Convincing my friends that Aviation is Green.
Convincing my friends that Aviation is Green.
Hi everyone.
I have a commercial pilots license and am frequently told by my non aviation friends how bad aviation is for the planet and how my carbon foot print would probaly cover their whole university campus.
I obviously then try to defend aviation saying we spend millions of pounds on research and always try to reduce our fuel consumption whenever possible.
Problem is I then draw a blank.
Can't think of any other supporting arguments for Aviation not been as bad to the environment as the general public think or in that case how the media make out.
Does anyone have any supporting arguments to make Aviation seem Greener and provide me with ammo to come back at with my friends.
All the best,
Mooney
I have a commercial pilots license and am frequently told by my non aviation friends how bad aviation is for the planet and how my carbon foot print would probaly cover their whole university campus.
I obviously then try to defend aviation saying we spend millions of pounds on research and always try to reduce our fuel consumption whenever possible.
Problem is I then draw a blank.
Can't think of any other supporting arguments for Aviation not been as bad to the environment as the general public think or in that case how the media make out.
Does anyone have any supporting arguments to make Aviation seem Greener and provide me with ammo to come back at with my friends.
All the best,
Mooney
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with them. End of conversation! But ask them if they will ever want to holiday by air or go on business air trips......in which case it is not you being the cause, but satisfying the needs of the public. Why do you feel you are the one to blame?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: europe
Age: 49
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to answer as ryan air spokesman said about higher taxes imposed to his airline because of aircraft emissions in Skavsta:
If people dont like it, they can take the bus or ship to wherever they need to go;-)
If people dont like it, they can take the bus or ship to wherever they need to go;-)
Maybe I feel I'm partly to blame is that roughly 70% of my flying has been flight training or hour building ( 'burning holes in the sky') which hasn't really benefited anyone else apart from myself. I suppose looking on the other side of things my flight training in its self is benefiting the economy and of course my bank.
With the rest of the flying this has been light twin flying where if I wasn't there then someone would have taken my place, so in the commercial sense then as you say I'm providing a service.
So what I can conclude is that GA for 'pleasure' would essentially have the biggest burden of guilt in polluting the atomsphere ( that is aviations contribution) since it only benefits those who are actually doing the flying. Please don't get me wrong I love flying and its what I want to do for the rest of my life but the recent green issue's regarding aviation does make you think.
And to CNTDSCT post Ryan air could really shoot themselves in the foot with that. If people choose not to fly then I think Ryanair may lose a few customers ( and my chance of flying for an airline).
It seems as though there really aren't any arguments supporting aviation's greenness.
Mooneyboy
With the rest of the flying this has been light twin flying where if I wasn't there then someone would have taken my place, so in the commercial sense then as you say I'm providing a service.
So what I can conclude is that GA for 'pleasure' would essentially have the biggest burden of guilt in polluting the atomsphere ( that is aviations contribution) since it only benefits those who are actually doing the flying. Please don't get me wrong I love flying and its what I want to do for the rest of my life but the recent green issue's regarding aviation does make you think.
And to CNTDSCT post Ryan air could really shoot themselves in the foot with that. If people choose not to fly then I think Ryanair may lose a few customers ( and my chance of flying for an airline).
It seems as though there really aren't any arguments supporting aviation's greenness.
Mooneyboy
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Economies of scale and conspicuous consumption.
Ah hell, it ain't that bad.
First of all, a few people "building time" in a 172 or even a light twin don't compare to the conspicuous consumption of the likes of John Travolta or the other filthy rich (with more money than sense) who burn loads of JetA just for the pure spectacle of it all.
Talk about burning holes in the sky, at least your timebuilding is spent (ostensibly) honing certain skills that will be used in a future profession that will allow you to participate in society as a voter and taxpayer where you'll only make the soundest choices as your mind is much more clear than the other Earth-bound dolts.
Not only that, but aviation (given its speed, range and capacity) benefits much more dramatically from "economies of scale" (explain that to your friends).
Finally, just look at the trends in aircraft design over the last 30 years: Much, much more fuel efficient engines. Much, much cleaner burning engines (no more smoky 707s contrails). Much, much quieter engines and airframes thereby reducing our "noise footprints" which is a major concern as the populations grows--so too is the improvement of arrival and departure routing as instituted by the various government regulators.
So, you see, aviation is not without some environmental impact but I'd challenge anyone to name another segment of industry so vital to the world's economy that has done as much in the last 30 years towards minimizing its impact on God's green Earth.
How's that?
First of all, a few people "building time" in a 172 or even a light twin don't compare to the conspicuous consumption of the likes of John Travolta or the other filthy rich (with more money than sense) who burn loads of JetA just for the pure spectacle of it all.
Talk about burning holes in the sky, at least your timebuilding is spent (ostensibly) honing certain skills that will be used in a future profession that will allow you to participate in society as a voter and taxpayer where you'll only make the soundest choices as your mind is much more clear than the other Earth-bound dolts.
Not only that, but aviation (given its speed, range and capacity) benefits much more dramatically from "economies of scale" (explain that to your friends).
Finally, just look at the trends in aircraft design over the last 30 years: Much, much more fuel efficient engines. Much, much cleaner burning engines (no more smoky 707s contrails). Much, much quieter engines and airframes thereby reducing our "noise footprints" which is a major concern as the populations grows--so too is the improvement of arrival and departure routing as instituted by the various government regulators.
So, you see, aviation is not without some environmental impact but I'd challenge anyone to name another segment of industry so vital to the world's economy that has done as much in the last 30 years towards minimizing its impact on God's green Earth.
How's that?
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mooneyboy... the point about the Ryan Air comment is that their airfares are among the lowest of all so they're unlikely to lose any customers as a result of that remark. Indeed, it goes to the heart of the matter because there are so many vehicles of different types and sizes, all burning fossil fuel, all day, every day. When forming your defence of aviation, ask those who seek to attack if they ever drive a vehicle or use a bus, or maybe take a long-distance train trip.
Yes, aviation IS a culprit but certainly not the only one. And I'm sure that I've seen statistics, somewhere, which prove that it contributes less to pollution than motor cars - especially those that only have one occupant. Maybe an internet search will locate it but I'm not going to try because I, for one, am content that aviation is as green as it can be at present - yet always looking for ways to improve because it gives the industry one more thing to talk about, in the long-running debate between cars, trains and planes.
Yes, aviation IS a culprit but certainly not the only one. And I'm sure that I've seen statistics, somewhere, which prove that it contributes less to pollution than motor cars - especially those that only have one occupant. Maybe an internet search will locate it but I'm not going to try because I, for one, am content that aviation is as green as it can be at present - yet always looking for ways to improve because it gives the industry one more thing to talk about, in the long-running debate between cars, trains and planes.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mooneyboy; solution - tell them to f**k off. Aviation isn't 'green'. If they have to worry about something tell them to go to Darfur or somewhere like that and sort it all out. People will always stick their noses into other people's business but not if it's too difficult .
.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation isn't green, but it isn't as bad either as most make it appear. Of the overall CO2 released aviation contributes around 5%, around 30% is contributed by personal use of energy, for example heating your house, using electronic gadgets like your PC and so on. Roughly another third is used by mobility, driving your car, using a train and stuff like that. The rest is released from industrial sources.
For example Lufthansa says they use 4.39 litres of fuel per 100 passenger kilometer over the whole fleet (http://konzern.lufthansa.com/de/down...richt_2006.pdf, in german), which is not as bad as one person using his own car alone on his way to work. Don't know if other airlines release figures like that.
For example Lufthansa says they use 4.39 litres of fuel per 100 passenger kilometer over the whole fleet (http://konzern.lufthansa.com/de/down...richt_2006.pdf, in german), which is not as bad as one person using his own car alone on his way to work. Don't know if other airlines release figures like that.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This from IATA;
KYOTO AGREEMENT
Domestic aviation IS included in the Kyoto Agreement.
International air transport was excluded but with a commitment to find a solution through ICAO by the next ICAO assembly in 2007.
GREENHOUSE GAS emissions
The air transport industry supports 8% of global economic activity.
The entire transport sector is responsible for 20% of total CO2 emissions.
Road transport generates 80% of total transport emissions whilst air transport is only responsible for 12%.
Even if all air travel stopped, the result would only be a 2% global improvement in CO2 emissions. However, the impact on global economies would be disastrous.
Over the last 40 years, aircraft emissions per passenger kilometre have decreased by 70%.
FUEL EFFECIENCY
Airline fuel efficiency improved by 20%, in the last decade, and by nearly 5% in the past two years alone.
Today's modern aircraft consume an average of 3.5 litres of fuel per 100 passenger kilometres, similar to a small car but at 6 times the speed.
The Boeing 787 and the Airbus A380 are targeting fuel efficiencies below 3 litres of fuel per 100 passenger kilometres.
FINANCE
Air transport pays entirely for its own infrastructure which is an annual bill of approximately $42 billion.
Airlines pay when they fly, when they land and when they park. This is completely different from both road and rail transport.
Air Transport is a cash cow for many Governments.
In Europe, every rail journey is subsidised by between 2.4 and 7.4 Euros.
In contrast, every air journey contributes between 4.6 and 8.4 Euros. This comes either in the form of revenue or avoided expenditure.
In the USA, the average tax levied on a $200 air ticket is 26% - a similar level to alcohol and tobacco.
In total, this amounts to $1.5 billion to US Treasury coffers.
THE NECESSITY OF AIR TRANSPORT
Air transport brings people to business, products to markets and tourists to holiday destinations. It also unites families and friends around the world. Air transport makes the 'Global Village' a reality.
CLOSING THOUGHT
80% of aviation emissions are related to flights over 1,500km for which there is no alternative mode of transport.
KYOTO AGREEMENT
Domestic aviation IS included in the Kyoto Agreement.
International air transport was excluded but with a commitment to find a solution through ICAO by the next ICAO assembly in 2007.
GREENHOUSE GAS emissions
The air transport industry supports 8% of global economic activity.
The entire transport sector is responsible for 20% of total CO2 emissions.
Road transport generates 80% of total transport emissions whilst air transport is only responsible for 12%.
Even if all air travel stopped, the result would only be a 2% global improvement in CO2 emissions. However, the impact on global economies would be disastrous.
Over the last 40 years, aircraft emissions per passenger kilometre have decreased by 70%.
FUEL EFFECIENCY
Airline fuel efficiency improved by 20%, in the last decade, and by nearly 5% in the past two years alone.
Today's modern aircraft consume an average of 3.5 litres of fuel per 100 passenger kilometres, similar to a small car but at 6 times the speed.
The Boeing 787 and the Airbus A380 are targeting fuel efficiencies below 3 litres of fuel per 100 passenger kilometres.
FINANCE
Air transport pays entirely for its own infrastructure which is an annual bill of approximately $42 billion.
Airlines pay when they fly, when they land and when they park. This is completely different from both road and rail transport.
Air Transport is a cash cow for many Governments.
In Europe, every rail journey is subsidised by between 2.4 and 7.4 Euros.
In contrast, every air journey contributes between 4.6 and 8.4 Euros. This comes either in the form of revenue or avoided expenditure.
In the USA, the average tax levied on a $200 air ticket is 26% - a similar level to alcohol and tobacco.
In total, this amounts to $1.5 billion to US Treasury coffers.
THE NECESSITY OF AIR TRANSPORT
Air transport brings people to business, products to markets and tourists to holiday destinations. It also unites families and friends around the world. Air transport makes the 'Global Village' a reality.
CLOSING THOUGHT
80% of aviation emissions are related to flights over 1,500km for which there is no alternative mode of transport.
Very nice comments guys you've definately got some good points there. I think in the end, green and quick methods of transport don't go. But the aviation industry has definately made a hell of a lot of effort and finance to make aviation economical and less polluting.
As a number of you point out Jet engines use far less fuel nowadays and one point I do tell my friends is that airlines simply don't want to use a lot of fuel. Fuel = Cost.
A few of them have brought up the case of aircraft dumping fuel but I put them straight on that. I do remember a protest against an airport which wanted to have low cost carriers to start operating into them. One protester claimed that there is a "fuel dumping zone" outside any commericial airport where airliners would frequently dump fuel and designated " crash zones". Think that protester needed putting in a dark place for a long time.
Thanks for the figures always great one to shut people up. Just hope that aviation isn't going to be used as a 'scape goat' for the media to blame for increasing pollution. Why is it that when an Environmental Issue is on the news they always seem to have a nice pic of an airliner? Why not use a house ( lots of lost energy there) something which nearly everyone has in common.
All the best,
Mooneyboy
As a number of you point out Jet engines use far less fuel nowadays and one point I do tell my friends is that airlines simply don't want to use a lot of fuel. Fuel = Cost.
A few of them have brought up the case of aircraft dumping fuel but I put them straight on that. I do remember a protest against an airport which wanted to have low cost carriers to start operating into them. One protester claimed that there is a "fuel dumping zone" outside any commericial airport where airliners would frequently dump fuel and designated " crash zones". Think that protester needed putting in a dark place for a long time.
Thanks for the figures always great one to shut people up. Just hope that aviation isn't going to be used as a 'scape goat' for the media to blame for increasing pollution. Why is it that when an Environmental Issue is on the news they always seem to have a nice pic of an airliner? Why not use a house ( lots of lost energy there) something which nearly everyone has in common.
All the best,
Mooneyboy
Another point. When crude oil is distilled kero is produced. If the demand for Jet A-1 disappeared, it'd have to be dumped into diesel and perhaps even fuel oil. Given the gasoline/petrochem requirements, the refining throughput could not be changed. We'd end up with the mother of all kero/diesel/fuel oil lakes The price of diesel would plummet, and gasoline increase. Price difference would drive more people to switch to particulate/CO2 producing diesel engines, hugely increasing pollution at ground level. 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Age: 42
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote: The major pollutants produced are;
1) Carbon Monoxide
2) Unburned Carbons
3) Nitrogen Oxide
To give you an idea of how bad the situation is, the following example of the quantities of toxins emitted by the average heavy carriers in new generation aeroplanes, emissions of the 747-400, engines: PW4056, and the emissions of the DC9-80, enigines: (JT80-217C) during Landing/Take-Off Cycle (LTO) are as follows:
Carbon Monoxide 22.90 lbs.
Nitrogen Oxide 70.70 lbs.
Hydrocarbons 3.34 lbs.
Total average measured emissions 96.94 lbs. (43.97 Kg) per LTO.
An airport with low traffic has an average of 150 LTO per day (one every 10 minutes), producing approximately 6.5 tons of pollutants/day. end of quote
Having stated these facts, IIRC all aviation emissions account for about 4% of the total pollutatnts produced from other fields . . .
1) Carbon Monoxide
2) Unburned Carbons
3) Nitrogen Oxide
To give you an idea of how bad the situation is, the following example of the quantities of toxins emitted by the average heavy carriers in new generation aeroplanes, emissions of the 747-400, engines: PW4056, and the emissions of the DC9-80, enigines: (JT80-217C) during Landing/Take-Off Cycle (LTO) are as follows:
Carbon Monoxide 22.90 lbs.
Nitrogen Oxide 70.70 lbs.
Hydrocarbons 3.34 lbs.
Total average measured emissions 96.94 lbs. (43.97 Kg) per LTO.
An airport with low traffic has an average of 150 LTO per day (one every 10 minutes), producing approximately 6.5 tons of pollutants/day. end of quote
Having stated these facts, IIRC all aviation emissions account for about 4% of the total pollutatnts produced from other fields . . .
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but aviation pollution is higher in the atmosphere!!!
Although the percentage of the pollution that aviation causes is quite low it is important to note that what makes aviation pollution so bad and worse than other polluting souces is that it is emitted higher up in the atmosphere, sometimes in the stratosphere which is the next layer of the atmosphere up from the lowest layer, the troposphere.
The problem is that air in stratosphere is very stable and pollution in the statosphere therefore lingers around for a much longer time period (up to 15 years) and while it is there is causes much more damage than if it was lower down.
So yes planes will still be needed but perhaps the train does make more sense for shorter journeys. Also, the tax that has been imposed is not really a fair tax in that a newer, lower polluting plane carrying more passengers should not be taxed as highly as an older business jet with one passenger.
I love flying and don't want to see planes out of the sky but I also think it is important for us to encourage plane manufacturers to consider the climate effects of their designs and hopefully one day we will see a cleaner fuel source such as hydrogen being used to power the engines.
The problem is that air in stratosphere is very stable and pollution in the statosphere therefore lingers around for a much longer time period (up to 15 years) and while it is there is causes much more damage than if it was lower down.
So yes planes will still be needed but perhaps the train does make more sense for shorter journeys. Also, the tax that has been imposed is not really a fair tax in that a newer, lower polluting plane carrying more passengers should not be taxed as highly as an older business jet with one passenger.
I love flying and don't want to see planes out of the sky but I also think it is important for us to encourage plane manufacturers to consider the climate effects of their designs and hopefully one day we will see a cleaner fuel source such as hydrogen being used to power the engines.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Wales
Age: 42
Posts: 829
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could always ask them why these patterns appear every couple of thousand years? 
Ask them to explain to you why they had extremely hot summers and cold winters before the industrial age? see their excuses with all sorts of stupid answers. Then ask them why these patterns occurred pre human existence?
And then look at the figures above and say do you really think it makes much difference if I fly a plane at 550mph over the sea/land?
Ask them to explain to you why they had extremely hot summers and cold winters before the industrial age? see their excuses with all sorts of stupid answers. Then ask them why these patterns occurred pre human existence?And then look at the figures above and say do you really think it makes much difference if I fly a plane at 550mph over the sea/land?
Last edited by AlphaMale; 19th Dec 2006 at 22:05. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 37
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have come across the same problem. Many of my friends have become borderline tree-huggers who have been brainwashed by the media about the whole issue. I will certainly be noting down the points stated next time they ask me something stupid like "How can you not feel guilty about flying?" or some crap like that.
P.S. My answer to that question would be "The same reason you don't feel guilty about driving your car, switching on your telly or throwing half your dinner in the bucket."
P.S. My answer to that question would be "The same reason you don't feel guilty about driving your car, switching on your telly or throwing half your dinner in the bucket."
Guest
Posts: n/a
IATA have been strongly in denial for some time now (that text absolutely typical). However in their most recent pronouncements, they seem to have made a complete u-turn. They actually welcomed yesterday's decision in the European Commission on Emissions Trading
