this is disingenous. although total carbon emissions from cars is less than planes, it's an accepted scientific fact that carbon emissions from planes are 2-3 times more damaging than those from cars, because the carbon is emitted higher in the atmosphere. so in terms of what is actually worse for the environment, it's planes. and this is notwithstanding the current huge growth in air travel, and the increase in flights if the 3rd runway at heathrow goes ahead - in 2002 UK flights numbered 180 million, by 2030 it's estimated this will rise to 500 million. now try telling me that's good for the environment......

Susa, London,

Air travel pollution occurs at a higher level in the atmosphere. It needs more research into the damage it does at this level before stating cars are worse.

A subsidised effecient public transport system is required to get people out of cars. More buses and trains at cheap prices is only way to go. Nationalise transport system and energy sytems and get proper direction on both.

Methane is more potent GG than co2 so burning local rubbish (which can then supply local energy needs) rather than landfill is better option and figure a way of catching carbon.

Its a bit rich of government to tell us to cut down on personal use then open another runway at Heathrow. Time for consistant message from government on global warming/Greenhouse Gases.

ian, durham, england

Walk into a greenhouse is it not warm?
Shell one around the planet ,,,

Geoff Sargent, Cardiff, UK

This is a very misleading piece of journalism. Per person, per mile travelled planes emit between 0.18 and 0.24 kg CO2. A car that does 35 mpg emits about 0.25 kg CO2, but this is per mile not passenger, put 2 or 4 passengers in the car and the figure is way lower than it is for planes. Also you have to allow for the fact that many (European at least) cars have much better fuel efficiency than 35 mpg.
I agree that in terms of total global emissions cars emit more than planes but only because there are many, many more miles travelled in cars than in planes.

Jeremy, London, UK

Easyjet actually boast that to fly with them uses less fuel that using a low emmission Toyota Priuscar. That is correct but if only one person flies. Once there are two people in the car the plane uses twice as much and so on.
The best way to reduce CO2 from travel is to walk, then use public transport, share lifts when using the car and finally airtravel.

R Payne, Macon, France

Ron from Virginia and Glen from Melbourne expressed my views perfectly. This article is a load of rubbish. Your travel correspondent Mr. Ben Webster (or the editor that put him up to it) should be demoted for publishing this nonsense. Hope it's not symptomatic of the quality of the rest of your journalistic staff.

Jim, London,

This article fails to provide any facts about the actual relativities of air travel cf. motoring. It left me wondering. I've now done some quick research which tells me:
A return journey from UK to New York will produce the equivalent in terms of "warming emissions" per passenger (including the 1.9 factor for "radiative forcing" - which accounts for aviation type emissions) of an average car being driven 9000 miles (e.g. a year's total motoring). Further, a fuel efficient car (55 mpg) produces about 115 g of CO2 per km (which could be 4 or 5 times less per passenger km if the car was full) whereas a domestic flight produces the equivalent warming (including the 1.9 factor) of about 400 g of CO2 per passenger km based on a normal (quite high) passenger load factor. A "fair" comparison is therefore that flying is probably at least 4 times more harmful per passenger km travelled than cars, and more than 10 times if the car is reasonably efficient and loaded.

Howard, Liverpool, UK

It's interesting that there is little (no ?) archaeological evidence for planes or Range Rovers during the Ice Age interstadials. I understand that temperatures rose dramatically on at least 30 occasions over the last 500,000 years

Seems to me that politicians have found just another excuse to impose more restraints on my freedom, and pocket even more of my hard-earned money in tax

By the way, I'm actually interested in generating my own green power. However, 2 years of research leads me to the conclusion that any investment in solar, wind, photo-voltaic power takes from 8-25 years to pay for itself, by which time it needs replacing. Government grants are a joke too

Neil Turner, Watford, UK

Air travel causes concentrated pollution where it can do the most damage to the 2-3 mms of ozone spread through 10 -20 Kms of atmosphere. Comparing public perception of emission source magnitudes without also mentioning the implication of the emission location means an important factor is being ignored.

The IPCC/TEAP Special Report Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System, Chapter 1.1.2 p.87 states that "The instantaneous effect of ozone depletion is that [the stratosphere] cools down which leads to an overall reduction of thermal radiation emitted downwards from the stratosphere". Low temperature causes fuel waxing.

