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.

Another company. However with prices of flights at an all time low. Now the only thing making me lose sleep is jet lag. co2. offers a service which can relieve the guilty consciences of air travellers. and exotic destinations more popular than ever. although aircraft engine manufacturers are making more efficient engines and researching alternative fuels such as hydrogen. Environmental groups like Friends of the Earth encourage people to travel by train and plan holidays nearer home. A company called Future Forests. or Skegness over Singapore. . 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. offers a similar service. 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. it will be decades before air travel is not damaging to the environment. The most obvious way of dealing with the problem is to not travel by plane at all. 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. and for a small fee will plant the number of trees which will absorb this CO2.org. so it is up to individual travellers to do what they can to help. but most businesspeople still prefer to meet face-to-face. Yesterday I returned to Japan from England.So what can be done to solve the problem? Well. it is hard to persuade British tourists to choose Blackpool instead of Bangkok. The Future Forest website calculates the amount of CO2 you are responsible for producing on your flight. Governments don’t seem to be taking the problem seriously.

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

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

. the banks and the big companies that are involved in international trade. The world’s wealth ends up going to the richest organisations in the richest countries. The World Bank and other organisations. 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 “Third World” did not get its name for being poor but for being outside of the Cold War. schools and doctors? For people living in the rich countries talking about “development” usually means feeling sorry for poor people in poor countries. The “first world” was the rich countries of Western Europe. and then there was the “Third World” – countries which had to choose which side they were on. 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. weapons and other things that only the “First World” produces. Many of the poorest countries got professional “help” to do this from the International Monetary Fund. so they don’t do much to help people in their own countries. The worst situation occurs in areas where there are no resources that the rest of the world wants to buy. It’s clearly not true that that these countries have finished developing. water. 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. Development is happening everywhere around the world and it has started to be called “globalisation”. 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. The Soviet Union and countries closely connected with it made another different world. It leaves the poor countries either to pay back loans. But. However. or feeling happy about pop stars or politicians who say they have done something to help them. if you look at it another way. 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. all of the human race is developing… Twenty years ago the world was divided into three parts. International trade can’t help these countries at all. These rich people tend to spend or save their money in the capitals of rich countries. or to buy expensive luxuries. Some of the “anti-globalists” are really not interested about economics at all.Nama : Jumawati B 10535 3702 08 DEVELOPMENT by John Kuti Why are there so many people in the world without food. in fact they are changing faster and faster with every new technology and fashion. or in fact the places where the Cold War could turn into a real one. North America and Japan.

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful