greenwash

BAA latest scheme is pedalling greenwash

Richard — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:38:50 +0000

One of the delights of the eco-business bandwagon is watching the truly clueless clamber about making absurd claims and promises which they have no hope nor intention of keeping. The carbon-neutral airport is a recent example; only by discounting all the emissions from planes can this feat be achieved, which, of course, renders it entirely meaningless. But it seems that business has been competing to see who can launch the most useless project to cut CO2 emissions... and BAA has surged into the lead.

Not content with pretending that the sole purpose of a new runway at Heathrow is to reduce emissions from stacking, they're now trying to cut the tiny proportion of emissions which come from their staff commutting to work, and have launched a cycle to work scheme. They've got lofty ambitions to reduce the number of people driving to work by... wait for it... 1% year on year.

Two points: firstly, this is not a BAA initiative, but a Government scheme which allows people to offset the cost of a bike against their VAT and NI payments. Every other company in the UK runs it. (If you work for one which doesn't, go and ask your finance department why not. Right now. Seriously, we'll wait for you.)

Secondly, there is no excuse whatsoever for staff working in the daytime to drive to Heathrow. The roads are all gridlocked anyway, and Heathrow is served by: the Heathrow Express from Paddington, the Piccadilly line, buses from Guildford and Woking, free buses into most of Hayes and Harmondsworth, other trains from Paddington, buses from Uxbridge and further buses from the east, west, north and south of the airport. Anyone driving in is so bloody stupid that they ought to be sacked immediately and their innards stretched across Bath Road for all to see. In fact when I've been locked on to BAA I've noticed that the vast majority of staff at their Point West offices arrive by bus anyway...

But don't let me put you off - BAA is still, to their credit, offering people the chance to get a cheap bike. There's just one catch though: as the announcement makes clear, "the scheme is open for sign ups between 1 July and 2 July". I hope that's inclusive, othewise there's only a non-existent metaphysisical nano-second in which to get your form in. It's almost like they don't want any applicants...

Emissions trading scheme a bit unfair, complain airline lobbyists

Richard — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:32:59 +0000

Environmentalists have long complained that the Government's solution to aviation emissions, the EU emissions trading scheme is about as useful as a (vegan) chocolate teapot. That's the ETS, which will, by the EU's own account, reduce industry growth to just 78% by 2020, instead of 83%. But the aviation industry's international lobby group has decided it's the greatest threat to the industry, like, ever.

Giovanni Bisignani, head of IATA - a group set up to complain in a whiny voice whenever anyone suggests that aviation might want to stop shitting on the carpet - used to oppose the ETS as unfair. Now he's arguing that the ETS is going to lead to a patchwork of different schemes, all of which overlap and interlink, which he thinks is far worse than an international agreement. The ETS should therefore be scrapped while everyone starts all over again to work towards a multi-lateral agreement.

I should probably point out that IACO, another international aviation body, has been trying to get an international agreement for several years now. It has been a complete failure, because every country wants their own carriers exempted and everyone else's charged to the hilt. There are no signs that this situation will change, because the industry lost almost $5 billion last year thanks to the recession.

So where does all this leave us? The ETS is rubbish, and that while it exists the UK Government can keep using it as a get-out-of-jail-free card to avoid doing anything about aviation emissions. But is it better than nothing? I'm meant to say yes here, but consider this: if the industry succeeds in overturning the ETS, then the Government might actually have to do something about reducing aviation emissions. The enemy of my enemy?

Slacktivism: don't rain on my parade

Richard — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:59:25 +0000

Those of you who read this blog know that we don't really like to have a go at NGOs and other campaign groups. We feel, rightly or wrongly, that the whole climate change catastrophe is rather more important than some silly in-fighting vanguardism. It's what seperates us from the Revolutionary Communist Party / Living Marxism sect currently masquerading as Modern Movement.

But sometimes I get sent things that really piss me off. This video (and Earth Hour) is one of them. Earth Hour, for those of you who didn't get the memo, is a coming together of lots of people who will all turn their lights off for an hour. And then turn them back on again afterwards. Or something.

Now some of us at the coal face of climate change campaigning might choose to describe such an activity as a collosal waste of time that puts forward false solutions that tell people you can stop climate change while keeping all those existing power structures, lifestyles and consumerist nonsenses going. But while we roll our eyes and try to ignore it, the organisers go and put out videos like the one above, which seem to be saying that taking direct action is less effective than sitting in the dark for an hour.

Earth Hour: The Huge Turn Off- Alanis Morissette PSA

Of course they don't stop there: how about the idea that you can keep flying everywhere so long as you use a freshly-bought green lightbulb? Popstrel Alanis Morrisette thinks that's the case, and no one at the Earth Hour HQ thought it a bit weird that she's giving her message of inaction from the inside of a plane.

Don't get me wrong: if the organisers of Earth Hour want to pretend we can solve climate change by getting "millions of people" to turn their lights off only to turn them back on again an hour later then fine. Just stop polluting the airwaves with your ill-thought out, partisan bullshit.

Airport greenwash: the smiling face of the aviation industry

Rose — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:45:44 +0000

It seems it's actually rather easy being green: airports around the UK are improving their green credentials. Nottingham East Midlands is one of many airports incorporating wind power, adding four wind turbines which it claims will provide ten per cent of the airport’s electricity requirements. Liverpool Airport has installed two 15 meter high wind turbines. Sadly further use of wind power is only at the feasibility study stage as wind turbines can interfere with flightpaths and navigation systems.

Renewable energy is all well and good but in these cases it's just green garnishing. Aviation remains stubbornly dependent on oil and these green building initiatives do not tackle the airports’ core activity: flying. Elsewhere in the UK, Newcastle Airport is opposing the installation of seven wind turbines nearby on the Northumberland coast as this might necessitate the re-routing of flights. Plans for 85 wind turbines in Dumfries and Galloway and East Ayrshire in Scotland were rejected after opposition by Glasgow Prestwick Airport.

There are initiatives to use biofuels to meet airports’ energy requirements, even though there is widespread concern that greenhouse gas emissions can be higher than for fossil fuels, and that using land to grow crops for feeding vehicles competes with food supplies. Nevertheless, Bristol Airport’s programmes for using biomass from locally produced woodchip and conversion of used cooking oil into fuel for airport vehicles have made it all the way to the drawing board. There are no end of programmes to encourage staff and travellers to use public transport to and from the airport and Luton Airport is introducing some lightweight buses for transportation around the airfield.

Some airports then have the audacity to start educating and ‘raising awareness’ amongst the public on how we should be greening our lifestyles. Newquay Airport has announced in its development plan that there will be a Discovery Centre for children on the airports site, which will cover subjects including err… sustainable development. Some airports have allocated small pots of money for grants to cash strapped community projects. Robin Hood Airport near Doncaster gives tiny amounts of funding for community projects such as village halls and playing fields through its Community Investment Fund. Its website highlights such largesse as letting local groups use the airport chapel free of charge.

It's all under the banner of Corporate Social Responsibility, painting the airport as a concerned citizen with activities that are separate from, and detract attention from, their core business of waking up their neighbours with early morning take offs and landings. It just doesn't sound so nice when you put it like that though.

Fly to green land with Nature Air

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:22:18 +0000

If we accept the analysis of ten leading climate scientists from around the world, we are truly on the brink of disaster and need to make immediate and drastic cuts in emissions to avoid a 70 metre sea-level rise, the loss of the inland glaciers that provide water to a billion people, the rapid expansion of the subtropical deserts, and mass extinctions. But all is not lost: we now have the "world's first carbon neutral airline".

Nature Air have always considered themselves less an airline, "more like a travel company with wings", whatever that means. While their site acknowledges that "the only way to slow or stop temperature rise due to man made activities is to restrict the amount of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere", that doesn't stop them making a rather remarkable claim of carbon neutrality. How do they achieve this? By planting trees... and ignoring the impacts of radiative forcing (which increase climate impacts by a factor of 2.7). Even if offsetting worked, Nature Air is offsetting just over a third of their full impact.

BA in 'ghost planes' airfix

Richard — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:00:49 +0000

"British Airways is committed to improving its environmental performance, and reducing the adverse impacts of its activities on the global and local environment." So says their website, which lauds the company's environmental record in "improving fuel efficiency and developing engagement with customers".

Pity that no one told their transatlantic division; it seems they've been caught flying empty planes between North America and the UK, in order to keep their landing slots at Heathrow open. Neither is it the first time this has happened - back in March British Mediteranean Airways (a franchise of BA) was sending jets between Heathrow and Cardiff to keep slots open.

Frankly, it's no wonder that this sort of madness occurs, when fuel is untaxed and planes so cheap to run. It just goes to show that for the aviation industry, when it comes to choosing between the environment and profit margins, those pound signs are always going to come out on top.