hailey jellema's blog

In response and in full support of the message in Jaskaran Chauhan’s blog, titled “Eco Friendly or Brand Friendly?”, I would further suggest that Air Canada’s Zerofootprint propaganda is offensive.

In the years prior to the 1970’s, BC’s lower mainland experienced some nasty pea-soup smogs. Because they were a serious threat to commerce, the hue and cry went out that this was unacceptable to the populace. The biggest contributors to the smog were the waste wood beehive burners-so they were effectively condemned. Lo and behold, most of the burners were decommissioned and the smog disappeared.

At no time during this period was it suggested that massive fans should be installed to blow the smog out to sea or that one million trees should be planted to offset the effects of the burners.

But the world is faced with the immediate threat of global warming and we are fully engaged in self delusional games.

Yes, airplane engines and aerodynamics are more efficient and yes, less polluting fuels can be developed, but unless a government cap is imposed, projected airline growth will offset any techno innovations.

Tree maturities vary depending on their species and most won’t function as carbon converters for another 5-50 years. Crunch the numbers on carbon emissions from one Boeing 747 jet flight (at approx. 31 kg carbon/hr ¹), then multiply that by thousands of flight hours daily, subtract the conversion ratio (a mature tree can absorb CO2 at a rate of of 22 kg/year ²), then apply it twenty years down the road and you will find your ‘zerofootprint’ program has made ‘zeroimpact’.

By all means plant trees; trees are beautiful and in the natural order of things they help maintain the carbon-oxygen balance, but let’s not kid ourselves…

and shame on Air Canada for trying to ‘fuel’ us.

Commenting On A Classmate’s Blog

¹ “Math! How much CO2 is released by Aeroplane?“. Small-M. May 8, 2007.

² Pareja, Marlon. “Trees and Climate Change.” Green for Life: One Million Trees and Beyond. 2009