The Wall Street Journal-20080129-Green Vacations- Not a Black or White Thing

Return to: The_Wall_Street_Journal-20080129

Green Vacations: Not a Black or White Thing

Full Text (530  words)

The idea that forgoing vacations that involve long drives or flights in an effort to reduce carbon emissions to save our world isn't only naive, but is downright dangerous ("The Stay-at-Home Vacation," Weekend Journal, Jan. 18). True, the world is in danger of burning up. However, the nature of that "burn" is questionable. Forget for a moment that many Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists believe that the IPCC report overstated the role of carbon emissions and greatly exaggerated the risks of global warming. In fact, the majority of IPCC scientists believe that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes or that it is too early to ascribe any principal cause to global warming.

That said, one should carefully consider the risks of not traveling more than two hours from home. Travel exposes children and adults to other cultures and languages and often instills in them an appreciation for those cultures. Through travel we meet people unlike ourselves, circulate in their orbits, eat their food, learn their traditions and histories, and form connections that may last a lifetime. We learn what it is like to live as an "outsider," and, more importantly, we learn to adapt to life as an outsider. When we travel to poorer regions, we gain a deep appreciation of what we have. But more than this, families learn to depend on one another when they travel -- for support, for companionship and for fun.

The earth is more likely to burn from terrorist attacks, nuclear weapons and genocide than it is from global warming. Perhaps through travel, we will gain a deeper understanding of why the world is the way it is and maybe, just maybe, one of our traveling children will grow into an adult who can successfully navigate a path toward peace. I'm pretty sure that the solution to the world's problems (the least of which is global warming) won't be found while sitting on the living room couch.

Dee Dee Vicino

Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

---

Your article gives a misleading representation of aviation's environmental impact. By just offering the options of carbon offsetting or stopping flying, you ignore the industry's many actions to limit its environmental impact.

Let's start by putting this in perspective: The latest IPCC report confirmed that aviation contributes just 2% of the world's carbon- dioxide emissions. Even if aviation reached the IPCC's projected figure of 3% by 2050, it would still represent far less than the current emissions from road transport, shipping, deforestation, or energy production. Shouldn't we offset or stop driving, boating, cutting trees and producing heat and electricity first?

Aviation boasts a long history of making significant emission reductions. As a result, planes are now 70% more fuel efficient than they were 40 years ago. Today, the whole aviation industry is investing heavily in energy-saving measures: reducing the weight of planes to save fuel; developing new operational procedures to save CO2 emissions in the air as well as on the ground; and implementing terminal design features to increase efficiency and reduce energy use. Although these aren't headline grabbers, they show the industry's commitment to addressing its emissions.

Philippe Rochat

Executive Director

Air Transport Action Group

Geneva