View Full Version : Reducing the carbon footprint within aviation
9th Sep 2009, 11:23
With all the talk of carbon emissions etc with relation to aviation, is it not time for a change in the industry. Competition keeps fares down which encourages more traffic. On high volume routes several competitors may be vying for the trade. There could be an international body set up, to monitor and enforce a policy on all air routes. For example if 10 return flights operate per day and are 70% full this could be reduced to 7 return flights per day. Also if the 10 flights per day were operated by a 100 seater aircraft this body could insist on a reduction in flights using a larger aircraft. What I am saying is all routes should require a licence. All operators would apply for a licence to operate a route. The body would check capacity (from previous records) and judge on aircraft suited to the route. A specific route may only be able to have one carrier due to low capacity. The operator will have to submit a fare structure etc ensuring value for money for the traveller. Each operator would submit facts and figures on each route to the body which would keep monitoring and reviewing
9th Sep 2009, 12:09
Why don't you direct your energies to stopping empty busses littering our roads, or buses with one person in? The we could cancel the next 50 buses to ensure one bus a day drives full. Save far more than pissing around with aeroplanes! Trouble with your scenario is that when your Dad dies in Australia, you won't be able to get a flight there for 3 days because they will all be full up! Try again.
9th Sep 2009, 12:11
wasnt there statistics posted at the time of the "plane stupid" protests that showed aviation makes up only 2% of pollution within the UK?
9th Sep 2009, 13:47
By putting these measures in place how many slots would be freed up at LHR. Would they need a new runway?
9th Sep 2009, 16:33
If the government were actually serious about "going green" we would all get a grant for solar panels and wind turbines.
As things stand their main priority is to increase tax and disguise it as a green measure.
Insisting on filling aircraft will mean less flights and decrease tax revenue.
It's not going to happen.
9th Sep 2009, 20:49
Gate 22 you are 17 years out of date. The airline industry used to be regulated by governments, who owned the airlines, decided on who could fly what roures, with what capacity, at what frequency, and at what price. It was grotesquely inefficient, it ensured that airlines were a repository of wasteful practice, airline staff had a job for life, and the customer paid the price.
Deregulation, in the US (1978 onwards) and in Europe (1992 onwards) has given rise to some anomalies and some excesses, and is regretted by a lot of airline employees who have lost some of the benefits that used to go along with the job, but it has (amongst other things) improved airline efficiency out of sight. And that includes emissions efficiency brecause that is the same as fuel efficiency and no airline can afford to waste fuel.
By the way, it may have passed you by, but from 2012 onwards airlines serving Europe will be subject to an emissions trading scheme. In effect, this means that their emissions will be capped at 3% lower than where they were in 2005 - with a further cap at -5% the following year.
So, an external agency *will* regulate the industry, as you propose. But rather than civil servants deciding, soviet-style, which airlines will fly which routes and how often, it will be left to the market, and the airlines' commercial judgement, to decide how the scarce resources (emissions permits) are to be used.
9th Sep 2009, 20:54
I seem to recall a report that showed that the excess gasses expelled from cows bottoms contributed more greenhouse gases that airliners, maybe we should be looking at some controls over cattle as well.
Oh no that wouldn't make goods news headlines would it, never mind the fact that cars are amongst the worst polluters. I am sure everyone on here find the airline industry being the easy headline grabbing target tiresome.
If any government is serious it should look across the board at all sources of greenhouse gasses not just one.
Sorry rant over.
9th Sep 2009, 21:01
Take a look at the EZY website, and theres a special page (called FLYgreener) that tells you what they are doing for the environment. Its an amusing read.
Things such as
- We charge for food, so as to reduce waste
- Minimising use of airbridge/motorised steps to save fuel.
- Only flying short haul, to reduce emmisions (compared to a long haul flight)
Of course, non of the points in the diagram have anything to do with making/saving money! Its all about seriously trying to save the environment!
9th Sep 2009, 21:25
ln the mid-nineties l was told by a very senior pilot, in Sweden, that their authority employed an average of 147 people for every single aeroplane on the register including C152`s.
No doubt that isn`t the case now. The cost ?
Who is going to pay for your plan, my dear Sir ?
Our Stasi like powers that be must be blessing the " Carbon Footprint " windfall - certainly too thick to have come up with it themselves - but l doubt that they can see where to put the brakes on.
As one of Terry Wogans` Old Gits said this morning ........
" if we have to reduce the carbon footprint of cars to accommodate air travel in the future, how do l get to the airport ?"
10th Sep 2009, 07:06
The EU ETS (emissions trading scheme) comes into force on 31 December 2009. All airlines had to have their monitoring and emissions plans submitted at the end of last month.
This has been a VERY demanding/costly taks for most airlines and in our case, has taken about 8 months of hard and expensive work.
This legislation change has been coming for years now ... if you're that interested in aviation emissons, how come you don't know about it?
Stop tyring to reinvent everything!
10th Sep 2009, 07:18
...has taken about 8 months of hard and expensive work.And that's just the preparation. Recording and reporting the fuel uplift for each and every flight and to an accuracy of +/-2% is going to consume a lot more effort.
Of course, it will generate thousands more civil service artificial, non-wealth creating non-jobs to process the mountain of paperwork. I wonder how long it will be before motorists will be required to get their fuel indicators calibrated to within 2% and fill out a fuel uplift report for each and every time they fill up their tanks? :rolleyes:
10th Sep 2009, 07:36
Who owns the emmission?
If a Swiss registered aircraft owned by a company based in Germany, full of French fuel, powered by American engines takes off from a British airport, which country owns the exhaust and is reponsible for reducing it?
10th Sep 2009, 09:22
Who owns the emmission?
Al Gore. Who else?:ugh:
27th Sep 2009, 02:19
ls the toilet full of those unspeakable Spanish jobbies to boot ?
27th Sep 2009, 09:25
Aviation and CO2
1. Cows are much more dangerous for the environment than Aviation.
2. Shipping at 3% of CO2 emissions is 50% worse than Aviation at 2%
3. Each week, China builds plants with CO2 emissions that equal the UKs emissions for a year.
Agriculture, houses, people, cars, energy generation and industry are where CO2 comes from. Aviation is a tiddler.
Aviation's problem is that its PR is only 1/10 as good as that of the anti-Aviation brigade.
27th Sep 2009, 11:50
Get rid of India and China and the problem is largely solved.
27th Sep 2009, 12:24
Aviation's problem is that its PR is only 1/10 as good as that of the anti-Aviation brigade.
(Probably even worse than 1/10.)
27th Sep 2009, 13:20
As this is Jet Blast:
Two parts of the aviation industry have committed legally to saving 35 pounds of carbon over four years. Yup lbs not tonnes or tons.
How could this happen?
You get the Chairmen of Boeing and your Airline to write into the contract for purchasing 787s that each of the bosses will lose 1 stone in weight between signing and the first delivery flight.
Ok the alleged intention was to see if your chairman would actually read the document that he was signing, but there is supposedly such a deal between Boeing and Virgin.
It sounds like an old wives tale but who knows?
Branson fails to read the small print as he signs contract about dieting | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-451048/Branson-fails-read-small-print-signs-contract-dieting.html)
Now if every pilot had to lose a stone...
27th Sep 2009, 14:48
A conservative estimate of aviation’s future significance, which uses optimistic forecasts of improvements in fuel efficiency and air traffic management and relatively modest growth rates, suggests that, between 1990 and 2050, the carbon dioxide emissions from aviation could approximately quadruple. Other forecasts suggest that the carbon dioxide from aviation could grow by more than 10 times over that period.
Most climate scientists agree that carbon dioxide emissions need to be cut by at least 80% by 2050. Clearly, in order to meet that target, a significant reduction in the projected growth of aviation, or even a decrease in aviation, would be required. Indeed, a 2007 study which looked at scenarios for a 60% cut in emissions showed that, even under the Department for Transport’s “best” case projection, over half of the UK’s carbon budget in 2050 would be taken up by the aviation industry!
27th Sep 2009, 16:22
They've done similar projections for the growth of methane and other gases from cows.
Cows are already much worse for the environment than Aviation. However, as the huge countries like China, Pakistan and Indonesia turn from vegetarian diets to richer, western style meat based diets, and as the number of cows in the world mutiplies by twice the rate of Aviation's growth, by 2050, the cows' methane will have taken over as the chief source of the problem.
By the way, why aren't we worried about the last thing that was going to kill us - the holes in the Ozone layer?
The Ozone layer holes have got worse recently, but as Professors, academics and their mates in the press are no longer getting shed loads of money to "research" it, and report it, that fact is under-reported.
27th Sep 2009, 19:27
Glad to see this has been moved to JetBlast.
But, alarming to see somebody seemingly sincere can write such bolloxs and expect it to be taken seriously.
Alarming to see somebody still using the term "carbon footprint" without thinking for a second what they're talking about....
Alarming to see somebody thinking that aviation contributes more than a few percent to total human carbon emissions.
Even more alarming to see somebody still thinks that the few percent of human-produced CO2 has any effect on the global climate.
And most alarming, seeing somebody actually proposing to set up yet another "international body set up, to monitor and enforce a policy on all air routes."
I would only too happy to find out, that "gate 22" is a just a troll, a sciolist, a deluded moonbat, or a greenie extremist.
But unfortunately, judging by newspaper articles, newspaper site comments, etc., even posts here on PPRuNe, more and more people have been taken in by the CO2 scam and actually believe in it..... and "gate 22" seems to be one of them, even motivated to post his pipe-dreams here.
I'm not sure of the way to truly deal with this.... just ridiculing these people is not enough.
8th Oct 2009, 21:02
Oh dear, l was only repeating a statement for larffs - if it`s me using the expression "carbon footprint" you referred to.
Modern man was around during the last ice age, a mere ten thousand years ago, and what they did to cause the following global warming escapes me.
Plainly you are " Alarmed ".
l see that regularly on thick, wooden obstructions to movement.
9th Oct 2009, 03:24
"In a damming speech to a Hong Kong aviation conference, Air New Zealand chief executive Rob Fyfe warned that enormous resources had been invested in debating climate change but the most basic steps to reduce emissions were not being taken.
He said the policy discussions and hand-wringing over agreeing on emission reduction targets were interminable and distracting parties from the far more important focus of taking action..."
Question - What resources have been spent debating Al Gores climate scam ? ....apparently it is more important to take action then to first do a little thinking...a bit of auditing. .....Woe is the future of Air Shee-bang-a-bang with that muddle headed thinking.
I'm wondering if the chief dill of Air NZ is chasing a job with the carbon profiteering banks ? ...or perhaps he has worked in a bank?...seems a common thread to these Algorian profiteers...:hmm:
Time to act on climate: Air NZ CEO Rob Fyfe | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,26183277-23349,00.html)
9th Oct 2009, 09:07
By the way there is no Ozone Hole. Least ways not since scientific instruments started measuring ozone levels. There is an area which is thinner, which varies seasonally/changes shape and has more to do with the sun's activity than man's. The big drive to eliminate ozone depletion gases [CFCs]has turned out to be a false assumption, has cost billions of dollars and the present approved gas is worse than the banned one it seems!
Only the UN could get it so wrong so many times! The Media multiply the lies to sell their news.
From Ben Lieberman]
"Needless to say, if UVB hasn't gone up, then the fears of increased UVB-induced harm are unfounded. Indeed, the much-hyped acceleration in skin cancer rates hasn't been documented. U.S. National Cancer Institute statistics show that malignant melanoma incidence and mortality, which had been undergoing a long-term increase that predates ozone depletion, has actually been leveling off during the putative ozone crisis.
Further, no ecosystem or species was ever shown to be seriously harmed by ozone depletion. This is true even in Antarctica, where the largest seasonal ozone losses, the so-called Antarctic ozone hole, occur annually. Also forgotten is a long list of truly ridiculous claims, such as the one from Al Gore's 1992 book "Earth in the Balance"that, thanks to the Antarctic ozone hole, "hunters now report finding blind rabbits; fisherman catch blind salmon."
Overall, the Montreal Protocol isn't making these bad consequences go away -- they were never occurring in the first place.
The parallels with global warming are striking. Again we face a real but greatly overhyped environmental problem. In both cases, virtually everything the public has been told that sounds terrifying isn't true -- and what is true isn't particularly terrifying. But doomsayers such as Gore simply soldier on. His claims of blind animals from ozone depletion have been replaced by equally dubious assertions in his book "An Inconvenient Truth," including predictions of a massive sea level rise that would wipe away south Florida and other coastal areas."