RISHI Sunak’s controversial trip to Scotland was worse for the environment than the carbon emissions of eight UK households in an entire year, a new analysis has found.
The Prime Minister is under fire over a trip to Aberdeen this week, with new data from carbon accounting specialists showing a return flight from London to the city would pump the equivalent of 23.74 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
That is about the same emissions created by the gas and electricity generated by 8.5 UK households in one year, according to research by the company Carbon Responsible which helps firms record their emissions.
READ MORE: Rishi Sunak's flight to Scotland may have broken ministerial code, say Labour
Attempting to justify his travel arrangements on Monday, the Prime Minister told the BBC it was a better use of his time to fly because it was faster than taking the train.
A flight to Aberdeen from London is seven times faster than travelling by train, Carbon Responsible said, but 528 times more polluting.
Matt Paver, the chief operating officer of Carbon Responsible, said: "At such a critical moment in the climate crisis, leaders must walk the walk – not fly a jet.
“It's no longer acceptable to follow the precedent set by those who came before, the urgent path to net zero requires us to reflect on old behaviours and change them.
“It sends a contradictory message when the journey taken to announce a carbon capture project emits the equivalent CO2 to emissions from 8.5 homes’ worth of annual electricity and gas usage.
“We can't expect ordinary people to make sacrifices that those in power wouldn't.
READ MORE: Rishi Sunak puts strict rules on media for Scottish visit
“That's why data like this is so important: it tells us exactly the impact of our choices and urges us to make better ones.
“If time efficiency is the issue here, we should be doing all we can to make alternative, greener routes viable for everyone – whether that's government officials or holidaymakers.
“The most important time consideration is, after all, how little time we have left to address the climate crisis."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel