Saying Goodbye to Flying

Ever since I was a kid I have loved planes, especially large jets. But sadly, for me and I think soon (indeed, I hope very soon) for all of us, flying will come to an end, at least for the next twenty to thirty years. Personally, my farewell to flying has been a long time coming. Too long perhaps, but the tipping point was the report from a recent gathering of scientists at the Royal Society in London. It is hard to convey terror in a scientific document, but they managed it:

“The Earth’s atmospheric CO₂ level must be returned to <350ppm to reverse this escalating ecological crisis and to 320ppm to ensure permanent planetary health. Actions to achieve this must be taken urgently. The commonly mooted best case target of 450ppm and a time frame reaching to 2050 will plunge the Earth into an environmental state that has not occurred in millions of years and from which there will be no recovery for coral reefs and for many other natural systems on which humanity depends.”

Consider the following facts, which you can now readily glean and cross check from any number of reputable internet sources:

• Global concentration of greenhous gases (‘GHG’) are now at 388 ppm;
• The impacts we were expecting to arise at concentrations well above this are starting to occur already;
• 350 ppm, which is the figure that many NGOs are aiming for, is considered a useful interim step, but is still viewed by many scientists as unsafe (300 ppm or less is more likely to be safe);
• 450 ppm – which, incredibly, is the number that most governments are currently aiming for, including our own – is literally a planetary suicide note because of the large scale destruction of ecosystems that will occur, and it has a very high chance (around 50% by some estimates) of tipping the world towards runaway climate change;
• Even if all emissions stopped tomorrow, we have probably “locked in” around 2° Celsius of warming with emissions to date;
• And here is the really frightening number – even if China undertakes to radically reduce its carbon emissions, and we halt all other planetary emissions by 2050 (which would mean employing every possible green technology we can currently think of on a large scale), we are still almost certain to get more than 450 ppm;
• Currently, our emissions are on target for an “utterly catastrophic” 6-degree Celsius rise over the next 90 years.

In recent advice to the South Australian government, lawyer Katherine Wells asked these questions:

“Given the shrinking time-frames indicated by the latest scientific analysis in this area, is the world’s current framing of the climate change agenda still appropriate? Should we re-frame our approach to give a clearer indication of the immediate need for a sustained, radical restructuring of the economy, and the likelihood that an extraordinary level of effort and sacrifice worldwide will be necessary over the next two to three decades?

Given this convergence of themes, can the current climate situation be characterised as anything other than a climate emergency? If it is not, why not, and when would it be reasonable to characterise the climate situation as an emergency?

If it is a climate emergency, what should we do differently to address it?”

I think we need to get familiar with the phrase “global climate emergency”. The notion that there is going to be a way of moving to a low carbon economy for a few dollars per household per annum spread over the next 50 years is gone. Things have advanced so far and so fast that we not only have to cease emissions now, we also have to build machines – now – to remove existing emissions. Think less in terms of a few dollars extra for petrol, and more in terms of those winter blackouts of the 1970s and 80s. That said, the needed reductions are actually quite doable; however, a new state of mind is required. As one writer recently pointed out, Queenslanders have made a 50% reduction in domestic water use in three years to cope with drought. An equivalent effort is required for energy use.

There is no easy way to say this. We have to stop all non-essential flights, and do so right now. This is not about ‘doing our bit,’ or assuaging some vaguely guilty feelings; it is a matter of naked self-preservation. From here on in, every non-essential flight reduces the chances that we will get to enjoy old age with anything like the energy use we currently take for granted. But if you want a more noble reason, consider that your flight today is removing the chance that your own grandchildren will ever get to fly. Later, they may ask you about that.

References: