Plane and Simple

After a couple of weeks discussing the impact of sea transportation, it's time to turn our attention to air travel, its impact on environmental change and public opinions surrounding its impacts.

Based in New Zealand, articles by Becken et. al (2003) and Becken (2002) have illustrated the energy usage of different forms of transport and the damage that the proposed increase in air travel could cause.

Increasing at an average rate of 9% per annum since 1960, air travel has been growing rapidly, and as the average trip length has increased by 43% in the last 2 decades, emissions produced are only becoming greater and more concerning. Becken adds to this by converting energy usage into mega joules per passenger per kilometre (MJ/PKM), and clearly shows the relatively high value of air travel (2.75 MJ/PKM) in comparison to other models of transport such as the train (1.44MJ/PKM) and the bus (0.75 MJ/PKM).

Despite this and a growing awareness of climate change among the public, there are still beliefs that air travel only accounts for marginal CO2 emissions, fuel use is always minimised and air travel is treated unfairly in comparison to other modes of transport according to Gossling and Peeters (2007).While this is done though clever advertising by the aviation industry, enthusiasm about technical progress and 'scientific' language that present 'undisputable' facts, it does raise some interesting questions.

These articles seem to fit together nicely as while one highlights the past and future impacts of air travel, the other illustrates public disillusionment. They also go together as they share a similar downfall; the discussion of their results and conclusions. While both clearly highlight hugely damaging environmental problems and thinking, there are limited solutions put forward, especially from Gossling and Peeters, who simply state their finding and the reasons for them. Although in Becken's articles there is an attempt to supply some strategies that could help mediate issues, they are specifically based around New Zealand that includes promoting alternate transport across the Cook strait. While commendable, the problem of air travel emissions is global and therefore an upscalling of solutions is vital.

Seaing is Believing

I speculated at the end of my last post that it was important not to underestimate the impact of sea travel and transportation on the environment. If you want to know why make sure to check out a 2007 article by Dalsoren et. al.

Although it focusses primarily on the regional impact around Norway and NW Russia, it is filled with some staggering statistics. For example Norwegian coastal ship traffic is responsible for more than one third of all Norwegian Nitrogen oxide emissions, and is one of a handful of industrial sectors that will not see a decrease in sulphur emissions in the coming decade. By 2015 in fact sea transportation could perhaps cause a 4% increase in sulphur and nitrate deposition across the study area.

While the study highlights and models the problems and large scale impacts of the shipping industry, it offers little in the way of solutions: the extent to which a solution if offered, in fact, is through reiterating that pollutant levels need to be reduced in order to allow the area to recover. Certainly not the most constructive advice.

Not everyone sees sea transportation to be such a major contributor to global environmental change, and next time I will be looking at some differing opinions as to type of travel could be more detrimental.

Now You Sea Me...

After getting all historical for the last couple of weeks, I thought it might be about time switch attention to the impact travel is having on the environment in the present day.  

With much of the current day work focussing on the impact of flying and driving, sea transportation seems to have been forgotten. In 2003 Endresen et. al, highlighted the environmental impact of marine travel, estimating that the 106,000 ocean going ships used over 200 million tonnes of fuel each year.

The estimates were calculated through the use of an extensive model that took into account factors such as the engine type and power output, the load of the ship, and the speed at which it would travel.

It was not the first time a fuel usage estimate has been calculated, and was in fact a response to the work of Corbett et. al (1999) who suggested the international fleet only used 147 million tonnes. While this study went onto show Nitrogen and Dimethlysulphate emissions from ships account for 14% and 20% of the global emissions respectively, the lower estimate of fuel usage is perhaps a result of a less extensive model that investigated fewer variables.  

While these two studies disagree on the exact level of fuel used through global sea transportation, and the emissions it is responsible for, they both conclude emissions are larger than they were previously considered to be. Although both are quick to mention the continuing uncertainty surrounding the impact variables, it is of vital importance to recognise the contribution of sea transportation to the global environment and not to just focus on the effects of air and road travel.   

The American Dream

When the topic is global environmental change, I thought it might be a good idea this week to turn my attention from Europe to somewhere new: America.

While I have already shown how the crusades had an important impact environmentally on the Baltic States, in the late 15^th century Spanish explorers were doing the same across Eastern America and the Caribbean. 

Through the migration of people from Europe to the Americas, environments were permanently changed. Frazier (2001) describe clearly the way in which by 1517 native populations had been reduced to  only 10% of their pre invasion level, the Caribbean had been turned into “one big plantation”, and how mines had ripped though a once “idyllic environment”.

These views are echoed by Moore et. al (1996) and while the descriptions of the environmental impacts are tied up in reviews of Columbus’ expeditions, they still make interesting reading, and clearly state the multiple ways in which relatively untouched natural environments were irreparably altered.

It is interesting therefore that it was not only travelling to the Baltic States that impacted upon the environment, as European explorers to the Americas had similar impacts. It is also worth mentioning that although not at exactly at the same time, these events, the crusades and explorations, happened during a similar period. Perhaps it was from the end of the 15^th Century that travel begun to have a real impact on the global environment.

Also check out the video below of the main study location and methods used in Brown and Pluskowsi's work in the Baltics. Probably should have posted it last week, but better late than never.