Thursday, 19 July 2007

Low-Cost Flights

Are you sure? For you or for the environment? I think prices are good for you, never for the environment. I think the environmental damage is inversely to the price for your ticket. What does it mean? It's easy, the percentage of pollution per passenger is very high, at least, 50%. One example, imagine you have 100 litres of fuel to run a car, a train, a ship, a bus and a plain. It is sure you need 50 litres to run de plain, the other 50 litres are shared among the rest. Have you an idea already?

Aviation is not now guilty for the most of the pollution, now are the cars, but the growth of this mean of transport is very fast and its emissions of CO2 are very high. Here you are another example. If you had to flight inside Europe, you would emit so many CO2, that you would need two trees working around the clock during 100 years to eliminate all the CO2 you have emitted.In that way, my religion allows me, as much, a flight a year, and after flying, I have to pay my eco-tax. We have an NPO in Spain to plant the trees you need to eliminate the CO2 you have emitted. A computer calculates your emissions and the price of trees to be planted. In this way, I think it is a tax included into the price of the ticket. I would be nice that the most people that flight collaborated in that way.

There are people who say that I'm a radical, that my behaviour won't avoid that plains continue fliying.. I know it... but I send them to my post Gratitudes. One more thing. Low-Cost Flights aren't socially responsibles in the sense that if you pay less, that has repercussions on the salary of the workers, on a properly set-up and in the generation of employment. Nobody has to be surprised when the crew don't say good morning or nobody hasn't his/her coffe. Remeber: poverty and environment go hand in hand.

Good night.

No comments: