Thousands of Planes Are Flying Empty and No One Can Stop Them (wired.com) 119
"A pre-pandemic policy on airport usage is pressuring airlines to keep 'ghost flights' in the air," Wired reported this week — adding "The climate impact is massive."
Lufthansa, Germany's national airline, which is based in Frankfurt, has admitted to running 21,000 empty flights this winter, using its own planes and those of its Belgian subsidiary, Brussels Airlines, in an attempt to keep hold of airport slots. Although anti-air travel campaigners believe ghost flights are a widespread issue that airlines don't publicly disclose, Lufthansa is so far the only airline to go public about its own figures.... Lufthansa's own chief executive, Carsten Spohr [said] the journeys were "empty, unnecessary flights just to secure our landing and takeoff rights." But the company argues that it can't change its approach: Those ghost flights are happening because airlines are required to conduct a certain proportion of their planned flights in order to keep slots at high-trafficked airports.
A Greenpeace analysis indicates that if Lufthansa's practice of operating no-passenger flights were replicated equally across the European aviation sector, it would mean that more than 100,000 "ghost flights" were operating in Europe this year, spitting out carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to 1.4 million gas-guzzling cars. "We're in a climate crisis, and the transport sector has the fastest-growing emissions in the EU," says Greenpeace spokesperson Herwig Schuster. "Pointless, polluting 'ghost flights' are just the tip of the iceberg."
Aviation analysts are split on the scale of the ghost flight problem. Some believe the issue has been overhyped and is likely not more prevalent than the few airlines that have admitted to operating them. Others say there are likely tens of thousands of such flights operating — with their carriers declining to say anything because of the PR blowback.
A Greenpeace analysis indicates that if Lufthansa's practice of operating no-passenger flights were replicated equally across the European aviation sector, it would mean that more than 100,000 "ghost flights" were operating in Europe this year, spitting out carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to 1.4 million gas-guzzling cars. "We're in a climate crisis, and the transport sector has the fastest-growing emissions in the EU," says Greenpeace spokesperson Herwig Schuster. "Pointless, polluting 'ghost flights' are just the tip of the iceberg."
Aviation analysts are split on the scale of the ghost flight problem. Some believe the issue has been overhyped and is likely not more prevalent than the few airlines that have admitted to operating them. Others say there are likely tens of thousands of such flights operating — with their carriers declining to say anything because of the PR blowback.
"No One Can Stop Them"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"No One Can Stop Them"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"No One Can Stop Them"? (Score:5, Interesting)
The headline make it sound this way to create the clickbait. I clicked, so maybe it works.
The article seems clear that what is needed is change in policy and even name one policy body which is responsible for these changes. What it perhaps fails to outline well is the percentage of total flights, especially at these airports. The commission in charge in Europe did lower the limit but is pushing for it to rise back up, as outlined again in the article. What's less clear is how reasonable this push is and if the air traffic will recoup in time.
Without a better statistical breakdown, the article is as stated clickbait and meant to enrage. Note I am not saying this is an issue but I also don't know if there is a clean solution for fixing it. One might think percentage of used slots per the airports "load" of active flights could better reduce this though again it's not clear that this would not immediately benefit the low-cost airlines allowing them to eat up the slots of other carriers and in turn reduce the quality of flights provided forcing other airlines out. It's also not immediately clear at what rate the slots are surrendered which may provide some opportunity in a sense of policy change. Finally, there is the case that if slots were surrendered in the wrong way and policy change was made relative to the load of an airport that low-cost providers could further squat by being able to reduce prices of enough flights to meet a threshold and grab further slots from others not willing to reduce prices. All and all, I would like to think there is a "simple solution" but there are likely a few caveats.
Finally the biggest issue is the nature of the Commission itself. What oversight do they have in terms of environmental concerns? Likely none, by raising the threshold later this year they attempt to push the industry to regain position as a common means of travel and better the economic position of the industry. I see little other reason for them to push this, so it seems the clearest issue is the body in charge of policy likely doesn't care which requires much more serious reform and thus greater public outrage to get politicians to initial the necessary changes.
Re: "No One Can Stop Them"? (Score:2)
I'm very confident that the EU, if they put their mind to it, could implement a policy change that would stop the practice in short order.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm very confident that the EU, if they put their mind to it, could implement a policy change that would stop the practice in short order.
The EU is working on this right now. The plan is to fine Google and Apple each 2 Billion Euros/
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the EU policies that force the airlines to fly empty planes to keep the coveted airport slots. Trust me if the airlines could consolidate several near empty flights into one near full flight without reprisal, they would.
Re:"No One Can Stop Them"? (Score:4, Insightful)
The policy is simple - just stop the idea of needing to use your slots while the airport is not busy. The only reason the system exists is because many airports in Europe pre-pandemic were full - there was no way to schedule in another flight - the airport was at 100% utilization. Thus the slots became valuable and there was a use it or lose it policy. Oh sure, there were maybe a handful of flights that were empty because the slots were in-between leases (the owners could sub-lease out their slot to another airline for a period of time), but when the airport is full, it makes sense to have the policy.
If current passenger loads are such that it's not useful to have 100% airport utilization, then the policy should be suspended until airport utilization creeps up to 100% again. Then you can enforce the policy when 90% of the slots are being utilized again as it signals air traffic has resumed to the point that flights are picking up.
Instead of trying to predict when air traffic will pick up the policy should be more organic - some places the traffic will pick up quicker than others and those places should re-implement the policy wen it's appropriate.
Of course, slot holders would hate it because it devalues their slot holdings - if a formerly full airport takes longer to recover, then holding the slot is less valuable because maybe someone else might simply abandon their slots and everyone will see a non-full airport. So it's in their interest to pretend the airport is full to keep slot values high.
In that case, all the EU needs to do is implement a CO2 surcharge - the more empty seats, the more they pay in having a too-big plane for the load factor. Punish those flying a plane just for the sake of keeping a virtual piece of property.
Re: (Score:2)
Your solutions sound fair and reasonable, a kin to what I was suggesting about capacity of the airport.
Re: (Score:2)
slot holders would hate it because it devalues their slot holdings
This is absolutely key. Airlines hold those slots because owning them is directly linked to their market valuation. Large sums of money change hands when those slots get reallocated - both in the share market, and in other arenas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of the flights by the companies mentioned in the article are going to be in Europe.
The EU can set policies that all airports within the Eurozone must abide by.
Re: (Score:2)
"Look at what you made me do, honey? You think I like hitting you?!"
That's what this sounds like.
You'd think it would be far cheaper (emissions set aside) to renegotiated whatever agreement and write a check.
Re: "No One Can Stop Them"? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've never seen a $1 flight. Why is there a floor to ticket prices even though there are ghost flights? It seems like some sort of market manipulation / poisoning.
"We will run this bus all around town, but its weird. Nobody will pay the $1,000 ticket price!"
Re: "No One Can Stop Them"? (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a cost to taking in passengers. Somebody has to be at the gate, luggage needs to be loaded, the plane needs to be cleaned, crew must be present, food/drinks/etc must be loaded, etc.
As far as I know, if there are no passengers, the airplane can fly with just the pilots in it. Adding even a single passenger would increase costs dramatically.
Re: (Score:3)
As far as I know, if there are no passengers, the airplane can fly with just the pilots in it. Adding even a single passenger would increase costs dramatically.
Yes, and dramatically well beyond the cost of a single passenger. Or even two. Or perhaps even a dozen.
So now it really starts to expand the investigation...what is your break-even for flying the damn plane, because if you thought there were a lot of zero passenger flights in the last two years...just imagine how many dozen-or-less passenger flights also massively contributed to this problem.
Re: (Score:2)
If all you care about is monetary break-even, then sell a handful of business class seats at full(ish) price and you're all good to go. Hell, you could even fly the plane without loading all the crap you need for the economy travellers and save yourself a load of costs.
Things get really tricky if you look for a sort of carbon break-even. When is it worth flying the plane for the planet as a whole? I couldn't tell you, but the way flights are taxed, we're never likely to find out. If each plane got taxed ins
Re: (Score:2)
If all you care about is monetary break-even, then sell a handful of business class seats at full(ish) price and you're all good to go. Hell, you could even fly the plane without loading all the crap you need for the economy travellers and save yourself a load of costs.
Things get really tricky if you look for a sort of carbon break-even. When is it worth flying the plane for the planet as a whole? I couldn't tell you, but the way flights are taxed, we're never likely to find out. If each plane got taxed instead of each passenger, then you'd see a lot more full planes than you have done in 20 years.
I'd say from a business perspective, things get VERY tricky when you're taking a rather considerable loss every time you put the plane in the air, all to ensure you secure or maintain your plane/airport contract. How long can you sustain a loss against an expense?
And a "handful" of business class seats (let's say 10@$1K each), doesn't even cover the fuel costs. A Boeing 747 will burn a gallon a second. That's 18,000 gallons over a 5-hour flight. You do the break-even math.
Re: (Score:3)
Correct which means not only is there a floor to ticket prices but a related capacity to achieve that floor. This is how the low-cost airlines work. Reduce cost but cancel at a higher thresholds of passengers for consider the flight, underbooked. You can also adjust the price per ticket relatively.
Airlines clearly do this already a lot with how they determine a ticket price based on things like browser cookies. However, the objective has been to maximize profit and as such you explain how the empty flight c
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Airlines used to sell tickets for 1 Euro, I don't know if they still do. The business model was that if they have empty seats they might as well fill them and hope that the lucky customer decides to spend some of the money they saved on in-flight drinks or extra luggage.
I guess they thought that the extra fuel cost was below the average amount they took in from the extras. Ryanair is notorious for it, basically everything beyond the seat is a paid extra.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like "loss leading". This works as long as you basically are already breaking even on the flight or majority of the times that route flies. I think European airlines seem to be less predator in this regard though. For instance, I wonder when they would decide to set the "1 euro" price? I am guessing maybe a day or two before the scheduled departure? In the US flights seem to follow the inverse, where the cost of the ticket rises if you place it too late.
China has done weird things with these. Like th
Re: (Score:2)
*time and destination... holidays too much baijiu
Re: (Score:3)
The input
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "No One Can Stop Them"? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've never seen a $1 flight.
Check out Ryanair or Wizzair!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen a $1 flight.
How do you easily turn £1 into £40?
Check out Ryanair or Wizzair!
Re: (Score:2)
>I've never seen a $1 flight. Why is there a floor to ticket prices even though there are ghost flights? It seems like some sort of market manipulation / poisoning.
I flew first class from Zurich to Los Angeles for about $350 in 2019. I am not convinced that even covered the fuel, but that's not the only time I found some ridiculously cheap seats. You just kinda have to look around.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the landing fees are per passenger.
So the cheapest flight is at the price of the landing fee.
Re: "No One Can Stop Them"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "No One Can Stop Them"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Planes seem very big, but their cargo capacity is miniscule next to a fully loaded container ship. Still, those ships are making it to their destination and there are several legs of transit to go that are also backed up.
Re: (Score:2)
Because transportation is only one factor in the supply chain problems. Others are things like production capacity. Car manufactures are having a "chip" shortage the problem is not getting the chips from the factory gate to the car assembly plant. The problem is that there are not enough chips leaving the factory in the first place.
I say "chip" shortage it is more a general component shortage. Everything from capacitors to fans and everything in between is subject to shortages.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course they can be stopped - buy the airlines or through change of policy. Just nobody wants to do so.
If there are "thousands of empty planes" whizzing around, then why is everyone's flight getting cancelled right now?
Something tells me that cub journalist hyperbole is in play here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that if this were the case, then where are the crew for all those supposedly empty flights? I suspect that the empty flight count is vastly exaggerated.
Re: (Score:3)
Empty flights don't require the same number of people on board, for obvious reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except the airlines CAN'T stop the flights, they'll lose access to airports. You have to buy the AIRPORTS.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised the airlines aren't just doing codeshare with FedEx and the like; they could easily keep their numbers up without having to pay for pilots and fuel if t
Re: (Score:2)
Airports are privately owned. Manchester International, London Stanstead and East Midlands are owned by the private entity Manchester Airports Group Plc. JFK Airport is owned by Schiphol USA Inc., a U.S. affiliate of Amsterdam based Schiphol Group, a leading airport operator and Delta Air Lines Inc. Royal Schiphol Group is the owner and operator of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, Rotterdam.
There are government-run airports in the US, but that's very unusual.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree - empty flights should be stopped.
The only reason they do exist is that the airlines want to keep their slot times, nothing else.
The slot times were a bad idea when conceived, I remember that I had to wait for the flight to take off just because they were waiting for their slot time even though neither the point of departure nor destination really were busy.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember that I had to wait for the flight to take off just because they were waiting for their slot time even though neither the point of departure nor destination really were busy.
You can't really just take off earlier if the airport isn't busy. Tickets are sold based on departure times. People who get there on time for their flight and find it left early because it wasn't busy will not be impressed.
Re: (Score:2)
We had already boarded and was sitting waiting at the taxiway, nothing to do with departure time - technically we already had departed.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree - empty flights should be stopped.
The only reason they do exist is that the airlines want to keep their slot times, nothing else.
The slot times were a bad idea when conceived, I remember that I had to wait for the flight to take off just because they were waiting for their slot time even though neither the point of departure nor destination really were busy.
It's not just about the departure or destination. It also has to do with the route being flown and separation of the aircraft. There are thousands of planes in the air at any given moment, and you can't just launch one into a route whenever you please.
Wow, Trevor Jacob started a meme ! (Score:3)
>> Thousands of Planes Are Flying Empty and No One Can Stop Them
Wow, Trevor Jacob started a meme !
Did all those pilot jump out with a parachute ?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they can be stopped - buy the airlines or through change of policy. Just nobody wants to do so.
Take-Off and landing fees for airports and governments, Keeping people employed for them as well as airlines, Not storing planes and incurring charges, and currently acting as freight transport for Vaccines and PPE etc a few reasons why they are still flying
Re: (Score:2)
The same thing has been happening with trains for decades. Phantom services where an empty train makes a pointless journey, purely to satisfy the requirements of the franchise contract.
Re: (Score:3)
Punch them in the face for daring to obey your current laws.
De rigueur for politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad choice of metaphors (Score:5, Funny)
We're in a climate crisis... Pointless, polluting 'ghost flights' are just the tip of the iceberg.
Fortunately the climate crisis will melt that iceberg, then everything will be ok.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Airport managers are dumb enough (Score:2)
not to make an exception to their rule for the pandemic?
Re: (Score:2)
They did make an exception... what's being asked is, what is it enough and are changes to the policy towards pre-pandemic amounts too agreesive.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Some airlines are beholden to policies at their hub country...
For instance Europe and the US have opened up a lot more flights, where Hong Kong is still highly restrictive. This means an airline like Cathay cannot fly into their EU/US slots from HK, but a local airline flying short haul flights around the EU could use those slots.
This would end up forcing out the foreign airlines, as the local ones would take their slots.
oh, please (Score:2, Interesting)
We've already had this shrill, alarmist subject before.
Dig deeper. Understand the issue. It isn't nearly as OH NOE! as the summary would lead you to think. The number of so-called empty flights (which aren't in fact empty, but carry cargo and are used to position airframes to satisfy the route planning) is under 10% of the total number of flights. The regulations requiring them have, in fact, been reduced by half. None of the airlines want to run these flights.
So put your outrage back in your pocket.
Re:oh, please (Score:5, Insightful)
A Taste of Armageddon (Score:3, Funny)
I think that the airlines in question should take a cue from the TOS Star Trek episode A Taste of Armageddon.
