A SCHEME by British Airways to address the environmental impact of flights has proved an embarrassing failure after fewer than one in 200 passengers volunteered to take part.

A month ago, the airline began encouraging passengers to pay a “green fee” to compensate for the greenhouse gases emitted by aircraft.

The amount depends on the distance travelled, with passengers flying from London to Paris invited to pay £5, those to Los Angeles, £13, and those to Sydney, £25. The money is spent on energy saving projects in developing countries.

A BA spokeswoman refused to reveal the exact number who had volunteered to make the payment since the scheme was launched on September 12 but said that it had been “less than 0.5 per cent” of the three million passengers the airline carried in the past month. “The scheme hasn’t set the world alight. It’s been a steady start. It’s early days and we hope levels will increase,” she said.

BA introduced the voluntary fee to persuade the Government that it takes the issue of pollution seriously. The airline fears that ministers will seek to impose taxes on flights unless the industry is seen to act to mitigate emissions.

Under the scheme, passengers are able to calculate their share of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by the aircraft during their journey.

They are then asked to pay a fee that will be spent on projects that help to save an equivalent amount of CO2 that would otherwise be emitted without the investment.

BA joined forces with Climate Care, an Oxford-based trust that specialises in “carbon offsetting” by distributing energy-efficient lamps in South Africa and low-emission stoves in India and Honduras.

The scheme was welcomed by Elliot Morley, the Environment Minister, who said last month: “I urge strongly other airlines to follow this lead.”

A spokesman for Mr Morley said yesterday that BA was partly to blame for the low participation rate because it had made too little effort to draw attention to the scheme.

The scheme is advertised on the booking confirmation e-mailed to passengers but can easily be overlooked.

The BA spokeswoman said: “We are working with Climate Care to look at ways in which we can improve the visibility of the scheme when people are booking.”

BA is also working with some of its large corporate clients on plans to offset the emissions from all their business trips.

But green groups questioned the benefits of the scheme, saying that it seriously under- estimated the environmental impact of flights.

Brendon Sewill, the chairman of the Aviation Economics Group, which campaigns against the expansion of aviation, said that the scheme failed to take into account the greater impact of CO2 emissions at cruising altitude.

“We feel it is dangerous because it encourages people to underestimate the damage they are doing by flying. It is absurd to suggest that a few cooking stoves in Honduras can offset all the emissions which spew from a plane travelling 10,000 miles to Sydney.”

Mr Sewill said that aviation fuel should be taxed at the same rate as petrol for cars.

On this basis, the tax on a return flight to Sydney, which uses about 1,520 litres of fuel per passenger, would be £714.

Aviation is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. Worldwide passenger numbers are expected to double to 7.4 billion a year by 2020, according to the Airports Council International.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• UK regional accents thrive against the odds
• ‘Scarecrow’ wind farms put rare birds to flight
• What an anti-climax: G-spot is a myth