Ten out of ten?

I've been reminded, this week, of the 'Ten-Ten' challenge. This was to reduce one's personal carbon footprint by 10% during a twelve month period starting at a date of one's own choosing some time during 2010 from the previous 12 months.

I really don't think much to this kind of attempt to jolly people into turning off the lights more: hasn't the rise after rise in electricity prices been incentive enough? And whenever we pick the arbitrary start date, why on earth didn't we start reducing our footprint before that date anyway? For myself, the task was easy: having flown around 30,000 miles between February and mid April 2010, all I had to do was to choose to start on May 1st and I was bound to have more than exceeded the 10% target reduction, because I was going to fly very much less during the year from May 2010 to May of this year. I've flown from Newcastle to Newquay and back, in a greenish little aeroplane - well, back was a tiny little thing as far as Bristol where I broke the journey, and then dear old EasyJet Airbus back, but with payment conscientiously made for the carbon offsetting. I doubt me if I'll be flying anywhere again before May, though the idea of a week in Tenerife is still a desirable one.

We saw so much, with the previous government, how targets don't improve what you do but distort it so as to achieve some almost random measure of 'performance'. Tony Blair was amazed to find that his targets for people seeing doctors resulted in worse appointment systems, not better ones, but it was inevitable given the way the target was set up. If you want everyone to be seen within two days of making an appointment, clearly you can't let people make appointments for a week ahead, however much they might want to. So in setting green targets, there's little point in asking people to make some particular reduction in their carbon output: they'll have done all the reasonable things already, and this will only antagonise them because there are lengths to which most folk simply won't go that would be required to do any more, at least of any significance.

And in fact I'm not convinced that personal micromanagement is of much use anyway. When Apartheid ruled in South Africa, I boycotted South African goods, but I had no illusions that this would in any way affect the South African economy: it affected me, and that was why I did it. I happened to read, a couple of months ago, that the airline Emirates has ordered no fewer than 90 Airbus 380 aircraft, the double decker super-jumbo that seats up to 700 passengers, and most of these are yet to be delivered. Bearing in mind that these aircraft will be flying more hours than not, in order to earn their keep, the amount of carbon emissions involved dwarfs any savings any individual might make: and that's just one airline. So what is needed is not individuals making tiny changes but groups and mass movements calling for a change in corporate and governmental attitudes. I've said before that the kids may feel they're doing their bit by turning the tap off when cleaning their teeth, but they'd do better to wave posters saying 'Tax flying now' or even 'limit flying now'. A global personal limit of so many miles per person per year, transferable at a set price, would do a lot more to limit air traffic and cut down the huge growth in emissions in this area which goes against the promised Governmental trend of reducing overall the national emissions. After all, less and less do business personnel have to physically travel nowadays: the meeting can be held by virtual conference in several parts of the globe simultaneously, and it works perfectly well - I've done it. I've sat in Newcastle and joined in a meeting in Birmingham, Manchester and Bristol - and it could just as well have been Birmingham, Alabama as Birmingham, England. So why fly across the atlantic when you can internet! It's this kind of attitude we need to cultivate.

When I went to Australia, I squandered some of my inheritance and went business class. Oh, believe me, it makes a huge, huge difference. It makes the journey a delight rather than a trial, and it really does deliver the businessman ready to do business. I arrived in Adelaide at 7.30 am, normally a disastrous time for me, after about 30 hours continuous travelling with two changes of plane, and felt rested, refreshed, well fed and watered and ready to go. I'd slept a good deal, eaten and drunk as I pleased, been entertained and pampered and really enjoyed the whole thing. I can now understand why someone I'd heard of, whose father was a BA employee and so who got a ration of free air travel, went business class to Sydney for the weekend: the fun was in the journey, never mind breathing the fresh air of Sydney Harbour. If nations agreed to abolish business class, I'd predict that flying would hugely decrease. You'd probably have to abolish First as well, except for Royalty perhaps, and there would be howls of protest: but you'd have a diminishing rather than a growing air transport industry.

Maybe these suggestions are nonsense, maybe they wouldn't work for a variety of reasons, maybe the vested interests are too deeply entrenched for anything like that to happen. Bristolians who assemble the airbus wings certainly wouldn't be happy at the prospect of losing their jobs. But my point is that global warming is on a global scale, and needs global scale measures to tackle it: little domestic improvements, even if done by millions, will hardly scratch the surface.

So until then, pardon me if I fly to Cornwall rather than suffer Arriva Cross Country, with the first four hours of the run home having not so much as a cup of tea available on board. Alongside the ninety super jumbos of Emirates, it really won't make too much difference.