M Greenwood, Gloucestershire,

Bottom line, it is a waste of time arguing about which form of transport is better or worse for the environment, we need to make our transport more efficient and allow alternative eco - fuels to be developed so that we can choose how to move about without having a negative impact on the environement. http://www.aninconvenientblog.co.uk

Richard, Birmingham, U.K.

Some airlines charge substantially greater carbon-offset fees for first and business than for economy. How does flying economy emit less carbon than first class?

David Masu, Zürich,

20 years ago we were in the same position but worried about slipping into another ice age. There will always be "taxable concerns"

Neil, Newquay, Cornwall

Nowhere in this article is there any indication that car travel is less of a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions per person kilometre travelled.

The only figures provided are those for the air travel industry as a whole - clearly an inadequate representation given the vastly higher level of automobile travel compared to air travel.

Dan, Adelaide, Australia

The worrying issue is that aviation is the fastest growing source of CO2 and that its high altitude operation is particularly damaging to the atmosphere. The gases and particles emited change the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, trigger the formation of condensation trails and clouds, all of which contribute to climate change. By the way it's not 'the poor' who are the big flyers but people on high and middle incomes that could afford to pay more

Ray Cobbett, Emsworth. Hampshire,

I'm glad this is getting some exposure as I've noticed the last 2-3 years I get more and more comments about my own "carbon footprint" (I'm a frequent long haul flyer with my job - have been for 7 years now.) When I'm not travelling I work from home and use my car relatively rarely. I've intuitively thought this would probably "balance out."

Anyway, I always respond the same way. I ask them where they went on holiday and where they work. The usual answer is somewhere exotic and a daily commute of 30-50 or so miles in heavy traffic...then I feel better...or at least no worse!

Ultimately, if we all stay at home and never travel humanity will never solve the Worlds many issues. Only by interfacing globally do we have any chance whatsover.

Dr Andy K Wilkinson, Ely, UK

Its not "discretionary" for me, my children live in the US, as a none US citizen I was forced to leave the US after my divorce from my American wife. Now i have to fly over to see them as often as i can and can afford to, and to collect them to bring them here for summer holidays etc.

I have no choice, but all the anti air industry people do is paint a picture of reckless holiday makers deliberately destroying the atmosphere.

It now costs me more to see my children due to increased taxes and not due to increases from the airline industry, I blame the "do gooders" and the tax and spend government.

Nothing the Uk can do will make the slightest difference to global warming, we accout for less than 3% of emissions, yet pay the most environmental taxes none of which goes towards protecting the environment.

Until the US, China, India and Russia do half as much as we have done we should do nothing else.

These do gooders will never have my support.

P Phillips, london,

Ben Websters article has proven that low cost flying is even worse for the environment than previously considered by public opinion, contrary to what Ben Webster says.
Consider that most of us use cars at least twice a day to work, some use them considerably more, then consider we may take one flying holiday a year, and yet emissions from cars are not even twice that of planes, shocking.
Flying is not the problem but low cost flying for the masses clearly is.

wayne, huntingdon, cambridgeshire

Blaming carbon on planes ‘is flight of fancy’ good, we are getting there, just need to add the rest of the farrago. Climate has been changing, sea rising, coastlines erroding before we even knew what CO2 was! There is more of a controlling, condemning political agenda here than science or reality.

Alan, Luton,

here is a thought
why can,t the governments issue co2 credit for use in air travel all the people.say 10000 miles per person.
if you want to use more you should buy from the open market i.e those who haven,t used their carbon credit.
if it is done for idustries it can be done for people too.that way i get to sell mine on the ebay and the benefit goes to me directly
mehdi

mehdi, babol, iran

The reason all planes should be grounded now has to do with the green house effect caused by their contrails. These spread, and prevent heat reaching the earth from re-radiating back into space, as well as not allowing heat produced by cars, houses, electric plants etc. to radiate out into space.
911 proved this beyond any doubt whatsoever. When planes were grounded for three days, some points on earth dropped in temperature variance by up to 4°F. It is clear that IF we were truly serious about the dangerous effects of melting polar ice caps, and rising ocean levels, we would ground all passenger airlines immediately. Super fast trains can provide transport on the continents, and great passenger ships, using bio-fuels, solar cells, and giant kites, when the wind is right, can get us to New York from London in 5 days. Dirigibles, using bio-fuels and solar cells seem a good alternative. Slowing down would do us all good. I say get the planes out of the sky now, please.

victor compton, Cherbourg, France

Keith wrote:
>Statistics and lies are hard to differentiate but we need to keep to a middle ground.

