Airlines are ranked and researched continuously from different viewpoints – including from the environmental angle. As far as we are concerned that can only be a positive thing! Or at least it should be – and I am thinking of the long term environmental work that Finnair has done over the years. Perhaps word of our good work has only fallen on the ears of the minority, but we base our environmental work on real action. Reports of our activities have been published since 1996, too. Even so, the available information hasn’t been referred to in the latest research.
Leonardo da Vinci studied the flight of birds in his efforts to develop flying devices. Biomimetics, namely discovering ideas from nature, is one of Airbus’s reasons for its support of the UN Convention on Diversity. As answers or at least inspiration for technical problems are often found from nature’s structures and processes, biodiversity is also important for the promotion of technology.
Choosing an airline with a new fleet is an eco-smart decision, because each new generation of aircraft produces around 20 per cent less emissions than its predecessor.
When choosing an air trip, the cheapest option is often also the most polluting. This is because the cheaper option is often the one that, for example, consumes more or because it is operated by airlines using fleets of different standards. Because new technology is expensive, it means that the least polluting and better quality flights often cost a little more. The consumer is free to choose an air trip that might be as much as three times more polluting to the environment – and pay offset charges of as little as a couple of euros. The real costs of carbon dioxide and the effects on the environment are not reflected in the final bill.
Finnair still does not support the idea, that the passenger should compensate for aviation’s emissions. If one journey of a thousand kilometers is compensated to the tune of a couple of euros, it doesn’t say anything about the environmental effect.