Great truths: Jets use fuel, and trees grow slowly

FLY me for a tree.

Who says I don't have a future in marketing? That slogan would fit perfectly with Continental's plan to allow passengers to pay from $10 to $30 more per domestic ticket to a group that supports the planting of trees.

Last week, the Houston-based airline announced a program with the nonprofit Sustainable Travel International that would allow travelers to calculate the carbon "footprint" of their flights. They would then buy a "credit" from the nonprofit group online based on the amount of greenhouse gases emitted.

The group then uses the money to invest in projects such as reforestation, renewable energy and energy conservation.

Seriously.

Now, I'm all in favor of reducing pollution and planting trees. But trees grow slowly. Trust me on this. I used to live in suburban Dallas where every new home comes with an upright twig in the front yard and the elusive promise of shade in decades hence.

The Federal Aviation Administration predicts that the number of U.S. flights will rise to 81 million by 2020 from 63 million this year. We have no time to wait for trees to grow.

There is, however, one group that has managed to reduce emissions dramatically - the airlines themselves. In the past 30 years, the U.S. airline industry has improved fuel efficiency by 70 percent, according to the Air Transport Association, an industry trade group.

More important, 23 percent of those reductions have been achieved during the past seven years, one of the most tumultuous and least-profitable periods in the history of commercial aviation.

High on list of expenses

Fuel is among the biggest expenses for airlines. Continental shelled out $684 million for fuel during the first quarter, a 3.5 percent increase from a year earlier and its biggest cost behind wages and salaries.

The industry has a huge incentive to pollute less because the easiest way to cut emissions to burn less fuel. Use less, pollute less, spend less.

In recent years, most airlines have begun using one engine for taxiing on the runway, a move that saves millions of dollars annually and reduces emissions.

Fuel costs also encourage airlines to modernize their fleets, ensuring they have the newest and most fuel-efficient engines.

Continental, for example, upgraded with 270 new planes in the past decade. That contributed to a 35 percent reduction in emissions and consumption, the carrier said.

So if you're serious about paying for the emission cost of your flight, you might do more good just giving your 30 bucks to the airline. It would certainly welcome the extra cash.

Not that reducing emissions and improving engine efficiency are always the same thing. In 2003, the General Accountability Office reported that engines on newer, fuel-sipping Boeing 737s produce less carbon dioxide but generate 40 percent more nitrogen oxide - another greenhouse gas - than their predecessors.

NASA is developing engines, slated to be ready in about 10 years, that would reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by 80 percent and cut fuel consumption by 25 percent, USA Today reported.

Meanwhile, proposed changes to the air traffic control system also could save fuel and lower emissions by letting planes fly more direct routes and reduce flight times.

At the same time, the number of passengers keeps growing. The FAA expects the number of people flying in the U.S. to reach 1.2 billion a year by 2020, compared with 768 million this year.

Ground transportation

Airlines can, of course, do more in their conservation efforts. We can all do more.

But it's also worth keeping a little perspective. Before you plunk down $30 to cover your carbon footprint in the sky, you might think about how you're getting to the airport. Ground transportation generates seven times the amount of greenhouse gases as air travel, according to the ATA.

In announcing the deal, Continental chief executive Larry Kellner issued a statement saying the company wanted to present a "credible" option for customers concerned about offsetting emissions.

Maybe some customers will indeed see it that way, but the whole deal seems like feel-good marketing.

The airlines, though, deserve credit for doing far more, and maybe they need a little marketing of their own in that area.

Fortunately, I can help there, too: Don't wait on a tree. Fly me for fuel efficiency.

News stories provided by third parties are not edited by "Site Publication" staff. For suggestions and comments, please click the Contact link at the bottom of this page.