Juan Carlos Císcar

That's the name of a graduate who works at the Sevilla's Insitute for Prospective Technological Studies. In January 14th 2007 the newspaper called Levante published an interview to Juan Carlos with regard to climate change. Among other questions.... Campaigns in order to create awareness on climate change  appeal to the role that citizens play at this issue. Do you think they can do something in order to prevent pernicious effects on agriculture and marine coasts? Something in particular?

Juan Carlos' answer was... Undoubtedly. The problem of climate change is in short a problem generated by we citizens who ask for products which are polluting as a last resort, from using cars to something so common as switching on a bulb.

He commented as well that citizens should be persuaded from polluting activities, e.g. flying,  through taxes..... Fortunatelly in that moment I was not the only one asking people for reducing domestic flights as a first measure... And some good news, in that moment 35% of the companies all over the world were planning to reduce their flights or at least it was in their plans in the short-medium term. How is it possible to find flights at a european level at 30€? Maybe my petitions could be too demanding but I am one of those who think that low-cost flights = a free terrorist attack against the environment. I agree that everybody has the right to flight but in a reasonable way. As we humans sometimes don't have clear ideas about what is wrong or right, a first approximation could be attacking our budgets. He who pollutes must pay.

Politiciens VS Planes

In 2007, the british minister Ian Person attacked the air companies' environmental irresponsibility. Two links here: the first and the second. It seemed that British, not only for this case but others, had taken more seriously the issue of climate change than others.

Up to that moment, I did know no politicien who had told so many crystal clear things in public respect to the air traffic polution. Respect to CO2 emissions, the percentage of air traffic is smaller if compared with emissions from roads, but it is expected to have it rising faster than any other mean of transport in the coming years. Some years ago I joined the cause: who pollutes pays. I can't agree with tickets to fly costing 5, 10, 15, 20 or 25 euros or even less than 5 as I've seen some times. How is it possible to travel cheaper by plane than by train (at least in Spain)? How is it possible to be cheaper to distil a litre of gasoline than a litre of water? How is it possible so much permissiviness at the time of polluting?

In my opinion, the price of the ticket should start from a price figured from the number of trees that are needed to be planted in order to catch all the CO2 emitted during the journey. Obviously, the number of trees should be enough to catch all the CO2 in a number of reasonable years. From here, every company is free to establish its policy of prices. The term "low cost flights" shouldn't have never existed.

Low Cost Flights? Part II

From time to time I have to refresh my memory respect to the harmful that flights are. Here I summarize you, because of royalties, a post sent by a reader to a spanish magazine whose name is CNR. You can find the writing in the 114th number in August 2006. I imagine you can find the report in the previous number.

OK, so, let's go.... The sender expressed her outrage when she realized that flying 1000 kms pollutes the equivalent to the bills of a whole year on electricity, heating and land transport during two and a half years. When she thought of the damage that an irrational usage of planes cause to the environment, she wondered whether it's worthy to live thinking about your daily acts to cause the smaller damage to the environment. Is it worthy to recycle, switch off lights or ride a bicycle? She compared the situation as giving aspirines to a terminal patient.....

By the way, the article had an excellent title: "Flying to the abyss". In the moment I wrote this post in Spanish, it was an update on CO2 emissions and those from the transport seemed to have increased. No long time ago, the transport emissions represented a 15% of the whole, in that moment it seemed that it got 25% even there was some survey which pointed to 40%. In any case, it seems that aviation was and is increasing its emissions year after year, so it should be a must for many people to get a plane as much once a year. By the way, domestic flights please do not. In Spain we could do it, perhaps... with an exception... Canarias Islands.

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.