Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
ayubogg
Topic Author
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:56 am

An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:22 am

To All Fellow Aviation Enthusiasts:

In this era of technology and political turmoil, there is little room left for debating the issues of environmental damage caused by carbon emissions. I was sitting through a lecture today in my International Relations class and our professor talked about environmental issues related to liberal and realist diplomacy. In a nutshell all having to do with how nations cooperate (or not) with each other regarding the problems of global warming (all related to collective goods and what not). ANYWAYS... It got me thinking:

What has the airline industry done to prevent or otherwise help reduce this eminent problem? I know according to several articles (one of which from this month's Outdoors magazine) Sir Richard Branson has pledged all (please correct me if I'm wrong) of VS profit towards alternate fuel development. There is also talk about tugging aircraft to runways instead of taxiing with engines.

Many questions to ask, many points to debate. Do airlines care about this or do they just pretend to care? Is research and development up to the airlines, the manufacturers (Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier), or the engine manufacturers (Rolls Royce, GE, P&W)? What are your ideas? Don't worry if they are far fetched or not scientifically based. Are we willing to pay more for our tickets just to fund research and maybe delay global warming?

Remember we only have one Earth to live in and we can't afford to have summer year-round (that would be nice though). As much as we all love to feel the thrust pushing us down the runway and lift to the skies, tens of thousands of gallons of Jet-A for one flight (at tens of thousands of flights a day) does sound alarming!

Let the debate begin.

Kind regards,

-Ayubogg
Alba gu bràth
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:29 am



Quoting Ayubogg (Thread starter):

My take on it-
I won't deny global warming exist, I'm unsure how much humans have contributed to it. Now for arguments sake, let's say it is all or mostly caused by humans. Well, the corporations will follow the almight dollar. You will start to improvements in CO2 emissions not because the airlines care about the environment, but because fuel is becoming increasinly expensive. Airlines now want fuel efficient aircraft and engines and that is what engineers are now delivering. It may not be because they particularly care about globale warming, but reduced CO2 emissions will be a bi-product in their search for more efficient aircraft and engines.
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:38 am



Quoting Ayubogg (Thread starter):
Do airlines care about this or do they just pretend to care?

I think they largely pretend to care because they are deeply afraid that a possible carbon taxation scheme would severely impact demand for their services. The physics of flight are such that hydrocarbon fuels are the only economically viable way to power airliners, and the improvements will be only evolutionary, not revolutionary.

The only available avenue is to develop renewable hydrocarbon fuels with very high energy density, primarily on a mass basis and secondarily on a volume basis. That's not a trivial undertaking, especially on a large scale.

oh, and also to retire all DC-9's.  Big grin
 
futurecaptain
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:54 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:40 am



Quoting Ayubogg (Thread starter):
there is little room left for debating the issues of environmental damage caused by carbon emissions.

There is ALOT of room left to debate global warming.

Quoting Ayubogg (Thread starter):
What has the airline industry done to prevent or otherwise help reduce this eminent problem?

Well, aircraft are always becoming more efficient and more capable. Over the past 100 years alot of technology has come about.

Quoting Ayubogg (Thread starter):
There is also talk about tugging aircraft to runways instead of taxiing with engines.

Not going to happen, for a variety of reasons.

Quoting Ayubogg (Thread starter):
Do airlines care about this or do they just pretend to care?

They pretend to care for now while there is alot of talk about it. Truth be told, there is really no other way to move people and goods as quickly and efficiently over long distances other than cramming them into an airliner. Airlines know this.

Quoting Ayubogg (Thread starter):
What are your ideas?

Flying is extremely efficient, other modes of transportation should now be tackled of you want fuel savings.

Quoting Ayubogg (Thread starter):
delay global warming?

Delay something that may or may not be happening or we may or may not have control of or be responsible for?

Quoting Ayubogg (Thread starter):
Remember we only have one Earth to live in and we can't afford to have summer year-round

I'm much more worried about us destroying ourselves long before we destroy the planet.
AirSO. ASpaceO. ASOnline. ASO.com ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO.
 
eghansen
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:33 pm

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:42 am



Quoting Ayubogg (Thread starter):
Remember we only have one Earth to live in and we can't afford to have summer year-round (that would be nice though). As much as we all love to feel the thrust pushing us down the runway and lift to the skies, tens of thousands of gallons of Jet-A for one flight (at tens of thousands of flights a day) does sound alarming!

I don't see the point of the argument. It is true that jet airplanes spew out carbon dioxide, but they don't spew any more carbon dioxide than if the same number of people tried to drive their cars instead of flying. The airlines in the US currently use about 5% of the oil consumed, versus 65% for cars. True if we all stayed home and didn't drive, fly or use our air conditioners, we would spew out less carbon dioxide, but singling out the airlines seem pointless.
Nowadays, it is hard to tell when the commercials end and real life begins
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:56 am



Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 3):
Flying is extremely efficient, other modes of transportation should now be tackled of you want fuel savings.

Four people can cross the USA in a Chevy Suburban using less fuel (per person) than an A320. Flying might be as efficient as it can be, but it is not 'extremely' energy efficient compared to other modes of transportation.
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:09 am



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 5):
Four people can cross the USA in a Chevy Suburban using less fuel (per person) than an A320. Flying might be as efficient as it can be, but it is not 'extremely' energy efficient compared to other modes of transportation.

but 4 people in 36 suburbans (144 people) cannot get across country with less gas than a A320.

http://maps.google.com/maps?tab=wl (SFO to JFK on the US Highway system)

2940 miles at 17 MPG highway times is 172 gallons of fuel times 36 is 6225 Gallons. an A320 on the same route uses 850 gallons an hour on average which if assuming a 5 hour block time is only 4250 gallons.

If you adjust the load factor to 78% (4250/.78) you get a SFC of 5448 gallons adjusted for the 36 suburbans still driving) the A320 is actually 14% more fuel efficient.
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
eghansen
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:33 pm

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:14 am



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 5):
Four people can cross the USA in a Chevy Suburban using less fuel (per person) than an A320. Flying might be as efficient as it can be, but it is not 'extremely' energy efficient compared to other modes of transportation.



Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 6):
but 4 people in 36 suburbans (144 people) cannot get across country with less gas than a A320.

http://maps.google.com/maps?tab=wl (SFO to JFK on the US Highway system)

2940 miles at 17 MPG highway times is 172 gallons of fuel times 36 is 6225 Gallons. an A320 on the same route uses 850 gallons an hour on average which if assuming a 5 hour block time is only 4250 gallons.

If you adjust the load factor to 78% (4250/.78) you get a SFC of 5448 gallons adjusted for the 36 suburbans still driving) the A320 is actually 14% more fuel efficient.

Remember that the Suburban's gas mileage goes all to hell if you try to drive it from LAX to HNL. Those underwater trips are can be murder on fuel efficiency.
Nowadays, it is hard to tell when the commercials end and real life begins
 
Trvlr
Posts: 4251
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2000 9:58 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:21 am



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 5):

Maximum fuel capacity of an A320 is around 7900 gallons, which is just over 50 gallons per person with 156 passengers aboard.

The Suburban's mpg of 19 highway/14 city probably makes the comparison, at best, a wash, and if you take one person out, equivalency goes out the window. Assuming 4 passengers per vehicle in the United States, or anywhere for that matter, is quite a stretch.

A better comparison would be aircraft RSMs/gallons used vs. vehicle passenger miles/gallons used.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:22 am

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 6):
A320 is actually 14% more fuel efficient.

Not my definition of 'extremely' per Futurecaptain's post. And 5 people in the Suburban, well below 78% load factor, would do the trick! But thanks anyway for running the numbers.

It's often claimed, usually by manufacturers, that "3 liter airplanes" are more efficient than small cars. That's only true if the cars have a single occupant. With more occupants the opposite is true, as the above example illustrates, using a very fuel inefficient vehicle.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 7):
Remember that the Suburban's gas mileage goes all to hell if you try to drive it from LAX to HNL.

Touché.

(edit: fixed accent aigu)

[Edited 2007-11-27 21:24:44]
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:26 am



Quoting Trvlr (Reply 8):
The Suburban's mpg of 19 highway/14 city probably makes the comparison, at best, a wash

I should note that I picked a very unfavorable example. Try running the numbers on a Greyhound bus, a vehicle with a comfort level more akin to an A320.  Wink
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24823
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:27 am

 talktothehand 

Before we talk about planes, let first do something about the cow emmisions.

According to the UN and USDA

Quote:
United Nations report has identified the world’s rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock’s Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world’s 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

http://www.unoilgas.com/Cow-emission...-damaging-than-cars-dec-1-2006.pdf
http://www.celsias.com/2006/12/11/the-cow-public-enemy-number-one/

The 5mb UN report can be downloaded here;
http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
Mike89406
Posts: 1425
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:05 pm

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:29 am



Quoting Eghansen (Reply 4):
It is true that jet airplanes spew out carbon dioxide, but they don't spew any more carbon dioxide than if the same number of people tried to drive their cars instead of flying. The airlines in the US currently use about 5% of the oil consumed, versus 65% for cars.



Quoting Eghansen (Reply 4):
It is true that jet airplanes spew out carbon dioxide, but they don't spew any more carbon dioxide than if the same number of people tried to drive their cars instead of flying. The airlines in the US currently use about 5% of the oil consumed, versus 65% for cars.

I think it has been mentioned in past global warming debates that Aviation only contributes to 7% of CO2 emissions.
 
Indy
Posts: 4934
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:37 pm

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:31 am

Do we really want to open up this can of worms on this site?
Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:32 am

Ayubogg,

Respectfully, as others have said - there is enormous room left for debate.

There is an immense - but conspicuously unreported - constituency of very astute and respected scientists and climatologists who find the entire "global warming" scare to be just that: nothing more than fear-mongering by environmentalists eager to advance their agenda and (according to the cynics among us, myself included) make a buck while they're at it.

Also as others have said - I don't think that anyone disputes that the earth is getting warmer. While statistics are quite fuzzy, and can and are manipulated regularly, and while there is still much debate about the "fear" gripping some because of the impending doom and gloom, there is little actual debate about the earth warming. It does appear to be getting warmer - every so slightly. However, there is thus far an extremely wide spectrum of debate about what is causing it. Some say it's hairspray and airlines. Other think its sun spots flaring up. Still more think that it's just the natural warming and cooling cycle of this 4-billion-year-old rock we all share.

This fear that is gripping some these days just seems ridiculous. I swear - with the fear-mongering and hot air coming out of Al Gore (how's that for global warming?) - you'd think it was the French Revolution or something and they were beheading hair stylists and SUV owners. (Off with their nylons!) I also think it's a bit comical that humans really are that self-obsessed as to think that we, after less than two centuries of globalization, burning nylons, emitting CO2, etc., we could possibly undo what the earth has done in four billion years. So, essentially, what we're asked to believe is that it took Mother Nature four billion years to get to this point, and in less than 200, we've ruined it. Right.

Lord knows it wouldn't be the first time we've all gotten whipped up into a furry based ridiculous theories that later turned out to be completely fallacious. It happens constantly. It seems that in our modern society, we're always looking for the next big tragedy, the next big "crisis," but also - interestingly - we never seem to learn our listen: every time one of these supposed "crises" has arisen in the past, it's turned out to either be: a) totally false, b) way overblown, or c) completely corrected by something that nobody every thought or couldn't imagine that hadn't been invented yet when the fear began.

Lest we forget that they we've been told since the 1920s that the "end of oil" was near, and then guess what? We figured out how to get oil out of tar in Albert, Canada, and now - for a price - the Canadians (eh) are probably sitting on enough oil for all of us for a few centuries. Or, even more relevant - let's not forget that as recently as the 1970s we were being told that the next ice age was upon us, and we were headed for a "big chill." What happened there? Was that a rounding error or something?

The overarching point, though, is that there is, indeed, enormous debate still going on - if you look hard enough for it (and no, I don't mean looking on BBC or in Al Gore's latest book). In that context, where there are many theories as to why the earth is getting slightly warmer, I think it is exceedingly dangerous to formulate public policy and a punitive carbon emissions tax regime, for example, on only a tiny sliver of said theories.
 
sacamojus
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 1:24 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:37 am



Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 3):

OK

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 3):
Well, aircraft are always becoming more efficient and more capable. Over the past 100 years alot of technology has come about.

Sure has

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 3):
They pretend to care for now while there is alot of talk about it. Truth be told, there is really no other way to move people and goods as quickly and efficiently over long distances other than cramming them into an airliner. Airlines know this.

Totally agree

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 3):
Delay something that may or may not be happening or we may or may not have control of or be responsible for?

Why take the chance? Lets say that humans are not responsible for global warming; are the generations that come after us going to think it is ludicrous that we developed an efficient no emission society to tackle global warming? Or, if we are to blame, history will show that we as a generation had the knowledge of global warming as a great threat but did nothing to prevent it.

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 3):
Flying is extremely efficient, other modes of transportation should now be tackled of you want fuel savings.

lets say for the sake of argument that humans are responsible, should we not look at every green house gas producing maching to make it more emission free?

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 3):
I'm much more worried about us destroying ourselves long before we destroy the planet.

You are absolutely correct in that humans are the greatest threat to themselves at the moment. But should we ignore one problem of global warming for later generations? It is so easy to pass on problems until you are the one who must deal with the problem.
 
eghansen
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:33 pm

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:38 am



Quoting Mike89406 (Reply 12):
I think it has been mentioned in past global warming debates that Aviation only contributes to 7% of CO2 emissions.

Actually I think my 5% figure is too large. Aviation in the US currently uses about 5% of our total crude oil consumption, hence 5% of the CO2 emissions. But there are other emissions, such as coal-fired powerplants which emit huge amounts of CO2 emissions. The US generates something like 40% of our electricity by coal-fired plants. Plus natural gas fired power plants and home heating emit CO2 emissions as well.
Nowadays, it is hard to tell when the commercials end and real life begins
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:43 am



Quoting Commavia (Reply 14):
So, essentially, what we're asked to believe is that it took Mother Nature four billion years to get to this point, and in less than 200, we've ruined it.

Not that we have, but we can. The mere possibility puts us lowly humans on a par with "Mother Nature" or her religious equivalent, which is profoundly offensive and contrary to most faiths. I hold the opinion, to which I sincerely hope nobody will take offense, that much of the skepticism around this issue is veiled in science and statistics, but is of a fundamentally religious nature.

Back on topic, the physics of fuel consumption also reveal why ultra long-range operations will never be more than a niche market, since a ~9000 nm trip can be flown using 15% less fuel by making one stop, or 20% less fuel by making one stop and using a lighter, non-ULR aircraft. (all other things being equal). In a carbon-taxed environment, it's clear that ULR operations will never flourish.
 
futurecaptain
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:54 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:48 am



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 5):

It's not only about people. That same plane is probably packed with a fair amount of cargo and will get everything to the destination in a matter of hours instead of days driving. The speed and payload capabilities cannot be matched.

Quoting Indy (Reply 13):
Do we really want to open up this can of worms on this site?

At least the planes arn't on a conveyor belt.  duck 

Quoting Commavia (Reply 14):

 checkmark 
AirSO. ASpaceO. ASOnline. ASO.com ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO.
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:17 am



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 17):
I hold the opinion, to which I sincerely hope nobody will take offense, that much of the skepticism around this issue is veiled in science and statistics, but is of a fundamentally religious nature.

No offense taken, but I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean: are you saying that you think people are skeptical of global warming because of religion?

If so, I have about the exact opposite experience. It seems to me - and millions of others - that the environmentalist-driven hysteria about global warming is far more resembling of a religion than the skepticism being expressed in response.

Because the very well-funded environmentalist lobby - aided by sympathizers in Hollywood and the media - has so many convinced that humans are ruining the earth, I have found that the only real argument that skeptics are using, and could be using, effectively, is the science and statistics that seem to be contrary to the conclusions the environmentalists have drawn.
 
SirDeath
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:45 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:32 am

I know I'm setting myself up to get torched and singed, but here goes:
I did my graduate work in chemistry but was too lazy (actually sick of being poor) to finish my dissertation so I believe I have a little better understanding about the environmental chemistry behind global warming than the average person. My wife working tangential to the oil industry gives me some added perspective. All types of jet fuel, such as jp-8 jet-a, jet-a1 and jet-b account for less than 2% of petroleum distillate products produced worldwide (avgas is a small fraction of a percent). Resources would be better spent on reducing pollution from train locomotives and large ships, which is where most fuel production goes (petrol or gasoline account for about 10% to 12% of distillate product made, again worldwide). Aircraft burn fuel efficiently... in today's brutally competitive environment, they have to. How many threads have you seen saying that the 777 is going to die because of the A350 which likely won't fly until 2014-15, and yes I'm including a delay. The 777 is a wonderfully efficient ship, but there's always the wish to squeeze every last drop of fuel efficiency out of an aircraft. Less fuel burn equals less pollution. As to where in the atmosphere the pollution is released, the difference in negligible with respect to amount. It comes down to a question of should an industry that is already stretched to the limits with razor thin profit margins be forced to comply with contradictory environmental objectives (less emissions...but quieter some... noisier technologies are far more efficient than what are in use today) or should we focus on reducing pollution on things like locomotives and ships which produce far more pollution but aren't as high profile. The better ROI would be on the latter than the former. Aircraft are a vital to many people in the world for food, medicine, basic living supplies and communication. If there were a good alternative proposed, I'd be willing to listen, but to say we need to eliminate aircraft because they are the worst environmental polluters is grossly ignorant and irresponsible.
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:44 am



Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 3):
Quoting Ayubogg (Thread starter):
delay global warming?

Delay something that may or may not be happening or we may or may not have control of or be responsible for?

Whether we're responsible for it is completely irrelevant - whether it's harmful for us and whether we can do something to change it are the only two questions that have any relevance at all for this discussion.

Or would you say no to an avalanche protection system for yourself using the arguement that you aren't responsible for the avalanche heading towards you?

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 4):
I don't see the point of the argument. It is true that jet airplanes spew out carbon dioxide, but they don't spew any more carbon dioxide than if the same number of people tried to drive their cars instead of flying.

Point is that airliners "spew" those emmissions much closer to parts of the atmosphere that act as protection for us.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 4):
The airlines in the US currently use about 5% of the oil consumed, versus 65% for cars. True if we all stayed home and didn't drive, fly or use our air conditioners, we would spew out less carbon dioxide, but singling out the airlines seem pointless.

Singling out the airlines is absolutely wrong - which is why that's not being done. If you take a moment to look at all the areas where carbon dioxide emmissions are currently being reduced, or where reductions on large scale are being studied and planned, you'll see that airliners are just one in hundreds.

Nonetheless, regarding the original question: do airlines care about the environment? I do think that they see profit as more important, but to be honest, I think there's just very few airlines on this planet who seem to be as single minded as some of those people regularly commenting on the issue: the airlines seem to be taking far more of a proactive stance, as in "we'll do whatever we can in case we do have a true problem on our hands". Even better, some airlines simply don't try denying global warming and actually accept their responsibility.

In the end, it will also come down to money: reducing emmissions is easiest by virtue of reducing fuel consumption... and guess what that does: it lowers the fuel bill the airlines have to pay - and that improves the airline's financial numbers.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 6):
at 17 MPG highway



Quoting Trvlr (Reply 8):
mpg of 19 highway

I seriously hope neither of those is considered anywhere even close to economical - those fuel consumption values are something that I've not seen with any car I've ever driven... the worst offender that I've ever driven was a rental BMW 5-something, and that wasted about 11 liters per 100km - and that's about 21.3mpg; my Audi A3 was usually around 9l/100km or 26.1mpg if hammered along the Autobahn at high speeds, and I could quite easily drive it at 6l/100km or 39.2mpg when limiting myself to 140km/h (around 87mph) or lower.

And a colleague's A4 can quite easily be driven at the same values. A car getting less than 20-25mpg would be something I'd dump before I even had to fuel it up again!
Smile - it confuses people!
 
FreequentFlier
Posts: 1111
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:52 am

I'll be the first to admit to being a skeptic about the whole global warming religion (I suppose this makes me akin to a Holocaust denier according to Al Gore). The global warming crowd has basically swept the global cooling hysteria of the 70s under the rug and no longer even acknowledge how completely and utterly wrong they were then. In fact, they were so wrong, they're now arguing that humans are heating the planet, the complete opposite of the previous hysteria.

However, let's assume the global warming hysterics are absolutely 100% correct. If so, there is already a price signal for mankind to reduce its past energy consumption to more renewable and efficient sources, such as nuclear, wind, solar etc. In addition, I will posit that the ion battery powered automobile is not far off and will have a profound effect on the energy consumption of the Western and eventually the developing world. In other words, the "movers and shakers" are not Al Gore, Greenpeace and some environmentalist religionists, but rather French nuclear engineers building nuclear reactors in France, American and Japanese physicists and mechanical engineers designing battery powered vehicles, and the venture capitalists throughout the world who fund them, etc. In other words, the environmentalists are just talk - the movers and shakers have stopped talking about the problem and have moved on to solving the problem based on a price signal that was already there.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:59 am

Quoting SirDeath (Reply 20):
should we focus on reducing pollution on things like locomotives and ships which produce far more pollution but aren't as high profile.

Far more pollution on what basis? Certainly not in CO2 per ton-mile or tonne-km of payload hauled from point A to point B.

For example, a modern container ship burns 40 to 60 times less fuel per ton-mile than a 744F. Some back of the envelope numbers:
Air: 744F @ 4000 nm and 113 tonne payload burns ~103 tonnes of fuel
Sea: Emma Maersk @ 576 nm per day and 150,000 tonne payload burns ~320 tonnes of fuel per day

Any way you cut the numbers, air cargo spews at least an order of magnitude more CO2 into the atmosphere for each ton-mile carried.

(edit: fixed typo)

[Edited 2007-11-27 23:05:34]
 
57AZ
Posts: 2371
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:55 pm

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:01 am



Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 3):
Flying is extremely efficient, other modes of transportation should now be tackled of you want fuel savings.

Strange...Fuel consumption data from other sources seem to prove otherwise.

Information provided by Motor Coach International regarding fuel efficiency.

Gallons of fuel needed to go 100 miles
Hybrid car . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.40 (63 mpg)
MCI Coach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.58 (6.5 mpg)

Typical number of occupied seats
Hybrid car . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
MCI Coach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Per-passenger fuel consumption to travel 100 miles
Hybrid car . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.58
MCI Coach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.275


Per-passenger cost to go 100 miles
(assuming fully loaded vehicle, fuel price of $3 gallon)
Hybrid car . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4.74
MCI Coach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.825

Then you have trains which are even more fuel efficient in terms of units of freight transported per unit of fuel consumed. The most inefficient forms of transportation are private automobiles and air transportation.
"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
 
SirDeath
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:45 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:18 am



Quoting Leskova (Reply 21):
the worst offender that I've ever driven was a rental BMW 5-something, and that wasted about 11 liters per 100km - and that's about 21.3mpg; my Audi A3 was usually around 9l/100km or 26.1mpg if hammered along the Autobahn at high speeds

Unfortunately in the US, we have not been smart about the way we handle fuel economy. It relates to this thread in that due to government regulations, we have squeezed every last drop of pollution we can out of the vehicles at the expense of fuel mileage (efficiency), which is proving to be counter-productive. The law of diminishing returns states that there becomes a point when trying to get more pollution out will cost more than it's worth, and Occam's Razor would tell you that the best way to produce less pollution is to use less fuel. Thanks to this kind of stupid "squeeze every drop" thinking by politicians as to why diesel autos are almost impossible to find in the US. I drive a Skoda Octavia diesel (with the VW PD engine... one of the few Skodas in the US) and get about 40MPG and I make Toyota Prius owners jealous. I have to admit Europe got it right with the Euro standards (Euro II/III/IV /V and so on) for fuel while leaving the emission control systems on the cars themselves less complicated and more efficient, while producing only fractionally more pollution (low single-digit percents at the most). Thus, more old cars get off the road (new cars in Europe are cheaper before taxes), emission systems are less complicated (less likely to foul, more reliable, longer lasting), and the worst polluters are mitigated by the strict (and much more uniform) fuel quality standards. Reason by anology for aircraft. Keep quality fuel standards, older less-economical ships will make their way into beer cans (as long as they are not DC-9's flying for a certain major Egan, Minnesota, United States area based airline) and the newer more efficient equipment will make its way into circulation.
 
ayubogg
Topic Author
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:56 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:31 am

Interesting to read all this... Just a few things to add:

Never would I consider grounding every single airliner in the planet to help solve the problem. I feel it's true that the cars on the ground and coal energy plants are far more of a problem. However, reducing the emissions regardless of what mode of transportation is a start towards stopping global warming (whether it be a natural event or caused by humans). As stated above, we would be leaving a shitty legacy as "the generation that f***ed up the weather", regardless of whether you plan to have kids and grandchildren or if you don't care because "I'll be dead by then".

Quoting Sacamojus (Reply 15):

I agree completely to this.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 14):

Very interesting and thorough point of view to read.

And I still don't understand why there are people saying "there is no point in arguing this subject", I think it's quite relevant.
Alba gu bràth
 
ANother
Posts: 1833
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:47 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:38 am

 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:44 am



Quoting Ayubogg (Reply 26):
Very interesting and thorough point of view to read.

A very recent and very relevant point of view on this topic:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/the_free_market_does_it_better.html

Quoting Ayubogg (Reply 26):
And I still don't understand why there are people saying "there is no point in arguing this subject", I think it's quite relevant.

It's crazy to say this is irrelevant or not worth debating. It is extremely relevant and - because of precisely the points you raise and that are at this moment being raised by global warming alarmists worldwide - very much worth debating.

In this world right now, there are thousands if not millions of well-funded activists who are trying to convince us that the earth is getting "dangerously" warmer, that it's our faults, and that as a result the solution we should employ is to punish companies (i.e., our employers, the ones who provide us with goods, the one that get us all over the globe, etc.) for it.

In that context - where arguments based on highly-debatable science are being used to justify proposed punitive taxes against corporations and other organizations that some (key word) consider "guilty" - it is up to all of us citizens in democratic societies to explore these points, and both sides. We have to know what is being done in our name, otherwise we'll have no right to complain when it's done.

Thankfully, at least here in the U.S., I don't suspect that any type of punitive CO2 emissions taxation regime is in the offing, not just yet, anyway. While some people are starting to be "convinced" (conned, if you ask me) that this whole global warming wiz-bang is real, and really threatens them, I still don't see a related surge in support for punishing Southwest or Wal Mart or Target or Revlon. As has long been the case, people say - in surveys and polls - that they are "concerned" about global warming, the plight of kids in Africa, whether Nicholas Sarkozy is dating, etc., and on and on, but when it comes down to it, few are willing to part with more of their hard-earned dollars to do anything tangible.

In Europe, on the other hand, several governments are moving ahead rapidly with plans to punish airlines for the evil they've bestowed upon us by, well, doing business. In France, they want to tax those nasty polluting airplanes to help ease the plight of the kids in Africa (where have I heard that before?), and in the U.K. both Labor and the Tories are tripping all over themselves to be as "green" as possible to score brownie points for when Brown bids adieu.

I just sincerely hope that before we go around making airlines - and thus ourselves - "pay" for the emissions trading that some contend is ruining the world, we are damn sure that it is, indeed, airlines - and not, say, the sun - that is the real culprit.
 
ogre727
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:43 pm

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:59 am

It seems to me funny that most skepticism (almost all) comes from the country that produces the highest amount of carbon dioxide in the world.

I am sorry to say that I find this appalling. While in the rest of the world the majority accepts that men has had a very important role in global warming, the eternal "room for debate" continues to stop from taking actions to solve the problem.

Therefore, the rest has to suffer from America's inefficient and somewhat careless way of life (is there really a need for so many people to have SUVs? etc etc etc).

True, as somebody pointed out above, there are a large number of factors causing global warming. We can argue for hours and come to nothing in this forum just because cows are also part of the problem. But I think that the point of the post, is to analyze the role, and the actions that the airline industry has taken or not to help mitigate the amount of emissions that it certainly causes.

If some of you guys want to debate whether global warming is real or not, I humbly suggest you do it elsewhere. Let's talk here what the airline industry can/will/won't/pretend to do.
I am between the devil and the deep blue sea
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:09 am



Quoting Ogre727 (Reply 29):
It seems to me funny that most skepticism (almost all) comes from the country that produces the highest amount of carbon dioxide in the world.

Indeed it is funny. It is funny to me that the entire rest of the world has basically bought what was told (in my opinion, sold) to them without even a whimper of debate.

I am grateful that I live in a country - and I have no illusions that it's not the only one - where this issue is still being debated, and where there are still millions upon millions of contrarians who aren't yet ready to accept the "science" that is being foisted upon us.

Quoting Ogre727 (Reply 29):
If some of you guys want to debate whether global warming is real or not, I humbly suggest you do it elsewhere. Let's talk here what the airline industry can/will/won't/pretend to do.

Well, I think the point some of us are trying to make is that it is extremely topical to debate whether or not global warming - as caused by human beings, their cars, their airplanes, their flatulence, etc. - is real.

Airlines and aircraft manufacturers are already doing a lot to help themselves, their customers, and the environment all simultaneously by investing in new, lighter, more fuel efficient aircraft. That has been the trend for the last 30 years: each successive generation of airplanes has hauled more while burning less. They don't need the help of any government, nor me or you, nor Al Gore, to tell them what to do or how to do it.

And yet, we are now being told by some that it is necessary to tax and punish companies like airlines for causing global warming. But how can we possibly debate whether or not airlines should be punished for causing global warming if we aren't yet even sure if they have caused it in the first place?

You may be sure - and I'm happy for you if you are. You've made up your mind, and that's fine. But I'm not yet prepared to support going around and punishing companies just because a group of well-funded alarmists thinks I should.
 
FreequentFlier
Posts: 1111
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:27 am



Quoting Ogre727 (Reply 29):
I am sorry to say that I find this appalling. While in the rest of the world the majority accepts that men has had a very important role in global warming, the eternal "room for debate" continues to stop from taking actions to solve the problem.

I'm sorry you find this appalling. But since everyone seems to be appalled about things these days, I'm appalled that the global warming hysterics have shown no healthy skepticism over the global warming claims. I suggest you read the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

then stop wondering why some of us might have a healthy dose of skepticism about the idea that humans are dooming the planet. If global warming proves to be as over-hyped as global cooling was, what will environmentalists think of next ? Perhaps global temperature stasis? As I've said before, the global warming hysterics have not and will not actually do anything to solve the problem, they merely exist to complain. The people who are fixing the problem (again, taking at 100% face value the claims of the warming hysterics) are engineers, physicists, venture capitalists, etc. Not some Greenpeace moron who buys a "carbon offset" so he can fly to some global warming conference in Indonesia in order to "spread awareness" (is anyone not aware at this point?).

Now, since this is an airline forum, speaking to the topic at head, airlines are doing things to reduce their fuel consumption (adding winglets, replacing older and more fuel-intensive aircraft with newer more efficient aircraft, taxiing with single engines) and they would be doing this whether global warming is 100% real or whether it's a complete fantasy. There is already a price signal to do these things, and it's called $100/barrel oil.
 
FreequentFlier
Posts: 1111
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:32 am

Also, Ogre727, I see you are from France, home to what I believe is the most nuclear power driven country on the Earth: if you wish to stop global warming, please tell the Greenpeace environmentalists in the US to allow us to build more nuclear reactors (one of the cleaning sources of energy in the world) here. That would do much more than any carbon offset.
 
floorrunner
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 7:11 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:21 am



Quoting Commavia (Reply 14):



Quoting Commavia (Reply 30):

Thank-you you have just been added to my respected users list.
 
BrianDromey
Posts: 2797
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:23 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:31 am



Quoting Ayubogg (Thread starter):
Remember we only have one Earth to live in and we can't afford to have summer year-round (that would be nice though). As much as we all love to feel the thrust pushing us down the runway and lift to the skies, tens of thousands of gallons of Jet-A for one flight (at tens of thousands of flights a day) does sound alarming!

My take on 'global warming':
A media frenzy stirred up by corporate interests. Its not that the earth is warming up, but that the oil is running out and getting more expensive to extract. Now, who has the most to loose if/when the oil runs out? Oil companies, of course. Suddenly you see the "oil companies of America", etc advertising how they are making fuels cleaner. I think it is Shell who boast they are the biggest investor in 'alternative' energies. If they can make the breakthrough in the replacement for oil they keep their monopoly of the worlds energy market, and loose their dependancy on the Middle East as well.

If global warming were real phenomena, the oil companies would have had it buried in the media, if they stood to loose.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 17):
statistics

As Mr Reagan said, "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics"

Explain this then....why is the northern half of the United States/Canada and Europe still not populated by mammoths?

Brian.
 
ogre727
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:43 pm

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:36 am



Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 32):
Also, Ogre727, I see you are from France, home to what I believe is the most nuclear power driven country on the Earth: if you wish to stop global warming, please tell the Greenpeace environmentalists in the US to allow us to build more nuclear reactors (one of the cleaning sources of energy in the world) here. That would do much more than any carbon offset.

So just because I live in France you are saying I have no right for an opinion in global warming issues? What a weak logic!!! I do not like nuclear power either (is it nucular?) and I strongly opposed France's nuclear testing in the South Pacific. I will not apologize for living in France, though.

You guys may want to argue about "conspiracies" all you want. You have that right EVEN if you come from the country with the highest carbon dioxide emission in the world (third in population though). All I am saying is that the aim of the guy who posted this was to focus on what the airline is or is not doing with the issue of global warming.


Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 31):
then stop wondering why some of us might have a healthy dose of skepticism about the idea that humans are dooming the planet. If global warming proves to be as over-hyped as global cooling was, what will environmentalists think of next ? Perhaps global temperature stasis?

Oh don't tell me to stop "wondering" why you guys are the only ones whose "healthy" dose of skepticism stopped you from signing the Kyoto protocol, and at the same time continue to be the biggest polluters of the world. Let me wonder all I want, you know, it is not as if your decisions affected only you guys. I think that gives me the right to wonder about how healthy that skepticism really is.
I am between the devil and the deep blue sea
 
bennett123
Posts: 10103
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:48 am

My understanding is that Turboprops are less polluting than Turbofans, so perhaps we should try to use them for short haul where possible, even if prices is a few £ more. Equally on Turbofans, some impartial data about pollution by different types would help.

David
 
KAUSpilot
Posts: 1684
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:15 pm

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:29 am

Global warming is a farce. What happened to all the devestating hurricanes and storms that are supposed to be pummeling the US right now in the wake of katrina? Shouldn't Manhattan be under water by now?

It is a made up phenomenon by over-eager technophobes with a self-righteous agenda.

Go back to the 70's and look at the crap the media was pushing with pollution hype....we should all be waist deep in toxic waste by now. Doom and gloom, doom and gloom. If you buy into it you're a sucker.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2729
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:47 am

Its also interesting that the people who have acquired "global warming" as a religious faith usually are in nations that stand to gain the most by it? Seriously is longer warming growing seasons not in the interests of say.. Canada? Britain? I'm sure the British will cry when they again can again grow grapes like they could during the roman times.

Anyway, so much of their propaganda is stupid. Glaciers are at the smallest they have ever been? Really? I would have never thought that unless you told me. Just because its thousands of years since the Glaciers were at the peak and they have been shrinking since then... I would never have guessed they were still shrinking.

Maybe the Global warming folks want to go back to the days when the Shara had rivers.... and most of north America was covered in Ice miles thick.

Regardless, it annoys me that so much of the "Global warming" is very much the same as "Religion" to these people. If you disagree or question them, then you are a Heretic. To be stripped of office and authority. Expelled from all but the basics of the culture. Proof is found in everything and everywhere, yet actual science that disproves that is the work of people with agendas working against the "truth" We are told nearly on a daily basis by the "faithful" that the weather is going to hell due to global warming, yet no one has found a positive link between global warming and the storms. Even worse we are told that horrible cold spells across Europe and Russia is global warming. We are told about parts of Antarctica that the ice is getting thinner, yet we are not told about the parts its getting thicker. We are told about the spots with bare dirt in Antarctica, not told that they have never had snow or ice.
 
TomFoolery
Posts: 443
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 9:10 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:26 am

We could carry this to "what innovations have been made in aviation to ease the pressure on the environment?", but this goes hand in hand with "What innovations have been made by the aviation industry to make aircraft more efficient?"

Reducing weight and increasing efficiency is the cause- reduced fuel burn per passenger seat mile is the result. Compare a 737NG with the equivilent (capacity) 707 varient and it will be clear.
Winglets as aftermarket products is something that would not have been too seriously considered with oil at $20 per barrel. With oil at $96/barrel, those winglets can pay for themselves in a year.

Increasing oil prices really seem to drive the innovation of efficiency. Bearing in mind that less fuel burned=less pollutants. Alot of airlines are ordering new modern aircraft in an effort to maintain a modern fleet.

The next logical step is to formulate the fuels in order to provide cleaner burn, which will reduce some emmissions as well.

Engine development has also come a long way. In the past, engine research was usually for a military application, and then flowed down to commercial varients. Now, we are developing engines from the ground up, in order to meet the changing demands of the civilian and commercail sectors.

To claim that the aviation industry does little to protect the environment is not a fair assessment. While most of the innovation is not aimed at environmental issues in particular, often improved emmissions result.

There is still more room for improvement, but innovation comes from a need for change, not spontaneous development.

Tom
Paper makes an airplane fly
 
TransIsland
Posts: 1826
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:22 pm

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:59 am



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 5):
Chevy Suburban using less fuel (per person) than an A320

If you're using the Chevy Suburban for this comparison, you may want to look at a fuel hog aircraft (DC-9, B727, maybe?). If you choose the A320, why not compare it to a Toyota Corolla? (or dare I say Prius?? You may choose any hybrid-powered commercial jetliner you wish...  Wink)
I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
 
jonty
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:10 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:18 pm



Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 6):
2940 miles at 17 MPG highway times

slightly off topic but that's appalling! do most people in the US drive cars with such bad mpg?
most people in the UK couldn't afford to drive a car that bad! I have a golf and it does 40mpg, but the new minis can get up to 65mpg!
maybe that's where the carbon battle should be fought - how much pollution would be avoided if all new cars (in the US - assuming, from other posts, that all fuel economy is crap!) had to be more efficient compared to setting slightly higher targets on planes and taxing them more?
is there no kind of road tax in US to discourage big cars - I know for the biggest ones here it is over £400 a year - I'm sure that would discourage some people!
 
LHRBlueSkies
Posts: 321
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:23 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:02 pm

Ayubogg

Congratulations for having the courage to raise such a hot topic! Brave person...!

I think there are strengths and weaknesses in arguments for & against global warming. I also think singling out aviation is irresponsible, and just an easy target.

There are also the issues of national characteristics, where some are more pro-concern and others are more sceptical.

I also agree that most change only happens due to companies seeing an improvement in their bottom line, and at minimum cost to them, or if political will is so strong then change must occur.

Personally, I believe all industries should be constantly looking at working to a best-practice mentality, and at being as efficient as possible. This also means that advances in technology should be seized upon, and not just implemented when industry moguls have exhausted their use of previous technology.

Further, I am also of the mind to ensure that the planet I leave for my children, is one that can be enjoyed, and not exhaust all the supplies of oil, minerals, etc today, just because I can. We do not know for sure how long oil supplies (for example) will last, and we underestimate our reliance on this product - when it's gone it's gone, and I hope that by then, we will have enough alternatives to ensure a suitable supply for all the industries it feeds, and not just to gas up my Hummer or Jet ski.

Whatever view you take, I think people have to make tough decisions, adjust how they live their lives, and make best-use of what we have - it's just the right thing to do.

LHRBlueSkies
flying is the safest form of transport - until humans get involved!
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3712
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:21 pm

I know we are all trying to see how many miles per gallon per passenger but that isnt the issue is it? If we are looking at global warming the aircraft companies will say that they are very efficient because they dont use much fuel but you have to remember that as the fuel burn gets more efficient in a gas turbine engine (with increasing turbine inlet temp) The amount of NOx goes way up, it tends to be the more fuel efficient the longer the gas is held at high temps making more bad gasses for the environment.

Fred
Image
 
DLPMMM
Posts: 2281
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:34 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:22 pm



Quoting Mike89406 (Reply 12):
I think it has been mentioned in past global warming debates that Aviation only contributes to 7% of CO2 emissions.

And CO2 emissions is only 3.8% of greemhouse gases in the atmosphere. (Water Vapor makes up ~95% of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere).

This means that if we eliminated all Aviation and had those people not travel by other means, we would reduce greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere by .0266%

There is no significant global increase in temperatures being caused by humans. The IPCC was largely written by government bureaucrats with political agendas, not scientists.
 
RiddlePilot215
Posts: 280
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 2:19 pm

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:30 pm



Quoting Ayubogg (Thread starter):
Many questions to ask, many points to debate. Do airlines care about this or do they just pretend to care? Is research and development up to the airlines, the manufacturers (Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier), or the engine manufacturers (Rolls Royce, GE, P&W)? What are your ideas? Don't worry if they are far fetched or not scientifically based. Are we willing to pay more for our tickets just to fund research and maybe delay global warming?

While I'm not going to get all Republican and deny the fact that there is a Global Warming problem, in the grand scheme of things, the aviation industy as a whole is accountable for somewhere in the ballpark of 1% of total greenhouse emissions. Not to say that airlines and aircraft owners don't have to care about the environment, but I do believe that our contribution as a whole needs to be downplayed.

