Scientists: Cut Air Travel for Environment Email this story
ADVERTISEMENT
By MICHAEL McDONOUGH Associated Press Writer Sep 21 8:22 AM US/Eastern
LONDON - Britain should drastically reduce the growth of air travel to bring greenhouse gas emissions within levels that will avoid dangerous climate change, a report by leading environmental scientists said Wednesday. Air travel has boomed in recent years thanks largely to cheaper flights, and the government predicts that the number of air passengers in Britain will more than double by 2020. But aviation is a major source of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, because planes burn huge amounts of fossil fuels at high altitudes.
The government says it wants a 60 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, compared to 1990 levels, as the nation's contribution toward preventing an increase in temperatures that would threaten a dangerous level of climate change. ADVERTISEMENT
But the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research, which includes scientists from universities across Britain, said that target is incompatible with the current expansion rate of the aviation industry.
"If the U.K. government does not curb aviation growth, all other sectors of the economy will eventually be forced to become carbon neutral," said Kevin Anderson, who led the research team. "It will undermine the competitiveness of U.K. industry."
Economic activity is said to be carbon neutral if its net carbon dioxide emission level is zero _ a requirement that would severely restrict most industries and hamper economic growth.
But the Tyndall Center report, "Decarbonizing the United Kingdom," said combining economic growth with emissions reductions remains possible, if improvements in energy efficiency are made and more low- carbon sources of energy are used.
Aviation, however, is much more difficult to decarbonize, so growth in the sector must be "dramatically curtailed," the report said.
Current government predictions suggest the number of air passengers will grow from 189 million in 2002 to between 350 and 460 million in 2020.
Environment Minister Elliot Morley said he accepted the need to reduce emissions, but opposed a tax on aviation fuel.
"The evidence is that people will simply pay the tax and continue to travel and we won't actually stop the growth," Morley told British Broadcasting Corp. TV.
"I actually think there are other ways of doing it. The most effective one is to include aviation within carbon trading schemes, so there is an absolute limit on the amount of emissions from the aviation sector."
Britain is pressing for aviation to be included in the second phase of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, which begins in 2008, according to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
The emissions trading scheme allows European companies that emit less carbon dioxide than allowed to sell unused allotments to those who overshoot the target.
Environmental pressure group Friends of the Earth, however, said it favored an aviation fuel tax.
"The Department of Transport's own models on aviation growth show dramatic reductions in air travel when assumptions are added for fuel taxes and other factors," the group's director Tony Juniper said in a statement.
"Aviation is a rogue sector and its environmental impact is out of control. Climate change is the most urgent challenge facing humanity and yet aviation policy is doing the opposite of what is needed."
What is true in Britain is, of course, true about the US as well as the rest of the world.
The Sierra Club has been known to sing the ecological virtues of train travel but I wonder how many members of that organization, or any environmental organization, travels by train in order to promote their causes.
The harsh reality is that everybody is in a rush to get somewhere these days. Environmentally conscious people have their opinions about Arctic drilling, auto emissions and so on, but when it comes to airplane travel and the disastrous effects it has on the atmosphere: Mum's the word.
If any change is to occur, I do believe that the people who run Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and so on, should consider travelling from place to place by train.
Then and only then will change start to occur. Because environmentally-minded people, college students, protesters and liberals can't have it both ways. If they truly give a hoot about the environment, they should give up air travel.
When it comes to gas guzzling, it's hard to beat a jet engine for inefficiency.
Posted by travelplus (Member # 3679) on :
Yea way to go Montana Jim. It seems as if we're so "Air Quality" concious especially in areas like the LA basin.
Posted by mikesmith (Member # 447) on :
Folks, this is an AP story. They are no longer a legitimate news source. Verify anything through other sources, and don't believe much of what the AP publishes.
And Chucky, expecting Greenpeace and Sierra club to walk the walk is just plain silly. They will do what is expeditious for them, not what's enviro-friendly. They can talk the talk, but they won't "follow through", unless it is convenient.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
quote:Originally posted by mikesmith: Folks, this is an AP story. They are no longer a legitimate news source. Verify anything through other sources, and don't believe much of what the AP publishes.
Yeah.....with the demise of AP I've relied on Fox News for all the information I'll ever need!
(Just teasing and I apologize to you Mike. I couldn't resist the bait. Truth is that I can't stand any of the 24-hour news channels.)
Posted by mikesmith (Member # 447) on :
quote: Truth is that I can't stand any of the 24-hour news channels.)
David, that is a good, healthy attitude. I commend you on your well-deserved skepticism.
And, yes, every now and then, I let a fat curve ball hang over the plate, for someone to hit it... Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Far be it from me to claim any media source is accurate or unbiased. But aside from spending all day watching c-span or looking out my window for newsworthy events, I must sift through what we are fed skeptically and draw conclusions.
Mostly through rail advocacy sources, I have read that jet engines are far more inefficient than trains for moving people, and that it takes more oil to produce jet fuel than gasoline. My common sense also tells me that, due to weight and safety concerns, the possibility of using alternative fuels or electricity to fly planes is not a likely development.
So I am not unwilling to believe that aviation is also a leading contributor to greenhouse gases. The article does attempt to quote knowledgeable sources and present differing opinions of government officals and advocacy groups. Whether these are selective based on bias I have no way of telling, but I am curious to know what Mike thinks is untrue because it is from AP.
By the way, I know nothing about AP and my favorite news source is the Comedy Channel. (We report, you laugh).
Posted by MontanaJim (Member # 2323) on :
oops, my mistake. ill only quote from fox news from now on, the only reliable news source (not).
Posted by Chucky (Member # 2263) on :
If I had the energy and the inclination, I would probably research the subject of jet "contrails" (I think they are called). Those are the whispy clouds that jets spew out their exhaust. There is some controversy about that as well.
I've always considered myself somewhat of a liberal, but I've grown mighty suspicious of that label and that group ever since our local PBS station and moveon.org started attacking a new show produced by the Wall Street Journal.
I've also decided to withhold any support for my local pbs station since they moved the McLaughlin Report from a reliable Friday, 7:30 p.m. time slot to an ungodly, unreliable 7:30 a.m. Sunday morning timeslot.
Now, I don't know a stock from a bond but I do know what good writing is and few papers have writers that can match the objectivity and intelligence of The Wall Street Journal. Even the fellow who draws Doonesbury says he reads the Wall Street Journal, (but not the editorial page.)
Furthermore, not only does the WSJ have the best writers, but its also got the best deal of any paper when it comes to home delivery.
So then, maybe those of us who call ourselves liberals should start attacking the liberal attack squad when they take the stage: "How did you get to this podium," we might ask them. "By Amtrak?"
Chances are they took a plane. Shame, shame, shame. And chances are they never, ever picked up a copy of The Wall Street Journal in their lives.
Posted by mikesmith (Member # 447) on :
I realize some people do not read for content, they read for emotional impact. Let me attempt to explain my opinion.
First, where are the facts? That AP story makes a blanket statement
quote: But aviation is a major source of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, because planes burn huge amounts of fossil fuels at high altitudes.
and then fails to provide any data that backs up their "assumed" problem. You would think a "reporter" would have access to some form of facts to back up their assumptions. It would help if they made those facts a part of the story.
Envision this: There is a 1 cubic mile of sky. How often does a jet pass through that 1 cubic mile? {answer: not very often} How long does it take the average jet to pass through that cubic mile? 1/525 of an hour, assuming the jet is traveling at the usual 525 mph. So the jet transverses that mile in about 7 seconds. Exactly how much ADDITIONAL carbon dioxide is imparted into that cubic mile during that occasional 7 seconds that a jet is traveling through that area? Right... logic tells us that it has to be a miniscule amount of additional CO2, not the “major source” as stated in the article. {Unless you happen to be in the cubic mile at the end of a runway}
Picturing a cubic mile is difficult, but it would be an area that is over 5200 feet wide, 5200 feet tall, and 5200 feet long. That’s a LOT of area. Further, is the article based on facts or emotional impact? {No, it is not a trick question.}
As far as Fox News is concerned, they are slightly left of center, unlike the other big media outlets {who are far left of center}. {Free clue: Media Research is a wonderful resource for the casual consumer.}
Posted by Kairho (Member # 1567) on :
All due respect, mikesmith, but without specific numbers your argument languishes. And I believe that "Exactly how much ADDITIONAL carbon dioxide is imparted into that cubic mile" will be an elusive number.
