Originally Posted by
polax52
Aviation Emissions are becoming the priority for European Green movements. In my opinion this is destructive and unfair. Aircraft manufacturers are moving rapidly towards emissions free Planes but currently the technology for complete zero emission aircraft does not exist. On the other hand the technology does exist for zero emission cars and power on the ground therefore it would be more effective to encourage people to use only emission free options on the ground. By keeping the aviation industry low tax and continuing to grow the industry allows focus on removing the problem in the air.
Most Europeans use unclean petrol engines to drive at least 10,000 miles per year which is totally unnecessary (technologically) and more environmentally unfriendly than flying. Aviation has just become easy to attack for the Green Politicians as the family income of their electorate is not effected by aviation but it is effected by changes that could be made immediately.
Aviation will become Green and sustainable given reasonable time but stopping flying is clearly not the solution. Investment is the solution.
It is worth noting that the industry (at least as represented by ICAO/IATA) have no plan for the replacement of hydrocarbon based fuel.
The ICAO narrative is;
- Technology will continue to provide improvements (at levels historically seen- this is not assured into the future)
- CORSIA in 2027. The ICAO ETS sets carbon price low enough to mean that no behaviour change is required by airlines.
- Efficiency improvements already embedded in new aircraft under construction will meet the ETS threshold without any change.
Aviation does not offer an alternative to CO2 and hydrocarbon based fuel. The net emissions capped at 2005 levels by 2050 still has the industry reliant on current jet fuel supply.
Contrast this to the maritime industry(IMO) whereby the industry will transition off carbon based fuel by 2100 at the latest.
Whilst the industry enjoys marketing green alternatives like bio-fuel the sheer expanse of land required to grow the fuel is enormous. Consider that to power 10% of the US Airlines ASK an area the size of Florida is required to grow it, bio-fuel technically is feasible, but commercially non-viable. Airlines like Australia's Qantas make a big announcement about a 'purchase' of biol fuel totalling 30,000,000 US Gallons. This is to be welcomed, however missing from the
PR, is the fact that the fuel purchased could only power the pacific crossings of their increasingly fuel inefficient fleet for a matter of weeks. 30,000,000 gallons isn't much fuel when your aircraft consume at least 11,000 kgs (11 tonnes an hour) Likewise as far as battery technology has come, they are simply too heavy to store anything like the energy needed to cross the pacific. As for laminar flow and flying wings, perhaps all the concrete and construction required to build airports capable of accommodating needs diesel to power the equipment.
Perhaps if the industry targeted reduction in reliance rather than simply offsetting their increasing percentage of the production of CO2, then there may be incentive for airlines to change.