http://www.windaction.org/news/13402

"Our calculations show that in 2005, the CO2-equivalent emissions from the 2.4 million international visitors return air flights was nearly 7.9 million tonnes roughly the same as the emissions from all the countrys coal, gas and oil-fired power generation," Dr Rodger says."

A flight from the UK to NZ will generate around 4.3 tonnes of CO2 or 8.3 tonnes CO2e if you apply an RFI of 1.9 (which is controversial in itself).

The UK is just about as far from NZ as you can possibly get on earth so an average of 6.6 tonnes for all visitors seems plausible.

That's not to defend the emissions though! International flight emissions MUST be better accounted and attributed and this must be done soon!

All those global tourism dollars represent an opportunity cost for creating a world that is sustainable.  If a large proportion of your economy is dependent on the continuation of fossil energy expenditures your economy is on the wrong energy path for your own country as the rest of the world lured toward your destination.  Maintaining the unsustainable is a drain on building the sustainable.  We cannot keep attempting to do both and reach a sustainable landing.

So, at what time does a one-earth consciousness vs. a global consumptionness kick in?  And when do people really stop thinking, "hey that jet is going there anyway with or without me"?  And when  do the Kiwis start thinking, "hey we need to roll up the welcome mat and get on with living on this island for eternity"?  

Ok, Einstein! Multiply your average of 6.6 tons by the 2.4 million visitors and see what you get. I bet you already exceed the professor's figure by 100 percent (6.6 tons of CO2e x 2.4 million visitors = 15.84 million tons of CO2e)!

Now add about 20 percent for the pollution cost of indirect flights and another 30 percent on top of that for the primary energy used to pump out, transport, process/refine and deliver the jet fuel and hey presto, you get pretty annoyingly close to 25 million tons of CO2e!

(15.84 million tons of CO2e + 20 % more emissions for indirect flights = 19 million tons of CO2e; 19 million tons + 30% additional emissions due to primary energy = 24.71 million tons of CO2e).

~~~~~~~~~~~~

@ justlou

"So, at what time does a one-earth consciousness vs. a global consumptionness kick in?"

Probably at 11:59:59pm, if ever!

"All I can say is Bring back airships!"

That's for another discussion!

For now, we ought to change the article headline to:

"Kiwis [ought to] say jets are [30] percent of NZ's climate impact, not 2-3 percent"

and let physics researchers Dr Inga Smith and Dr Craig Rodger know that their figures are out by a factor of three (300%).

As for the computations above, I think that the issue is number of flights, not total number of visitors (of course they correlate, but not perfectly) -- so I think it's incorrect to proceed from a quoted total emissions figure that is given in terms of total visitors by using a per visitor number.  That's fine for individual footprint calculators, but when evaluating the national total, use the number of flights; it appears that these guys are not so dumb as to underestimate the total tourism emissions by a factor of three.


The 5% Project

If you read my post again I point out that the emissions should be split between the origin and destination country. It's hardly fair for all of the emissions to be lumped on NZ is it?

Also my calculation allows for a 9% uplift for non-great circle routing.

The top 3% own 84% of everything.

It's Paris Hilton that's flying every day...not Wanda Skutnick.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

with some interesting links.

Interesting point about TSA!

"it appears that these guys are not so dumb as to underestimate the total tourism emissions by a factor of three."

Dumb, politically motivated, jockeying for position, seeking rewards/recognition, carving a career path--so what's new?

"...I think it's incorrect to proceed from a quoted total emissions figure that is given in terms of total visitors by using a per visitor number.  That's fine for individual footprint calculators..."

The figure of 25 million tons of CO2e provided earlier takes into account the number of passengers and flights; it isn't from an individual footprint calculator (See  Transportation, Energy, and the Environment, Section A - U.S. Energy Consumption and Transportation Sector Energy Consumption, Table 4-21).

See:  http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/index.htm [IPCC 1997. Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Aviation and the Global Atmosphere.]

@ scatter

The reply wasn't meant to be "smarmy!"

"If you read my post again I point out that the emissions should be split between the origin and destination country. It's hardly fair for all of the emissions to be lumped on NZ is it?"

This is a moral, as well as a legal, but especially a monetary issue. The emissions should be split according to the monetary gains made by various parties (the host country, airlines, aircraft manufacturers...). You'll find New Zealand is the major "beneficiary" by far!

The IPCC estimate for aircraft emissions' RFI ranges from 2-4, as you probably know already (not 1.9). Various carbon calculators use different RFI values: The Clean Air-Cool Planet calculator uses an RFI of 2.8, which is the appropriate factor; Native Energy uses a much lower RFI estimate of 2.0.  Check them out; you'd be surprised despite the conservative RFI. See:
http://www.nativeenergy.com/pages/native_energy_travel_of ...
AND http://www.iac.ethz.ch/tradeoff/index.html

You first wrote "they" said, then changed it to "my" calculation in a later post. Are you one of the authors? You have nothing to lose by submitting your calculations for a peer review on this forum.

@ Justlou

Air pollution is but one of the problems! Even if everyone could fly in on airships, or come over in canoes, imagine the enormous stress they'd still cause to the environment. Each year, for a few months, 2.4 million visitors swamp fragile areas of ecological significance driving, riding jet skis and power boats, bathing, eating and defecating in places where there's little or no infrastructure to absorb human waste, all of which ultimately ends up in our coastal waters enlarging the dead zones.