This little gem gets bandied about.....
I found it last night in my latest issue of Scientific American.
Perhaps I was a bit loose with the
measurable significant positive change to the atmosphere over the US
and should have included the word "upper" in front of atmosphere and included a thesis on the effects of N20, H20 (in contrail form) and the ubiquitous Co2 and CO. But then the
environmental lobby in their attempted to discredit the aviation industry
used it so it must be scaremongering.
The real point is not WHICH sector is producing the most but that ALL of them are producing more than they could.
By your argument it's every other sectors problem and devil take the hindmost.
It's not just Chevron as Rob points out, BP and others have been very active in the alternative energy business for some time and have been running media on it since.
You can call it cynical if you like but if you think beyond your personal prejudices Chevron, BP et al have a demonstrable
commercial imperative to stretch the worlds supply, finite or not, for as long as they can by campaigning for efficiency against inefficiency to secure their long term businesses.
Paradoxical but logical. The time they thus buy is being spent on moving towards developing guess what the alternatives.
Guess what? Their business was, is and will be selling ENERGY.
The particular problem for aviation is the energy density, portability and useability of the fuel required, as far as I am aware highly refined hydrocarbons are the only practical economic alternative available in the foreseeable future.
Hydrogen is too bulky and difficult to handle, nuclear is likewise apart from the obvious other risks, methane from sheep and cows? WW2 charcoal burners don't work at M0.82 and my limited intelect can't imagine beyond that.
Road vehicles dont have the weight issues that allow the hybrid technology, ships have been nuclear for years, likewise for electricity production.
And we are the most visible user by yards. In Oz persistent contrails are the exception, in the US and Europe they are ubiquitous to the extent that it could be possible to permanently add 7octa As BTN FL250 and FL450.
Off course that has no effect whatsoever on global warming does it. Yes it reflects heat back but is this nett effect greater than the radiant heat it blocks. Dunno but it sure makes aviaton a highly visible target.
And before we get another lecture on contrails being largely H2O we already know that.
But it is in the public perception the same visible air pollution if they are led that way as the greasy black exhaust out of a badly maintained or old technology truck/ship or car.
Disclaimer and disclosure. Elder Princess gaunty and nephew Prince gaunty are both BSc (Hons) in Natural Resource
Management UWA. The former a senior exec in the Qld EPA and advisor to the Minister, the latter works for a company making a big name in Terrestrial Spectral mapping. This doesn't confer any extra credibility or authority whatsoever to my arguments it simply prevents me from enjoying the luxury of drawing, unchallenged, conclusions that might suit my personal prejudices from time to time, that are not supported by the facts.
These kids and their peers are the ones who are going to have to sort out and actually live with what we argue about here.
mattyj
Don't lets cut off aviations nose to spite its face!!!
I agree lets just carry on as if there is not a problem in the world, continue the use of old kero guzzling clunkers that use
our energy capital rather than the entrepreneurs actual capital to allow ma and pa kettle and the kids to fly to their favourite holiday destination or the business traveller to steal a bit of cut price comfort just for the cost of that energy and a little bit.
If they were required to pay a "tax" on the "excess fuel" used over any given sector they might take a different view.