The daunting task of keeping entertained and amused throughout an eleven-hour flight to South America seemed the most negative aspect of the free holiday in Argentina I was kindly offered by the BBC, after somehow emerging through their ‘Total Wipeout’ auditions successfully. However, the journey was made somewhat easier and intriguing when I overheard a lady in the row behind me preparing a presentation with a colleague. She was discussing the impact of flying on global warming and naturally, as I share an interest in political affairs, I continued to listen nosily.
She stated how commercial flights pump more greenhouse gas CO2 into the atmosphere in one year than all of Africa does, and referring to her speech she added that one international flight is more polluting than over twelve months of car travel. She touched upon her conclusion, suggesting that we must do more to reduce the number of flights we embark upon, and encourage people to either travel less or use other forms of transport.
At first, the fact this lady was travelling on an aeroplane while preparing to lecture vast numbers of people about the catastrophic effects of flying on the environment seemed unbelievably hypocritical. She was doing exactly what she was telling others not to do. Just like the oh-so intriguing Diane Abbott, I thought, who sent her very own son to the private City of London School. Days earlier she had described the institution as “indefensible” and “intellectually incoherent” – speaking out against private schools in her attempt to support Labour’s ideals.
However, I considered the situation in which I suddenly found myself engrossed: The lady on the plane, like I, 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 through policy which could be influenced by her work, which clearly involved flying around the world. In an odd twist, her hypocrisy could be part of the solution. Refusing to fly would simply be a hollow gesture.
It is comforting to think that ‘every little helps’ but is it true? If every person in Britain gave £1 to a charity appeal, together they would raise £62,641,459. Nobody would have done much individually but collectively they would have raised a huge amount. If all but one person donates – then the total sum raised is £62,641,458. No significant difference whatsoever.
Reflecting on these facts, it is perfectly rational to reason that one’s own individual contributions are insignificant but it would matter terribly if everyone reasoned in this way. So, the lady was obviously attempting to persuade a large number of people that their contributions do matter. If enough of them wrongly believe this to be true, then we get the favourable impact we desire. This amounts to a programme of honourable deception: The collective effort works, not the individual one. But unless people think the individual effort matters, you won’t be able to muster the collective one.
So, I concluded that this lady was by no means to blame for her impact on global warming: after all, her increased plane travel is used effectively to decrease others’ use of flying, and her presentations easily cancel out her own CO2 transportation emissions. Yes, it might be argued that she could still be blamed for hypocrisy: perhaps the reason it is wrong for her to fly has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with the ethical imperative to apply the same rules to your own conduct as you do to others. I would, however, respond by suggesting her positive intentions outweigh this apparent fault.
I became much more relaxed after fully considering this lady’s motivations, and with that I switched on the in-flight movie and asked the air hostess for some more wine.