Easier to calculate is to first note that combustion, regardless of form, converts fossil fuel to CO, CO2 and H2O in a certain proportion. I would think then that comparing the amount of aviation fuel consumption in a given period to the total amount of fuel consumption would yield a pretty close number as to whether aviation is a "major" source. This number is probably easier to find.
That leads to the meaning of "major." Unfortunately, as with many adjectives, the meaning is in the mind of the user. More important is to compare the RESULT of the fuel consumption with other modes of transportation. I would think that something like a "passenger-mile" would work well. In fact, search using "fuel consumption passenger-mile" for lots of great info on the subject.
Posted by Kiernan (Member # 3828) on :
I spent some years working in air pollution control, and Kairho's calculation would be pretty good. New jet engines are quite efficient--the airlines demand it. Water and carbon dioxide are the major combustion products.
Jet engines burn Jet A fuel, but in some parts of the country Jet A is used as diesel fuel. It has lower sulfur content and a much lower cloud point than diesel. So you have to consider the fuel sold at airports, not just Jet A.
"Major" is like "expensive." What is expensive for you and me might not be expensive for Bill Gates. There is a legal definition of "major source," but it just means a source emitting more than a certain amount.
Air pollution is a serious problem and it's something we have to deal with.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Mike, I can't help but jump on this one. I do not think the amount of additional CO2 imparted into one mere cubic mile of sky is a cause for concern. The amount of total CO2 imparted into the entire atmosphere of our own personal planet is. The premise of the article is that aviation is a major contributor to this problem. I do not think the cubic mile analogy convinces me this premise is false or overstated.
As railfans, this may be relevant to us because we want to believe moving a passengers over land from A to B by rail may result in less CO2 being emitted. I would guess the amount of that advantage might vary greatly by trip length since taking off and landing probably uses more jet fuel than cruising.
Since our government plays a major role in determining which transportation options we have, we should logically encourage options that produce less greenhouse gasses.
Fox News left of center? Does this mean Hannity is going to burn my flag? Sorry, but I don't buy the "liberal media bias" argument anymore than the "vast right wing conspiracy". One site I recommend that does not appear to have a bias is www.factcheck.org .
I would like to say everyone on this forum that I thoroughly enjoy the intelligent discourse that goes on here. We can come from different political persuasions and still unite on the issue of passenger rail.
Posted by Chucky (Member # 2263) on :
I can't help but think about a photograph that was recently run on the front page of the Albuquerque Journal. The article that accompanied the photograph concerned the development of the Eclipse aircraft (a very affordable jet plane, built in New Mexico).
The article dealt specifically with air traffic and how the inevitable use of small planes, like the Eclipse, would impact air space.
The photograph showed how air space over the US is, at present, practically saturated with planes flyer here and there and how the potential use of small jet planes are only going to make the situation worse.
While I will concede that jet engines are more efficient than, say engines that turn propellers, the documented evidence that I have read claims that there is no means of transportation more efficient in transporting people from A to B than a train running on rails made of steel.
It may very well be the case that one plane in one cubic mile of the atmosphere does not cause much polution, but multiply that plane by the thousands of planes in the air at this moment. And then multiply that number by the planes that occupy the atmosphere during the course of a 24 hour day.
I think we're just rationalizing the situation, boys. Face it, we're mucking up the atmosphere with those planes.
Posted by mikesmith (Member # 447) on :
Re airplane CO2 and my 1 cubic mile analogy.
If I break it into small chucks, it is easier to digest. I could have used 10 cubic miles, 10,000 cubic miles or the entire atmosphere, the analogy holds. A jet imparts just so much CO2 and defining "a major source of carbon dioxide" at 40,000 feet as an airplane is... well... about the only contributor of CO2 at that level. However, the article did not compare a jet engine's production of CO2, versus any other producer, so we have absolutely no idea if it is a problem or not.
Kairho made a humorous statement when he stated “All due respect, mikesmith, but without specific numbers your argument languishes.” IOW, I need to present facts backing up my statements, but the AP does not.
What I'm stating is the cited article is meant to play on your emotions and has precious few facts in it. That is typical of today's "journalistic endeavors".
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)