Climategate University – Flying Has Less Environmental Impact Than Road Travel

Air Travel is better for the environment that travel by bus, according to Climategate University

Air Travel is better for the environment that travel by bus, according to Climategate University

Once upon a time in the not so dim and distant past the Greens, environmentalists and other stalwarts of the Church of Climatology decreed that flying was one of the greatest crimes against Gaia, so great a crime that only those dedicated to saving the world at UNFCCC Climate Circus Meetings, and Leonardo Di Caprio could fly with Gaia’s approval.

Now the Green meme on flying has changed, according to a new study by the University at the heart of the Climategate, the University of East Anglia:

Travelling by coach is worse for the environment than flying, according to a new study by the University of East Anglia.

It says that because emissions from aviation are offset under an EU-wide trading scheme (EU-ETS) and coach journeys are not, travellers on a plane will have a lower carbon footprint.

According to the carbon calculating website GCO2, a typical flight from London to Glasgow emits 160kg of CO2 per person, compared to approximately 17kg by coach.

Since airlines in the EU take part in an emissions trading scheme, this is effectively ‘wiped’ from the slate, whereas the bus journey is not.

So you absolve your sin of flying by paying money to atone for having done so, much like in the 15th Century the clergy used to get the rich on their deathbeds to leave all their worldly belongings to the Church to assure their place in heaven.

“If you consider making a trip from London to Glasgow, flying has higher physical GHG emissions than a coach journey.

“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.”

Well emissions would have been offset if the EU had not suspended their Green Flying Tax for 12 months, and the airlines had not charged passengers €1.36 billion for what EurActiv describe as imaginary ETS costs.

The University of East Anglia study implies that money can remove the CO2 they are so afraid from the atmosphere, so even though flying emits more CO2 physically, it is some how less because money has changed hands. Only the ETS for aviation was suspended, so no money changed hands ergo that nasty CO2 is still there.

One big question is did the imaginary ETS costs pocketed by the airlines help remove atmospheric CO2?

Things are confusing in Greenworld, who knows, the next story we hear could involve Al Gore selling his TV Channel to an Islamic news channel funded by Big Oil.

About Tory Aardvark

Climate Realist, Conservative and proud NRA member. I don't buy into the Man Made Global Warming Scam, science is never settled. @ToryAardvark on Twitter ToryAardvark on Facebook

Posted on January 30, 2013, in Anthropogenic Global Warming, Carbon trading, Church Of Climatology, Climate Change, Global Warming, Green Environmental Holocaust, Green Lies and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.

  1. And I wonder who pays the offsets when Jones and his cronies fly round the world?

    Oh yes, me!

  2. This is proof that they really do think differently than normal people. Not the results – if you do daft research, you get daft answers, but the basis for the study. What would be going through your mind to wonder if EU ETS for flying would make flying greener than coach travel? One could have written a similar report – “Travelling by bicycle is far worse than driving a Humvee when carbon credits are purchased along with the vehicle.”

    Not only are they dumb enough to write the report, nobody else had the brains to stop them and nobody thought it might be wise to prevent it seeing the light of day.

    I’m all for encouraging an enquiring mind but this ranks with sleeping in the fridge to see if the light goes off every time to door shuts… except in that case you’d come to the right conclusion.

  3. TinyCO2, I quite agree, but it’s their job to ‘inquire’, even if they get it wrong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: