Airlines Savaged by Environment Minister
Guest
Posts: n/a
Airlines Savaged by Environment Minister
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6233019.stm
Why he should pick on RyanAir of all airlines is beyond comprehension. Regardless of your view on MOL, RyanAir's fleet, like many of the LoCos' is probably as efficient as is practically possible
It's an irony that one needs to point people to the IPPC Special Report on Aviation that started this anti-air travel campaign to show that Aviation is the least of our worries...if indeed we need to be worried about anything (see Global Warmng thread in JetBlast).
Why he should pick on RyanAir of all airlines is beyond comprehension. Regardless of your view on MOL, RyanAir's fleet, like many of the LoCos' is probably as efficient as is practically possible
It's an irony that one needs to point people to the IPPC Special Report on Aviation that started this anti-air travel campaign to show that Aviation is the least of our worries...if indeed we need to be worried about anything (see Global Warmng thread in JetBlast).
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: London
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was an Environment Minister looking to raise my profile to the masses ahead of turbulent times in my government, I would pick on the most obvious source of pollution (that didn't upset the industry chiefs that paid for my campaign trail) - the great big jet engines that throw out all that visible "smoke" directly into our skies. 
And to highlight the culprits I would use the most prominant brand in the LoCo industry. Then I'd bury anything that relates to the facts in spin. Que "Picture in the Guardian of a pile of 737s on a taxiway waiting to depart" and possibly a Sun Exclusive "Ryan killing our planet shocker"
I'm afraid we'll have to leave it to green peace to attack the real culprits in their newsletters.
And to highlight the culprits I would use the most prominant brand in the LoCo industry. Then I'd bury anything that relates to the facts in spin. Que "Picture in the Guardian of a pile of 737s on a taxiway waiting to depart" and possibly a Sun Exclusive "Ryan killing our planet shocker"
I'm afraid we'll have to leave it to green peace to attack the real culprits in their newsletters.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps someone should tell the headline-seeking Minister (and the media) that aviation contributes only 3% of global carbon dioxide emissions.
They might also point out that, unlike most other energy users, aviation currently has no alternative but to use liquid hydrocarbons.
'leave it to green peace to attack the real culprits in their newsletters.'
Hmm.
I'm not sure the activists in Greenpeace can be relied upon as a balanced source of information.
They might also point out that, unlike most other energy users, aviation currently has no alternative but to use liquid hydrocarbons.
'leave it to green peace to attack the real culprits in their newsletters.'
Hmm.
I'm not sure the activists in Greenpeace can be relied upon as a balanced source of information.
Pilot of the Airwaves
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Close to the Med
Age: 74
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It also needs pointing out to this loonatic that Britain's aged train population is blowing a damn site more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the aircraft flying into and out of the UK.
Perhaps he should direct his attentions there.....or is he not wanting to mention rail travel, with the recent hike in fares?
Perhaps he should direct his attentions there.....or is he not wanting to mention rail travel, with the recent hike in fares?
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Bass rock, east side.
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew accross London last night, yes a few strobe lights could be counted, but nothing like the miles and miles of headlights and taillights streaming along the main trunk routes in and out of the capital. After we landed I drove the short distance home along the M1 sandwiched amongst hundreds of HGV's carrying goods that should be transported on the highly efficient electric railway network that we do not have in place!! Short term goverment policy will never change, the glamour of a Aviation shock horror tail is perfect ammo for these idiot politicians.It will be Aviation that is made the scapgoat, rest assured.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair claims to be one of the fastest growing airlines in Europe, growing in fact somewhat faster than the increase in emissions attributed to the airline industry in general, and faster than the airline industry overall. Irrespective of how efficient its fleet is, it therefore follows that the amount of emissions produced by Ryanair is increasing as a proportion of the total produced by airlines. Seeing as all Ryanair's fleet is the same, 10% more Ryanair aeroplanes and 10% more Ryanair flights broadly speaking means 10% more crap being kicked into the environment by Ryanair. Whilst I fully agree that the airline industry is being unfairly singled out at present (especially in comparison to other polluting industries), given Ryanair's growth the airline seems to be a very legitimate target to be singled out for criticism from within the industry in general.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Stockport
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was talking to a friend from the rail industry last night and it appears that the lastest high speed diesel may be cancelled before it is even bult because of pollution levels so I guess it is back to horse and cart until the EC come in with a new low level of pollution from horse droppings
G-I-B
G-I-B
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: London
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure the activists in Greenpeace can be relied upon as a balanced source of information
"Being attacked by this man (Environ Minister) is like being attacked by a dead sheep"
Guest
Posts: n/a
I see the news story I linked to has been adorned with some spurious graphs. The data that shows 20% of transport related emissions is for the UK only. Why not the Shetlands, then we can see 90% related to aviation!! It is totally invalid to localize useage as GW effects (if any at all), are global, except for the acclerated decay of the GW gas Methane by Aviation, which is localised (according to the IPPC Special Report on Aviation).
Here's some data from the same source document.
Aviation Petrolum Consumption:
2000 = 49.09 million tonnes.
2004 = 50.99 million tonnes.
Number of PAX transported:
2000 = 180 million.
2004 = 216 million.
So a 20% increase in PAX for a 2% increase in total fuel consumption. Pretty good going I would say. Mainly due, I wager, to the basic need to be more efficient than the competition.
If fuel consumption has risen by 2% since 2000, then is there a graph showing a %140 rise in carbon emissions over 30 years when the last four years indicate the increase would be more like 80%. In other words, how can carbon emission increase more than consumption?
We are being diddled, but why isn't the Aviation Industry fighting this? Why is it only MOL who kicks back at this nonesense?
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ats_609987.pdf
EastMids,
No it doesn't follow at all I'm afraid. If RyanAir wasn't running those slots, somebody else would be. If RyanAir are effieicent, regardless of how big they are or by how much they are expanding, then there is less wate - the total produced by airlines reduces.
Here's some data from the same source document.
Aviation Petrolum Consumption:
2000 = 49.09 million tonnes.
2004 = 50.99 million tonnes.
Number of PAX transported:
2000 = 180 million.
2004 = 216 million.
So a 20% increase in PAX for a 2% increase in total fuel consumption. Pretty good going I would say. Mainly due, I wager, to the basic need to be more efficient than the competition.
If fuel consumption has risen by 2% since 2000, then is there a graph showing a %140 rise in carbon emissions over 30 years when the last four years indicate the increase would be more like 80%. In other words, how can carbon emission increase more than consumption?
We are being diddled, but why isn't the Aviation Industry fighting this? Why is it only MOL who kicks back at this nonesense?
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ats_609987.pdf
EastMids,
Irrespective of how efficient its fleet is, it therefore follows that the amount of emissions produced by Ryanair is increasing as a proportion of the total produced by airlines
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What on earth (forgive the pun 
) does a politician know about weather systems. It's more harmful for someone such as him to be 'sounding off' about issues relating to the livelihoods of many, many people. As previously stated he probably does own a fuel thirsty car or perhaps even two in the family and makes numerous unnecessary trips here and there. However there have never been a shortage of hypocrits in the political theatre and thank godness O'Leary will give him a good pasting in return.
No matter how high the bar is raised aviation still busts a gut to achieve the demands placed upon it. It appears that the general public interpret the vast complexities of aviation on a par with their everyday lives and don't realise how difficult it still is to conduct air operations and still meet safety and commercial targets.
The current politcal regime is using environment as a rear guard action to keep everyone engaged in the issue so that they don't notice the despair that besets the rest of the country. These politcians can also throw out loose comments and not be accountable for them but we don't have the same luxury afforded to us. The aviation industry can hit back and discretely ban them from travelling with individual airlines. That way the response is behind closed doors and not in the public domain so they can't cry about it.
The environment debate (I use that term very loosely) is an easy topic for the semi-educated masses to take on. It doesn't require much in terms of knowledge, experience or even presentation just pure fear factor. I doubt the same giddy matrons, eco-idiots and other lifetime 'campaigners' would be able to present an equally alarming view on the state of not just the economy but the strategic position of the UK on the global stage. Could they really argue the sever ramifications of our happy-dappy education when applied to the seriousness of the corporate world. We don't need all this crap in our everyday lives; hugs, icecaps, spin, "lessons learnt", minister of farting, look I'm the victim, Marvel comic's Captain Blair to the rescue and of course unaccountable behaviour = vandalism (I do whatever I want, whenever and I'm not responsible for it).
) does a politician know about weather systems. It's more harmful for someone such as him to be 'sounding off' about issues relating to the livelihoods of many, many people. As previously stated he probably does own a fuel thirsty car or perhaps even two in the family and makes numerous unnecessary trips here and there. However there have never been a shortage of hypocrits in the political theatre and thank godness O'Leary will give him a good pasting in return.No matter how high the bar is raised aviation still busts a gut to achieve the demands placed upon it. It appears that the general public interpret the vast complexities of aviation on a par with their everyday lives and don't realise how difficult it still is to conduct air operations and still meet safety and commercial targets.
