“This second eruption threw volcanic ash several kilometres up in the atmosphere which led to air travel disruption in northwest Europe for six days from 15 April and in May 2010, including the closure of airspace over many parts of Europe,” Wikipedia writes.

And you also probably know that volcanic eruptions produces carbon dioxide. So what kind of effects did Eyjafjallajökull have on our climate? Well. Not much it seems.

“This is not the big climate changing eruption that some people seem to think it is,” said Mike Burton from Italy’s National Institute of Geophysics and Vulcanology.

“At the moment, the eruption cloud reaches around 22,000 feet (7km),” says Anja Schmidt from the School of Earth and Environment at the UK’s Leeds University. “That’s high enough to affect aviation but is unlikely to be high enough to have a strong effect on the climate system.”

Because of the mass-grounding of flights in Europe the extra CO2 produced by the volcano actually helped to lower the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions during this period. The Guardian writes:

“A larger effect on the atmosphere, though still small in global terms, comes from the mass-grounding of European flights over the past few days. According to the Environmental Transport Association, by the end of today the flight ban will have prevented the emission of some 2.8m tonnes of carbon dioxide since the first flights were grounded.

The volcanic eruption has released carbon dioxide, but the amount is dwarfed by the savings. Based on readings taken by scientists during the first phase of Eyjafjallajokull activity last month, the website Information is Beautiful calculated the volcano has emitted about 150,000 tonnes of CO2 each day.”

Richard Black from the BBC News concludes that the “eruption would not have any effect on weather and climate” and that:

“[...]its daily CO2 output was only about one-thousandth of that produced by the sum total of humanity’s fossil fuel burning, deforestation, agriculture and everything else. In fact, the extra CO2 produced from the volcano is probably less than the volume “saved” by having Europe’s aeroplanes grounded.”

So it seems the Icelandic volcano managed, if only for a few days, to reduce the impact aviation has on our climate – something which our politicians haven’t managed yet.

Photo credit: Joshua Davis (jdavis.info)

Just as even the longest journey starts with one step, the salvation of the planet can start with one person: you. Each person that wants to be an eco- conscious traveller has to respect nature and seek for ways to reduce impact on it. That is achieved by making responsible choices and knowing well that just a few easy steps can make a big difference.

Fly nonstop: Planes burn the most fuel on takeoff and landing. That means that a long haul flight that takes you straight to your destination emits less CO2 than short haul flights. For the same destination, a long haul flight may burn up to two-thirds less CO2 than short haul flights.

Use airport restrooms: Flushing an airplane toilet at 9,144 metres above the ground uses almost a quarter of a litre of fuel- enough to drive about 9,650 metres. So you should make sure that you use the airport’s restrooms before each flight.

Don’t fly at night: according to a study by the University of Reading, clouds created by contrails trap more heat in the atmosphere at night than they do during the day. Thus flights during the day are less harmful than flights at night, concerning global warming.

Cruising: Cruising allows you to bring a lot of people into an area, without creating the environmental footprint required to house and feed them. However, large cruise ships could still be harmful to the environment if they are not new generation ships- with technology complying with the newly established strict standards, guaranteeing energy efficiency and effective waste management- and if they cruise in ports located near coral or other sensitive marine life. Thus, you should choose to travel on small cruise ships which carry less than 100 passengers. They are generally less threatening to fragile environments.

On the other hand, sailboats are the best way to go, if they are actually under sail. In general, there is room for improvement in this industry in making sure that small boats take care of wastewater responsibly.