Airlines hurt the environment. Environment replies "I'm deeply hurt"?

Question

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/05/ecoscandal-aa-plane-fli_n_90032.html

So here's the story. I'm sure we've all seen it. What should the airline have done? Made an announcement "We're sorry, we can't fly you out there because it will hurt the environment too much"?

Airlines are in the business to transport people, not save the planet. The group that takes it upon themselves to save the planet are the environmentalists. And how do the environmentalists save the planet? They complain to the airlines. Does this sound right?

I know smart environmentalists that would smile at this situation. Do you know why? Because they see opportunity, they see job security, they are working towards solutions to solve pollution and fuel consumption problems. These situations will keep them employed and keep their skills at work. They are the ones who are going to change things, not these whiners.

Anyone else agree? State whether you're environmentalist or not.

Answer 1

I understand the environmentalists perspective, however like you said AA is in the business of transporting people to destinations. Cancelling the flight would have left west-bound passengers stranded looking for alternative flights on the busy day at Heathrow.

There is a line between caring for the environment and being insane. In this case, it has been crossed. People need to be logical and rational and come up with ideas rather than complaining. What would they have done in that situation? People criticize too much without backing it up with valid points. I read both articles and I saw no quotes of alternatives to what occured. All I saw was heavy taxation. That seems to always be the answer for some people. This is nothing new, it happens very often, I am surprised it is getting so much press. I'd rather tick off environmentalists than my customers, that's for sure. I don't see them buying more planes for the fleet.

Answer 2

It is known fact that airlines are one of the contributers for global warming , so are we  . We leave a carbon footprint everyday  doing our daily activities . Of the total carbon emissions  only 2% is affiliated to the airline industry . What about the rest ? . Our vehicle produce more carbon than our airlines . Shall we stop commuting by vehicles altogether ?. The only way forward is gradually shift our dependence from carbon technology to cleaner ones . To achive this governments around the world should implement certain policies and should incentivies them . By this way it is a win-win situation for both environmentalist and capitalist .

with regards

www.chocolatesavy.com

Answer 3

The issue was not the 5 passengers going from Chicago to London, it was that the airline needed the plane in London to bring passengers to the USA.

The problem was that the airline didn't forsee this problem in advance and adjust accordingly.  Not only did this error harm the environment, but it also cost the airline a lot of money.

I don't know why they didn't see this problem coming, but I certainly understand why people are upset about it.  They wasted 22,000 gallons of fuel to transport these 5 people.  That's 4,400 gallons per person, or the equivalent of driving 132,000 miles in a 30 mpg car.

So in one day these 5 passengers each burned the equivalent fuel of 10 average years of driving.

"It is estimated that each passenger produced 43 tons of CO2 – consuming enough fuel to carry a Ford Mondeo around the world five times."

So yeah as an environmentalist I'm rather disturbed that the airline couldn't figure out how to avoid this scenario ahead of time.

Answer 4

Planes were not designed to carry so few people. They should have used a small plane which could have done it more efficiently.

Environmentalists have the right to complain. Plane companies should have smaller planes in reserve for these sorts of flights.

We can't stop plane travel, but the least we can do is make it economical.