When it comes to concern for the environment, I can hardly describe myself as green. I’m more white, with a hint of pistachio. Environmental issues have never topped my agenda, nor have they particularly informed the decisions I make. But this has started to change.
For a long time, my attitude toward the Greens was that they were party poopers, people intent on taking away the daily convenience and pleasures of modern life or at least on making us feel guilty for them. Back at school, we thought of them as interesting but a little ridiculous. Their message seemed so out of touch with our way of life and our aspirations. Quite simply, they lacked credibility; there was something distinctly wacky about them.
When scientists first started talking about climate change, there was a feeling in oil-producing nations that this was yet another attack on the oil industry. Oil was the big black monster. It not only made the West dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia — and this was at a time when the oil shocks were still vivid in people’s minds — but it was also dirty and polluted the planet. Now scientists spoke of global warming and made apocalyptic predictions about the destruction of the planet. It was strong stuff, the kind that fuels conspiracy theories. To put it bluntly, there was a reluctance to believe that climate change was a real issue, and this not just in the Gulf but, more crucially, on the other side of the Atlantic.
But times have changed; climate change is now a mainstream issue and reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a global priority. Governments understand this, corporations understand this, and increasingly individuals understand this. Of course, understanding something and applying something are two very different propositions. The road from one to the other, I have found, is to make changes that do not largely impact on my way of life but hopefully impact a little on my personal contribution to global warming. I am perfectly happy to insulate my home, change my light bulbs and switch off my television instead of flicking the stand-by button. Recycling also makes me feel rather worthy without demanding much effort from me. But I don’t kid myself; my little changes have more to do with alleviating my guilt than with a genuine willingness to take environmental issues on board.
Take air-conditioning. I have been thinking about installing it in my apartment in the south of France; it sure gets hot enough in the summer to make it necessary for my personal comfort. My thinking is not so much about whether and in wondering about which kind of air-conditioning unit to install in my home, the question of environmental impact never entered my mind. I was much more interested in cost, aesthetics and effectiveness. But first there was a hurdle to cross. The rules are such that if I am to install air-conditioning in my flat, I need the permission of my neighbors.
One of my neighbors has beaten me to it. He has installed air-conditioning and asked for retrospective permission. And so at the last meeting of the residents’ association, we debated whether to grant Mr. A. permission to install air-conditioning in his home. I listened with some stupefaction, as one after the other my neighbors objected. The woman sitting next to me pointed out that air-conditioning was hugely damaging to the environment and that it was a luxury we should do without. The neighbor opposite objected because of the noise pollution; the unit sat just beneath his window and the noise was understandably disagreeable to him. A third neighbor objected vociferously, air-conditioning should only be used in hospitals and public places, not in people’s homes, he belted! And in hairdressers! A fourth added, it’s vital for a hairdressers’ salon but not for a home. No, after all we all manage quite fine without it, don’t we? The vote was promptly taken, permission denied. Mr. A. has been asked to remove his air-conditioning unit.
I can live without air-conditioning in the relatively temperate climate of the Cote d’Azur. But where I really draw the line is air travel. Air travel is the new green battle line. The message has been rather stark. George Monbiot, the Guardian columnist and environmental campaigner, has gone as far as to say that “flying kills”. Others have been less sensationalistic, but there is nevertheless a concerted campaign, particularly in Britain, to single out air travel as one of the world’s great pollutants.
There have been calls for higher prices, for taxes on airline seats and even for flying quotas. We are firmly being urged to cut down on air travel and being made to feel guilty about what is seen as an indulgence rather than a necessity.
Last week the new Airbus “Dreamliner” landed at Heathrow with much pomp and ceremony. Airbus people were at pains to point out that this new giant of the air uses less fuel per passenger kilometer traveled than even an economical family car, that’s less than 3 liters of fuel per passenger per 100km traveled. They argue that its sheer size means that it will ease congestion in busy airports.
It is being put forward as the future of air travel, one that is more fuel— efficient, makes less noise pollution and carries more passengers in fewer aircraft journeys.
But the green lobby is not convinced. For one thing, it points out that most airlines will not fit out the plane in the environmentally friendly configuration of 853 economy-only seats, though rumors abound that one airline is planning to do just that. I find the idea of flying in a plane crammed with over 800 passengers rather unpalatable and much prefer the more civilized notion of a passenger jet kitted out like a liner with lounges and shops for us to wander in. On long-haul flights, being forced to sit in cramped conditions is both deeply unpleasant and bad for your health. Anything that makes those journeys more comfortable can only be a good thing in my eyes.
It seems a selfish view but I am not convinced that we should give up flying. I cannot see aviation purely in terms of the emissions it produces. Where once flying was the preserve of the elite it is now possible for more and more people to travel the world, bringing with it considerable social and economic benefits. Making it harder for people to travel may be good for the environment but it is a price I for one am not willing to pay. In my view, the benefits of flying outweigh the costs.
Environmentalism boils down to cost-benefit analysis where being green means focusing on the long-term environmental costs. As Kermit the Frog once said, it’s not easy being green. I guess I’ll stay white, with a touch of pistachio, at least for now.