Ultimately airlines and aircraft owners alike are very much concerned about the environment, and their overall emissions. Many countries are starting to impose sanctions and fines on airlines that are underperforming in the realm of corporate environmental responsibility.

Secondly, flying green airplanes is good business, and can be used as a major advertising point. Green airplanes consume less gas, and put out less CO2 emissions, which ultimately equals lower costs for those operating such aircraft. The days of airlines operating "gas guzzlers" are over, with the price of oil reaching nearly 100 dollars a barrel, and the spot price of Jet-A at many places either meeting, or exceeding US$4.50/ gal. the case for environmental responsibility is more or less one of economic survival, as opposed to overall environmental concern and involvement.
God is good, all the time. All the time, God is good.
 
LHRBlueSkies
Posts: 321
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:23 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:31 pm



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 44):
There is no significant global increase in temperatures being caused by humans.

And this is exactly the point - one side says there is and prove it scientificly, and the other side says oh no there isn't, and also proves it by use of science.

The question is, do we wait and see who is right or wrong, by which time it may be too late, or do we accept that we can always try harder, and make changes today to a) make oil supplies last longer, and b) reduce our effect on the environment for everyone to enjoy?
flying is the safest form of transport - until humans get involved!
 
georgiaame
Posts: 1025
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:55 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:51 pm



Quoting Ayubogg (Thread starter):
today in my International Relations class and our professor talked about environmental issues

Have you ever wondered why your professor has a job teaching at a university level, rather than actually producing some useful concrete work in the real world? Let me simplify: your professor is incapable of functioning in the real, everyday working world. To pay his rent, he only has teaching to fall back on. It may be his personality, it maybe his lack of imagination, it may be that he has to be a follower (a "useful idiot" as the late Vladimir Lenin once called these people) because he lacks any ideas of his own, nor can he produce anything on his own without a grant from the government.

Global warming is a myth, fraud, religious cult, or whatever. Anyone who can claim that there is "little room for debate" on the issue has been suckered into the cult. I realize that your "A" in the class will depend on your parroting back these worthless claims, but even so please enlighten me: what reproducible, scientific evidence can you present to support your crackpot professor's claim? Why does the Nobel Peace Prize winning High Priest of the Cult Church Of Global Warming fly around in a private jet? Why is the icepack in Antacrtica increasing? Why is the icepack in western Greenland thickening? Why is Battery Park in lower Manhattan not underwater? Why did only one tropical storm devastate (not) the continental US this year? ( And last year too). How come ships don't fall off the edge of the Earth? And don't tell me that you can't see that the earth is flat, because everyone sees it as being flat. And for that matter, the moon is also flat, and earth from space is flat in every photo I've ever seen!

Please! Spare us the lecture on the destruction being wraught by modern aviation
"Trust, but verify!" An old Russian proverb, quoted often by a modern American hero
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:52 pm



Quoting LHRBlueSkies (Reply 46):
The question is, do we wait and see who is right or wrong, by which time it may be too late, or do we accept that we can always try harder, and make changes today to a) make oil supplies last longer, and b) reduce our effect on the environment for everyone to enjoy?

I agree in principle that we should all always try our best to be as conscious of what we do and as efficient as possible in doing it, so we can leave the earth better than we left it - as you said.

But, in response to your rhetorical (I think, although this is A.net, so it definitely won't be rhetorical for long!  Smile) question: sure, it can be asked if we should wait around to see which side is ride. But on the flip side, it should also be asked: should we be making these monumental decisions that will impact billions of dollars, thousands of jobs/lives, and move civilization backward, all because of "science" that is anything but "settled."

Frankly, why aviation may contribute slightly to greenhouse gas emissions - and slightly is in understatement, in the scheme of things - I think that the net benefits to human civilization and modern-day society of aviation far outway the CO2 that planes emit. Airplanes have had a profound transformative effect on the human way of life in the 21st century, and I dare say have been as critical and central as computers and the internet in making the world a smaller, and better, place.

Airplanes have made it possible to conduct business anywhere in the world in a matter hours, rather than weeks or months. They have given millions of small business and growers around the world the opportunity to sell their goods in global markets that could never possibly have been reached even one or two generations ago. They have given jobs to millions, upon millions, upon millions of people in travel and tourism-related industries who now depend on those jobs to survive and sustain their families (the last point is particularly critical in developing nations that depend on tourism).

But more than all of that, airplanes and airlines have also had another profound impact that can't be quantified in dollars or pounds, and can't be measured in terms of CO2 emissions: airplanes have brought the world together. They have facilitated and sped up the cross-cultural interaction among billions of people, and made our world a smaller place where new ideas, new designs, and new ways of thinking can flow freely across the artificial boundaries of nations and states that are vestiges of the bygone era of nations.

In the 21st century, it is people who will rule the world - not nations, as in the 19th and 20th centuries, nor corporations, as in the late 20th or early 21st centuries. And those people need to talk to each other, and see each other, face-to-face, and that is something that only modern airlines can do.

In summary, if my choices are between a (supposedly) cooler world, where it's harder to get around, or an (allegedly) slightly warmer one where people can move unhindered anywhere they want to go, and airlines and aircraft are unhindered in their ability to take people there, I will most definitely choose the latter.
 
caspritz78
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 4:51 am

RE: An Inconvinient Truth: For Airlines

Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:58 pm

Right now and in the next 25 years I don't see any alternative to medium to long range air travel especially if it is inter continental. There is no other way to go large distance within a certain time than flying. That doesn't mean not to invest in research for new technologies but it means that governments and societies have to make a choice in the coming years what makes more sense. Should we use the oil that is left for fuel inefficient cars, (SUVs come to my mind) heating of inefficient insulated homes or do we use it for air travel and the chemical industry. Cars can run on electricity*, trains can run on electricity, houses can be build that they need almost no heating to stay warm but to get an aircraft of the ground you need propulsion.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: flyguy89, Flyingdevil737, NYCVIE and 47 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos