everyday life as two different entities, talking more responsibility for everyday life (Becken, 2007). When a group of people were interviewed (Hares et al. 2010), general observations included that there were different understandings of what climate change was at the offset, with many people being skeptical about it. As far as going to address their impact on the environment through flying, many participants in the study believed that their individual actions were negligible. When speaking of their consciousness to general environmental concerns, where they did take steps in life to reduce their impacts, these were heavily tied with the financial costs of doing so. Many people for example said they recycled, which is seen as being popular due to its low cost and minimal inconvenience for the individual doing it.
The findings of this paper tie in well with those of (Gössling and Peeters, 2007). They attribute development, low cost air travel and increased leisure time to the transition of travel from the wealthy to hypermobility of many more people throughout Europe, where such movement of people is now considered the norm. Action from society doesn't materialise due to uncertainty in the topic. Many people do not see their individual behaviour to be accountable - the paper addresses this as "psychology of denial". The paper also addresses how some misinformation about the impact of aviation stems from the aviation industry itself, which use scientific language and enthusiasm about technological change to paint a more positive image than reality. An example used is that the emissions performance of aircraft are often compared to small cars with low occupancy rates, which are themselves not considered environmentally friendly. When comparing cars to aircraft, cars with higher occupancy rates should be considered for a more accurate comparison.
In comparing the findings from these two papers from the study done in Rocinha, the Brazilian favela, which was covered in the last post, despite the relatively greater understanding of the impact of air travel in Europe and the UK, there does not appear to be a dissimilar response from that of Rocinha. People flying to go on holiday or to see family once to a few times a year do not consider themselves to be the problem. Shaw and Thomas (2006) write of how people in the UK see themselves as having a right to fly and take holidays abroad.
Should anyone still be reading this! What do you think? Would you fly less in a bid to reduce your own environmental impact, if you go on holiday? Do you see it as your problem?
We can always just take Bus 24 to Australia anyway?! It runs 24/7 and has Wi-Fi.
 |
| Calling at Pimlico, Paris, Pune and Perth |
Interesting blog and quite a thought provoking discussion here. When it comes to individual accountability it seems the grounds of individuals’ arguments will always come back to 'not in my back yard'. We would all support in theory actions that improve our progress away from the negative consequences of climate change, like global warning, but only if it requires little of us changing our habits. When the campaign for Fairtrade was initiated, it took on well, because not only were many people educated about issues they were previously not aware of, a direct alternative was available: you still get your coffee, just a bit more expensive in the name of a global good deed, and both parties are happy. With aviation however - the suggestion to get a bumbling no. 24 bus from central London to Australia - when the flight time is already an allergic 24 hours, just isn't viable for people to take on board and respect that this must apply to them. Many efforts are indeed made my commercial airlines to temper passengers' guilt - like the classic carbon offsetting for a few extra £ on the ticket, or like what a previous person commented on an earlier post, about recycling all the papers passengers use on their flight. But according to my experience I have seen little that directly pitches a flight carrier that is more environmentally friendly (by a considerably amount), beyond the implicit efficiency improvements that probably come with new plane models. Choices like overland travel instead of plane from London to Scotland, or across the border from Cambodia to Vietnam are good mid-way solutions, but probably not something the Forbes billionaires of the world wouldn't mind agreeing to, like the change in coffee. It isn’t not obvious that in general people don’t like going backwards, which is what is essentially being asked of citizens in pitches to take the slow coach. And it's not just a personal choice, it's a matter that often this extra time sacrificed cannot really be sacrificed: there is only a two week allowance for holiday, and half that has be spent travelling? or one has a remote work meeting in Edinburgh and they have to spend a 13 hour day dedicated to it? or (as mentioned – disparate families living abroad) family desperately needs to be visited overseas, and there isn’t time to look in advance for the bus/train option? A controversial issue I have with this debate in general is when governments provoke us to change our ways, but the way how society is, it’s not all that possible. For the sake of global warming it would be ideal for us to take longer travelling by a less environmentally impacting mode of transport, but not when what is expected of us in our daily lives runs at a faster pace. I feel that consumers of aviation aren’t necessarily always selfish, but that there is discordance in how alternative transports can match the reality of everyday lives.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment! It's really interesting to hear what you think and the different kinds of examples and opinions that you have thought of compared to me, when presented with the same information.
ReplyDeleteI agree, there is a lot of nimbyism involved when it comes to individual accountability and I found it funny to read that people were stopping to consider the environmental implications of their once a year family holiday, when as you say certain lifestyles revolve around travel and connectivity - I only considered people travelling but there is also a reliance on aircraft in the transport of things that we take for granted and come to expect, like year round exotic fruits and vegetables, and not being able to buy freshly cut flowers doesn't even bare thinking about.
I also agree with what you said about time constraints in life. Time is money! morning meeting in Edinburgh, afternoon conference in Bali etc etc, however arguably it is as a result of the efficiency, reliability and speed of air travel that has allowed things to be this way, where time can't be taken for granted. Not long ago people (albeit a lot fewer people) accounted for travel time - it would have taken a whole week to get to Australia, and people stayed in the same place. It's very difficult to ask people of this now, and as you say not liking going backwards. It's interesting to note that still only a minority of the population are able to fly, it is still an activity reserved for the wealthy, however greater affordability and improving socio-ecomic statuses for many people means it is becoming increasingly accessible.
Reaching carbon dioxide reduction goals in the short term will undoubtedly need some sort of response from the number of people flying a year, as technological improvements alone are not sufficient. Price as a deterrent to flying seems less likely, what with the rise of budget airlines dominating in all continents. It will be interesting to see what will be done in the future if reaching such reduction targets becomes a matter of absolute urgency, though I think it is unlikely a scenario like that will play out in my lifetime!
Tack tack for your reply Haymish! Yes, you add very interesting points about aviation also being involved in the transport of commodities so intrinsic to our lifestyles/goods we consume at our end - regardless of whether the consumer of these ever travels by plane! And yes, I guess if we are to look at this with historical context it is all a 'cause and effect' phenomena about why we value time and hence reluctant to compromise on it, because development of aviation and its accessibility has indeed been a causal factor to this acceleration of time. Seems like sooner or later we need to re-haul how this all is. But I'm surprised that as bright, young student you are not optimistic that this can play out in your lifetime! 'Be the change you wish to see', remember! - as also a bright UCL student once said (Mahatma Gandhi).
ReplyDelete