COLD COMFORT
Are ‘carbon neutral’ journeys as eco-friendly as they claim to be? Critics of Antarctic joy flights say no.
“It’s our mission to leave this pristine landscape the way we found it.”
A noble intention for every travel firm. But do they really mean it? As you may have read, the Boeing 787 jets that Qantas acquired for the London-Perth nonstop link, covering over 9,000 miles, are now reduced to operating day-trips to the weird and wonderful deep south.
No, not the intriguing island of Tasmania – even further, to Antarctica.
An Australian company that specialises in polar sightseeing trips, Antarctica Flights, has chartered Qantas jets to propel around 200 people towards the south pole, and then back to Australia, in around 13 hours.
The context for this venture: sightseeing flights from Australia to Antarctica have been operating for decades. Right now they are about the most exciting option for Australian travellers who find their borders are sealed.
“Every Antarctica Flight is carbon neutral,” claims the firm. “We are contributing to projects that not only provide positive benefits to the climate, but also achieve social and economic ‘co-benefits’.”
The company uses part of each passenger’s fare (top tickets cost a scorching A$7,999/£4,379) to buy “certified carbon credits”. These are said to be contributing to native reforestation in the Yarra Yarra Biodiversity Corridor in Western Australia.
Since these are strictly domestic flights that happen to travel to the end of the world, there are no red-tape problems. And the company seems confident there are no green-agenda issues either.
With offsetting in place, you can step aboard with a clear conscience. Or can you?
This enforced pause provides an opportunity to assess ways to reduce the damage to the planet created by aviation, from the noise and traffic around airports to the impact on climate
Not according to Flight Free UK. The director, Anna Hughes, says: “Most carbon-offsetting schemes have been shown to be ineffective in terms of their ability to absorb the necessary carbon, or they simply pay into existing schemes which don’t actually compensate for your flight.
“In addition, carbon-offset schemes often mean that people feel that they have dealt with the impact of their flight, so they continue to fly.
“The best way to offset carbon emissions is to not produce them in the first place.”
Until the coronavirus pandemic brought much of global aviation to a halt, the pressure group calculated there was not enough land space on earth to plant enough trees to make up for the prevailing level of flying.
That is also the view of Simon G, who tweeted within minutes of my original Antarctica flights story going online: “There’s non-essential air travel, then there’s non-essential air travel that allows you to view a place that’s being destroyed, whilst adding to its destruction, for absolutely zero gain.”
This enforced pause provides an opportunity to assess ways to reduce the damage to the planet created by aviation – a spectrum of harm extending from the noise and traffic around airports to the impact on climate.
I shall enthusiastically continue to espouse the benefits of aviation for humanity. They range from the relatively efficient transfer of wealth from richer countries to poorer nations that international tourism can bring, to the increase in understanding that connectivity provides.
But I shall continue to implore prospective passengers to make choices that will reduce (though never eliminate) the harm they cause: fly in basic economy class only, with minimal luggage, with airlines that fill their planes to 90 per cent or above.
Choose only the most modern and efficient aircraft. That includes the Boeing 787, but not if it is spending the day going around in circles (actually figures of eight) over Antarctica.
As Simon G wrote: “Rather than see it through a window, watch a documentary.” Even if that’s all you’ve been doing for months.
Q If you were to book to go abroad this weekend where would you go? Greece? Everything in the UK is booked up. Should we risk it?
Rachel B
A I may indeed be going abroad this weekend, and I may end up in Greece. But that is only because I have already been to Italy since lockdown ended. And that blessed country looks right now the optimum choice for a late escape.
For a start, it isn’t too far – two to three hours away, so saving a good 90 minutes on the journey time to most Greek airports. So less time in the air with the faintly uncomfortable prospect of wearing a face
covering, and no need to fill out a complicated form in advance online.
Next, air links are more widely available and lower cost than for Greece. Right now I am looking at a ridiculously priced easyJet fare from Bristol to Olbia on the fabulous island of Sardinia: £91 return, travelling out on Saturday 15 August, coming back a week later. (That does not include checked luggage, but easyJet offers a generous-sized case and no weight limit for cabin baggage.)
From Manchester a combination of easyJet and Ryanair is available to Venice and back for around £150 – another impressively low fare for a late booking in peak season.
Hotels and restaurants are open and welcoming visitors. Of course it feels odd having to wear a mask on any public transportation, and in public areas of hotels, etc, but you soon get used to it. And you also get the benefit of being able to explore Venice, Florence, Pisa and other highlights without the usual crowds.
Most persuasive of all: Italy is currently doing outstandingly well in terms of keeping down new infection rates. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control figures for the past two weeks show it to be the most successful country in southern Europe. So there is little chance of an unwelcome surprise in the shape of a demand for you to quarantine on your return home.