Airlines, Airports, Routes - and climate change
Look, let's face it. Aviation is, as has been said above, going to be one of the most difficult industries to decarbonate. Frankly, I don't see how it can be done - short of banning the greater part of the industry from operating at all. What will be the result of such action ? 1. Hardly anyone flying 2.Most airlines out of business 3. Tens of millions out of work 4. Tens of thousands of very expensive a/c lying idle 5. A huge number of people unable to survive financially 6. Many finance companies, banks etc. unable to reclaim their investments in the industry 7. Other industries adversely affected financially, because their customers (formerly reliant on the aviation industry for their livelihood) are unable to afford their services/products 8. Governments unable to control civil unrest brought on by the aviation shutdown 9. A huge reduction -90%+ in global travel 10. Any other cataclysm you can think of,
But, relax, for these, & other reasons brought on by the practicalities of action for overcoming "Global Warming"; nothing meaningful will be done.
We will have to hope that the whole theory is incorrect - which may be a very vain hope - & carry on much as we did before !
But, relax, for these, & other reasons brought on by the practicalities of action for overcoming "Global Warming"; nothing meaningful will be done.
We will have to hope that the whole theory is incorrect - which may be a very vain hope - & carry on much as we did before !
Thread Starter
It's not really about stopping your average family going on their summer holiday. But there does need to be a realisation that:
a) aviation will be one of the hardest industries to decarbonise, so we need to get started ASAP
b) reducing unnecessary flying will be an important part of that.
I think a good first step would be to reform Air Passenger Duty to help influence airline and customer behaviours. Some sort of "climate multiplier" on top of the current rates:
a) aviation will be one of the hardest industries to decarbonise, so we need to get started ASAP
b) reducing unnecessary flying will be an important part of that.
I think a good first step would be to reform Air Passenger Duty to help influence airline and customer behaviours. Some sort of "climate multiplier" on top of the current rates:
- 0.75 for flights on next-gen or turboprop aircraft.
- 3 for flights where there is a viable train alternative (eg, >5 direct trains per day, <5 hrs journey).
- 10 for private jets (or 50 tbh).
- 1 for everything else (ie, unchanged).
Paxing All Over The World
Shipping. The container ships, the bulk carriers and (fewer) the cruise ships.
As a large part of the world decided to outsource their manufacturing to the Orient, then ship it across the globe and, as we need to import oil and gas across the globe - we see the problem.
As a large part of the world decided to outsource their manufacturing to the Orient, then ship it across the globe and, as we need to import oil and gas across the globe - we see the problem.
Look, let's face it. Aviation is, as has been said above, going to be one of the most difficult industries to decarbonate. Frankly, I don't see how it can be done - short of banning the greater part of the industry from operating at all. What will be the result of such action ? 1. Hardly anyone flying 2.Most airlines out of business 3. Tens of millions out of work 4. Tens of thousands of very expensive a/c lying idle 5. A huge number of people unable to survive financially 6. Many finance companies, banks etc. unable to reclaim their investments in the industry 7. Other industries adversely affected financially, because their customers (formerly reliant on the aviation industry for their livelihood) are unable to afford their services/products 8. Governments unable to control civil unrest brought on by the aviation shutdown 9. A huge reduction -90%+ in global travel 10. Any other cataclysm you can think of,
But, relax, for these, & other reasons brought on by the practicalities of action for overcoming "Global Warming"; nothing meaningful will be done.
We will have to hope that the whole theory is incorrect - which may be a very vain hope - & carry on much as we did before !
But, relax, for these, & other reasons brought on by the practicalities of action for overcoming "Global Warming"; nothing meaningful will be done.
We will have to hope that the whole theory is incorrect - which may be a very vain hope - & carry on much as we did before !
Blaming aviation for it is not the answer.
I completely agree with you - all I intended to say, was that I don’t think that anything meaningful or effective to deal with it will ever be done. Therefor, we have to hope that there is a mistake in the theory, or that we get lucky !
I don't think anyone wants to blame aviation as the sole source of climate change. But it is a source of climate change.
We're in a boat, it's holed beneath the waterline. Just because the holes are bigger at the other end of the boat that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be bailing too.
We're in a boat, it's holed beneath the waterline. Just because the holes are bigger at the other end of the boat that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be bailing too.
Whatever we do the world i getting warmer - we may be able to affect the rate of change but it won't affect the destination
It's great that the world is warming up as of course far less people die of the heat as they do from the cold. Just ask those pensioners huddled around their one bar electric fire.
Global warming yes please 👍
Global warming yes please 👍
But, just in case you're sincere, deaths from climate change won't just come directly from extreme heat or cold or other extreme weather. Deaths will happen because there won't be enough food.
I don't think anyone wants to blame aviation as the sole source of climate change. But it is a source of climate change.
We're in a boat, it's holed beneath the waterline. Just because the holes are bigger at the other end of the boat that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be bailing too.
We're in a boat, it's holed beneath the waterline. Just because the holes are bigger at the other end of the boat that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be bailing too.
The narrative from the MSM is 'AVIATION BAD'.
Fixing the big holes gives you a chance of staying afloat. Fixing the small ones means you're going to sink no matter how hard you bail.
Aviation is conspicuous consumption - how often do you see a containership, where as aircraft and their images are everywhere.
There's also the subliminal effect - aircraft are noisy and fast, so they must be wasteful, right? Where as ships float, so they must be efficient as water is doing the heavy lifting. That's just common sense!
There's also the subliminal effect - aircraft are noisy and fast, so they must be wasteful, right? Where as ships float, so they must be efficient as water is doing the heavy lifting. That's just common sense!
Thread Starter
Aviation is conspicuous consumption - how often do you see a containership, where as aircraft and their images are everywhere.
There's also the subliminal effect - aircraft are noisy and fast, so they must be wasteful, right? Where as ships float, so they must be efficient as water is doing the heavy lifting. That's just common sense!
There's also the subliminal effect - aircraft are noisy and fast, so they must be wasteful, right? Where as ships float, so they must be efficient as water is doing the heavy lifting. That's just common sense!
Nobody (well except the extremists) asked for aviation to be stopped, but for real, as opposed to greenwash, steps to be taken to reduce its impact and thankfully some steps are being taken. As with all sectors though, the steps aren't big enough.
Problem is that climate change will lead to big changes in where people live and where their food comes from. Substantial migration of hundreds of millions of people will occur. No-one wants this but there really will be no alternative. We can't STOP climate change but we can perhaps SLOW it
Paxing All Over The World
I agree Asturias56 When looking at things to reduce,we know that a family flying to a holiday once a year is not a big problem and provides them with an important part of their life. In the last couple of days I noticed two things that some will claim are VITAL to their very existence:
1) How does the Met Gala in NYC benefit the world? All those clothes and effort and human ingenuity ...
2) How does the Formula 1 circuit help us? How much fuel do they use going round in circles and then (sometimes) flying the cars across the world to do it again? I can see that a few men collect 'fame' and money' but ...
These are not popular views but, if you want to add in other fuel hungry events like Tractor Pulls and Indy 500, they start to add up. I wonder if anyone has done a carbon footprint assesment of them?
1) How does the Met Gala in NYC benefit the world? All those clothes and effort and human ingenuity ...
2) How does the Formula 1 circuit help us? How much fuel do they use going round in circles and then (sometimes) flying the cars across the world to do it again? I can see that a few men collect 'fame' and money' but ...
These are not popular views but, if you want to add in other fuel hungry events like Tractor Pulls and Indy 500, they start to add up. I wonder if anyone has done a carbon footprint assesment of them?
Problem is that climate change will lead to big changes in where people live and where their food comes from. Substantial migration of hundreds of millions of people will occur. No-one wants this but there really will be no alternative. We can't STOP climate change but we can perhaps SLOW it
From a resource standpoint, we’re doing it wrong.
There is a substantially scarcer supply of “portable fuel” than there is of stationary energy supplies.
It is idiotic that we are burning natural gas in ludicrous quantities, to generate electricity when, for the same amount of carbon per KWh (more or less) we could be using the essentially inexhaustible reserves of coal in our country (which is now being largely exported). LNG works great to run vehicles, and if we weren’t pissing it all away, we’d be able to use it to fuel OTR trucks (like FedEx and UPS do now) for essentially eternity.
the convenience of diesel and gasoline are hard to beat for small vehicle propulsion, and the advent of hybrid technology for stop and go driving is hard to argue with.
Kerosene is essentially a byproduct of gasoline (and lighter than octane hydrocarbon distillation/cat cracking).
that’s why the airlines can often buy it for the same or less than the spot price of high quality crude when they do it on longer term contracts.
Bunker Oil, the stuff that is left over, after all the good things are removed, doesn’t cost very much, but has a lot of energy in it, if you’re ingenious enough to know how to use it. Most of the worlds shipping lines use it in giant diesel engines that require a pre-heater to liquify the stuff sufficiently to actually be injected into the cylinders.
There is literally not much else one could use this stuff for except road construction/maintenance, and we are using what is essentially chemical garbage to power a big chunk of the world’s commerce.
Intercontinental air traffic requires an energy-dense fuel source, and Kerosene fits the bill beautifully.
There is a substantially scarcer supply of “portable fuel” than there is of stationary energy supplies.
It is idiotic that we are burning natural gas in ludicrous quantities, to generate electricity when, for the same amount of carbon per KWh (more or less) we could be using the essentially inexhaustible reserves of coal in our country (which is now being largely exported). LNG works great to run vehicles, and if we weren’t pissing it all away, we’d be able to use it to fuel OTR trucks (like FedEx and UPS do now) for essentially eternity.
the convenience of diesel and gasoline are hard to beat for small vehicle propulsion, and the advent of hybrid technology for stop and go driving is hard to argue with.
Kerosene is essentially a byproduct of gasoline (and lighter than octane hydrocarbon distillation/cat cracking).
that’s why the airlines can often buy it for the same or less than the spot price of high quality crude when they do it on longer term contracts.
Bunker Oil, the stuff that is left over, after all the good things are removed, doesn’t cost very much, but has a lot of energy in it, if you’re ingenious enough to know how to use it. Most of the worlds shipping lines use it in giant diesel engines that require a pre-heater to liquify the stuff sufficiently to actually be injected into the cylinders.
There is literally not much else one could use this stuff for except road construction/maintenance, and we are using what is essentially chemical garbage to power a big chunk of the world’s commerce.
Intercontinental air traffic requires an energy-dense fuel source, and Kerosene fits the bill beautifully.
I agree Asturias56 When looking at things to reduce,we know that a family flying to a holiday once a year is not a big problem and provides them with an important part of their life. In the last couple of days I noticed two things that some will claim are VITAL to their very existence:
1) How does the Met Gala in NYC benefit the world? All those clothes and effort and human ingenuity ...
2) How does the Formula 1 circuit help us? How much fuel do they use going round in circles and then (sometimes) flying the cars across the world to do it again? I can see that a few men collect 'fame' and money' but ...
These are not popular views but, if you want to add in other fuel hungry events like Tractor Pulls and Indy 500, they start to add up. I wonder if anyone has done a carbon footprint assesment of them?
1) How does the Met Gala in NYC benefit the world? All those clothes and effort and human ingenuity ...
2) How does the Formula 1 circuit help us? How much fuel do they use going round in circles and then (sometimes) flying the cars across the world to do it again? I can see that a few men collect 'fame' and money' but ...
These are not popular views but, if you want to add in other fuel hungry events like Tractor Pulls and Indy 500, they start to add up. I wonder if anyone has done a carbon footprint assesment of them?
The biggest impact individuals can make is to eat less meat.
Thread Starter
I agree Asturias56 When looking at things to reduce,we know that a family flying to a holiday once a year is not a big problem and provides them with an important part of their life. In the last couple of days I noticed two things that some will claim are VITAL to their very existence:
1) How does the Met Gala in NYC benefit the world? All those clothes and effort and human ingenuity ...
2) How does the Formula 1 circuit help us? How much fuel do they use going round in circles and then (sometimes) flying the cars across the world to do it again? I can see that a few men collect 'fame' and money' but ...
These are not popular views but, if you want to add in other fuel hungry events like Tractor Pulls and Indy 500, they start to add up. I wonder if anyone has done a carbon footprint assesment of them?
1) How does the Met Gala in NYC benefit the world? All those clothes and effort and human ingenuity ...
2) How does the Formula 1 circuit help us? How much fuel do they use going round in circles and then (sometimes) flying the cars across the world to do it again? I can see that a few men collect 'fame' and money' but ...
These are not popular views but, if you want to add in other fuel hungry events like Tractor Pulls and Indy 500, they start to add up. I wonder if anyone has done a carbon footprint assesment of them?
The technology argument of the manufacturers and oil companies is largely greenwash. Curiously I still can't buy a McLaren city car, nor a Ferarri for that matter.
Aviation isn't the villain of the piece, nor is F1, nor tractor pulls but the latter two are just not acceptable when we are all supposed to be "doing our bit".
The technology argument of the manufacturers and oil companies is largely greenwash. Curiously I still can't buy a McLaren city car, nor a Ferarri for that matter.