If you really want to stop climate change you would be better to give up red meat than stop taking flights, according to a new study.
If you choose not to take a flight, all you do is 'make it cheaper for someone else to pollute' Photo: PA
The University of East Anglia paper said that the decision not to take a flight will have no “net effect” on the amount of greenhouse gases produced globally - and taking a diesel train or petrol bus instead could even make your carbon footprint larger. Installing energy efficient lightbulbs is also "carbon neutral". In contrast insulating your home, driving less and eating less meat will all reduce the amount of global greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming. Dr Grischa Perino, an economist at UEA's Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science, said new EU rules means the decision not to fly does not cut overall carbon. He explained that the carbon used by taking a flight are covered by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. This allows certain sectors to produce a limited amount of carbon over time. If less carbon is produced then the sector will sell their “permits” to another polluting industry in the scheme. Therefore if you choose not to take a flight, all you do is “make it cheaper for someone else to pollute”, said Dr Perino. “The net effect is zero,” he said. “If I do not fly someone else buys the permit I did not use and uses it to produce carbon. "If you care about the change in total greenhouse gases, whether I fly or not is irrelevant because that is a fixed amount [set under the EU ETS]." Taking a bus or a diesel train instead could even increase your carbon footprint. “If you consider making a trip from London to Glasgow, flying has higher physical greenhouse gas emissions than a coach journey,” said Dr Perino.
“However, additional emissions of flights are fully offset by the EU ETS, even without buying the offsets offered by most airlines when buying tickets, while those of the coach are not and therefore are additional. Surprising as it may sound, going by coach increases total emissions more than flying." Since electricity production is also covered by the EU ETS, buying more efficient appliances will also have no net effect, as it simply allows more electricity to produce carbon elsewhere. Dr Perino was careful to point out there are still good reasons not to fly, such as air traffic and other pollutants and energy efficiency can cut bills. But he said if people really want to reduce global carbon they are better concentrating on emissions in sectors not covered by the EU ETS, like agriculture or road transport. "Consumers who want to reduce the climate impact of their consumption and lifestyle should focus on reducing emissions not regulated by the EU ETS, such as road transport, agriculture and other sectors with low energy intensity," he said. "Driving your car less, eating less red meat and improving the insulation of your home substantially reduces your carbon footprint. These unregulated sectors make up more than half of greenhouse gas emissions in participating countries and reducing those emissions is important." Prof Corinne Le Quéré, director of UEA's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, urged consumers to continue their efforts to reduce their carbon footprint. "It is critical that we significantly reduce our carbon emissions to tackle climate change," she said. "Reducing our individual energy use, particularly that of our travel, our houses, and our appliances, is the quickest and easiest way to reduce our own carbon emissions.”
fuente, telegraph
If you choose not to take a flight, all you do is 'make it cheaper for someone else to pollute' Photo: PA
The University of East Anglia paper said that the decision not to take a flight will have no “net effect” on the amount of greenhouse gases produced globally - and taking a diesel train or petrol bus instead could even make your carbon footprint larger. Installing energy efficient lightbulbs is also "carbon neutral". In contrast insulating your home, driving less and eating less meat will all reduce the amount of global greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming. Dr Grischa Perino, an economist at UEA's Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science, said new EU rules means the decision not to fly does not cut overall carbon. He explained that the carbon used by taking a flight are covered by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. This allows certain sectors to produce a limited amount of carbon over time. If less carbon is produced then the sector will sell their “permits” to another polluting industry in the scheme. Therefore if you choose not to take a flight, all you do is “make it cheaper for someone else to pollute”, said Dr Perino. “The net effect is zero,” he said. “If I do not fly someone else buys the permit I did not use and uses it to produce carbon. "If you care about the change in total greenhouse gases, whether I fly or not is irrelevant because that is a fixed amount [set under the EU ETS]." Taking a bus or a diesel train instead could even increase your carbon footprint. “If you consider making a trip from London to Glasgow, flying has higher physical greenhouse gas emissions than a coach journey,” said Dr Perino.
“However, additional emissions of flights are fully offset by the EU ETS, even without buying the offsets offered by most airlines when buying tickets, while those of the coach are not and therefore are additional. Surprising as it may sound, going by coach increases total emissions more than flying." Since electricity production is also covered by the EU ETS, buying more efficient appliances will also have no net effect, as it simply allows more electricity to produce carbon elsewhere. Dr Perino was careful to point out there are still good reasons not to fly, such as air traffic and other pollutants and energy efficiency can cut bills. But he said if people really want to reduce global carbon they are better concentrating on emissions in sectors not covered by the EU ETS, like agriculture or road transport. "Consumers who want to reduce the climate impact of their consumption and lifestyle should focus on reducing emissions not regulated by the EU ETS, such as road transport, agriculture and other sectors with low energy intensity," he said. "Driving your car less, eating less red meat and improving the insulation of your home substantially reduces your carbon footprint. These unregulated sectors make up more than half of greenhouse gas emissions in participating countries and reducing those emissions is important." Prof Corinne Le Quéré, director of UEA's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, urged consumers to continue their efforts to reduce their carbon footprint. "It is critical that we significantly reduce our carbon emissions to tackle climate change," she said. "Reducing our individual energy use, particularly that of our travel, our houses, and our appliances, is the quickest and easiest way to reduce our own carbon emissions.”
fuente, telegraph
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario