Nama : Jumawati B NIM :10535 3702 08

AEROPLANES AND GLOBAL WARMING
by Mike Rayner

Have you ever looked out of the window of a passenger plane from 30,000 feet at the vast expanses of empty ocean and uninhabited land, and wondered how people can have any major effect on the Earth? I have. But it is now becoming pretty clear that we are causing a great deal of damage to the natural environment. And the planes which rush us in comfort to destinations around the globe, contribute to one of the biggest environmental problems that we face today – global warming. For those of us lucky enough to have money to spend, and the free time to spend it in, there are a huge number of fascinating places to explore. The cost of air transport has decreased rapidly over the years, and for many people, especially in rich countries, it is now possible to fly around the world for little more than the contents of our weekly pay packets. Unfortunately, planes produce far more carbon dioxide (CO2) than any other form of public transport, and CO2 is now known to be a greenhouse gas, a gas which traps the heat of the sun, causing the temperature of the Earth to rise. Scientists predict that in the near future the climate in Britain will resemble that of the Mediterranean, ironically a popular destination for British holidaymakers flying off to seek the sun. If global warming continues, we may also find that many tourist destinations such as The Maldives have disappeared under water because of rising sea levels. As usual, people in the developing world are having to deal with problems created mainly by those of us in developed countries. Beatrice Schell, a spokeswoman for the European Federation for Transport and Environment says that, "One person flying in an airplane for one hour is responsible for the same greenhouse gas emissions as a typical Bangladeshi in a whole year." And every year jet aircraft generate almost as much carbon dioxide as the entire African continent produces. When you are waiting impatiently in a crowded departure lounge for a delayed flight or trying to find luggage which has gone astray, plane fares may seem unreasonably high, but in reality we are not paying enough for air travel. Under the “polluter pays principle”, where users pay for the bad effects they cause, the damage caused by planes is not being paid for. Aircraft fuel is not taxed on international flights and planes, unlike cars, are not inspected for CO2 emissions. Also, the Kyoto agreement does not cover greenhouse gases produced by planes, leaving governments to decide for themselves who is responsible.

and was happy to pay Future Forests 25 pounds to plant the 3 trees which balance my share of the CO2 produced by my return flight. so it is up to individual travellers to do what they can to help. it will be decades before air travel is not damaging to the environment. but invests your money in energy saving projects such as providing efficient light bulbs to villagers in Mauritius. Environmental groups like Friends of the Earth encourage people to travel by train and plan holidays nearer home. Friends of the Earth also advise using teleconferencing for international business meetings. However with prices of flights at an all time low. The most obvious way of dealing with the problem is to not travel by plane at all. The Future Forest website calculates the amount of CO2 you are responsible for producing on your flight. and for a small fee will plant the number of trees which will absorb this CO2. Another company. whose supporters include Coldplay and Pink Floyd. but most businesspeople still prefer to meet face-to-face. co2. However there is a way of offsetting the carbon dioxide we produce when we travel by plane. offers a service which can relieve the guilty consciences of air travellers. offers a similar service.So what can be done to solve the problem? Well. Now the only thing making me lose sleep is jet lag. . Yesterday I returned to Japan from England. A company called Future Forests. although aircraft engine manufacturers are making more efficient engines and researching alternative fuels such as hydrogen. and exotic destinations more popular than ever. Governments don’t seem to be taking the problem seriously. it is hard to persuade British tourists to choose Blackpool instead of Bangkok.org. or Skegness over Singapore.

a spokeswoman for the European Federation for Transport and Environment says that. Also. especially in rich countries. there are a huge number of fascinating places to explore. causing the temperature of the Earth to rise. and wondered how people can have any major effect on the Earth? I have. Environmental groups like Friends of the Earth encourage people to travel by train and plan holidays nearer . leaving governments to decide for themselves who is responsible. and the free time to spend it in." And every year jet aircraft generate almost as much carbon dioxide as the entire African continent produces. but in reality we are not paying enough for air travel. and CO2 is now known to be a greenhouse gas. Beatrice Schell. The cost of air transport has decreased rapidly over the years. a gas which traps the heat of the sun. contribute to one of the biggest environmental problems that we face today – global warming. planes produce far more carbon dioxide (CO2) than any other form of public transport. For those of us lucky enough to have money to spend. the Kyoto agreement does not cover greenhouse gases produced by planes. although aircraft engine manufacturers are making more efficient engines and researching alternative fuels such as hydrogen. Scientists predict that in the near future the climate in Britain will resemble that of the Mediterranean.000 feet at the vast expanses of empty ocean and uninhabited land. plane fares may seem unreasonably high. "One person flying in an airplane for one hour is responsible for the same greenhouse gas emissions as a typical Bangladeshi in a whole year. As usual. If global warming continues. The most obvious way of dealing with the problem is to not travel by plane at all.AEROPLANES AND GLOBAL WARMING Have you ever looked out of the window of a passenger plane from 30. unlike cars. the damage caused by planes is not being paid for. So what can be done to solve the problem? Well. Under the “polluter pays principle”. ironically a popular destination for British holidaymakers flying off to seek the sun. where users pay for the bad effects they cause. Governments don’t seem to be taking the problem seriously. are not inspected for CO2 emissions. so it is up to individual travellers to do what they can to help. But it is now becoming pretty clear that we are causing a great deal of damage to the natural environment. and for many people. When you are waiting impatiently in a crowded departure lounge for a delayed flight or trying to find luggage which has gone astray. we may also find that many tourist destinations such as The Maldives have disappeared under water because of rising sea levels. it is now possible to fly around the world for little more than the contents of our weekly pay packets. people in the developing world are having to deal with problems created mainly by those of us in developed countries. And the planes which rush us in comfort to destinations around the globe. Unfortunately. it will be decades before air travel is not damaging to the environment. Aircraft fuel is not taxed on international flights and planes.

The Future Forest website calculates the amount of CO2 you are responsible for producing on your flight. and was happy to pay Future Forests 25 pounds to plant the 3 trees which balance my share of the CO2 produced by my return flight. or Skegness over Singapore. Now the only thing making me lose sleep is jet lag. offers a similar service. and for a small fee will plant the number of trees which will absorb this CO2. whose supporters include Coldplay and Pink Floyd. but invests your money in energy saving projects such as providing efficient light bulbs to villagers in Mauritius.home. A company called Future Forests.org. Another company. and exotic destinations more popular than ever. However with prices of flights at an all time low. co2. Yesterday I returned to Japan from England. . Friends of the Earth also advise using teleconferencing for international business meetings. However there is a way of offsetting the carbon dioxide we produce when we travel by plane. but most businesspeople still prefer to meet face-to-face. it is hard to persuade British tourists to choose Blackpool instead of Bangkok. offers a service which can relieve the guilty consciences of air travellers.

This meant that poor countries were only left with one choice if they wanted to get richer – doing business with everyone else on the planet.Nama : Jumawati B 10535 3702 08 DEVELOPMENT by John Kuti Why are there so many people in the world without food. The worst situation occurs in areas where there are no resources that the rest of the world wants to buy. in fact they are changing faster and faster with every new technology and fashion. The World Bank and other organisations. schools and doctors? For people living in the rich countries talking about “development” usually means feeling sorry for poor people in poor countries. There is a serious argument that this process is unfair and that it is causing a lot of poverty in poor countries and in rich ones. During the same period the economies of the rich countries have been changing. These organisations lent them money and told them what kind of political changes to make in their country. Many of the poorest countries got professional “help” to do this from the International Monetary Fund. and then there was the “Third World” – countries which had to choose which side they were on. Then the second world disappeared. These rich people tend to spend or save their money in the capitals of rich countries. water. the economic parts of the argument go something like this: International trade is good for a minority of people who receive the profits from big transactions. The “Third World” did not get its name for being poor but for being outside of the Cold War. The world’s wealth ends up going to the richest organisations in the richest countries. if you look at it another way. The “first world” was the rich countries of Western Europe. the banks and the big companies that are involved in international trade. It’s clearly not true that that these countries have finished developing. It leaves the poor countries either to pay back loans. . Some of the “anti-globalists” are really not interested about economics at all. A lot of industries have closed down or been moved abroad. North America and Japan. But. However. all of the human race is developing… Twenty years ago the world was divided into three parts. weapons and other things that only the “First World” produces. or in fact the places where the Cold War could turn into a real one. International trade can’t help these countries at all. There has been a big increase in the employment of people who provide services – complicated services like investments or insurance and simple ones like sandwiches. or feeling happy about pop stars or politicians who say they have done something to help them. or to buy expensive luxuries. so they don’t do much to help people in their own countries. Development is happening everywhere around the world and it has started to be called “globalisation”. The Soviet Union and countries closely connected with it made another different world.

weapons and other things that only the “First World” produces. schools and doctors? For people living in the rich countries talking about “development” usually means feeling sorry for poor people in poor countries. or in fact the places where the Cold War could turn into a real one. all of the human race is developing… Twenty years ago the world was divided into three parts. There is a serious argument that this process is unfair and that it is causing a lot of poverty in poor countries and in rich ones. The World Bank and other organisations. The world’s wealth ends up going to the richest organisations in the richest countries. A lot of industries have closed down or been moved abroad. These organisations lent them money and told them what kind of political changes to make in their country. Then the second world disappeared. The Soviet Union and countries closely connected with it made another different world. The worst situation occurs in areas where there are no resources that the rest of the world wants to buy. in fact they are changing faster and faster with every new technology and fashion. This meant that poor countries were only left with one choice if they wanted to get richer – doing business with everyone else on the planet. so they don’t do much to help people in their own countries. the economic parts of the argument go something like this: International trade is good for a minority of people who receive the profits from big transactions. if you look at it another way. Development is happening everywhere around the world and it has started to be called “globalisation”. North America and Japan. . These rich people tend to spend or save their money in the capitals of rich countries. It’s clearly not true that that these countries have finished developing. water. However. Many of the poorest countries got professional “help” to do this from the International Monetary Fund. Some of the “anti-globalists” are really not interested about economics at all. or feeling happy about pop stars or politicians who say they have done something to help them. It leaves the poor countries either to pay back loans.DEVELOPMENT Why are there so many people in the world without food. There has been a big increase in the employment of people who provide services – complicated services like investments or insurance and simple ones like sandwiches. The “first world” was the rich countries of Western Europe. the banks and the big companies that are involved in international trade. and then there was the “Third World” – countries which had to choose which side they were on. During the same period the economies of the rich countries have been changing. International trade can’t help these countries at all. The “Third World” did not get its name for being poor but for being outside of the Cold War. or to buy expensive luxuries. But.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful