Unsustainable growth in Air Transport

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Meccano

Guest
"1 euro" airline fares - wunnerful, no doubt.
But is it sustainable? Is it ethical?

In an era of global climate warming, ecological disasters, waning natural resources and restrictive treaties on carbon emissions - WHY should it be possible to buy an airline ticket for 1 euro?

A modern short haul jet aircraft burns about 2,500 kilos of jet fuel per hour. Which equates to over two Metric Tonnes of carbon exhausted into the atmosphere per hour.
With the proliferation of cheap air transport encouraging 'frivolous' or spur of the moment journeys - is there not an argument that air transport has become too cheap for the good of the climate and that it is time to start restricting such crazy use of finite resources and atmospheric pollutants.

Perhaps a hefty tax on aviation fuel is needed now - or a minimum cost per ticket sold? Say, 200 USD per hour of short haul flight?
Or even a quota on airmiles per person per annum?
 
Are you sure you are not taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut? According to a major report published in 2001 (UK Emissions of Air Pollutants 1970-2001) a category referred-to as ”Other” (combining Railways, Shipping, Civil aircraft, Naval vessels and Military aircraft) contributed 1% of the CO2 which appears as carbon in the atmosphere in 2001. Road Transport contributed 21% by contrast and “Combustion in Energy Production” – essentially Electricity generation – 36%. 11Mtonnes of Aviation fuel was used compared to 28,000 Mtonnes of Natural Gas. Similarly the “Other” category produced less than 1% of the Methane and 2% of the Nitrous Oxide,

From another report:-
The impact of air transport on the environment
METCALFE, M T; EATON, R A; SNAPE, D M
International Symposium on Air Breathing Engines, 10th, Nottingham, England; UNITED STATES; 1-6 Sept. 1991. pp. 221-228. 1991
“On a global basis, air transport is widely recognized as making only a small contribution to the atmospheric emissions burden.”

Much much more effective in my opinion would be to coax people out of their cars and onto public transport and as is being looked at in the UK put freight back on the railways and non-perishable stuff back on barges. By improving insulation standards cut back on heating costs, and of course accelerate the developments in biomass, solar sources of power etc.

I should say that I have no connection whatsoever with air-transport!
 
Here is a quote from a report by Massachussetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Transport Studies Centre.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/aviation-0829.html
The development of the model, called the System for assessing Aviation's Global Emissions, is driven by the rapid growth in the aviation sector and its associated emissions. In 1992, according to a recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, air transportation accounted for 2 percent of all the world's man-made carbon dioxide emissions and 13 percent of the fossil fuel used for transportation. Meanwhile, passenger traffic on scheduled airlines has grown by 60 percent in the past 10 years, with an estimated 5 percent (per annum) increase expected for the next 10 to 15 years. So aviation is and will continue to be an important source of greenhouse gases in the coming decades.
Decreasing those emissions is complicated by certain traits of the aviation industry. The deposition of combustion products in the upper troposphere produces atmospheric effects that are different and generally more significant than those due to ground-based emissions. But "fixing" the technology is problematic because aircraft are more technologically constrained than terrestrial modes of transport, because of their more stringent weight and safety requirements. Furthermore, whatever technical fixes can actually be made will be extremely costly and slow to incorporate because of the large capital costs and long lead times in the aviation industry.
Click to expand...
This piece from the Netherlands Met Office develops that last point further:
Present commercial aircraft fly at altitudes of 8-13 km. The emissions from such air traffic can change the atmospheric composition:

Directly: by emitting carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx = NO + NO2), water vapour, unburnt hydrocarbons, soot, and sulfate particles.

Indirectly: by a chemical reaction chain similar to smog-formation the greenhouse gas ozone (O3) can be formed. In this reaction chain nitrogen oxides act as a catalyst under the influence of sunlight. As a result of these chemical reations also the concentration of methane (CH4), another greenhouse gas, decreases.
These changes can have effects on climate:
Ozone, CO2, and water vapour are greenhouse gases and their increase has a warming effect.
Methane is also a greenhouse gas and its decrease has a cooling effect.
Aerosols (sulfate particles, soot) could have a cooling effect.

Contrails formed due to the emission of particles and water vapour can increase the cloud cover in the upper troposphere. This may result in a cooling or heating depending on the size and optical depth of the ice crystals of which the contrails consist. Presently it is believed that contrails lead to a net warming effect.

There may be changes in (non-contrail) upper level clouds: Most contrails decay after minutes to hours, but some continue to exist and are then not distinguishable anymore from natural cirrus clouds (thin upper level clouds) for the human eye. The climate effect of changes in cirrus cloud cover due to aviation are not well known.
The ozone changes due to aviation also change UV at ground level:

[broken link removed]
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/232387/how_9_11_affected_the_climate/
Click to expand...

Don't forget the issue of Global Dimming caused by contrails - here's a great video on the subject: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/232387/how_9_11_affected_the_climate/

Here's another interesting counterpoint to the issue of vehicle efficiency - from The Economist:
In America, land of the gas-guzzler, the Federal Aviation Administration has calculated that the energy used to carry one passenger for one mile is greatest in sport-utility vehicles, pick-up trucks and transit buses. It says cars and commercial aircraft come out roughly equal. But a study for the European Commission reached a different conclusion. Assuming that aircraft are 70-75% full and cars contain 2.5 people (since longer distances usually imply family trips), CE Delft, a Dutch consultancy, came up with a comparison between different forms of travel (see chart 2). Coaches performed best, followed by liquefied-gas and diesel-powered cars or inter-city trains. Long-haul flights of more than 1,500km were 50% worse than petrol cars for each passenger-kilometre. Short-haul flights (where a smaller proportion of the time is spent on energy-efficient cruising and more on profligate climbing and descending) were fully three times worse than petrol cars.
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7033931
Click to expand...

That last point is of particular importance.
Certainly there are too many cars on the roads and the lack of good public transport (especially in Ireland) is contributing to that. I hope we're beginning to tackle that problem. New technologies, higher gas prices, better public transport, all play a part in controlling or off setting growth in road transport.
But what are we doing to tackle the unfettered growth in air transport and I mean especially the totally unnecessary waste and pollution caused by too low fares which actively encourage profligacy? That article goes on to say that only 1 out of 4 airline passengers are travelling on business...ergo the rest are elective and potentially unnecessary trips.
If people want to go on three holidays a year, and travel by air, then fine, let them, but the polluter should pay.
A 1 euro per seat fare is no disincentive to waste.
 
Perhaps a hefty tax on aviation fuel is needed now - or a minimum cost per ticket sold? Say, 200 USD per hour of short haul flight?
Or even a quota on airmiles per person per annum?[/quote]

meccano:this wouldnt be you advocating a tax on ryanair would it ? bit too subtle I know. where would that leave poor michael? €50 fares and a €200 tax.
why should efficient airlines ( and I DO include a/l in this,) be penalised for cheap(er) fares while the likes of al italia would escape. and this is the proposal I believe ie tax on cheap flights. nonsense. tax all fares or no fares but dont pick and choose, please.
 
Did I say only cheap fares?
Please point that statement out to me.

Read it again - a minimum of 200 euro (tax) per hour per ticket whatever the airline.
 
The MIT Report.
“In 1992, according to a recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, air transportation accounted for 2 percent of all the world's man-made carbon dioxide emissions and 13 percent of the fossil fuel used for transportation”

You can’t use these stats without knowing what the figures for other categories (e.g road-transport) were in 1992 and what the figures are today. If the growth in the road-transport and energy production categories has grown faster than that of aviation then the relative figure for aviation could still stand at 2% and thus my argument is valid. It remains valid in fact even if the percentage has doubled or even tripled.


“ But there is currently no comprehensive, internationally accepted method for determining the impact of aviation-related emissions.”

If that be so, how can anyone make a case for tackling aviation pollution?

The Netherlands Met Office
“Presently it is believed [my italics] that contrails lead to a net warming effect.”

“The climate effects of changes in cirrus cloud cover due to aviation are not well known”

Not very useful without some facts.

The Economist
Surely comparing the relative efficiencies of air-travel and ground-travel is of little relevance? There are distinctly different reasons why one might choose to use one mode of travel as against another. If I want to go to Germany for example, I could choose to go by land/sea but it’ll take me a day and a half to get there. I can get there in a couple of hours by air. Why would energy efficiency occur to me at all as a determining factor if I planned to go to the Far East?

Look at it another way. How many people will lose their jobs if there was a radical reduction in air-travel? What damage would be done to countries especially poorer ones which look to tourism as a future economic benefit. Like it or not we live in a world where consumer spending is the engine driving the economy and introducing policies which result in cut-backs can have disastrous effects. It’d be an interesting study to compare the economic loss with the benefit from reducing what I still maintain is in relative terms a small amount of pollution.

Finally, how many people can actually buy a ticket for 1 Euro? Leaving aside the fact that the true cost as the consumer sees it includes the taxes, do you have any idea how many 1 Euro tickets are actually sold? I suspect there are very few, that it’s merely a smart marketing ploy, either offering for sale those seats which wouldn’t otherwise sell, or where the publicity is worth the loss of a few bob. Besides, the empty seats may as well have bums on them even if at an uneconomic rate. The punters might buy a few drinks anyway. Full or not, the plane will still take off causing just as much pollution, so what’s to be gained by frightening away the “€1 merchants”?

I think that the situation will level out eventually if left alone, particularly if a fuel surcharge is introduced, as is likely I think. Remember too that the true cost of your trip includes the holiday itself and we’ll continue to fly only while we can afford it. Any dip in the economy and one of the first things we’ll abandon is the ‘impulse’ holiday.

Happy landings!
 
meccano: I know you didn't specify a tax on cheap flights but that report in uk the other day did. or if it didn't it was certainly misquoted on both the bbc and rte news. both stated that in order to start combating climate change the report suggested a tax on CHEAP flights. and if it was implemented who paying say €2000 business class across the atlantic would mind, or even notice? no one. on the other hand someone paying €50 to paris might well mind. taxing the 'poor' disproportionately again. nothing new there then. (the other was a joke by the way, but you probably guessed that)
 
pat127 said:
The MIT Report.
“In 1992, according to a recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, air transportation accounted for 2 percent of all the world's man-made carbon dioxide emissions and 13 percent of the fossil fuel used for transportation”

You can’t use these stats without knowing what the figures for other categories (e.g road-transport) were in 1992 and what the figures are today. If the growth in the road-transport and energy production categories has grown faster than that of aviation then the relative figure for aviation could still stand at 2% and thus my argument is valid. It remains valid in fact even if the percentage has doubled or even tripled.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing with your 2% or 3% or whatever. That is fast becoming irrelevant. The figure of 13% of all transportation use of petro-carbon fuels is the one that is most interesting. And the figure is growing 5% per year (personally I think thats underestimated - does it include the Chinese aviation industry which is just 'taking off'?).
All other vehicular transportation and power generation users of petro-chem fuels are now countenancing changeover to alternate sources. Biomass, Fuel Cells, Wind, Nuclear etc etc....
Only aviation cannot make the change - so the relative useage of petro-chems by the aviation industry will rocket over the coming years.

“ But there is currently no comprehensive, internationally accepted method for determining the impact of aviation-related emissions.”

If that be so, how can anyone make a case for tackling aviation pollution?
Click to expand...
That paper was written in 2001 as an announcement of MIT's project to create a computer model to simulate the effect.
It is not a 'who can tell' statement. Its a 'heads-up here we come' statement.
Read it again.

The Netherlands Met Office
“Presently it is believed [my italics] that contrails lead to a net warming effect.”

“The climate effects of changes in cirrus cloud cover due to aviation are not well known”

Not very useful without some facts.
Click to expand...
Well then you obviously didn't bother to look at the video link I provided!
To summarise it for you - after all flights in the US were grounded for 3 days post 9-11 the climatologists had a unique opportunity to study the effects of high altitude con-trails from aircraft. The absence of those man-made clouds produced results which demonstrated a 2 - 3 degree Celsius temperature variation from norm - which was the highest recorded in 30 years.
I assume you understand the significance of that?

The Economist
Surely comparing the relative efficiencies of air-travel and ground-travel is of little relevance? There are distinctly different reasons why one might choose to use one mode of travel as against another. If I want to go to Germany for example, I could choose to go by land/sea but it’ll take me a day and a half to get there. I can get there in a couple of hours by air. Why would energy efficiency occur to me at all as a determining factor if I planned to go to the Far East?
Click to expand...
Well, your trip to Germany by car is a total of 1595km according to michelin.com, and will take you 20 hours (without traffic jams) according to the same website. The fuel will cost you 145 euro. It doesn't mention road tolls, meals, wear and tear, mental sanity, insurance, etc. By that measure I think my suggested 200 euro per flight hour of airplane tax is good value! Don't you?
If you choose to go to the Far East - fine - pay the tax, or take your car. Your choice!

Look at it another way. How many people will lose their jobs if there was a radical reduction in air-travel?
Click to expand...
Oh boo hoo!!!
This is new on askaboutmoney.com - sympathy for airline employees? Gimme a frickin break!

What damage would be done to countries especially poorer ones which look to tourism as a future economic benefit. Like it or not we live in a world where consumer spending is the engine driving the economy and introducing policies which result in cut-backs can have disastrous effects. It’d be an interesting study to compare the economic loss with the benefit from reducing what I still maintain is in relative terms a small amount of pollution.
Click to expand...
So pollute and be-damned, eh? A GWB Republican to the bitter end!
If you can't afford the tax then you've probably got nothing they need.
Stay at home and support the local economy instead. The B&B's of Ireland need your petro-dollar.
Alternatively - lets split the tax revenue between departure point and destination. There now, happy?

Finally, how many people can actually buy a ticket for 1 Euro? Leaving aside the fact that the true cost as the consumer sees it includes the taxes, do you have any idea how many 1 Euro tickets are actually sold? I suspect there are very few, that it’s merely a smart marketing ploy, either offering for sale those seats which wouldn’t otherwise sell, or where the publicity is worth the loss of a few bob.
Click to expand...
You're kiddin' me! Sure Ryanair have saved the world with 1 euro fares!
You mean - it's really (gasp) a SCAM!!
Where the hell is rabbit - someone is dissing his hero!!

Besides, the empty seats may as well have bums on them even if at an uneconomic rate. The punters might buy a few drinks anyway. Full or not, the plane will still take off causing just as much pollution, so what’s to be gained by frightening away the “€1 merchants”?
Click to expand...
Wrong Wrong Wrong! Please check Newtons first law of gravity.


I think that the situation will level out eventually if left alone, particularly if a fuel surcharge is introduced, as is likely I think. Remember too that the true cost of your trip includes the holiday itself and we’ll continue to fly only while we can afford it. Any dip in the economy and one of the first things we’ll abandon is the ‘impulse’ holiday.
Click to expand...
Well thats proved wrong too! O'Leary ordered 50 aircraft a week after 9/11 and dropped his prices to drum up business! It worked a treat!
Most people can afford a spur of the moment holiday because of that kind of marketing.

The taxi from the airport to the hotel may cost more than the flight - but why should it!

Why should anyone expect a 1 hour flight in an aircraft costing millions of euro, and burning several tonnes of fuel per hour, to cost less than a night in the cheapest hotel in the city they visit?
The expectation in the public mind has been turned upside down by such irresponsible marketing - and the long term effect on the ecology and our natural resources is patently unsustainable.
Some day it will all come crashing to earth - when reality finally bites.

It's time to get real - while there's still hope of saving the planet.
 
cuchulainn said:
meccano: I know you didn't specify a tax on cheap flights but that report in uk the other day did. or if it didn't it was certainly misquoted on both the bbc and rte news. both stated that in order to start combating climate change the report suggested a tax on CHEAP flights. and if it was implemented who paying say €2000 business class across the atlantic would mind, or even notice? no one. on the other hand someone paying €50 to paris might well mind. taxing the 'poor' disproportionately again. nothing new there then. (the other was a joke by the way, but you probably guessed that)
Click to expand...
I think our posts crossed, didn't see your comments until I posted the above.
Anyhoo....
I didn't see this RTE/BBC thing you refer to. What can I say - great minds think alike.

Taxing the poor? Gimme a break!
You aren't poor if you can afford foreign travel. If you equate the lack of a weekend break in Budapest to being poor - all I'll say is, let me take you by the hand and lead you through the streets of Dublin. I'll show you something that'll make you change your mind.
 
Don't worry Meccano, because I was reading recently that Boeing are currently testing out a 2 seater fuel cell powered plane, once that technology gets up and running you can be sure Michael will quickly change the whole fleet over to such planes, thus eliminating any carbon taxes for customers and giving Ryanair a massive competitive edge in their battle for world domination!! (or good v evil...)
 
Meccano:the poor was in inverted commas. not poor as such. by why should the filty rich be the only ones entitled to a weekend in budapest? I entirely agree with your comments about the have nots in Dublin ( and everywhere else too) and I dont have the answers to the social problems in this or other countries. I pay my taxes, donate to charity, make ends meet and muddle through like the vast majority. and I do enjoy a weekend away ( ireland included) once every so often.
 
I've been rolling my eyes at the weather-panicking for years. The atmosphere has been doing its thing for a few billiion years. We have only been studying it in detail for the last century. Earth will change, and regardless of whether that change affects us for good or ill, we have no control over it.

I am trying to recall which famous person sounded the alarm bells back in the 18th Century that by the year 1900, the whole of America would be buried under six feet of horse manure. Luckily, that only happened in Washington, DC
Click to expand...
 
Glenbhoy said:
Don't worry Meccano, because I was reading recently that Boeing are currently testing out a 2 seater fuel cell powered plane, once that technology gets up and running you can be sure Michael will quickly change the whole fleet over to such planes, thus eliminating any carbon taxes for customers and giving Ryanair a massive competitive edge in their battle for world domination!! (or good v evil...)
Click to expand...
Two seater?
Ye mean you'll have to fly the thing too!?
The ultimate cost saving!
 
Meccano said:
Two seater?
Ye mean you'll have to fly the thing too!?
The ultimate cost saving!
Click to expand...
Yeah, and if you win at the bingo, sure it might even pay for the hire!! (Sure we all know that the pilots do nuttin anyway;) ).
 
Yorky said:
I can only conclude that the human race is a mistake and on a fast track to extinction as no other species on earth actually increases consumption when a resource is in short supply or is going to ruin their habitat.
Click to expand...
Well said.
The flippant responses on this thread just shows where the publics head is - up its collective butt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top