What a fascinating discussion. Let's look at some of the hard points that have been raised - particularly by Dr.Dave who clearly is a specialist in the field and I assume has his facts as right as they are available. (I'd just make the point that virtually all scientific "facts" are best guesses, and subject to regular debate and revision).
Dr. Dave estimates that we need 8.3 million ha of new forest PA to accommodate the annual output of the aviation industry. I’m happy to accept that figure, which as be says equates to 400 x 80 miles of forestry.
He also notes that we’re losing about 1 ha per second of forest globally. That comes out at 31½ million ha per year.
So, the (C02) effects of the global aviation industry could, theoretically, be annulled by arresting 3 months worth of the current rate of loss of forest.
Now let’s look at some other numbers: Flying brain tells us that aviation is responsible for 3% of mankind’s annual CO2 output. Now clearly C02 isn’t the whole story, but it’s a reasonable starting point. If he’s correct, then we have a need for 2.77x10^8 ha of forest to account for that lot. That is equivalent to just under 9 years loss of forest.
It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the real problem therefore is massive global deforestation and that even the complete elimination of aviation would make only a tiny dent in the problem – apart from the fact that it would probably cause financial collapse to half the planet.
However, let’s look at this sideways. We live on an increasingly polluted planet – as aviators we understand that better than most – we routinely climb in and out of it and see it from many angles. I defy anybody who has flown in and out of any of the Los Angeles airports, or even around the English Midlands on a typical summer day to claim that they’ve not seen serious air pollution. For that matter I challenge anybody to go swimming in the Trent, Ganges, Hudson, Yantze, Danube….
What global warming does is give us a handle on which to hang a clearly necessary start on cleaning the planet up – or at-least stop pumping so much rubbish into the ecosystem and give it a fighting chance of locking away the nasties and starting to recover.
But, I’m afraid that I’m unconvinced that banning Aviation will have any real effect. There are things that will however:-
- Find ways, all of us, to minimise the amount of travel people actually do. Let’s face it, sitting in a car, the back of an airliner, or a railway carriage isn’t actually pleasant. I’m sat here at a computer communicating with all of you, and I can do the same with much of my professional work.
- Stop and reverse deforestation. Not easy, but it’s got to be done.
- Tell the engineering profession to get busy. Shift the economics of industry by taxation or controls on fuel costs. Polluting power plants are unnecessary, highly fuel efficient cars exist and can be made much more appealing, virtually all modern houses burn far more power than is necessary, a far greater proportion of “waste” can be recycled than currently is.
- Give 3rd world countries the technology that we now have that allows us to be relatively non-polluting and efficient. They are only where we (UK, US, etc.) were 50-150 years ago after all but needn’t take as long to get to our position.
- You want job creation? Kick start a bigger, better recycling industry. Just look at what any of us throw out each day, compared to what could be recycled. And apply a bit of common sense - why are we throwing (for example) bottles into a bottle bank to be melted and re-made, when with a bit of sorting most could be cleaned, sterilised and re-used for a fraction of the energy use.
So, I’m afraid that aviation is a high visibility popular target for politicians and environmentalists. But, it really is not the big baddy. That said, we must as an industry do our bit as well, and yes IT IS up to the manufacturers to make the most fuel, energy and pollution efficient aeroplanes – nobody else can.
Of-course we all need to protect our corners. My long term financial wellbeing is tied to the health of the aviation industry, just as Dr.Dave’s is to the long term wellbeing of academe and the “green” industry. But I really think that is only relevant as a factor to be considered – we would all rather live in a clean planet, and we’d all rather be able to travel anywhere on the planet cheaply. So we work together – it’s the only option, not sniping at each other’s vested interests.
Dr.Genghis
PhD in airworthiness, part time university lecturer in aeronautics.
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 24th Jun 2005 at 00:04.