To save money, fuel and the environment, the ghost flights should be operated in computer simulation. But the results of the computer simulation should have real-world consequences such as employees being required to report to job disintegration centers if the simulation results show their airline would have gone bankrupt if the flights were actually carried out.
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't I be fine with the government doubling its' efficiency?
Why do I think (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... those numbers seemed odd...
Re: (Score:2)
a plane flight puts out more pollution than 10.4 cars? I bet they burn more fuel just taxiing down the runway than I use in a year.
That is interesting. According to https://blueskymodel.org/air-mile [blueskymodel.org], an "average plane" puts out about 53.3 lbs per mile of CO2. According to https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle [epa.gov], an "average car" puts out about 400g per mile of CO2. It appears to me that the "average plane" may put out around 60.5 times more CO2/mile than the "average car". It is also interesting to think in terms of "per passenger", in which case they would likely be quite a bit closer, but
While it is preposterous ... (Score:5, Interesting)
While it is preposterous, global air traffic is only 2% of global CO2 emissions.
So they are right: it is only the tip of the iceberg.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, its only that low. I didn't believe this number till I did some research and, yeah, the total global CO2 emissions from aircraft is only 2% to 2.5%. The way foxnews keeps bleating about it you would think that aircraft are single handled destroying the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, we don't need to fly to survive. We need heat/cooling, we need food, and we need local transport.
But flying... not so much.
And we need to get rid of _all_ CO2 emissions.
So we need to save 2% here, 3% there, 1.5% over there. We need to save every bit we can.
Re:While it is preposterous ... (Score:4)
And we need to get rid of _all_ CO2 emissions.
This is actually not true. We don't need to get rid of all CO2 emissions. We need to get rid of CO2 emissions to the point where we are no longer taxing the environments ability to remove it. The environment actually needs a certain amount of CO2 to be healthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: While it is preposterous ... (Score:2)
Trees are dying because of climate change, and deforestation. Deforestation is accelerating because of climate change, because crops are failing, soil is getting degraded, deserts are expanding,
So we need to plant more trees, we need to solve all the problems, but most of all, we need to stop burning shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
2% of emissions but not 2% of the damage caused. Aircraft emit greenhouse gasses at high altitude where they do more damage than similar emissions at ground level.
Re: (Score:2)
That is true. I forgot to mention that.
Nevertheless for reducing CO2 we need to take the "low hanging fruits first". And air travel is most likely not one of those. Does not change the fact that "keeping landing slots" with empty flying planes is super silly.
Old news (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The carbon emitted by issue in the article is utterly negligible though. The big fish are electricity & heat, industry and cars & trucks.
Re: (Score:1)
The amount used by *everyone* doing that is not trivial, it's number one offender. Meanwhile, the use of fossil fuels used for ghost flights is trivial, not worth getting excited over.
The rule was suspended already once before (Score:4, Informative)
Highly relevant for this, but nobody has yet mentioned - certainly none of the sources linked (although I feel they should have, for proper reporting).
The same policy/rule was a problem already in 2020, and it was already suspended once, for 4 months. So this is not a "new issue" but a "continuing issue", i.e. "it's still a problem".
https://www.euractiv.com/secti... [euractiv.com]
Since the suspension has already happened once, I imagine it wouldn't be so big hurdle to have that happen again, if enough pressure and will is there.
fly less to help climate change? (Score:2)
Is this even happening? (Score:2)
I was hoping this was a followup story that would be telling us how many under-full flights have ended up being flown, and how under-full they are. It is nothing of the sort. It's just a stock photo of a 100% empty plane, and rehash of the arti
"No one chance change this?" Politicians can. (Score:5, Insightful)
No businessman can change this. The heads of the various FAA's of the nations can change it easily. Or the various law makers can.
Not that hard to change it as follows:
One could at the very least, rip out the word 'planes' and replace them with '100 paying passengers'. That would get rid of the loophole allowing empty planes to fly satisfying the law.
One can even add "you may pay the government an ever doubling tax to keep a route that is empty". As in 10k the first month, 20k the 2nd month, 40k the third month, 80k the 4th. Put in a rule that it takes x years of monthly flights of 100 passengers to reset the tax to 10k.
Eventually the tax will be so high they will stop paying and lose the slot.
who pays for all this fuel? (Score:2)
You do. That's how capitalism works. If a business and all their competitors have the same seemingly unavoidable overhead in the current market strategy. Then in the end, the costs as passed onto the consumer.
Don't think you care about the price of eggs in China? You will pay for it indirectly in the long run, this is almost guaranteed through the consumer's lack of unawareness of the seller's supply chain and market. Most people want to pay a fixed amount for a good or service of consistent quality. Too ba
Re: (Score:2)
That's not at all how capitalism works, it's how government-owned airports work. Any private business running an airport would gladly accept a fraction of empty flight's cost as a reservation fee to keep the spot, with both airports and airlines benefiting compared to operating an unnecessary flight.
Re: (Score:2)
it's exactly as a I said. It is a universal practice in capitalism for costs of a market common to all competitors to be passed onto the consumer. Regardless of where they constraints come from, government regulation, mother nature, cultural bias, or religious ritual.
If you want to rail against sloppy regulation and the problems of both big government and centralized economic systems, then go ahead. It doesn't actually apply to what I was talking about but it's surely a reasonable topic for debate at anothe
Re: (Score:2)
Are they really empty? (Score:3)
I can understand flying with minimal crew and no passengers, but airlines also serve as conduits for package delivery as well. Are these flights coming with with empty cargo holds? I would think that the airlines would carry airmail and express delivery cargo in the hold to offset the cost. Since COVID ran rampant, there's a lack of shipping options - and the airlines are not one to miss a profit opportunity.
And no one can stop them! (Score:3)
Complete distraction (Score:2)
Ghost flights are a temporary issue caused by COVID, and temporary not because the flights will stop, but rather because they will stop being empty in the future.
On the list of things to give a shit about environmentally wise, this is a distraction from things which actually matter.
Good for the planes (Score:2)
Follow the fuel (Score:2)
The confusion can be cleared up simply by looking at how much fuel was put into the airplanes at the hubs.
ob. overlords (Score:2)
What we've seen in the pictures from the boarding gates speaks for itself. Difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they consumed the airline passengers or merely enslave them.
One thing is for certain: there's no stopping them. The planes will soon be here.
And I for one welcome our new aluminum flying overlords.
I'd like to remind them that as a Karma:Excellent Slashdot commentator I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil on their tarmacs...
complications... (Score:2)
We've had this topic before, several times.
Every time, someone says that it's not so easy, there's a lot of domino stones connected to these flights, There's a reason behind those rules, etc. yada yada.
Here's a thought: To keep the slot, the airline must operate the flight in all respects except actually flying. Pay the taxes, pay for the slot, pay the pilots for flying, don't let them or the airplane do anything else for the duration of the flight, the whole thing, except you don't actually fly.
It's enough
Data point (Score:2)
There are two types of empty flights, gate-holders (what this article mentions) and dead-heads. The latter are taking an empty flight from one place to another where there is more customer demand.
Gate holders are a problem in the US too. I have a friend that was regularly the only person on a specific flight.
Whose fault? (Score:2)
Wen you consider that many of these ghost flights are the result of government-mandated shutdowns, travel restrictions, and failed pandemic policies, the real culprit is the governments. As so often is the case...
At the least though, consider changing the rules and letting airlines *pay* to hold the gates, and it doesn't need to be equal to fuel cost, crew, or airport fees. And then you have the problem of airports maybe having to reduce employment as fewer gate staff, ramp crew, etc, are gong to be needed.
"Fastest growing"? (Score:2)
Don't look up. (Score:2)
George Carlin said it best: "garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish ignorant leaders. [youtube.com]"
Just for the record... (Score:2)
There are hundreds of millions of cars operated in europe. The article states that the empty planes compare to 1.4 million cars. That's less than one percent.
Sure, it's a waste, but stopping it won't change much about the climate change problem.
It seems like greenpeace is at it again, attacking problems that don't really matter.