COMMENT: 24 November 2008

The Green-ness of Flying: Johan Vanneste, managing director of VLM Airlines, argues that aircraft can be greener than trains

As the UK Government prepares to confirm whether it will introduce an unfair and supposedly ‘green tax' on aviation in the Chancellor's Pre-Budget Report and as we face one of the most difficult world economic climates, there has never been a more important time to examine the true impact of air travel.

Taking a flight continues to be portrayed as the least environmentally-friendly form of transport. It's supposedly, as some commentators would have us believe, an excessive contributor to global CO₂ emissions, highly wasteful of fuel, and utterly inefficient compared to other forms of transport such as high speed trains. What rubbish!

In reality, when the facts are closely examined, those blasé claims from rail operators that they are a greener means of travel are often shown to be unfounded and based on questionable logic.

It is time that the record was set straight, with an open comparison of different types of transport, enabling travellers to make an informed choice.

Over the past 40 years, aviation technology has developed to such an extent that aircraft are now seven times more fuel efficient and engines as much as 70% more fuel efficient. Turboprop aircraft often lead the way - the Fokker 50 turboprop operated by VLM Airlines consumes just 3.24 litres per passenger 100kms - less than a Smart Car that consumes 4.70 litres, and this whilst travelling at five times the speed!

A comparison of fuel efficiency between aircraft and high speed trains made by a leading academic showed that, over a journey of around 500kms, aircraft such an Airbus A321 uses 20 litres of fuel per seat, whilst a high speed train used the equivalent of 22 litres.

The argument used about excessive carbon emissions is also flawed.

On a short range journey of around 500kms, typical of those operated by VLM Airlines and its competitors, a high speed train emits around 99 grams of CO₂ per passenger km, whilst a regional aircraft emits around 95 grams of CO₂ per passenger km.

Figures for carbon emissions often paint a misleading picture as they fail to take into account the true hidden energy burdenHidden Energy Burden: Describes the indirect cost of energy. In the context of forms of transport, HEB takes into account the energy spent in the manufacture of cars, trains and aircraft. The most obvious example of a direct energy cost, effectively the non-hidden energy burden, would be fuel consumption. The argument is that HEB should be balanced against direct fuel costs. (HEB). This is the energy needed to build vehicles and also to construct railways, roads or runways.  To put this in context, cement production accounts for 4% of worldwide CO₂ emissions, so HEB can make a significant difference.

It is estimated that whilst the HEB for aircraft operations is around 1%, the figure for car use is 40% and for high speed trains is 50%.

Taking this into account, the true average for CO₂ emissions on a 500kms journey are estimated to be 96 grams of CO₂ per passenger kilometre for a regional aircraft, 140 grams for a car (with two passengers), 150 grams for a high speed train and a whopping 270 grams for a car with a single passenger.

Energy sources that are used to power trains are also questionable. Train operators publicise their use of ‘greener' nuclear-generated electricity power. However, these claims fail to take into account that power supplied by the National Grid is 70% generated by fossil fuel-powered plants.

In addition, there is a proven loss of power when transferring to a distant point of use - such as a train's overhead power line. This increases the emissions of CO₂ attributable to the power used.

Whilst OfgemOffice of the Gas and Electricity Markets (UK): Supports the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, the regulator of the gas and electricity industries in Great Britain (www.ofgem.gov.uk)., the UK regulator for the gas and electricity industries, calculates that only 7% is lost, some academic studies suggest 80% of electricity generated is wasted before it arrives at point-of-use.  Either way, the loss of energy is substantial, and yet it is still not taken into account when calculating emissions related to high-speed rail travel. 

While the future of the environment is of utmost concern to all of us, I am alarmed by the growing perception that flying is dirty and rail is green. As I hope this comparison has shown - this is often untrue.

We must hope that the Government takes this into account when it unveils the details of its new air passenger duty. In its current proposed form, the tax doesn't differentiate between aircraft types operated and fails to take into account that it is often greener and obviously quicker to fly on domestic services than to travel on a heavily subsidised rail network.

With the introduction of an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETSEmissions Trading Scheme: Effectively an emissions market where allowances are traded as units of volume e.g. one tonne of carbon dioxide. Participating companies are allocated a number of allowed emissions units of each gas. A company may emit more by purchasing units from the market. Similarly, a company may sell units if they are in excess. The total number of allocation units is fixed and regulated by central and EU government. An ETS imposes a limit on the total emissions according to reduction targets, while allowing companies flexibility. (Source: www.defra.gov.uk)) by the European Union in the next four years, airlines operating from the UK also face the threat of double taxation in the UK and across the EU.

The airline industry must be allowed to operate on a level playing field. The UK Government will hopefully recognise this fact.

The author is Managing Director of VLM Airlines - a European regional airline operating fuel-efficient turboprop aircraft.