Brisbane Airport welcomes Jet Zero council
 

Brisbane Airport said it welcomes the Australian government’s budget announcement of a ‘Jet Zero’-style council to guide the development of a policy framework to encourage emissions reduction in Australia’s aviation industry.

“Getting the policy right from the start is essential to the development of a domestic sustainable aviation fuel market,” said Raechel Paris, Executive General Manager of Sustainability at Brisbane Airport Corporation. “Next year the world will celebrate 120 years since the Wright Brothers became the first to harness powered flight. What a tribute to their legacy if 2023 also marked a turning point in reducing the impact of global aviation on the planet.”

Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) has accelerated its targets to reach net zero scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2025. Scope 1 and 2 relate to emissions generated from BAC’s direct activity. However, BAC understands that Scope 3 accounts for the vast majority of emissions. Scope 3 includes activity by third parties, including businesses operating at Brisbane Airport, and of course, aviation.

“Increasing the use of SAF as an alternative to fossil fuels is essential for the de-carbonisation of the aviation industry sector and its long-term sustainability. And Brisbane Airport wants to be a leader in the SAF industry,” Paris said.

Brisbane Airport has signed onto the World Economic Forum’s Clean Skies for Tomorrow initiative, which seeks to accelerate the supply and use of sustainable aviation fuel to 10 percent by 2030. BNE is also the only Australian Airport to become a signatory for the Mission Possible Partnership (MPP) Aviation Transition Strategy. The aviation sector through this MPP is activating an alliance of global partners to supercharge the decarbonisation of the industry.


Anyone who signs up to anything related to the World economic forum is nuts

The first emission to be stopped is hot air horsefeathers like this.

More “ Climate Crisis” woke crap. It has to stop.

Agreed - the climate crisis does need to be stopped.

There is no crisis. The planet will happily enjoy a two degree rise in AVERAGE temperature and more CO2 will lead to a greening planet. A small rise in sea level will make sod all difference and the evidence shows the pacific island atolls are GROWING.

Now if we want to reduce emissions. Immediately remove the 250 knots below 10,000 requirement and cancel all holding. Ensure ALL airports install high speed taxi exits for all runways by the end of 2023 and finally remove all movement constraints at Sydney airport.

Fixed it for you.

How does getting rid of 250 kts/ 10,000 reduce emissions?

You guys…for our convenience could you put /s at the end of your posts to indicate sarcasm

What ‘climate crisis’ is that ? The one in some green nutters mind… or the one Al Gore helped to sell to the likes of Goldman Sachs were he sold them on the trillions of dollars financial institutions will make from all the carbon trading scams and the compliance ‘industry’ management..:hmm:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs

.
.
​​​​​…
.
.
​​​​​…

Well a good start will be to build more runways and airports everywhere to eliminate unnecessary holding. Get rid of 10NM ILS's. You should be joining at 5NM. Imagine the carbon savings with a 5NM reduction on every flight!!

Noise abatement and curfews are cancelled everywhere. This is a climate emergency!

Then we can shake up CASA and Airservices and sort out all the rules and restrictions that hinder the flow of traffic. Not to mention the stupid STARs & SIDs in this country.

Then they can look at the annual carbon output from traffic holding in Australia. Not to mention the delta burn on the fuel you have to carry to hold......

Then the wasted fuel taxiing around for a gate that isn't available.............

Oh fk, you’ve awaken the crackpot nutter and his red text quotes..

Go back in the safe space ....

So burning bio fuel produces less carbon emissions ?
Obviously not, so why is this better for the environment ?
Suck out of the ground or grow on a farm and take food away from those that have none......

It's so cute how the climate alarmists think that humans can control the climate of a planet, I'm all for reducing emissions but please get over yourselves, the climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years and nothing we do will change solar flares, earth and moons orbits etc. As one scientist said "if you think global warming is bad, hope and pray you don't have to go through an ice age"

I’m not going to debate the finer points of a topic that’s not my area of expertise. I’ll leave that to the people who have spent their lives committed to the research and science behind it. I’m going to take a wild guess that you don’t fall into that category. I’m getting more of a University of YouTube vibe.

Imagine being told by a plumber that the science behind aerodynamics is wrong, because you know, it’s all a conspiracy by the woke media.

Jesus some of you are dense.

A bit like being told by a palaeontologist in 2007 that rainfall would become close to zero?

Really?!? You can’t figure it out?

Grow a crop that absorbs carbon from the atmosphere and it reduces atmospheric CO2. Burn it in a jet engine and you release the carbon but you then absorb it again by growing more of the crop. In theory a perfect system would be net zero.

Otherwise you release carbon from a source (oil) that absorbed carbon 10 million years ago. So you are only adding CO2 to the atmosphere today.

I remember him giving the impression that if may never rain in Australia again!

Control the climate? Who’s claiming to be doing that? Adversely affecting? Yes. Controlling? No

This wonderful cartoon puts the current rate of temperature change in perspective. You’ll be pleased to know adbf, the earths orbit and ice age get a mention.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

You’d have thought pilots would understand why rate of change is the issue here

The Earth has been going through ice ages and interglacial warming periods for 4.5 billion years. There is no reason to suspect that this has suddenly stopped.
12.000 years ago the Arctic was free of ice and human interference cannot be blamed for this!
The human effect of 'Global Warming' probably has some effect but the governmental scientists have never tried to explain how much - other than saying it is all our fault.
This is probably because they receive a generous remuneration from respective governments, so why should they ever say anything that would take away their moment of glory and pay package.
For governments it is a very welcome cash cow by way of green levies so why should they admit anything that could reduce these.
Our Sun which is 93 million miles away has controlled the climate of out Earth since it was formed and its sheer power has held us in a tight orbit around it.
When someone can prove that the Sun is not the controlling influence of our climate, I might sit up and listen, but until then any net zero initiatives are virtue signalling and just reasons to raise taxes.

……And in other news researchers discover greenhouse gas reductions are a pointless waste of time and money.


https://news.uchicago.edu/story/wild...research-shows

It's ok. God has net-zero accreditation for bush fires.

Hey dudes, I’ve got a better solution ground all aircraft but keep paying me a salary, peace out!

Back on topic, it's really nice that "Brisbane Airport wants to be a leader in the SAF industry" but the only teeny, tiny problem I see is that BAC have approximately zero control over the supply of jet fuel at Brisbane Airport (SAF or otherwise) and know full well they can do absolutely nothing about it for the forseeable future either. Hence the "let's do nothing serious until Scope 3" waffle... at which point they could, maybe, pressure certain large oil companies to do something not in their commercial interest - but we all know how that usually works out. :rolleyes:

Nothing to see here, move along!

https://news.defence.gov.au/media/me...-area-airspace


Wonder what the Jet-zero council has to say about the NSW Military Flying area changes ?

Basically means every passenger jet flying in/out of SY NW bound and every QLD to VIC/SA/WA to QLD passenger jet will not get their preferred route or level for hours on end and for 26/52 weeks a yr.

“…Jesus some of you are dense…”

Jesus eh. The name of god in vain. Straight to hell for ye Fonz121..;) …and an excellent segway to:



Lets have a look-see at how an uneducated novice could question someone with a highly educated ‘expertise’ of a subject.


Fonz121, there are millions of scholars who have spent their life studying and interpreting Islam. Me, i’m an atheist who has done very little study of any religion.

Fonz121, by your reasoning as I am not an expert on religions I can not ‘deny’ the scholarly reasoning behind religion or reject all ‘man made’ religions outright as I have done because I am not ‘educated’ on the subject.

For an example, why would I question Islam: When Islam dictates that a female is worth half a man I am unable to see how that would pass the most basic test of common sense. And yet, it seems to uneducated me to be one of the central ‘themes’ of that religion - apparently the ‘proof’ is to be found in the scholarly texts.


Back to climate. One of the central themes of the ‘proof’ of man changing climate is how current events are unusually hotter/colder/wetter/dryer/more flammable than the past. That’s something any atheist can check…:cool:

.
.
​​​​​…
.
.
​​​​​…
.
.

The sensible thing would be to shift F-35 training to East Sale instead (since mere mortals aren't allowed anywhere nearby anyway), but it's probably a case of Defence trumps everything and everyone else and the rest of us (including the airlines fuel bills and Jet-zero) have to put up with it.

1/11th of the world's airspace of which 90% is more or less unused and they have to play war games in the triangle and disrupt 90% of aviation users.

A lot more to it than that mate
Producing and suppling fertilizer has a large carbon footprint
So to does all the farm equipment
Road transport to a refinery
The carbon absorbing land they had to clear to grow the crop wipes out a lot of the carbon absorbing bonus
Then you have very thirsty crops such as sugar cane and corn

So bio fuel isn't a silver bullet, far from it...

It may not be a bullet, but ahh there's a lot of 'silver' in it! Silver money, that is.. Government grants, tax-payer funded!! Highly profitable this bio-fuel industry is. :suspect:

That fool has been fairly quiet since his ridiculous, false, science guided comment. So have all the other science guided fools, wait, no, sorry. The science guided fools are still spouting their bull****. How long has earth been rotating with life onboard? How long have climate records been kept?

Gotta love the science eh? eh? Kept you safe during the 2.5 year mild flu season. (Heavy sarcasm).

Live in Victoria?
Rely on government to make all of your decisions?
Quintuple vaxxed?
You'd drink the poison in Jonestown?

Fossil fuel production has significant emissions too beyond burning the final product:

- Fugitive emissions from oil and gas extraction are primarily methane which has a 25x greater greenhouse effect than CO2.
- Plenty of heavy equipment used in oil production. (Offshore rigs and a fleet of helicopters to supply them)
- Trucking bio-fuel from an Australian facility to an Australian airport can’t be much worse than digging it up in the Middle East and shipping it halfway around the planet to Singapore and then to Oz.

And traditional production has ZERO offset.

“…methane which has a 25x greater greenhouse effect than CO2…”

Hmmm… do tell Beer Baron. That 25x greater effect figure you claim. Is that the claimed greenhouse effect of methane in an atmosphere that also includes water vapour and CO2. Or is it comparing an atmosphere that only contains C02 to an atmosphere that only contains methane ?

:)

Here are the leaders…

https://www.bne.com.au/corporate/abo...oard-directors

[/QUOTE]

No user fees are through the roof . They are well and truly making up for lost revenue during Covid.

It’s not my claim, here are what scientists (not pilots) at MIT have to say:
Let’s say a factory releases a ton of methane and a ton of CO2 into the atmosphere today. The methane immediately begins to trap a lot of heat—at least 100 times as much as the CO2. But the methane starts to break down and leave the atmosphere relatively quickly. As more time goes by, and as more of that original ton of methane disappears, the steady warming effect of the CO2 slowly closes the gap. Over 20 years, the methane would trap about 80 times as much heat as the CO2. Over 100 years, that original ton of methane would trap about 25 times as much heat as the ton of CO2.

As to your question, it would appear they are comparing adding methane or CO2 to Earth’s atmosphere as opposed to a hypothetical atmosphere of 100% CO2 or CH4. You can ask MIT for their methodology.
MIT reference

Ask MIT…Hmmm…… in the second paragraph we get the claim of: “…Methane is a colorless, odorless gas that’s produced both by nature … and in industry … It is widely regarded as the second most important greenhouse gas, after carbon dioxide…”

Here’s me thinking water vapour were the most important greenhouse gas..:hmm:

Beer Baron, when you did your met study to get your pilots licence were there much mention of C02 or methane building them big storms? Perhaps there were a mention of methane suddenly condensing into fog, or… yer gets the idea..;)

Beer Baron, when yer out in a cloudless desert day and the temperatures running 52c and a 0% water vapour humidity, I guess yer could blame that C02 and methane for the heat. But then the sun goes down and yer freeze… Why don’t it stay hot ? I thought that methane and C02 were supposed to warm the atmosphere for many years..:hmm:

…or, you could be in Darwin Australia in the middle of the monsoon sweating away on a hot 32C day with 95% water vapour humidity and think at least you will be cool at night when the sun goes down - But it ain’t. Maybe C02 and methane only work at night in Darwin…




.

It is very hard to know what you are driving at here Binghi. At no point did I posit that Methane was the most importantgreenhouse gas, I stated that it is more potent than CO2 (how much so depends on the timeframe). I don’t see you disputing that.

As to your odd obsession with water vapour, here is what NASA says on the subject:
So perhaps you are confused about what causes weather systems and what causes Climate Change. Increased water vapour being a consequence of climate change not a driver of it. Again, if you disagree with these positions, take it up with NASA. As you are clearly smarter than an MIT professor then I am sure you will be an excellent resource for the folks at NASA.
NASA. The causes of Climate Change

Hmmm… Beer Baron, I referenced your link. I quoted from and covered the expert “methodology” of your MIT link..:hmm: That’s the link written by: “…Andrew Moseman, MIT Climate Portal Writing Team and guest expert Jessika Trancik, associate professor at the MIT Institute for Data, Systems, and Society…”

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-...we-underrating


Beer Baron, you want to try using the common sense approach to just what is a ‘driver’ of climate. Real world ‘climate’ is not a flat earth climate computer model them MIT numpties fondle with wishful thinking.

Try doing a reductio-ad-adsurdum thought experiment: Remove all water vapour from the atmosphere and what are we left with ? …clouds ? …Fog ? …Rain ? …Cyclones ? …warm humid nights ?
Tell me again about this ‘driver’ of climate…:hmm:

As the, in his time, most referenced climate scientist said: “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.” Reid Bryson. Bryson were referencing the effect of water vapour.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_Bryson

Reid Bryson were one of those hands on weather experts. During WW2 he used to jump into the back of B25’s and fly off into enemy territory so he could do better forecasting. He were one of the wx forecasters of the cyclone that caused the largest disaster in US navy history.


:cool: