Post by corsair67 on Jan 3, 2008 12:06:01 GMT 12
This article from the NZPA makes interesting reading, as to the potential impact this research could have on air travel to not only New Zealand, but Australia too.
I personally subscribe to the belief that there are much worse poluters around than the aviation industry, but it seems that the aviation industry is a soft target to some people.
Air travellers to NZ 'cost' 8 million tonnes of carbon a year
Thursday, 03 January 2008.
New Zealand's heavy dependence on international mass-tourism may be at risk as affluent northern hemisphere travellers increasingly look at the ``carbon footprint'' caused by flying.
A study by two Otago University researchers finds greenhouse gas emissions generated by visitors' air travel to New Zealand were far greater than commonly quoted.
"Our calculations show that in 2005, the CO2-equivalent emissions from the 2.4 million international visitors' return air flights was nearly 7.9 million tonnes - roughly the same as the emissions from all the country's coal, gas and oil-fired power generation,'' researchers Inga Smith and Craig Rodger said today.
The emissions were equivalent to 10 percent of the country's greenhouse gas emissions for the year which are covered by the Kyoto Protocol.
"We were surprised by this percentage as it is much higher than the widely quoted world average, even considering New Zealand's geographical isolation,'' said Rodger.
"The sheer size of the emissions and difficulties in offsetting them have far-reaching implications for both the tourism industry and efforts to achieve carbon neutrality.
"Awareness of the environmental impact of long-haul flights is increasingly influencing tourists' destination decisions.''
Prime Minister Helen Clark 11 months ago set a goal for New Zealand to be carbon neutral and to define New Zealand as environmentally sustainable.
She wants this to brand New Zealand in a similar way as the anti-nuclear policy has: "I believe New Zealand can aim to be the first nation to be truly sustainable,'' she told Parliament.
New Zealand is now liable for its greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, but emissions from international aviation are not yet covered by the protocol.
The Otago researchers said carbon neutrality in international tourism may require a lot of work: the sector accounted for 19.2 percent of the nation's export revenue in the year to March 2006 - more than the 13.2 percent brought in by dairy exports.
International tourism produced 9 percent of the nation's GDP when supporting industries were included and was the country's number one export earner.
But the trend for affluent travellers to look at the carbon footprint of their tourism, combined with mounting pressure for international aviation emissions to be included in post-Kyoto climate accords, meant the findings should sound a loud and clear wake-up call, Rodger said.
The researchers evaluated the feasibility of potential measures to offset the emissions to make the visitors' travel carbon-neutral - and found most were not practical.
"Unfortunately, none of the scenarios currently appear to be economically or technically feasible,'' said Smith.
The installation of 4250 one megawatt wind turbines to replace existing fossil fuel-based power generation would offset the visitors' emissions, but at a cost of at least $10 billion, or $4150 per visitor, she said.
Replacing current fossil-fuel generation with more efficient combined-cycle gas-turbine plants would require eight new generating plants.
Installing energy-efficient light bulbs was also impractical - each visitor would need 105 light bulbs, a total of 248 million to offset the carbon cost of air travel.
Regenerating 26,000 sq km of bush would offset the emissions, but would require an area the size of 15 Stewart Islands.
And balancing the air travel by cutting use of land transport would mean taking almost two-thirds of all New Zealand's vehicles off the road.
"As a country we need to think seriously hard and come up with meaningful offsetting strategies if tourism is to remain a cornerstone of the New Zealand economy,'' said Rodger.
NZPA
I personally subscribe to the belief that there are much worse poluters around than the aviation industry, but it seems that the aviation industry is a soft target to some people.
Air travellers to NZ 'cost' 8 million tonnes of carbon a year
Thursday, 03 January 2008.
New Zealand's heavy dependence on international mass-tourism may be at risk as affluent northern hemisphere travellers increasingly look at the ``carbon footprint'' caused by flying.
A study by two Otago University researchers finds greenhouse gas emissions generated by visitors' air travel to New Zealand were far greater than commonly quoted.
"Our calculations show that in 2005, the CO2-equivalent emissions from the 2.4 million international visitors' return air flights was nearly 7.9 million tonnes - roughly the same as the emissions from all the country's coal, gas and oil-fired power generation,'' researchers Inga Smith and Craig Rodger said today.
The emissions were equivalent to 10 percent of the country's greenhouse gas emissions for the year which are covered by the Kyoto Protocol.
"We were surprised by this percentage as it is much higher than the widely quoted world average, even considering New Zealand's geographical isolation,'' said Rodger.
"The sheer size of the emissions and difficulties in offsetting them have far-reaching implications for both the tourism industry and efforts to achieve carbon neutrality.
"Awareness of the environmental impact of long-haul flights is increasingly influencing tourists' destination decisions.''
Prime Minister Helen Clark 11 months ago set a goal for New Zealand to be carbon neutral and to define New Zealand as environmentally sustainable.
She wants this to brand New Zealand in a similar way as the anti-nuclear policy has: "I believe New Zealand can aim to be the first nation to be truly sustainable,'' she told Parliament.
New Zealand is now liable for its greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, but emissions from international aviation are not yet covered by the protocol.
The Otago researchers said carbon neutrality in international tourism may require a lot of work: the sector accounted for 19.2 percent of the nation's export revenue in the year to March 2006 - more than the 13.2 percent brought in by dairy exports.
International tourism produced 9 percent of the nation's GDP when supporting industries were included and was the country's number one export earner.
But the trend for affluent travellers to look at the carbon footprint of their tourism, combined with mounting pressure for international aviation emissions to be included in post-Kyoto climate accords, meant the findings should sound a loud and clear wake-up call, Rodger said.
The researchers evaluated the feasibility of potential measures to offset the emissions to make the visitors' travel carbon-neutral - and found most were not practical.
"Unfortunately, none of the scenarios currently appear to be economically or technically feasible,'' said Smith.
The installation of 4250 one megawatt wind turbines to replace existing fossil fuel-based power generation would offset the visitors' emissions, but at a cost of at least $10 billion, or $4150 per visitor, she said.
Replacing current fossil-fuel generation with more efficient combined-cycle gas-turbine plants would require eight new generating plants.
Installing energy-efficient light bulbs was also impractical - each visitor would need 105 light bulbs, a total of 248 million to offset the carbon cost of air travel.
Regenerating 26,000 sq km of bush would offset the emissions, but would require an area the size of 15 Stewart Islands.
And balancing the air travel by cutting use of land transport would mean taking almost two-thirds of all New Zealand's vehicles off the road.
"As a country we need to think seriously hard and come up with meaningful offsetting strategies if tourism is to remain a cornerstone of the New Zealand economy,'' said Rodger.
NZPA