If air travel generates the highest level of greenhouse gas PER PASSENGER MILE, then what issues are you having differentiating between statistics and lies? What middle ground are you referring to that is not based on the facts?

Since people travel many, many more miles by car than they do by air on average, the overall contribution to carbon emissions is higher for cars.

Hence, the more one travels by air instead of other more common modes of transport, the more carbon emissions they will generate.

Will S, Paeonian Springs, VA

Of course Airline Travel is more harmful to the environment than travel by car.
One message which has not been made clear, is the aircraft deposit polution at 35,000 feet, cars at 12 inches.
No prizes for working out which takes longer to reach the ground and ultimately leave the atmosphere.

P.R. Clint, West Byfleet, Surrey

here is thiught
why can,t the governments issue co2 emission credit for the idividuals like they do for the industries?say 10000 air travel per adult..anyone wanting to use more will have to buy from free market i.e those who don,t use their credit as much.that way at least us poor people get the benefit of not causing co2 directly back to us.
mehdi

mehdi, babol, iran

There is a presumption here that still may or may not be valid- that CO2 is a pollutant and the main forcer of climate change?

Edward Welsh, Lampeter, Wales

The debate about carbon emissions will never seriously take place as politicians have hijacked the issue as a means of raising taxes - Livingstone's proposal for higher congestion charges for "gasguzzlers". Furthermore, certain bodies have been extremely economic with the truth to further the myth that it is all due to man and his carbon emissions.

The rain forests -lungs of the world - have been ripped apart in Brazil, Africa and Asia, yet hardly any focus is given to the effect of that on global warming.

People will continue to use whatever transport is necessary to get from A to B, and until governments provide cheap, efficient alternative transportation which will also enable you to get from A to B, we will continue using our cars, or flying.

Stephen, Lorca, Spain

Well lets cure global arming by flying everywhere then!

neill, Maidstone, uk

"environmentally damaging"
More received wisdom. See how we have slid from "warming" to "damaging" Now just in case things swing colder it's "climate change"

Of course the climate changes - that's a provable!! Man or volcano induced - it happens.

Is a marginally warmer planet (if it's man induced not material for the moment) going to be ALL that bad, surely there just might be some upsides.
Would you rather have a cold planet?
Are you dumb enough to think you can choose anything other than marginality?
Duh!
We have little choice in reality, we have to manage the changes that occur not bust a gut trying to "stop it"
Unless of course you simply can't handle change - ever.

Tom Taylor-Duxbury, Ludlow, UK

Which is worse for the environment, travel by car or travel by air?

Neither. What is the worst for the environment is Al Gore,
sometimes known as "The Goracle" or "Gorleone."

Mike Cato USA, vestal, new york,usa

Global warming is the cycling of nature, and you can't beat nature.
This a great government hype to cover their incompetance.
I believe it as much as I believe in Saddams weapons of mass destruction.
Governments brain wash us with what they want us to believe

Mike, Cyprus,

Is our climate changing ? Yes - always has, always will. Is it man-made? Doubtful, one decent volcanic eruption spews out about as much CO2 as all of mankind throughout history combined.

It's high time to cox a snook at the scaremongers whose main aim is to makes us live in fear. Keep flying !

Chris, London,

Science is so unreliable, one day they say one thing, next day quite the opposite. The very notion of science is based on trail & error, assumption and proof. So there are no final solutions, since the science presumes constant challenge and evolution. I guess that all "science stuff" should be given the benefit of doubt. I guess that the only way out of the maze of the sci-fiction-turned-reality is a move towards more complex & well-thought out theories. Most of the time the public has very short attention sapn & memory, while tonns of accamulated information need proper interpretation.

Pam, St.Petersburg,

Total Nonsense.

Emissions per passenger-mile should be considered, not absolute amounts.

Secondly, the POSITION of the CO2 source is of critical importance - models of atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 indicate that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at high altitudes is more damaging than at ground level.

Will people who don't understand the science PLEASE stop quoting random number to support their case?!

- My qualifications are MEng (Cambridge University) and I'm studying for a PhD in a discipline closely related to this subject... I still consider myself barely qualified to address this!

T Clark, Cambridge, UK

Love to sit and chat but the taxi is waiting to take me to the airport.

