Sustainable Aviation Strategy. Just a load of hot air?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LGW - Hub of the Universe!
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Michael O' Leary continues to win friends and influence people................
On another note, however, I watched the illuminated adverts over the Central Security doors being changed tonight. Each advert has 30 fluorescent lighting tubes behind it, and there are seven on the one wall - 210 unnecessary lights on 24 hours a day!
We can fart around all we want on "sustainable aviation" and other green issues, but if marketing and advertising agencies won't adapt, we'll be wasting our time!!!
On another note, however, I watched the illuminated adverts over the Central Security doors being changed tonight. Each advert has 30 fluorescent lighting tubes behind it, and there are seven on the one wall - 210 unnecessary lights on 24 hours a day!
We can fart around all we want on "sustainable aviation" and other green issues, but if marketing and advertising agencies won't adapt, we'll be wasting our time!!!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cheltenham Spa
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
A little bit of my background.
I am c/c with a UK airline but read Environmental Management at Brunel Uni.
The proposed "sustainable aviation strategy" should really be "sustainable business strategy" !
To single out "aviation" is a bit rich. Yes, planes dump lot's of CO2 but what about every other industry?
Generally, having worked for three airlines they are very wasteful. Everything (and I mean everything) is set up for the convenience of the "business" when what all is needed is a little effort and foresight by senior management- and GOOD HOUSEKEEPING. If they really looked at the waste generated on a single flight and how much can be reduced, reused and recycled they would blush with embarrassment. After all they are concerned with cost. The problem with airlines is the business end is not in the office (I'll get back to that ), "out of sight out of mind" seems to be the order of the day.
Take a simple meal tray.(Sorry Yanks you can't afford meals without subsidies from Bush
)
Starter, Main dish, pudding.
On this you have plastic KFS, salt, pepper, Knapkin, wipe. All in wrapped in plastic -
Drinks service , can's, plastic glasses, cocktail sticks, knapkins, 1.5 litre water bottles
Newspapers & Magazines
These are all thrown away if they are used or not, with regard to Magazines these are thrown away even they are still in date.
New ones are provided for the next flight, it's obsurd.
In the office, every body printing everything off that can be printed (they could write info down on their rosta on the reverse). Lights are left on , computers left on - it's never ending.
These all generate CO2 in manufacture, construction, energy transfer etc.
Global Warming is happening if we like it or not (Aviate 1138 take note)
Just read a very good book -
High Tide- Mark Lynas (it's got pictures too!!)
So much can be done but little effort is being put into reducing the consequences of the business.
Airlines do need to be proactive before Govt. steps in or we could all be out of a job.
If they get the whip out, the only airlines will be foreign (nou EU) or foreign registered just like the the UK shipping fleet, employing cheap labour and absolutely no regard for the environment.
So my conclusion.
Yes it's a good idea. I hope it's not going to be like the Carbon Trust passing out glossy brochures and swith-off stickers.
Ironically, generating more CO2.
I await your comments.
P.S Switch your TV OFF don't leave it or anything else on Standby.
A little bit of my background.
I am c/c with a UK airline but read Environmental Management at Brunel Uni.
The proposed "sustainable aviation strategy" should really be "sustainable business strategy" !
To single out "aviation" is a bit rich. Yes, planes dump lot's of CO2 but what about every other industry?
Generally, having worked for three airlines they are very wasteful. Everything (and I mean everything) is set up for the convenience of the "business" when what all is needed is a little effort and foresight by senior management- and GOOD HOUSEKEEPING. If they really looked at the waste generated on a single flight and how much can be reduced, reused and recycled they would blush with embarrassment. After all they are concerned with cost. The problem with airlines is the business end is not in the office (I'll get back to that ), "out of sight out of mind" seems to be the order of the day.
Take a simple meal tray.(Sorry Yanks you can't afford meals without subsidies from Bush
)Starter, Main dish, pudding.
On this you have plastic KFS, salt, pepper, Knapkin, wipe. All in wrapped in plastic -
Drinks service , can's, plastic glasses, cocktail sticks, knapkins, 1.5 litre water bottles
Newspapers & Magazines
These are all thrown away if they are used or not, with regard to Magazines these are thrown away even they are still in date.
New ones are provided for the next flight, it's obsurd.
In the office, every body printing everything off that can be printed (they could write info down on their rosta on the reverse). Lights are left on , computers left on - it's never ending.
These all generate CO2 in manufacture, construction, energy transfer etc.
Global Warming is happening if we like it or not (Aviate 1138 take note)
Just read a very good book -
High Tide- Mark Lynas (it's got pictures too!!)
So much can be done but little effort is being put into reducing the consequences of the business.
Airlines do need to be proactive before Govt. steps in or we could all be out of a job.
If they get the whip out, the only airlines will be foreign (nou EU) or foreign registered just like the the UK shipping fleet, employing cheap labour and absolutely no regard for the environment.
So my conclusion.
Yes it's a good idea. I hope it's not going to be like the Carbon Trust passing out glossy brochures and swith-off stickers.
Ironically, generating more CO2.
I await your comments.
P.S Switch your TV OFF don't leave it or anything else on Standby.
What a fascinating discussion. Let's look at some of the hard points that have been raised - particularly by Dr.Dave who clearly is a specialist in the field and I assume has his facts as right as they are available. (I'd just make the point that virtually all scientific "facts" are best guesses, and subject to regular debate and revision).
Dr. Dave estimates that we need 8.3 million ha of new forest PA to accommodate the annual output of the aviation industry. I’m happy to accept that figure, which as be says equates to 400 x 80 miles of forestry.
He also notes that we’re losing about 1 ha per second of forest globally. That comes out at 31½ million ha per year.
So, the (C02) effects of the global aviation industry could, theoretically, be annulled by arresting 3 months worth of the current rate of loss of forest.
Now let’s look at some other numbers: Flying brain tells us that aviation is responsible for 3% of mankind’s annual CO2 output. Now clearly C02 isn’t the whole story, but it’s a reasonable starting point. If he’s correct, then we have a need for 2.77x10^8 ha of forest to account for that lot. That is equivalent to just under 9 years loss of forest.
It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the real problem therefore is massive global deforestation and that even the complete elimination of aviation would make only a tiny dent in the problem – apart from the fact that it would probably cause financial collapse to half the planet.
However, let’s look at this sideways. We live on an increasingly polluted planet – as aviators we understand that better than most – we routinely climb in and out of it and see it from many angles. I defy anybody who has flown in and out of any of the Los Angeles airports, or even around the English Midlands on a typical summer day to claim that they’ve not seen serious air pollution. For that matter I challenge anybody to go swimming in the Trent, Ganges, Hudson, Yantze, Danube….
What global warming does is give us a handle on which to hang a clearly necessary start on cleaning the planet up – or at-least stop pumping so much rubbish into the ecosystem and give it a fighting chance of locking away the nasties and starting to recover.
But, I’m afraid that I’m unconvinced that banning Aviation will have any real effect. There are things that will however:-
- Find ways, all of us, to minimise the amount of travel people actually do. Let’s face it, sitting in a car, the back of an airliner, or a railway carriage isn’t actually pleasant. I’m sat here at a computer communicating with all of you, and I can do the same with much of my professional work.
- Stop and reverse deforestation. Not easy, but it’s got to be done.
- Tell the engineering profession to get busy. Shift the economics of industry by taxation or controls on fuel costs. Polluting power plants are unnecessary, highly fuel efficient cars exist and can be made much more appealing, virtually all modern houses burn far more power than is necessary, a far greater proportion of “waste” can be recycled than currently is.
- Give 3rd world countries the technology that we now have that allows us to be relatively non-polluting and efficient. They are only where we (UK, US, etc.) were 50-150 years ago after all but needn’t take as long to get to our position.
- You want job creation? Kick start a bigger, better recycling industry. Just look at what any of us throw out each day, compared to what could be recycled. And apply a bit of common sense - why are we throwing (for example) bottles into a bottle bank to be melted and re-made, when with a bit of sorting most could be cleaned, sterilised and re-used for a fraction of the energy use.
So, I’m afraid that aviation is a high visibility popular target for politicians and environmentalists. But, it really is not the big baddy. That said, we must as an industry do our bit as well, and yes IT IS up to the manufacturers to make the most fuel, energy and pollution efficient aeroplanes – nobody else can.
Of-course we all need to protect our corners. My long term financial wellbeing is tied to the health of the aviation industry, just as Dr.Dave’s is to the long term wellbeing of academe and the “green” industry. But I really think that is only relevant as a factor to be considered – we would all rather live in a clean planet, and we’d all rather be able to travel anywhere on the planet cheaply. So we work together – it’s the only option, not sniping at each other’s vested interests.
Dr.Genghis
PhD in airworthiness, part time university lecturer in aeronautics.
Dr. Dave estimates that we need 8.3 million ha of new forest PA to accommodate the annual output of the aviation industry. I’m happy to accept that figure, which as be says equates to 400 x 80 miles of forestry.
He also notes that we’re losing about 1 ha per second of forest globally. That comes out at 31½ million ha per year.
So, the (C02) effects of the global aviation industry could, theoretically, be annulled by arresting 3 months worth of the current rate of loss of forest.
Now let’s look at some other numbers: Flying brain tells us that aviation is responsible for 3% of mankind’s annual CO2 output. Now clearly C02 isn’t the whole story, but it’s a reasonable starting point. If he’s correct, then we have a need for 2.77x10^8 ha of forest to account for that lot. That is equivalent to just under 9 years loss of forest.
It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the real problem therefore is massive global deforestation and that even the complete elimination of aviation would make only a tiny dent in the problem – apart from the fact that it would probably cause financial collapse to half the planet.
However, let’s look at this sideways. We live on an increasingly polluted planet – as aviators we understand that better than most – we routinely climb in and out of it and see it from many angles. I defy anybody who has flown in and out of any of the Los Angeles airports, or even around the English Midlands on a typical summer day to claim that they’ve not seen serious air pollution. For that matter I challenge anybody to go swimming in the Trent, Ganges, Hudson, Yantze, Danube….
What global warming does is give us a handle on which to hang a clearly necessary start on cleaning the planet up – or at-least stop pumping so much rubbish into the ecosystem and give it a fighting chance of locking away the nasties and starting to recover.
But, I’m afraid that I’m unconvinced that banning Aviation will have any real effect. There are things that will however:-
- Find ways, all of us, to minimise the amount of travel people actually do. Let’s face it, sitting in a car, the back of an airliner, or a railway carriage isn’t actually pleasant. I’m sat here at a computer communicating with all of you, and I can do the same with much of my professional work.
- Stop and reverse deforestation. Not easy, but it’s got to be done.
- Tell the engineering profession to get busy. Shift the economics of industry by taxation or controls on fuel costs. Polluting power plants are unnecessary, highly fuel efficient cars exist and can be made much more appealing, virtually all modern houses burn far more power than is necessary, a far greater proportion of “waste” can be recycled than currently is.
- Give 3rd world countries the technology that we now have that allows us to be relatively non-polluting and efficient. They are only where we (UK, US, etc.) were 50-150 years ago after all but needn’t take as long to get to our position.
- You want job creation? Kick start a bigger, better recycling industry. Just look at what any of us throw out each day, compared to what could be recycled. And apply a bit of common sense - why are we throwing (for example) bottles into a bottle bank to be melted and re-made, when with a bit of sorting most could be cleaned, sterilised and re-used for a fraction of the energy use.
So, I’m afraid that aviation is a high visibility popular target for politicians and environmentalists. But, it really is not the big baddy. That said, we must as an industry do our bit as well, and yes IT IS up to the manufacturers to make the most fuel, energy and pollution efficient aeroplanes – nobody else can.
Of-course we all need to protect our corners. My long term financial wellbeing is tied to the health of the aviation industry, just as Dr.Dave’s is to the long term wellbeing of academe and the “green” industry. But I really think that is only relevant as a factor to be considered – we would all rather live in a clean planet, and we’d all rather be able to travel anywhere on the planet cheaply. So we work together – it’s the only option, not sniping at each other’s vested interests.
Dr.Genghis
PhD in airworthiness, part time university lecturer in aeronautics.
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 24th Jun 2005 at 00:04.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cheltenham Spa
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello again,
I see that Dr Gengis is advocating recycling as the way forward. It is but only to a point.
The most efficient way to reduce everything ie. waste & CO2 emissions etc. Is the three R's.
REDUCE consumption,
REUSE products/items
and then RECYCLE.
Recycling is the most inefficient of the three R's. It uses energy to collect, clean, remanufacture, disassemble and to transport.
The most efficient is reduction of consumption. This would mean a drop in living standards in the west. I could never see Tony Blair standing up asking us all to spend less, it would result in a recession. However, considering how much is best mate taxes us Brits - that's probably already happening
Job creation? I have to disagree. The western work force just wouldn't be upto it.
Imagine the job discription.
Wanted: Bottle top remover. Minimum Salary.
Yes, before you ask plastice bottle are put into landfill sites if the tops are still on.
This subject is so vast. I actually think there is no definitive answer.
I look forward to your comments.
I see that Dr Gengis is advocating recycling as the way forward. It is but only to a point.
The most efficient way to reduce everything ie. waste & CO2 emissions etc. Is the three R's.
REDUCE consumption,
REUSE products/items
and then RECYCLE.
Recycling is the most inefficient of the three R's. It uses energy to collect, clean, remanufacture, disassemble and to transport.
The most efficient is reduction of consumption. This would mean a drop in living standards in the west. I could never see Tony Blair standing up asking us all to spend less, it would result in a recession. However, considering how much is best mate taxes us Brits - that's probably already happening
Job creation? I have to disagree. The western work force just wouldn't be upto it.
Imagine the job discription.
Wanted: Bottle top remover. Minimum Salary.
Yes, before you ask plastice bottle are put into landfill sites if the tops are still on.
This subject is so vast. I actually think there is no definitive answer.
I look forward to your comments.
I said that recycling was PART of the solution.
Apart from that, I nearly agree with you. The nearly is that I don't agree that a drop in lifestyle is an essential result of a more energy and waste efficient society.
My latest car does 51mpg (as opposed to about 30 of the first car I owned, and that most certainly didn't have a catalytic converter either), we insulate our houses, engine oil is clean and re-used, we re-use milk bottles, we refurbish aircraft parts, sewage is composted and used as fertiliser instead of being pumped into the sea - we do all of this because it's efficient and saves money, and none of it degrades our quality of life. We "just" need to do such things ever better - and the best way to do that is probably by creating commercial and tax environments where this is the cheapest option.
G
Apart from that, I nearly agree with you. The nearly is that I don't agree that a drop in lifestyle is an essential result of a more energy and waste efficient society.
My latest car does 51mpg (as opposed to about 30 of the first car I owned, and that most certainly didn't have a catalytic converter either), we insulate our houses, engine oil is clean and re-used, we re-use milk bottles, we refurbish aircraft parts, sewage is composted and used as fertiliser instead of being pumped into the sea - we do all of this because it's efficient and saves money, and none of it degrades our quality of life. We "just" need to do such things ever better - and the best way to do that is probably by creating commercial and tax environments where this is the cheapest option.
G
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Brigg
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am pro-environment and have read all the contributions with interest. I am not a scientist, failed Physics A level. But am keenly aware of the changes in climate and Nature, flowers blooming earlier, birds nesting sooner than expected and so forth.
I read an article in The Times a while back, wish I had kept it, but the wife threw it out! It gave a brief outline of fuel efficiency and routes. It seemed the most 'environmentally friendly' flight was about 3 hours, this allowed maximum engine efficiency, the curve then rose again for a period and dropped later on. The graph was super-imposed on a map of the world with flights eminating from UK. The worst offenders were the 1-2 hour hops.
The article showed the damage caused to the upper atmosphere rather than the CO2 build up. What was suggested to be happening to the Ozone layer was very worrying. Tempests and floods I can cope with, wandering around covered in sack-cloth against the UV...no way.
It there any evidence to suggest this damage to the Ozone layer, which I understand is damaged by the long chain carbon molecules that used to be found in aerosols, but also exist in Avtur and other oil based fuels?
Many thanks
I read an article in The Times a while back, wish I had kept it, but the wife threw it out! It gave a brief outline of fuel efficiency and routes. It seemed the most 'environmentally friendly' flight was about 3 hours, this allowed maximum engine efficiency, the curve then rose again for a period and dropped later on. The graph was super-imposed on a map of the world with flights eminating from UK. The worst offenders were the 1-2 hour hops.
The article showed the damage caused to the upper atmosphere rather than the CO2 build up. What was suggested to be happening to the Ozone layer was very worrying. Tempests and floods I can cope with, wandering around covered in sack-cloth against the UV...no way.
It there any evidence to suggest this damage to the Ozone layer, which I understand is damaged by the long chain carbon molecules that used to be found in aerosols, but also exist in Avtur and other oil based fuels?
Many thanks
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orvil said in part
"Global Warming is happening if we like it or not (Aviate 1138 take note)"
Aviate 1138 says
Climate Change is happening and always has. Sea levels have been rising for the last 6000 years. Ice is melting in parts of Antarctica but is getting thicker in other parts! Greenland is still colder than in the 11/1200's. It was warmer in the 1940's too!
If we are going to help the 3rd world then let us use the huge chasm of wasted cash of the Kyoto Protocol countries and not throw it away chasing quotas we will Never keep.
When was the Earth's climate ever stable? Never.
Anyway less people die from excess heat than excess cold so what is the problem? And we haven't even reached the 1200AD - 1300AD temperature levels yet.
Despite Dr Dave's learned missives there are plenty of equally learned and even more qualified Scientists who disagree with his views.
If the Editors of Science Journals were less biased in their publishings you would read more papers whose findings contradict the present paranoia induced Global Warming presentations. Just damned statistics which get bent this way and that.
Just because the Guardian prints more dire predictions doesn't mean to say it will happen.
Tropical Rain Forests? Another Myth. The more important areas are the Savannahs which existed long before TRFs. The Amazon area of TRF didn't exist more than 13000 years ago. Tropical Rain Forests only help when they are growing in their early stages. Mature rain forest has too much decaying matter. If you want to help, don't cut your grass so short! Savannah grasses helped Mankind evolve, not emotive Rain Forest.
US$ 53,263,230,645+ have been spent to lower the Worlds mean temperature in the year 2050, using the Kyoto Protocol, by the amount of, wait for it....... 0.000552358 °C. Is it honestly worth continuing with this farce?
Recycling often wastes more energy sorting it out than not. Aluminium and Steel work reasonably well but glass other than just crushing it for aggregate uses a lot of energy in transportation, steam cleaning etc. By the time paper is recycled it's cheaper to use new 'grown for paper' wood. America has the same forest acreage it had 65 years ago but many more trees, as they have been planted closer together. I'm all for more hedges and trees to encourage more birdlife/insects etc. But if we could stop the French, Spanish, Italians, Maltese from shooting millions of migrating birds each year how much sweeter the dawn chorus would be? Then all UK cats should have bells on their collars and that would save 5 million small birds lives every year also.
Aviate 1138 Still unmoved by Kyoto or the emotive phrase "Global Warming"
"Global Warming is happening if we like it or not (Aviate 1138 take note)"
Aviate 1138 says
Climate Change is happening and always has. Sea levels have been rising for the last 6000 years. Ice is melting in parts of Antarctica but is getting thicker in other parts! Greenland is still colder than in the 11/1200's. It was warmer in the 1940's too!
If we are going to help the 3rd world then let us use the huge chasm of wasted cash of the Kyoto Protocol countries and not throw it away chasing quotas we will Never keep.
When was the Earth's climate ever stable? Never.
Anyway less people die from excess heat than excess cold so what is the problem? And we haven't even reached the 1200AD - 1300AD temperature levels yet.
Despite Dr Dave's learned missives there are plenty of equally learned and even more qualified Scientists who disagree with his views.
If the Editors of Science Journals were less biased in their publishings you would read more papers whose findings contradict the present paranoia induced Global Warming presentations. Just damned statistics which get bent this way and that.
Just because the Guardian prints more dire predictions doesn't mean to say it will happen.
Tropical Rain Forests? Another Myth. The more important areas are the Savannahs which existed long before TRFs. The Amazon area of TRF didn't exist more than 13000 years ago. Tropical Rain Forests only help when they are growing in their early stages. Mature rain forest has too much decaying matter. If you want to help, don't cut your grass so short! Savannah grasses helped Mankind evolve, not emotive Rain Forest.
US$ 53,263,230,645+ have been spent to lower the Worlds mean temperature in the year 2050, using the Kyoto Protocol, by the amount of, wait for it....... 0.000552358 °C. Is it honestly worth continuing with this farce?
Recycling often wastes more energy sorting it out than not. Aluminium and Steel work reasonably well but glass other than just crushing it for aggregate uses a lot of energy in transportation, steam cleaning etc. By the time paper is recycled it's cheaper to use new 'grown for paper' wood. America has the same forest acreage it had 65 years ago but many more trees, as they have been planted closer together. I'm all for more hedges and trees to encourage more birdlife/insects etc. But if we could stop the French, Spanish, Italians, Maltese from shooting millions of migrating birds each year how much sweeter the dawn chorus would be? Then all UK cats should have bells on their collars and that would save 5 million small birds lives every year also.
Aviate 1138 Still unmoved by Kyoto or the emotive phrase "Global Warming"