The current politcal regime is using environment as a rear guard action to keep everyone engaged in the issue so that they don't notice the despair that besets the rest of the country. These politcians can also throw out loose comments and not be accountable for them but we don't have the same luxury afforded to us. The aviation industry can hit back and discretely ban them from travelling with individual airlines. That way the response is behind closed doors and not in the public domain so they can't cry about it.
The environment debate (I use that term very loosely) is an easy topic for the semi-educated masses to take on. It doesn't require much in terms of knowledge, experience or even presentation just pure fear factor. I doubt the same giddy matrons, eco-idiots and other lifetime 'campaigners' would be able to present an equally alarming view on the state of not just the economy but the strategic position of the UK on the global stage. Could they really argue the sever ramifications of our happy-dappy education when applied to the seriousness of the corporate world. We don't need all this crap in our everyday lives; hugs, icecaps, spin, "lessons learnt", minister of farting, look I'm the victim, Marvel comic's Captain Blair to the rescue and of course unaccountable behaviour = vandalism (I do whatever I want, whenever and I'm not responsible for it).
Last edited by boogie-nicey; 5th Jan 2007 at 14:18.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Munich
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although aviation may only contribute approx 3% of the global CO2 emissions, it would also seem important to measure the % contribution to C02 in the upper atmosphere since apparently that is where CO2 and other pollutants have a greater warming effect. The overall contribution to global warming from aviation pollution could be significantly higher than 3%. Although there has been great strides made in reductions of CO2 emissions from jet engines, the modern jet engine has signifcantly increased nitrogen oxide emissions. Nitrogen oxide reacts with other gases in the air to form ozone, another heat trapping gas. At the same time Nitrogen oxide removes methane thus probably cooling to some extent. In any case might it not be sensible to limit growth in some way to the rate at which aviation improves its fuel efficiency?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South East
Age: 56
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The global warming debate is so frustrating. The politicians latch on to the tinyiest piece of gloom and turn it into a vote winning or revenue making exercise. Let the scientist find out the truth before making knee jerk reactions.
I agree we should try to minimise where practicable our emissions a nd recycle if possible. But its pretty naive to think that for the relatively minute time we have graced this earth, we could really have such an effect on the environment.
Some say this pattern is a precursor to another ice age? Some say the sun is at its hottest for nearly 12000 years. That would warm us up!
The figures as previously mentioned speak for itself. Per head and distance travelled. Air travel is up there with the cleanest.
Otherwise, dust of the Cutty Sark and HMS Victory and lets all sail everywhere!!!!!
I agree we should try to minimise where practicable our emissions a nd recycle if possible. But its pretty naive to think that for the relatively minute time we have graced this earth, we could really have such an effect on the environment.
Some say this pattern is a precursor to another ice age? Some say the sun is at its hottest for nearly 12000 years. That would warm us up!
The figures as previously mentioned speak for itself. Per head and distance travelled. Air travel is up there with the cleanest.
Otherwise, dust of the Cutty Sark and HMS Victory and lets all sail everywhere!!!!!
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High Wing
RPKs would be a better measure than passengers though when comparing fuel stats. Those figures at first glance more likely indicate that pax are taking more shorthaul trips which is not necessarily good news especially where an alternative such as electric trains is out there, in theory. However displacing internal British traffic to rail requires both huge investment in high speed rail and more nuclear power and other low GHG sources to ensure that the CO2 does not merely displace from aviation fuel to coal.
For me I would put a fairly flat levy on air travel, since the longer the trip the fewer the (feasible) alternatives.
RPKs would be a better measure than passengers though when comparing fuel stats. Those figures at first glance more likely indicate that pax are taking more shorthaul trips which is not necessarily good news especially where an alternative such as electric trains is out there, in theory. However displacing internal British traffic to rail requires both huge investment in high speed rail and more nuclear power and other low GHG sources to ensure that the CO2 does not merely displace from aviation fuel to coal.
For me I would put a fairly flat levy on air travel, since the longer the trip the fewer the (feasible) alternatives.
Last edited by MarkD; 5th Jan 2007 at 15:05.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps one of the more effective leads would be to pursue the path of the big Multinationals and perhaps Oil companies. They keep the politicians well and truely off there back, so why can't we?
Food is high in chemicals and other processed 'adaptations' that it certainly has an overbearing affect on health but they get away with it. The oil companies should be the real target of the eco-warriors but even they realise they are too powerful and mighty to take on. The oil industry pays billions to maintain the status-quo so that it doesn't have loose it's grip on not just profits but in some cases literally the economy itself!
Aviation is major and strategic so we can fight back but in a coordinated manner so that it's as effective as possible.
Food is high in chemicals and other processed 'adaptations' that it certainly has an overbearing affect on health but they get away with it. The oil companies should be the real target of the eco-warriors but even they realise they are too powerful and mighty to take on. The oil industry pays billions to maintain the status-quo so that it doesn't have loose it's grip on not just profits but in some cases literally the economy itself!
Aviation is major and strategic so we can fight back but in a coordinated manner so that it's as effective as possible.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Iolar,
Yes, but it seems there is some complexity there too. Apparently NOx emmission decay Methane. It is estimated that there is 2% less Methane due to avaition than there would otherwise be. Trop ozone (the bad kind) is created by aircraft and it is suggested that trop ozone has a greater impact than at ground level. However, sulphur and water emissions from aircraft also break down upper top and lower strat ozone (a good thing). So far no data has been gathered on the effect of this. It is worth mentioning that creation of ozone is a global impact, the effects of decay of methane and upper trop/lower strat ozone are local.
As a caveat, I don't want to give the impression I understand this, it is just what I have read!
MarKD,
Adding revenue to the equation probably doesn't tell us much because it will, theoretically, have been reduced due to the £0.99 flights, etc.
In the UK it seems there was a total of 738K movements in 2000 and 748K movements. This is a 1.4% increase and is less than the increase in PAX so I suspect there has been an increase in medium and long haul? It's an assumption I know. This seems to back up the CAA's report which suggests that LoCos have not really had as big an impact as thought on short haul trips other than to make them cheaper!!
Although aviation may only contribute approx 3% of the global CO2 emissions, it would also seem important to measure the % contribution to C02 in the upper atmosphere since apparently that is where CO2 and other pollutants have a greater warming effect. The overall contribution to global warming from aviation pollution could be significantly higher than 3%.
As a caveat, I don't want to give the impression I understand this, it is just what I have read!
MarKD,
Adding revenue to the equation probably doesn't tell us much because it will, theoretically, have been reduced due to the £0.99 flights, etc.
In the UK it seems there was a total of 738K movements in 2000 and 748K movements. This is a 1.4% increase and is less than the increase in PAX so I suspect there has been an increase in medium and long haul? It's an assumption I know. This seems to back up the CAA's report which suggests that LoCos have not really had as big an impact as thought on short haul trips other than to make them cheaper!!
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High Wing - I was thinking more about the K rather than the R
http://www.airfranceklm-finance.com/...lossary.html#R
(edit - also given that FR operate nearly full 189 seaters a movement from one of them is pretty much as good as a 80% full 767)
http://www.airfranceklm-finance.com/...lossary.html#R
(edit - also given that FR operate nearly full 189 seaters a movement from one of them is pretty much as good as a 80% full 767)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: On the right of the clowns and to the left of the jokers
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact is that weather your talking about Carbon Trading for Airlines, Increasing Rail Faires, Congestion Charging, Pay (lots) as you Drive or whatever, It has bugger all to do with the environment.
Im not able to do less driving whatever they charge, and for other people this will read across to flying, shipping, trains or whaterver. The government will therefore hijack the issue to raise a load of money for its own back pocket. If any of us dare to complain we'll be made to look like murderers trying to distroy the world and everything in it.
There really is no balanced debate on the matter, when was the last time you saw a news item with a scientist who reconed that climate chage would happen anyway? In any case, it's about time all of us, not just MOL made a stand.
I've just read a release from AOPA which recons that the new tax rates that will be charged on AVGAS will spell the end of the economic viability of reasearch into lower emission fuels. Maybe it is the Government and the Irresponsible face of Polotics that are destroying the planet after all?
HS125
Im not able to do less driving whatever they charge, and for other people this will read across to flying, shipping, trains or whaterver. The government will therefore hijack the issue to raise a load of money for its own back pocket. If any of us dare to complain we'll be made to look like murderers trying to distroy the world and everything in it.
There really is no balanced debate on the matter, when was the last time you saw a news item with a scientist who reconed that climate chage would happen anyway? In any case, it's about time all of us, not just MOL made a stand.
I've just read a release from AOPA which recons that the new tax rates that will be charged on AVGAS will spell the end of the economic viability of reasearch into lower emission fuels. Maybe it is the Government and the Irresponsible face of Polotics that are destroying the planet after all?
HS125