Airlines, Airports, Routes - and climate change
 

Judging by the radical thread drift in the Manchester discussion, perhaps its time to air the subject separately so as not to pee off readers and contributors who's interest doesn't extend to the issue.

First off, commercial aviation isn't going to cease - fact. Second, climate change is real, happening now, and since the dawn of the industrial era at a much faster rate than through previous centuries - also a fact.

How do the stakeholders in the industry (airlines and airports) balance the need for change to reduce emmissions without resorting to PR 'greenwash' that only the gullible fall for with maintaining their businesses and viability? Perhaps its a circle that can't be squared, but I actually doubt that.

Perhaps from an airport standpoint more renewable power generation, reduce heating and lighting in terminals. Perhaps better public transport for staff and PAX.

Perhaps from an airline standpoint an end to slot sitting schedules at major airports, perhaps more direct routings developed through technological advances in air traffic management.

Thats an opening gambit. Perhaps MAN can get its thread back!

What we have seen in the last 30 years is that corporations will do the minimum - until forced otherwise. If legislation forces them into action, they will often ask for handouts. Expect more greenwashing.

Folk just need to take a look at Luton to see how greed and deception go hand in hand. With the airport owned by the council it has declared a climate emergency yet excludes aircraft flying into and out of its airport. In fact the council wants to nearly double movements and has buried its own report that highlights the numbers of people dying each year due to pollution in the town.

The application to nearly double movements is justified by their term Green Controlled Growth, which basically means making the airport zero emissions but allowing substantial increases in aircraft movements and so causing more pollution as being not their problem.

A proposal to introduce sanctions and penalties for not controlling pollution has caused a major hissy fit. This is worth a read, as it is clear that despite the claims regarding green controlled growth there is no such thing and that they care little about the environment so putting their own greed first.

https://infrastructure.planninginspe...0Penalties.pdf

The problem for airlines is that by and large for your average leisure passenger the environmental impact of climbing aboard an aircraft for their weekend break in Barcelona, or two weeks on the Turkish Riviera is so far down their list of priorities as to be virtually non-existent. I avoid flying when travelling to the near continent, not because I have bought a membership the the Green Party, or have mates who block roads in the name of "saving the planet" but because the hassle factor of putting the (polluting) car on to the (allegedly green) Le Shuttle train is lower than flying. That being the case airlines aren't going to attract passengers on the back of having acquired the latest aircraft that have a lower environmental impact, and certainly aren't going to pay more for their tickets to travel on a shiny new 737-MAX than a written down 737 Classic. The only incentives to airlines come from the bean counters that can see an investment in modern equipment will reduce their fuel bills and therefore their seat-mile costs, and at some airports benefits in lower charges for operating modern aircraft. Aside of that the PR departments can use modern "green(er)" equipment as a method of upping their airline's profile.

Perhaps the best way to push a move towards greener flying is by international cooperation on taxation for older generation aircraft, or conversely incentives for newer aircraft but this is hardly likely to happen with so many, not the least commercial, vested interests. I don't see taxing passengers extra to fly is really a starter since, at least in Europe the taxes and charges on tickets already often exceed the raw cost of a ticket and the passenger simply won't wear that when it comes to the ballot box.

Although it is really tinkering around at the edges some taxation on leisure flying would send a message, and in my view business aircraft should also have their climate impact recognised by levies that really ought to drive some of the users towards the front end of commercial flights rather than flitting around the globe in glorious isolation, leaving an excessive carbon footprint in their wake.

As I said on the Manchester thread. Aviation accounts for about 3% of GLOBAL CO2 emissions.
You can cut air traffic by half and it would not make a blind bit of difference to the climate change problem.

Surface transport, heavy industry and energy production are the big problem. Tackle those first, then start on aviation.

Fiddling while Rome burns!

https://www.transportenvironment.org...bon-polluters/

One of the largest emitters of carbon residue are the data centres at the heart of the technology sector. I have read that its emissions are larger than aviation globally. So folks, give up @rsebook, Twit, Instamoron and Crapchat if you really want to "save the planet"!

We don't have the luxury of tackling greenhouse gas emissions one at a time. We need to make serious reductions across all sectors. While it's true that aviation is a (relatively) small part of global emissions (see here for impact) those emissions are caused by a minority of the global population. As noted in this article

If the people who do fly flew less often that would have an immediate impact on emissions.

They certainly do use a lot of electricity but that electricity can be transitioned to renewable sources as is currently being done be Amazon. That's not really an option for aviation so the solution there is for all of us to fly less.

Keep in mind that the UK has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 45% between 1990 - 2020, presumably more by now. And one of the UK's leading emitters - the Port Talbot steelworks - has recently announced closure. Only six countries globally are ahead of the UK on this - Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria and Finland - all of which have much smaller populations than the UK. So there's no need to beat-up on the UK. This country is more than doing it's share in the continuing drive to reduce pollution.

We were able to reduce our CO2 emissions rapidly by decarbonising our electricity production and exporting what was left of our manufacturing industries. France was already generating all its electricity from nuclear and hydro so has more difficulty in further decarbonisation.

It may have an impact on emissions but it would be negligible See above. Halving our use of air transport would cut emissions by less that 1.5% globally.
Halving our use of surface transport on the other hand would make a profound impact.
Ditto energy.
As has been stated above, the UK has reduced its emissions by 45%, but not by reducing air travel, it has targeted the major polluters.

Global warming will have an effect on air travel as some destinations become no go areas for travellers. You just need to look at the areas around Barcelona to see the future yet everyone here seems to be blind as to what will eventually happen to humanity.

Catalonia: State of emergency declared as region faces worst ever drought https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68167942

Barcelona is already a no go area in July and August. Not because it’s a bit hot, but because of the shear number of tourists. If that spike in tourist numbers is spread out over cooler months due to Barcelona becoming a “no go area” in the summer because of a few red blobs on weather maps and climate hysteria, that can only be a good thing.

The seasonality of tourism in Europe is what makes it unsustainable for many countries, islands and businesses, not only across southern Europe but for airlines across the continent. Look at the number of aircraft parked up all day across the UK right now and compare it to the congestion and chaos of August. Spreading tourism more equally throughout the year would be a huge positive.

Oh wait, I forgot positivity isn’t allowed in the environmental echo chamber.

As for what will happen, Europe will continue on it’s path of economic self-destruction, whilst the rest of the world laughs and carries on as normal.

For each destination which becomes less suitable, another will become more suitable.

​​​​​​​Isle of Man ... the new Mallorca??? 😀😀😀

Although there is a Bitcoin factory in the States which has bought a coal-powered power station and id looking for more.

CO₂ emissions from aviation have doubled in the last 30 years, and are likely to keep rising

What can be done?

A very good article, and proves my point.
Climate change is not caused by aviation.

Obviously not the sole source, but a contributor.

Err ... natural processes, anyone? Remember those???