Carry on flying, says Blair - science will save the planet

[jpak]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,1985981,00.html

Tony Blair today wades into the growing controversy over how individuals can help to tackle global warming by declaring that he has no intention of abandoning long-haul holiday flights to reduce his carbon footprint.

Days after his environment minister branded Ryanair the "irresponsible face of capitalism" for opposing an EU carbon emissions scheme, the prime minister says it is impractical to expect people to make personal sacrifices by taking holidays closer to home.

"I personally think these things are a bit impractical actually to expect people to do that," Mr Blair says in an interview.

The prime minister, who recently had a family holiday in Miami, adds that it would be wrong to impose "unrealistic targets" on travellers. "You know, I'm still waiting for the first politician who's actually running for office who's going to come out and say it - and they're not," Mr Blair says. "It's like telling people you shouldn't drive anywhere."

<more>

George Monbiot responds...

An open letter to the prime minister

Is 'a bit impractical actually' how you'll explain to your grandchildren why you didn't do enough to tackle climate change, Mr Blair?

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/george_monbiot/2007/01/an_open_letter_to_the_prime_mi.html

Last year, you launched the Stern review on climate change with these words: "Unless we act now, not some time distant but now, these consequences, disastrous as they are, will be irreversible. So there is nothing more serious, more urgent or more demanding of leadership." Ten weeks later, you appear to have recanted.

On Sky News last night, you claimed that it is "a bit impractical actually" to expect people fly less. Instead, we should rely on science to save us, by means that remain mysterious. As for you, you will not be setting an example, by reducing the number of holidays you take at your friends' houses in Florida and the Caribbean. This, too, apparently, would be "unrealistic".

You say that we need to "look at how you make air travel more energy-efficient, how you develop the new fuels that will allow us to burn less energy and emit less. How - for example - in the new frames for the aircraft, they are far more energy-efficient." The trouble is that none of these measures exist yet, or not to the extent that they can offset the growth in emissions from aircraft.

Even if you take the industry's most optimistic projections, which suggest almost magical gains in energy efficiency, the improvements in engine performance will be outstripped several times over by the growth in flights, as both the airlines and your transport secretary, Douglas Alexander, admit. This growth is permitted by your government's decision, made just a month ago, to allow airport capacity in the United Kingdom to double by 2030.

<more>

[n2doc]

1. Given how poorly Blair and W have supported science funding

I have to wonder just where he thinks these breakthroughs will take place? Wishing and hoping ain't a policy worth spit...

[eppur_se_muova]

2. Oh, good, I'd hate to actually have to CHANGE anything. What a putz. nt

[BeFree]

3. Jet pollution

In the upper atmosphere may be the strongest singular force causing global warming.

And what do we do? Fly to Florida and back leaving behind a wake of co2 each way. A wake that has nowhere to go -no plants up there to absorb it- it just sits there, reflecting the heat back toward the ground.

If you fly, you are a big part of the problem. You and Blair make bad company.