Airlines, Airports, Routes - and climate change
It's tough for people to give up food or using electricity at home. But cutting out a flight makes a huge difference to a person's carbon footprint.
The obvious first step would be to target the 1% of flyers who make up half of global emissions. But we must all do our part.
You could ban all business jets, limit frequent flyers to a couple of return flights a year and it would not make a difference at all to the climate change problem. I don't know why people can't see this. We don't need to cut carbon emissions by half of one percent, it needs cutting by tens of percent. Aviation cannot do that.
Power generation, surface transport and heavy industries reliance on fossil fuels are the only areas where change can make a difference.
We are Fiddling around with reducing emissions from already very efficient gas turbines but it won't make a damn difference.
Thread Starter
TURIN,
You are absolutely right, but as Tesco have been telling us ad nauseum for years "every little helps". There needs to be a sea change in public attitudes and demands. Fast fashion and the "must have now" attitude towards buying throw away tat has to change and people have to be convinced to move away from cars for short journeys.
Baby steps in these areas as well as reducing wasteful aviation activity such as private jets, positioning etc could together produce meaningful reductions. In isolation aviation is a small cog in a large wheel.
You are absolutely right, but as Tesco have been telling us ad nauseum for years "every little helps". There needs to be a sea change in public attitudes and demands. Fast fashion and the "must have now" attitude towards buying throw away tat has to change and people have to be convinced to move away from cars for short journeys.
Baby steps in these areas as well as reducing wasteful aviation activity such as private jets, positioning etc could together produce meaningful reductions. In isolation aviation is a small cog in a large wheel.
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Southampton
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.bbc.com/news/58160547
That's all very well but cutting aviation emissions by 10% only cuts global emissions by 0.3%.
Cutting cement production by 10% would have a greater effect.
Cutting cement production by 10% would have a greater effect.
You can argue all you want about what is effective or not effective, what can be done & what can’t be done, what produces the most pollution & what produces the least; & it may well be, for all I know, that aviation does not rank very high on the pollution scale. But, what I do know (or perhaps more correctly, suspect) is that nothing meaningful will be done about it all until way after the deadline for doing it has passed. We are stuck with global warming. We had better hope that its ramifications are not anywhere near as bad as has been suggested. The world is too wrapped up in its wasteful & profligate lifestyle to be prepared to make the adjustments which might arrest global warming. The really unfair aspect of it is that it will be those who didn’t pollute the most who suffer the worst, & first.
Thread Starter
kcockayne,
I fear you are absolutely right. Western / developed nations are too full of their own importance and the human race too influenced by religions that tell them we (humans) are superior beings that have a God given right to rape and pillory the planet. Sad really.
That however shouldn't stop those who can see the writing on the wall from trying to encourage change.
Nobody here would be proposing banning air travel as a means to an end but its more about marginal gains across all polluting sectors that might buy the planet time.
I fear you are absolutely right. Western / developed nations are too full of their own importance and the human race too influenced by religions that tell them we (humans) are superior beings that have a God given right to rape and pillory the planet. Sad really.
That however shouldn't stop those who can see the writing on the wall from trying to encourage change.
Nobody here would be proposing banning air travel as a means to an end but its more about marginal gains across all polluting sectors that might buy the planet time.
many people in the "West" want a "western lifestyle" - they feast on influencers, social media, stories about consumption, travel and spending
That horse bolted a longgg time ago
That horse bolted a longgg time ago
And yet we see a proliferation of wind power generation especially in western Europe. The UK alone has cut its reliance on fossil fuels massively since the 1980s. In the winter months between a third and a half of power generation comes from wind. We are doing something positive, I just hope the rest of the world follows. Texas seems to have some huge wind farms, maybe there's hope yet even for oil rich areas.
I cannot deny that the UK, & others have made great efforts to address the power generation problem. The question is, “is it enough ?” It probably isn’t, at the moment. We have to more than redouble our efforts in this area. The depressing realization is that there are so many more dimensions to address in our attempt to stop (or even, reverse) global warming. The list is practically endless; & addressing it seriously & effectively will demand so many sacrifices from us , as regards our current & future lifestyles, that I fear that the requisite changes will not prove acceptable without strong government direction & imposition; & equally strong civil resistance & severe social unrest. For instance, what will happen if we in the UK &, what is referred to as “the west”, make all the changes required of us, & the Chinese , Indians, Russians etc. , whoever, decide not to ? I can only see, in that instance, impoverished Western economies which cannot compete with those that don’t change in the same way that we MIGHT; resulting in civil unrest here & war against those “unco-operative societies” who refuse to do anything meaningfully appropriate, & who carry on as before (with much stronger economies than we have, as a result). My understanding of the situation , & the likely response to it, is that what is necessary is going to be unobtainable - for so many different reasons - that we are already past the “point of no return”.
I may be wrong, but there are SO MANY humans doing such stupid things & reluctant to consider adjusting their lifestyle aspirations significantly downwards - & I am one of them- that we will not address this situation with the gravity & expedition that it requires.
I may be wrong, but there are SO MANY humans doing such stupid things & reluctant to consider adjusting their lifestyle aspirations significantly downwards - & I am one of them- that we will not address this situation with the gravity & expedition that it requires.
Paxing All Over The World
Not airline but this is the kind of problem the world faces. Notwithstanding the amount of plastic used in the airline worl.
The Guardian
The number of fossil fuel and petrochemical industry lobbyists has increased by more than a third at UN talks to agree the first global treaty to cut plastic pollution, analysis shows.
Most plastic is made from fossil fuels via a chemical process known as cracking, and 196 lobbyists from both industries are at the UN talks in Ottawa, Canada, where countries are attempting to come to an agreement to curb plastic production as part of a treaty to cut global plastic waste, according to analysis by the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel).
The 196 lobbyists registered for the talks represent a 37% increase from the 143 lobbyists registered at the last talks, in Nairobi. This in turn was a 36% increase on the previous year’s number. Increased plastic production is a major part of the fossil fuel industry’s plans for the future, and any attempts to curb production, such as those being discussed at the UN talks, are an obvious threat to their profits.
Most plastic is made from fossil fuels via a chemical process known as cracking, and 196 lobbyists from both industries are at the UN talks in Ottawa, Canada, where countries are attempting to come to an agreement to curb plastic production as part of a treaty to cut global plastic waste, according to analysis by the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel).
The 196 lobbyists registered for the talks represent a 37% increase from the 143 lobbyists registered at the last talks, in Nairobi. This in turn was a 36% increase on the previous year’s number. Increased plastic production is a major part of the fossil fuel industry’s plans for the future, and any attempts to curb production, such as those being discussed at the UN talks, are an obvious threat to their profits.
The communities most affected by plastic pollution, including Pacific small island states, are at the talks in far fewer numbers and do not have the same access to meetings with member states, Ciel said.
Tori Cress, communications manager at the environmental group Keepers of the Water, which is part of the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus at the talks, said: “Industry lobbyists are enjoying seats on state delegations while the communities most impacted by the plastic crisis struggle to have their voices heard.
“While we are surrounded by industry-sponsored pro-plastics ads, Indigenous peoples’ representatives experience lack of access, are given extremely limited time to speak, and lack recognition even at the First Nations table. Plastics have poisoned our water and what happens to the water happens to people.”
Discussions at the UN treaty talks in Ottawa are attempting to break the deadlock between fossil fuel nations and others pushing for an ambitious treaty to deal with the whole lifecycle of plastic.
Tori Cress, communications manager at the environmental group Keepers of the Water, which is part of the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus at the talks, said: “Industry lobbyists are enjoying seats on state delegations while the communities most impacted by the plastic crisis struggle to have their voices heard.
“While we are surrounded by industry-sponsored pro-plastics ads, Indigenous peoples’ representatives experience lack of access, are given extremely limited time to speak, and lack recognition even at the First Nations table. Plastics have poisoned our water and what happens to the water happens to people.”
Discussions at the UN treaty talks in Ottawa are attempting to break the deadlock between fossil fuel nations and others pushing for an ambitious treaty to deal with the whole lifecycle of plastic.
"And yet we see a proliferation of wind power generation especially in western Europe. The UK alone has cut its reliance on fossil fuels massively since the 1980s. I"
Vast incentives, tax breaks, higher prices - works every time
Recently the Govt tightened the terms a bit and they got no takers for the next offshore wind bidding round
Vast incentives, tax breaks, higher prices - works every time
Recently the Govt tightened the terms a bit and they got no takers for the next offshore wind bidding round
If you want to help the climate, don’t worry about aviation as it’s the square root of naff all in the big scheme. The best way to help the climate is to stop cutting down the rainforests and have less babies.
