KEY POINTS:
I'm sorry but I won't be taking up the opportunity to hand over $88.10 to purchase carbon offsets next time I take an Air New Zealand flight to Los Angeles.
That's not because I'm a global warming denier. I accept that the vast quantities of pollution humans are pumping into air, land and sea are having an adverse effect (though I also think a lot of nonsense has been talked on the subject).
I further agree that we should all do our bit to reduce our impact on the environment. We are replacing lightbulbs in our house with the low-energy variety, we're improving insulation, we recycle moderately, our car is small and fuel-efficient and I travel mainly on foot or by ferry.
But there is a limit to what it is sensible to do and the fashion for paying to offset the impact of overseas travel is beyond the boundary of logic.
I understand why Air NZ - like many other airlines - has felt obliged to get into the offset business. The global warming zealots have got their eyes on airlines and in the highly competitive aviation business no one wants bad publicity let alone protesters throwing themselves under plane wheels. But let's look at the realities.
First, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that aviation is responsible for 2 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. By 2050 it reckons that may be up to 3 per cent. So, while holidaymakers flying overseas are part of the problem, it is a very small part.
Second, what good will these offset payments do? In Air NZ's case they will pay for emissions reduction units the Government has issued to TrustPower for its Tararua windfarm. That's more concrete than some of the offset programmes on offer but it will do nothing to reduce the amount of carbon gas released into the atmosphere.
Third, if we're going to start paying voluntary taxes to cover the carbon footprint of flights to Queensland to see the grandkids, where will it stop? It looks to me like a slippery slope leading to increasingly heavy compulsory carbon taxes on air tickets (the European Union is already talking about that) and the end result will be to make flying more costly and so less accessible to ordinary people.
Fourth, because New Zealand is such a small isolated country we rely on flying to do business, see the world or visit friends and relations. Anything that makes air transport more expensive will hit us particularly hard.
Yet we are responsible for somewhat less than 0.5 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases, so anything we do will only have the tiniest impact, especially when China is opening a coal-fired power station just about every week. What's the point of harming ourselves for no practical benefit to the planet?
Rather than paying up to offset any greenhouse gases emitted by planes I fly in, I plan to do my best to fly on airlines which follow international best practice, thereby both reducing my carbon footprint and in a small way encouraging other airlines to do better.
It so happens that there Air NZ has a very good case. It has a young and fuel-efficient fleet. It has used new techniques, such as weight reduction, flying patterns and greater use of ground power, to achieve significant reductions in carbon emissions. And it is part of an international effort to develop a sustainable aviation biofuel.
Those are serious steps which will reduce the amount of damage done to the planet without imposing any unnecessary burdens on travellers.
Encouraging that sort of behaviour by airlines makes a lot more sense than forking out $4.50 conscience-money every time you make a business trip to Wellington.
