We're looking at you, Al Gore, with this week's thought experiment.
If you've done much reading about global warming and saving the environment (and of course you have), then you've probably heard variations of this week's thought experiment for years. Let's finally put it to rest.
---------------------------------------------------
Irena Janus was preparing her presentation on the impact of flying on global warming. She would tell her audience that commercial flights pump more of the major greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in one year than all of Africa does. She would tell them how one long-haul flight is more polluting than twelve months of car travel. If we want to save the Earth, she would conclude, we must do more to reduce the number of flights we take and encourage people to either travel less or use other forms of transport.
Just as she was imagining the rapturous reception her talk would receive, she was interrupted by the air stewardess offering her some wine. Hypocrisy? Not as Janus saw it. For she also knew full well that the impact of her own flights on the environment was negligible. If she refused to fly, global warming would not be delayed by as much as a second. What was needed was mass change and policy change. Her work, which involved flying around the world advocating this, could thus be part of the solution. Refusing to fly would simply be a hollow gesture.
And with that she switched on the in-flight movie: The Day After Tomorrow.
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 178.
---------------------------------------------------
What do you think? Can Irena justify her flights? I'll be back on Friday to discuss her potential hypocrisy.
---------------------------------------------------
Irena Janus was preparing her presentation on the impact of flying on global warming. She would tell her audience that commercial flights pump more of the major greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in one year than all of Africa does. She would tell them how one long-haul flight is more polluting than twelve months of car travel. If we want to save the Earth, she would conclude, we must do more to reduce the number of flights we take and encourage people to either travel less or use other forms of transport.
Just as she was imagining the rapturous reception her talk would receive, she was interrupted by the air stewardess offering her some wine. Hypocrisy? Not as Janus saw it. For she also knew full well that the impact of her own flights on the environment was negligible. If she refused to fly, global warming would not be delayed by as much as a second. What was needed was mass change and policy change. Her work, which involved flying around the world advocating this, could thus be part of the solution. Refusing to fly would simply be a hollow gesture.
And with that she switched on the in-flight movie: The Day After Tomorrow.
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 178.
---------------------------------------------------
What do you think? Can Irena justify her flights? I'll be back on Friday to discuss her potential hypocrisy.