The 90s the population was just over 6 billion, it’s now over 8 billion.
The 90s the population was just over 6 billion, it’s now over 8 billion.
Thread Starter
If you want to help the climate, don’t worry about aviation as it’s the square root of naff all in the big scheme. The best way to help the climate is to stop cutting down the rainforests and have less babies.
The 90s the population was just over 6 billion, it’s now over 8 billion.
The 90s the population was just over 6 billion, it’s now over 8 billion.
However if all the smaller (not insignificant) polluters do something rather than saying its not their responsibility, while the larger contributors also take steps, which they are doing, we may be in a better place. Fortunately aviation is making an effort but there's far too much green wash going on, not necessarily by airlines, but by airports too.
"And yet we see a proliferation of wind power generation especially in western Europe. The UK alone has cut its reliance on fossil fuels massively since the 1980s. I"
Vast incentives, tax breaks, higher prices - works every time
Recently the Govt tightened the terms a bit and they got no takers for the next offshore wind bidding round
Vast incentives, tax breaks, higher prices - works every time
Recently the Govt tightened the terms a bit and they got no takers for the next offshore wind bidding round
Still what price is the future worth?
UK Govt Announcement 2023
The government has increased the maximum price for offshore wind projects in its flagship renewables scheme to further cement the UK as a world leader in clean energy. Following an extensive review of the latest evidence, including the impact of global events on supply chains, the government has raised the maximum price offshore wind and other renewables projects can receive in the next Contracts for Difference (CfD) auction to ensure it is performing effectively.
The CfD scheme ensures renewable energy projects receive a guaranteed price from the government for the electricity they generate, encouraging continued investment in the UK - which is already home to the world’s 5 largest operational offshore wind farm projects and has increased electricity generation from renewables from 6% in the first quarter of 2010 to 48% in the first quarter of this year.
The maximum strike price has been increased by 66% for offshore wind projects, from £44/MWh to £73/MWh, and by 52% for floating offshore wind projects, from £116/MWh to £176/MWh ahead of Allocation Round 6 (AR6) next year.
The government has increased the maximum price for offshore wind projects in its flagship renewables scheme to further cement the UK as a world leader in clean energy. Following an extensive review of the latest evidence, including the impact of global events on supply chains, the government has raised the maximum price offshore wind and other renewables projects can receive in the next Contracts for Difference (CfD) auction to ensure it is performing effectively.
The CfD scheme ensures renewable energy projects receive a guaranteed price from the government for the electricity they generate, encouraging continued investment in the UK - which is already home to the world’s 5 largest operational offshore wind farm projects and has increased electricity generation from renewables from 6% in the first quarter of 2010 to 48% in the first quarter of this year.
The maximum strike price has been increased by 66% for offshore wind projects, from £44/MWh to £73/MWh, and by 52% for floating offshore wind projects, from £116/MWh to £176/MWh ahead of Allocation Round 6 (AR6) next year.
Following an alert from the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC), the European Commission and EU consumer authorities (Network of Consumer Protection Cooperation - CPC - Authorities) sent letters to 20 airlines identifying several types of potentially misleading green claims and inviting them to bring their practices in line with EU consumer law within 30 days.
Key elements of the action:
The European Commission and the CPC network, have identified several types of potentially misleading practices by 20 airlines, such as:
The European Commission and the CPC network, have identified several types of potentially misleading practices by 20 airlines, such as:
- creating the incorrect impression that paying an additional fee to finance climate projects with less environmental impact or to support the use of alternative aviation fuels can reduce or fully counterbalance the CO2 emissions;
- using the term “sustainable aviation fuels” (SAF) without clearly justifying the environmental impact of such fuels;
- using the terms “green”, “sustainable” or “responsible” in an absolute way or use other implicit green claims;
- claiming that the airline is moving towards net-zero greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) or any future environmental performance, without clear and verifiable commitments, targets and an independent monitoring system;
- presenting consumers with a “calculator” for the CO2 emissions of a specific flight, without providing sufficient scientific proof on whether such calculation is reliable and without the information on the elements used for such calculation;
- presenting consumers with a comparison of flights regarding their CO2 emissions, without providing sufficient and accurate information on the elements the comparison is based on.
How many posts before we get into a Brexit hamsterwheel!?
Thread Starter
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pres.../en/ip_24_2322
How many posts before we get into a Brexit hamsterwheel!?
How many posts before we get into a Brexit hamsterwheel!?
