But is there a cost? Environmentalists will emphasize the problems associated with unlimited travel - depletion of fossil fuels, local air pollution, emissions of greenhouse gases, congestion and accidents, destruction of the countryside and the expansion of land under concrete to name but a few. Even our over-reliance on motorized transport has been linked to a general lack of fitness in the population at large.
So...what are your views? Is there really a transport problem? Do the benefits of motorized transport outweigh the costs? Are there any minor (or perhaps major) changes you personally feel could make our present transport system more sustainable?
Increasing accessibility and low cost travel is having a major impact on our environment. The amount of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere has increased dramatically in the last 100 years or so. This is mainly due to the increase in air and road traffic, so many airplanes fly in the sky every day, airlines and governments are continuously adding fees and charges to flight costs to discourage people from making unnecessary travels. The only thing that this idea seems to have done is anger customers and make people think that governments are just trying to drain more money from consumers for other expenditure rather than helping save the environment.
There is a page on the UK government’s website all about air travel and the environment. Their aim is to make people aware of the damage that air travel is doing to the environment and what people can do to reduce the impacts.
“Air travel is a growing contributor to climate change and can have an impact on local air quality and noise. You can help reduce your impact on the environment by choosing to travel by air less. You can also offset the carbon emissions created by your journeys.”
http://direct.gov.uk/en/Environmentandgreenerliving/Greenertravel/DG_064429
The government are asking travellers to consider their travel options and alternatives to help reduce damage to the environment. They also highly encourage “carbon offsetting” where by the traveller can pay someone to make an equivalent emissions saving or reduction.
There are similar things happening in the world of road travel, car sharing encouragement is everywhere now but it does seem to be a slow process and not many people appear to be that interested in taking part. The truth is that most car owners see the vehicle as their possession, often the second biggest purchase to a house, and they want it to be their own, privacy and efficiency are big factors for car users. Let’s face it, would people allow others to live in their house to reduce the number of properties being built? I believe that many people do see it like that and this may be why car sharing is not very popular at this time.
I do not believe that there are many changes that can be made to make our transport system more sustainable. Most people react to “green travel advice” very stubbornly and are more likely to opt for the mode of transport that is most convenient for them, and typically, most forms of “convenient” transport are the most damaging to the environment. For most people, a car is much more convenient than a bus or walking and a car omits the most carbon and damage to the environment than the other two alternatives. It is the same with long distance travel, if somebody wanted to travel to the United States from the United Kingdom they are more than likely to fly in a plane as opposed to travelling across the Atlantic in a boat. The key to changing people’s opinions about “green travel” lies in making it the alternatives more accessible and equally or more convenient than their preferred choice of transport.
No comments:
Post a Comment