What if all that flying is good for the planet?
Click HERE
If can't access above link, click HERE
An excellent rebuttal to the oft-cited argument that we have to wean off air travel to cut carbon emissions to save the planet:
OV: air travel harms the envmnt by adding on to the carbon footprints
Rebuttal SV: air travel actually helps to preserve the envmt 'coz:
a) new-tech airplanes emit less carbon
b) air travel fuels eco-tourism, which indirectly protects the envmt (any carbon emitted is offset by the consequent forests and wildlife that are saved, not to mention the forests saved act as a carbon sink that will absorb the carbon emitted)
The tourism industry depends on air travel, and increasingly, saving nature is directly linked to tourism's economic clout.
aviation accounts for approximately 2.5 per cent of human-induced carbon dioxide emissions. By contrast, deforestation, according to some estimates, contributes nearly 20 per cent, about as much as all forms of transportation combined. If we want to truly take a clean sweep at reducing global greenhouse gases, then we must stop clear-cutting the world's forests. [this can be used to show how carbon emissions attributed to air travel (2.5%) can be more than offset by the forests which are protected (20%) due to air travel]
if, in their understandable concern for climate change, travellers stop booking trips to go on a wildlife safari to Africa or decide to forgo that bucket list vacation to South America. Conservation and poverty alleviation will suffer twin blows.
By 2030, tourism to Africa is projected to generate more than US$260 billion (S$354 billion) annually. Subtract that from Africa's economy and not only will it plunge an entire continent into more poverty (millions of Africans rely on tourism as their economic lifeline)
Some tour operators are directly protecting millions of acres of endangered species habitat, among the last strongholds for rhinos and elephants. Others are helping to fund conservation work to save lions, leopards and cheetahs. There is also a strong argument to be made that a key reason the mountain gorilla is not yet extinct is that tourists are willing to fly to Africa and pay handsomely for the chance to see one in the wild, proving to governments and local communities the importance of protecting them.
Take that income away, and the vast plains would most likely be transformed into cattle ranches - raising beef is already among the most significant contributors to carbon emissions.
Tourism could be what saves this unique biodiversity from damaging industries such as mining, which is already active there.
When local communities benefit from tourism, they become partners and allies in saving nature.
we also have the tools to start flying green class - like developing synthetic jet fuels and designing electric planes.
Qn: Air travel should be discouraged, not promoted. To what extent do you agree? (Cam. 2008)
If can't access above link, click HERE
An excellent rebuttal to the oft-cited argument that we have to wean off air travel to cut carbon emissions to save the planet:
OV: air travel harms the envmnt by adding on to the carbon footprints
Rebuttal SV: air travel actually helps to preserve the envmt 'coz:
a) new-tech airplanes emit less carbon
b) air travel fuels eco-tourism, which indirectly protects the envmt (any carbon emitted is offset by the consequent forests and wildlife that are saved, not to mention the forests saved act as a carbon sink that will absorb the carbon emitted)
The tourism industry depends on air travel, and increasingly, saving nature is directly linked to tourism's economic clout.
aviation accounts for approximately 2.5 per cent of human-induced carbon dioxide emissions. By contrast, deforestation, according to some estimates, contributes nearly 20 per cent, about as much as all forms of transportation combined. If we want to truly take a clean sweep at reducing global greenhouse gases, then we must stop clear-cutting the world's forests. [this can be used to show how carbon emissions attributed to air travel (2.5%) can be more than offset by the forests which are protected (20%) due to air travel]
if, in their understandable concern for climate change, travellers stop booking trips to go on a wildlife safari to Africa or decide to forgo that bucket list vacation to South America. Conservation and poverty alleviation will suffer twin blows.
By 2030, tourism to Africa is projected to generate more than US$260 billion (S$354 billion) annually. Subtract that from Africa's economy and not only will it plunge an entire continent into more poverty (millions of Africans rely on tourism as their economic lifeline)
Some tour operators are directly protecting millions of acres of endangered species habitat, among the last strongholds for rhinos and elephants. Others are helping to fund conservation work to save lions, leopards and cheetahs. There is also a strong argument to be made that a key reason the mountain gorilla is not yet extinct is that tourists are willing to fly to Africa and pay handsomely for the chance to see one in the wild, proving to governments and local communities the importance of protecting them.
Take that income away, and the vast plains would most likely be transformed into cattle ranches - raising beef is already among the most significant contributors to carbon emissions.
Tourism could be what saves this unique biodiversity from damaging industries such as mining, which is already active there.
When local communities benefit from tourism, they become partners and allies in saving nature.
we also have the tools to start flying green class - like developing synthetic jet fuels and designing electric planes.
Qn: Air travel should be discouraged, not promoted. To what extent do you agree? (Cam. 2008)
posted by Dark Shadow | 1:07 PM
<< Home