Laters.

Car Bonne, London,

The UK introduced prohibitive emissions tests on cars, effectively knocking the "old bangers" (the only affordable cars for the poor) off the road. Now, using the eco excuse, they add more and more tax to flights, again excluding the poor. Just how socialist are they??

keith, Beziers, France

Ron, Arlington, VA, USA, you are one of the chattering classes although like all of us you do have a right to an opinion. Statistics and lies are hard to differentiate but we need to keep to a middle ground.

Keith T., London, UK

These arguments need to be put into context. At a conservative estimate, some 140-150 million tonnes of CO2 are emitted in the UK by gas fired and coal fired power stations. It is a diversionary tactic to blame road and air transport, especially as a modern economy depends on them. If the nettle were grasped, these wasteful forms of electricity generation should be replaced by nuclear and the UK would meet its 2020 emissions target set by the European Commission.
We must remain competitive globally. Why would we want to endanger an already fragile economy by loading it with green taxes? The UK as a whole contributes less than 2.5% of the total global CO2 emissions and this proportion is falling daily as our manufacturing is exported to the Far East.

Dwight Vandryver, Scholar Green, Cheshire, UK

Yes, and we should believe government statistics because they never lie, or get slanted to say what they want, do they?
Would this be the same goverment who told us that crime was decreasing, and that Britons were better off than Americans?
I'm afraid it has got to the point after the last ten years of lies and spin that I would immediately start to believe the opposite of any statistics emanating from this crew.
Besides, those who are not plain incompetent, as explained to us by the Prime Minister, are so amnesiac that, like the manifesto'd referendum, it could all simply be just one huge mistake which was "no longer operable".

Michael Llewellyn, Bridgetown, Barbados

Hmn,

1) Per passenger mile, flying generally is the most environmentally damaging of all forms of transport, especially when radiative forcing effects are taken into account.
2) Most plane journeys are several hundred or thousand miles, more than other modes, meaning per journey, on average, flying is more damaging.
3) Despite the importance the Aviation industry likes to project, in terms of passenger journeys it is a very minor form of transport. 2 billion flights *worldwide* is only equal to UK rail journeys (LUL/NR) or London bus journeys, both of which pale into comparison compared to UK car journeys.
4) ½ UK households don’t fly, in a country which flies more per head than anywhere else in the world, including the US.
5) 45% of flights are less than 300 miles, which could easily be transferred to less damaging modes.
6) UK emissions figures do not include incoming passengers, even though this is the business that according to the industry makes expansion worthwhile...

Rob T, South coast,

Over 400 World Wide Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. See http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz

Dr Coles, Los Angeles, ISA

Pure crock. Always dangerous to let the chattering classes play with numbers.
It is not the absolute amount of CO2 emissions of cars and commercial aircraft that should be compared, it is the emissions per passenger mile. Far more people travel far more miles in cars than in airplanes. That is the reason the aggregate amount of CO2 emissions is greater for cars than aircraft.
Raising the cost of CO2 emissions for any use disproportionately impacts the poor. But doing so on air travel does so the least as the poor use air travel for a far smaller proportion of their travel than do middle and upper income people.

Ron, Arlington, VA, USA

You could use the same logic to argue that four wheel drives are more environmentally friendly than normal sedans, because four wheel drives are only responsible for 20% (or whatever figure it is) of total passenger vehicle emissions.
The whole thing is silly anyway. How many environmentalists flew to that environmental conference in Fiji recently, about 2,000 wasn't it? I didn't hear them complaining about that, or even making a point of at least flying economy to minimize their impact.

Glen, Melbourne,

Isn't the point about aviation carbon emissions is that they occour at a different level in the atmosphere. Instead of being larger overall quantities the poblem is that they are released higher up in the atmosphere, which is more damaging to the environment than the equivilant quantity of emissions at ground level.

James Michelson, Glasgow, UK

Both "sides" of this issue easily win their respective arguments, because each is basing their argument on different criteria. Yes, air traffic contributes to a smaller percentage of overall carbon emissions than automobile traffic. On the other hand, the number of people using air travel is much smaller than the number relying on ground transportation, so it is more damaging to the environment from a per-user perspective. Since both modes of transportation are facing future growth, it seems important that no single cause of carbon emission be entirely overlooked or entirely demonized.

Jaye, Washington State, USA