Flightblogging.com

Just having a scout round a few other posts on these new Newquay flights, and I came across an article in the Ecologist, with the headline:

“BA ‘fly in the face of science’ with Newquay flights “

Just exactly what science are they flying in the face of? If we are talking about the hotly debated issue of climate change, then they should remember that BA are at the forefront of carbon trading initiatives, and that they have never tried to pretend that the problem doesn’t exist - even though there are still plenty of scientists out there who would say it doesn’t, or that if it does, that we’re really not the culprits.

If they are saying that we should reduce our dependency on domestic flights, then fine - but did they ever check to see where this plane was going before they launched their tirade? No, they did not. The answer is Glasgow - another domestic destination, and one which IS served by DIRECT, ELECTRIC powered trains.

The article then goes on to state the so-called science:

“Greenpeace campaigner, Emily Armistead, said that BA’s decision to open the route – especially in the light of a new high-speed rail link which will open later this year – flew in the face of science:
‘Planes are ten times more damaging to the climate than trains, so if we don’t do something about the growth in aviation Britain will find it very hard to meet its global warming targets,’ she said.”

 Newquay airport have meanwhile issued their own rebuttal, claiming that:

“Eight coach HST (High Speed Train) with 472 seats emits 12,170 g/km of CO2; at 30% occupancy (i.e. 140 seats), a standard occupancy rate used for UK rail travel, equates to 0.04 tonnes per passenger; for 105 pax (equivalent to 75% occupancy on a Boeing 737-400) the equivalent figure is 0.05 tonnes.”

We have no reason to dispute the 30% occupancy claim about the trains - and perhaps if Greenpeace activists spent more time on them, they’d realise that this is quite realistic! Over-crowding grabs the headlines (remember how the Cumbria incident was initially reported as being a ‘packed’ train to add more impact to the headline?). The reality is that outside peak times, trains are just very good at moving around huge volumes of air. The further away from London the train gets, the more passengers get off - and since when will the tin-pot branch line to Newquay be a high speed route? It might be scenic, as is the route along much of the way, but please stop pretending it is quick!

So far, this route seems pretty unpopular, if the numbers on the inaugral flight are anything to go by. One thing is certain though - if the route is a flop, it will get dropped like a hot potato. Train companies just can’t, and won’t do this.

So, the claim that “planes are ten times more damaging to the environment than trains” is utter garbage - nonsensical, unethical, and totally unscientific. But do Greenpeace provide further justification of their figures? No, they are far too busy going on their headline-seeking rants, knowing full well that they will get the media support they want, and that their figures will rarely be scutinised.

Does it matter then if flights are still more environmentally damaging, but “only” by a factor of between, say, 50% and 200%, and not the 1000% that Greenpeace are claiming?

Yes it does - because there is a huge difference in logic between the two. If trains really are super-clean, as could be said for the Swiss system, where virtually all of the network is electrified, and where far more electricity is generated from HEP, then the environmental case for using them is compelling. If the difference is only by a small factor, then surely any efforts to reduce transport’s emmissions should be targetted at ALL modes of movement, not just flights? And how come, all of a sudeen, environmentalists have started saying that flying is worse than “driving and going by train”. It isn’t! It all depends on the journey being undertaken, the directness of the route, the fuel or power source, and perhaps most importantly of all, the levels of occupancy.

So if you are really concerned about science, there is only one place for the kind of nonsense spouted by Greenpeace - the recycling bin.

This entry was posted on Sunday, March 25th, 2007 at 8:58 am and is filed under Environmental Issues, Flights v. Trains, Aviation Economics, Routes & News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.