Finnair is seriously green. How serious? It has its own vice president for sustainable development, Kati Ihamäki. Next month the carrier will begin disclosing operational details related to its environmental efforts, including recycling and waste management programs that are designed to “maximize eco-efficiency across operations,” she says. Finnair also launched a blog focused largely on sustainability. Contributing editor Christopher Elliott spoke with Ihamäki about some of the myths and realities of being a “green” airline.
Finnair’s commitment to the environment isn’t a recent thing. Can you give us some history on the airline’s environmental initiatives?
Finnair created its first environmental policy group 23 years ago. In the beginning, the focus was on new legislation and requirements, noise pollution and hazardous waste issues. Then in 1997, Finnair expanded its systematic environmental strategy work and published its first external report.
What does a vice president of sustainable development do?
My responsibilities include ensuring that Finnair’s environmental goals in Finnair Group business activities are realized in such a way that Finnair is among the leading airlines in environmental activities.
How would you define sustainable development in the airline industry?
I think the most important issue is to have the best available aircraft technology. In environmental matters, it is imperative to actively seek better and more economical operational measures.
OK, what kind of development would you consider to be unsustainable?
Unsustainable development would be just to stick to old habits and operations, using dated technology. This unfortunately is true for many companies at the moment and is greatly due to their economic situations, which won’t allow the companies on the brink of existence to make investments.
Should air travelers expect to pay higher prices in order to be environmentally responsible?
The prices should not be higher, although usually advanced companies aren’t competing with price as much as with quality. Sustainability is a part of quality.
Being “green” seems to be very fashionable among American travel companies now — particularly airlines. What’s your perspective on our recent fascination with the environment?
I recently wrote about this issue on my blog.
People and companies want to be green, but the real forces that drive customer decisions are still economic concerns.
Environmental issues seldom beat those of cost. People are willing to be green if it doesn’t cost them anything.
I believe that in the future environmental issues will become an important part of decision-making and real actions will be taken as awareness grows. This happens when the consequences of environmental changes touch the everyday life of a person. On the other hand lawmakers and states will necessitate actions and so will major corporations. It is their policies that shape the world.
In your opinion, what are American carriers doing right when it comes to the environment?
As we have seen, government regulations lead the way in the US. For example, a single ATM system brought enormous savings in fuel and thus emission levels in US. Europe is lagging behind clearly.
When it comes to carriers themselves, the importance of a clear sustainability strategy is evolving. Before it had more of a philanthropic charity aura. Companies took care of stakeholders by donating.
Are carbon offsets a good idea? Do you think passengers should pay for them? Or should airlines be footing the bill?
I believe in the EU “polluter pays”
principle. Finnair offers a CO2 calculator on our Web page. We want the customers to see how they can contribute by choosing a carrier that has a modern fleet, is efficient in its operations and hence is invested in the protection of the environment.
We do not share the idea that customers should pay. Neither do we offer any compensation programs on our Web pages.
Mainly, we believe that carriers themselves should take responsibility for environmental work and investments. Finnair has invested several billions in a new fuel-economic fleet, and we are also taking part in EU ETS starting in 2012. Of course we would like to see a sectoral approach to carbon trading for the airline industry.
Are biofuels a realistic alternative to fossil fuels, or are they for now, at least, more of a green gimmick?
I think they are very realistic in the longer term. It only takes a little more time and effort, when you have to take into account temperatures of -50 Celsius and other safety aspects and go through an extensive standardization process.
We have engaged in cooperation with oil companies and manufacturers.
To my understanding this development is moving forward — especially in the USA. We believe in second generation biofuels rather than those which are harming food production.
I think it’s fair to say U.S. airline passengers are confused at the moment. We can buy carbon offsets at the airport, our airlines say they are now recycling and conserving resources. But it’s getting more difficult to separate a legitimate environmental initiative from one that’s just a clever marketing initiative. How can you tell the difference?
The difference is in whether there is a real strategy and actual investments, compared to efforts that demand more marketing than deeds. I do believe that every little green action each one of us makes, regardless of the reason behind it, is good for nature.
I do also realize that customers are confused. There are so many different messages in the market. I think our industry should educate customers more, and try to show the pioneer spirit in finding new solutions. Cooperation is paramount. We want to engage in more open communication in this field.
There are some who believe that air travel is so destructive to the environment that the act of flying is essentially irresponsible. Is that true, or is it possible to have it both ways — travel by air, yet also protect the environment? And if so, then how?
Sustainability has three dimensions: ecological, economical and social. If we only think in an ecological way in this case, we harm two others. Developing countries need air transportation and tourism. In a global economy flight connections are essential.
The key here is to compare different alternatives and rationalize.
Intermodality is also important. Finland, located in a far corner of Europe, can be thought of as an island. We do not have a real alternative to travel to Central Europe, for example, let alone farther afield. It’s a different issue for those living in Central Europe: train connections take you everywhere.
Finnair offered a flight+rail link to Zurich some years ago, where passengers could fly into Zurich and then take the train to other destinations in Switzerland. Similarly, we do not recommend that people take flights between cities in southern Finland. It is more reasonable to travel short distances by train. Finnair does operate some commuter flights, with smaller aircraft producing fewer emissions. These flights are mainly used for connecting to other destinations from Helsinki.
People seldom realize that cruise ships actually produce more air emissions per ton kilometer than a plane. Also, the carbon footprint of a high speed train is far greater than that of a traditional train.
Both road traffic and trains consume more non-renewable raw materials than air travel, which only needs three kilometers of runway for travel across the globe.
- Nat Geo Expeditions
What should our attitude toward travel be, if we want to be environmentally responsible?
Each of us should consider the method of transportation and compare the options. Having arrived at the destination, one should be responsible: use mass transport, choose environmentally sound hotels and act in a sustainable way taking the local communities into account. And while traveling you can save energy back home by lowering the temperature and leaving all the lights off… We must look at solutions rather than absolutisms like banning one industry altogether.
The bad reputation air travel has is partly due the fact that the industry hid too long behind the “2 percent of CO2” figures. That was a mistake. Even if we produce only 2 to 4 percent of man-made CO2 globally, it does not take away the fact that we must take action to improve!
We must see beyond today. We cannot go on paving roads and laying rails forever. In the future, food production will become a greater issue with the population rising. Space on Earth will be needed for growing food. Who would have thought 80 years ago, that travel to another continent would be possible within one day? I am sure that as we solve technical issues, and discover new fuels, flying will be the transport of the future.
Finnair has in fact opened the discussion on the future of flying. We must look forward to see future solutions. We have involved experts in various fields from professors in ecology to future researchers to participate in the discussion. I think we have brought up some very important issues.
What responsibility do our governments bear in making air travel greener?
They can set the standards and be active in promoting greener options. They can educate us and show leadership.
The Finnish government just sent out an RFP for their air travel and we had to show real deeds in environmental work. We succeeded.
Should we expect to see more airlines appoint vice presidents of sustainable development?
I certainly hope so! Even though we are competitors, we all have plenty to gain from information sharing and cooperation. This is also true for air traffic controllers, airports and manufacturers.
A good example is flight safety. The incredible safety figures of flying have been reached by open cooperation across all commercial airlines. We may compete furiously for the passengers but on environmental issues, the whole industry gains when a positive development is made.
Photo via Finnair