EU Preparing Airline Eco-Label system

mercure1 · Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:29 pm

The environmental war against aviation continues in Europe.

The EU is preparing an eco-label system for air travel, with the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) putting out a tender for a classification system. The EASA system would be for "providing reliable, comparable and verifiable information" for consumers on airlines and flight-routes' CO2-emissions footprints to enable customers to choose green options.

Reportedly, the labels will use high-speed trains as a benchmark for consumer which seems to me to be short-sighted as rail travel not always an option for many city pairs, and also becomes less optimal when distances start getting over 500km (~300miles)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-a ... SKBN2AK0RK
https://www.engadget.com/europe-is-plan ... 55032.html

mxaxai · Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:50 pm

mercure1 wrote:
Reportedly, the labels will use high-speed trains as a benchmark for consumer which seems to me to be short-sighted as rail travel not always an option for many city pairs, and also becomes less optimal when distances start getting over 500km (~300miles)

This is a purely informative label for consumers. They can choose to either care or not.

One motivation is to "reduce the risk of 'greenwashing'" and provide a common labeling system. There are three different classes planned, for regional aircraft, narrowbodies and widebodies.

The original "Welt am Sonntag" article also states that CO2 emissions will be just one among several criteria that the new label evaluates. Other engine emissions, as well as noise and the amount of waste the airlines generate (through catering etc.) shall be considered.
https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article2 ... zeuge.html [German]

davidjohnson6 · Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:00 pm

You can look at it as a war if you like, but any industry has to recognise which way Govt policy is going, and adapt accordingly

The food industry has seen all kinds of rules about labelling and nutritional information. Previously manufacturers put far too much fat, salt and sugar into food - it tasted good to humans when they ate these foods. If nutritional info labelling is not required and company A sells high-sugar high-fat food, then company B is at a severe disadvantage if its food doesn't taste as satisfying as company A - the result is that company B also makes adds lots of sugar and fat in its food (or it goes out of business). Once consumers in the supermarket were able to easily compare foods and understand easily what was going to send them to an early grave, food manufacturers began to change the ingredients and recipes of prepared foods on the shelves. The manufactured food industry still seems to profitable - but Govt now forces food companies to behave better. Of course if you still want those cheesy all-butter pastries, you know where to find them...

This is a big nudge at airlines to discourage the use of aircraft like an E145, and instead strongly encourage the use of 150+ seat aircraft. It will likely do all sorts of other things that airlines might do when faced with high fuel prices without having to actually pay for expensive fuel. Either airlines accept the system and work with it without making too much protest, or the EU will impose something more severe

armagnac2010 · Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:12 pm

Hopefully this label will provide the relevant information to the flying public, so they can make informed decision. I cannot see how this can be negative.

The IATA calculator currently showing on some e-tickets is a joke - it shows the same amount of CO2 emissions for both LHR-SEA on a 747-400 and SEA-LHR on a 777-200 flights...

tomcat · Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:24 pm

The leading low cost airlines with their young fleets, high seat densities and high load factors will come out on top.

WayexTDI · Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:34 pm

mercure1 wrote:
The environmental war against aviation continues in Europe.

The EU is preparing an eco-label system for air travel, with the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) putting out a tender for a classification system. The EASA system would be for "providing reliable, comparable and verifiable information" for consumers on airlines and flight-routes' CO2-emissions footprints to enable customers to choose green options.

Reportedly, the labels will use high-speed trains as a benchmark for consumer which seems to me to be short-sighted as rail travel not always an option for many city pairs, and also becomes less optimal when distances start getting over 500km (~300miles)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-a ... SKBN2AK0RK
https://www.engadget.com/europe-is-plan ... 55032.html

How is providing comparative points a war against aviation? This is to allow people to compare and make a decision.
What France is doing right now is war against aviation: banning domestic flights that can be replaced by train trips under 3 1/2 hours. We'll see if they go through with it.

As far as HSTs not being optimal for distances over 500km? Nah, that's false.
You can do Bordeaux-Paris (downtown in both case) in a little over 2 hours.
Flying Bordeaux (BDX) to Paris-CDG is 1H20 for 527km. Add the time beforehand, the time to go downtown is you need, the hassle of going through security, etc.. Train wins hands down.

OA260 · Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:36 pm

Not really a new concept Flybe used it as a marketing tool for years .

LAXintl · Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:53 pm

Comparing air to rail is not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

Air routes exist not only for point to point journeys but broader network connectivity, so shorter segments exist to offer links into global networks via hubs.

Also, rail indeed does lose its appeal as distances grow, so even if the air is more pollutant, it's far more efficient to the consumer than expect them to take rail journey from one end of the EU to the other.

Lets also not also forget the huge sunk cost and loss-making reality associated with rail, while airlines seek to turn a profit via commercial cost recovery realities.

davidjohnson6 · Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:56 pm

I've just spent the last 10 mins trying to see how much CO2 would be emitted for 1 seat on a 1000 km trip for different aircraft types - never mind worrying about seats per aircraft, load factor, circling due to ATC delays, noise, airframe recycling, etc...
The best data I could find was something that included Concorde and DC-10s as commonly used aircraft - clearly so old as to be useless.
If an a.netter can't easily find data to show that flying an E145 is worse than flying a fully loaded 737-800, then the average non-avgeek hasn't got a hope of figuring this out independently of corporate bullsh*t

GalaxyFlyer · Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:06 pm

Virtue signaling of the worst kind. Bosses insisted on a “green” offset program for the company bizjet. Nicely affixed label by the entry door showing the greed creds. Boss smiles approvingly to me upon seeing it, boards solo for a trip NYC-LON. Don’t, for an instant, think these people actually believe this narrative.

acecrackshot · Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:06 pm

So, how is this putative train powered? Certainly no ecological damaging Russian sourced natural gas, or unreliable solar or wind, am I correct?

Are the costs of laying rails across the North Atlantic or Med Sea implied?

acecrackshot · Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:07 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Virtue signaling of the worst kind. Bosses insisted on a “green” offset program for the company bizjet. Nicely affixed label by the entry door showing the greed creds. Boss smiles approvingly to me upon seeing it, boards solo for a trip NYC-LON. Don’t, for an instant, think these people actually believe this narrative.

I think they believe it. They just know it won't really apply to them. Its for the little people going to see Gram-Gram, not for a master of the universe going to seal a billion dollar deal.

WayexTDI · Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:08 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Comparing air to rail is not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

Air routes exist not only for point to point journeys but broader network connectivity, so shorter segments exist to offer links into global networks via hubs.

Also, rail indeed does lose its appeal as distances grow, so even if the air is more pollutant, it's far more efficient to the consumer than expect them to take rail journey from one end of the EU to the other.

Lets also not also forget the huge sunk cost and loss-making reality associated with rail, while airlines seek to turn a profit via commercial cost recovery realities.

There are many smaller rail routes that feed into a bigger "hub" where you can catch a high-speed train and then connect to an airport.
I could go from my parents house lost in the country side in France by driving 5 miles, then small rail route into high-speed train into CDG and fly to ATL; then I have to take a car for 15 miles...
If I wanted to take air travel only, I'd have to be driven 40 miles to the nearest airport, fly to CDG, then fly to ATL.

Comparing air to rail is a viable comparison; long distance is obviously out of the question by rail, but short distance is also out of the question by air.
The mistake made by both sides is to peg rail versus air; they can (and do) complement each other.

Capricorn · Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:26 pm

Why stop with a label that >90% of consumers will ignore. They can at least do the same for the governmental planes. Somebody can certainly show that Merkels new A350 is more CO2 friendly than Macrons A330. And if they would need to book their own tickets according to their CO2 label, then the average Joe in FR seat 24D would have a chance too to understand these measures. But then you got to meet the plebs, not too high on politicians prioritylist.

If they would stop these virtue signaling type of measures and focus on the rapid development of Biofuel instead, I would actually take it serious.

seahawk · Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:27 pm

Long overdue, people need to understand that flying is bad for the environment.

sirloin · Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:31 pm

seahawk wrote:
Long overdue, people need to understand that flying is bad for the environment.

...says the 16-year member of an aviation fansite...

Do you drive a car? Live in a home with electricity?

Disclaimer: if you said that to be funny/sarcastic, disregard my response.

davidjohnson6 · Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:32 pm

Having a labelling scheme is cheap and easy. Large scale biofuel production is going to be expensive and hard
The EU may well end up forcing large scale biofuel production in the future. But probably better to do the easy and cheap things first
Certainly some consumers will ignore an aviation labelling scheme - it took a while before I began looking at food labels to see what was healthy or not.... but some consumers won't ignore those aviation labels

sevenair · Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:39 pm

We had this in the UK years ago thanks to flyBE.

I wonder if Merkel's €2bn personal transport fleet with sport the labelling?

mxaxai · Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:40 pm

tomcat wrote:
The leading low cost airlines with their young fleets, high seat densities and high load factors will come out on top.

Unless there's some effective lobbying that favors the legacies.

For example, you could use the lifetime of an aircraft as a parameter. Obivously, building and scrapping an aircraft pollutes the environment. Then, with some clever weighting of the parameters, it can be shown to be better to operate a 45 year old DC-9 than to buy a 737 MAX and sell it after 3 years.

You could also split this between the classes. This way, a BA economy class seat with 29" pitch would score equal to a FR economy class seat with 29" pitch. Nevermind all the wasted space up front for BA's premium passengers.

Another option is to assign just one label per airline and make it really easy to get good scores with modern long haul aircraft. Then the legacies can compensate for their half-empty short haul flights.

Finally, you could make this score weight based, like it already is for cars. So a full CRJ could score as good as, or perhaps even better than a full A321. (For cars this has the odd consequence that a main battle tank can be ranked as "more efficient" than many small automobiles)

andrej · Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:41 pm

This is exactly what is really needed in the EU right now. Yep!

Flow2706 · Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:44 pm

To be honest I don't think that there are significant differences in emissions between the European airlines. Nowadays most European airlines are operating modern types (mostly A320CEO/NEO and 737NG/MAX for medium haul flights and modern wide bodies on long haul flights, A330/787/350) with a high density seating.
All companies are trying to increase their profits and therefore they have an interest in reducing the fuel burn. Lower fuel burn equates to lower emissions, therefore there is no point in this "Eco-label" system. It may be a different story in other parts of the world where older aircraft are more common.

mxaxai · Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:45 pm

sirloin wrote:
...says the 16-year member of an aviation fansite....

You can appreciate things and still admit that they come with disadvantages. You can also try to reduce the environmental impact of things you do regularly, even if you can never achieve zero impact.

tomcat · Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:47 pm

davidjohnson6 wrote:
I've just spent the last 10 mins trying to see how much CO2 would be emitted for 1 seat on a 1000 km trip for different aircraft types - never mind worrying about seats per aircraft, load factor, circling due to ATC delays, noise, airframe recycling, etc...
The best data I could find was something that included Concorde and DC-10s as commonly used aircraft - clearly so old as to be useless.
If an a.netter can't easily find data to show that flying an E145 is worse than flying a fully loaded 737-800, then the average non-avgeek hasn't got a hope of figuring this out independently of corporate bullsh*t

Ryanair is now publishing their average CO2 emission per passenger.km. Last time I checked their were at 66g of CO2 per passenger.km and this is before the MAX200 joins the fleet. It's quite good compared to HST in countries where electricity is not mainly produced by nuclear plants (like in France) or renewable sources (like in Norway). Then where are the HSTs in Europe? Their network is just passed the embryonic state.

VSMUT · Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:50 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
The mistake made by both sides is to peg rail versus air; they can (and do) complement each other.

Indeed, Lufthansa is big on this in Frankfurt, connecting passengers on to ICE services from the airport station.

If airlines are smart, they will lobby to have HSR run out of or through airport stations. Replace the shortest contractor operated express flights with trains, and use the released capacity to serve more distant markets.

bennett123 · Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:51 pm

Hardly a war on aviation.

Looking at the Flybe example. Give people information based on all seats taken, either average or average for each class.

Let the customers have the information and they can decide.

tomcat · Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:41 pm

mercure1 wrote:
.

Reportedly, the labels will use high-speed trains as a benchmark for consumer which seems to me to be short-sighted as rail travel not always an option for many city pairs, and also becomes less optimal when distances start getting over 500km (~300miles)

There are indeed only a few countries within EU where proper HST services are available and even less countries which have good HST connections with other countries. Most of the time, traveling by train across Europe is not much faster than traveling by bus (which is also very energy efficient). On the other hand, where convenient HTS services become available, the air travel rapidly looses a significant market share. This label will actually be of little use for most of the travelers.

Also, a recent data snapshot from Eurocontrol reported that in 2019 (*) the flights shorter than 500 km in Europe made up 24% of all the flights while they were only responsible for 3.8% of the CO2 emissions of the European air transport. This reinforces the impression that this label will only be cosmetic (unless the actual mid-term goal is to create a tax related to this label) and that the focus should be on investing for improving the energy efficiency of the air transport.

(*) the 2019 figures are mentioned in the text below the chart:
https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/2021-02/eurocontrol-data-snapshot-co2-by-distance.pdf

Arion640 · Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:43 pm

Will there be a huge difference in comparing an A320 NEO to a 737MAX?

787 v A350 v 777?

They’re all pretty efficient now the 747’s have gone, not much to compare and not much choice of alternatives either!

tomcat · Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:00 pm

Arion640 wrote:
Will there be a huge difference in comparing an A320 NEO to a 737MAX?

787 v A350 v 777?

They’re all pretty efficient now the 747’s have gone, not much to compare and not much choice of alternatives either!

Differences could be expected between the longest variant of each model and the shortest ones.

WayexTDI · Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:09 pm

tomcat wrote:
mercure1 wrote:
.

Reportedly, the labels will use high-speed trains as a benchmark for consumer which seems to me to be short-sighted as rail travel not always an option for many city pairs, and also becomes less optimal when distances start getting over 500km (~300miles)

There are indeed only a few countries within EU where proper HST services are available and even less countries which have good HST connections with other countries. Most of the time, traveling by train across Europe is not much faster than traveling by bus (which is also very energy efficient). On the other hand, where convenient HTS services become available, the air travel rapidly looses a significant market share. This label will actually be of little use for most of the travelers.

Also, a recent data snapshot from Eurocontrol reported that in 2019 (*) the flights shorter than 500 km in Europe made up 24% of all the flights while they were only responsible for 3.8% of the CO2 emissions of the European air transport. This reinforces the impression that this label will only be cosmetic (unless the actual mid-term goal is to create a tax related to this label) and that the focus should be on investing for improving the energy efficiency of the air transport.

(*) the 2019 figures are mentioned in the text below the chart:
https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/2021-02/eurocontrol-data-snapshot-co2-by-distance.pdf

That chart is comparing apples to oranges: shorter intra-european flights keep the CO2 within European airspaces. However, a long-haul flight (say, Europe to Japan) will spread the CO2 over several continents.
Saying that all the CO2 produced on a long-haul flight is concentrated in Europe, and then pegging that against a short intra-european flight, is a big mistake; it basically renders the study flawed, hence useless.

willfinn · Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:23 pm

I'm sorry for the inevitable cynical rant, but...

This, as well as every similar initiative on the EU level, is an excuse to collect taxpayer wealth and donate it to either special interest groups or to donors. The gist of the article is summarized at the end: "As part of EU's spending plans, nearly 550 billion euros could be spent on climate over 2021-27 -- a massive sum, but far below the 2.4. trillion euros in investment researchers say is needed to meet EU climate goals."

Here "investment" sure sounds like "tax euros".

This scheme is a front to enable more taxation, pure and simple. It will provide a tailor-made excuse, where you will hear political mouthpieces argue the following: "As these flights are energy efficiency E-rated, it is only fitting that those passengers using said flights are a subject to a higher Environmental Flight Tax (EFT) than those using high-speed rail."

My experience from Finnish politics is, higher taxes are the only way to prevent global warming...

Back to topic:

HEL-OSL is 414nm. HEL-ARN is 216. True; these distances are covered by high-speed rail in continental Europe, so why not levy an EFT on those flights?

MIflyer12 · Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:51 pm

tomcat wrote:
davidjohnson6 wrote:
I've just spent the last 10 mins trying to see how much CO2 would be emitted for 1 seat on a 1000 km trip for different aircraft types - never mind worrying about seats per aircraft, load factor, circling due to ATC delays, noise, airframe recycling, etc...
The best data I could find was something that included Concorde and DC-10s as commonly used aircraft - clearly so old as to be useless.
If an a.netter can't easily find data to show that flying an E145 is worse than flying a fully loaded 737-800, then the average non-avgeek hasn't got a hope of figuring this out independently of corporate bullsh*t

Ryanair is now publishing their average CO2 emission per passenger.km. Last time I checked their were at 66g of CO2 per passenger.km and this is before the MAX200 joins the fleet.

U.S. carriers show fuel burned (in gallons) and RPMs and ASMs, so if you want to calculate fleetwide/systemwide emissions per mile it's easy enough. You won't get a stage-length adjustment. IMHO this isn't going to be so much about comparing MAX 8s vs. E145s, but to encourage thought by a cohort if they want to fly at all, and if they want to go at all. It's going to be a lot easier to decarbonize your home (buying wind/solar power for heat pumps) or car (wind/solar again) than to decarbonize air transport.

VSMUT · Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:52 pm

willfinn wrote:
Here "investment" sure sounds like "tax euros".

Duh. That's how states work. In other news, it gets dark when the sun sets and bears relieve themselves in the forest.

willfinn wrote:
This scheme is a front to enable more taxation, pure and simple. It will provide a tailor-made excuse, where you will hear political mouthpieces argue the following: "As these flights are energy efficiency E-rated, it is only fitting that those passengers using said flights are a subject to a higher Environmental Flight Tax (EFT) than those using high-speed rail."

What's wrong with asking the biggest polluters to contribute more towards fixing the problem? It's obviously not a burden that should rest on the shoulders of people who don't fly or otherwise pollute.

Vicenza · Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:00 pm

davidjohnson6 wrote:
If an a.netter can't easily find data to show that flying an E145 is worse than flying a fully loaded 737-800, then the average non-avgeek hasn't got a hope of figuring this out independently of corporate bullsh*t

I would disagree entirely considering the vast majority of a.netters go straight to Google and Wikipedia and post the found 'information'. Anyone can do that. Don't be assuming by far that a.netters actually 'know' the information many of them post.

tomcat · Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:13 pm

VSMUT wrote:

willfinn wrote:
This scheme is a front to enable more taxation, pure and simple. It will provide a tailor-made excuse, where you will hear political mouthpieces argue the following: "As these flights are energy efficiency E-rated, it is only fitting that those passengers using said flights are a subject to a higher Environmental Flight Tax (EFT) than those using high-speed rail."

What's wrong with asking the biggest polluters to contribute more towards fixing the problem? It's obviously not a burden that should rest on the shoulders of people who don't fly or otherwise pollute.

VSMUT, the reality is that those taxes are not meant to fix any problem other than the overspending of our governments. Here is a quote from an OECD report about the fiscal implications of the energy transition, that says it all:

The rapid penetration of electric vehicles (cars, buses, trucks and two/three-wheelers), which the IEA projects to rise to 30% of the global fleet by 2040 in its “Stated policy scenario”, leads to the need to identify alternative tax-base to fossil fuel use in transport.

https://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/GGSD_Forum%20Paper_Fiscal%20Implications.pdf

European people took centuries to more or less free themselves from an aristocratic society, the green agenda will send us back to that kind of world within a few decades.

janders · Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:17 pm

VSMUT wrote:
What's wrong with asking the biggest polluters to contribute more towards fixing the problem?

As the linked article states study indicates aviation contributes to 3.5% of global greenhouse gasses.

How about focus on the real sources - heck agriculture and lifestock contribute 24%! All of industry is 21%, while electricity and heat production is 25%.

Seems the focus on airlines is largely wasting time on an inconsequential producer.

PA727 · Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:32 pm

VSMUT wrote:
willfinn wrote:
Here "investment" sure sounds like "tax euros".

Duh. That's how states work. In other news, it gets dark when the sun sets and bears relieve themselves in the forest.

willfinn wrote:
This scheme is a front to enable more taxation, pure and simple. It will provide a tailor-made excuse, where you will hear political mouthpieces argue the following: "As these flights are energy efficiency E-rated, it is only fitting that those passengers using said flights are a subject to a higher Environmental Flight Tax (EFT) than those using high-speed rail."

What's wrong with asking the biggest polluters to contribute more towards fixing the problem? It's obviously not a burden that should rest on the shoulders of people who don't fly or otherwise pollute.

Because, in this case, it's not asking the biggest polluters to contribute. If it were, it would be listed on every private/corporate jet as well, along with a corresponding cost/tax. But that isn't the case here. As of now, it is a labeling system - only for airlines. The tax will most likely come later, which is why there should be a discussion around how it will work for corporate/private transport happening now.

willfinn · Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 pm

VSMUT wrote:
willfinn wrote:
Here "investment" sure sounds like "tax euros".

Duh. That's how states work. In other news, it gets dark when the sun sets and bears relieve themselves in the forest.

willfinn wrote:
This scheme is a front to enable more taxation, pure and simple. It will provide a tailor-made excuse, where you will hear political mouthpieces argue the following: "As these flights are energy efficiency E-rated, it is only fitting that those passengers using said flights are a subject to a higher Environmental Flight Tax (EFT) than those using high-speed rail."

What's wrong with asking the biggest polluters to contribute more towards fixing the problem? It's obviously not a burden that should rest on the shoulders of people who don't fly or otherwise pollute.

The point I was trying to make is that I dislike hypocrisy. It is intellectually dishonest to think that this scheme has anything to do with saving the planet. Instead, it has everything to do with the EU trying to find alternative tax sources.

I am not evil. People must consume less natural resources per capita — no denying that. The reason why I oppose this is that any levied tax will be henceforth budgeted, and getting rid of it would entail a cut in spending... which will never happen.

Draken21fx · Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:52 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
tomcat wrote:
mercure1 wrote:
.

Reportedly, the labels will use high-speed trains as a benchmark for consumer which seems to me to be short-sighted as rail travel not always an option for many city pairs, and also becomes less optimal when distances start getting over 500km (~300miles)

There are indeed only a few countries within EU where proper HST services are available and even less countries which have good HST connections with other countries. Most of the time, traveling by train across Europe is not much faster than traveling by bus (which is also very energy efficient). On the other hand, where convenient HTS services become available, the air travel rapidly looses a significant market share. This label will actually be of little use for most of the travelers.

Also, a recent data snapshot from Eurocontrol reported that in 2019 (*) the flights shorter than 500 km in Europe made up 24% of all the flights while they were only responsible for 3.8% of the CO2 emissions of the European air transport. This reinforces the impression that this label will only be cosmetic (unless the actual mid-term goal is to create a tax related to this label) and that the focus should be on investing for improving the energy efficiency of the air transport.

(*) the 2019 figures are mentioned in the text below the chart:
https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/2021-02/eurocontrol-data-snapshot-co2-by-distance.pdf

That chart is comparing apples to oranges: shorter intra-european flights keep the CO2 within European airspaces. However, a long-haul flight (say, Europe to Japan) will spread the CO2 over several continents.
Saying that all the CO2 produced on a long-haul flight is concentrated in Europe, and then pegging that against a short intra-european flight, is a big mistake; it basically renders the study flawed, hence useless.

Where does it state that the CO2 is concentrated in Europe? It shows CO2 in produced in general and obviously it doesnt always matter where the CO2 is produced as it can the potential to affect the ecosystem at the other end of the planet.

Draken21fx · Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:53 pm

Draken21fx wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
tomcat wrote:

There are indeed only a few countries within EU where proper HST services are available and even less countries which have good HST connections with other countries. Most of the time, traveling by train across Europe is not much faster than traveling by bus (which is also very energy efficient). On the other hand, where convenient HTS services become available, the air travel rapidly looses a significant market share. This label will actually be of little use for most of the travelers.

Also, a recent data snapshot from Eurocontrol reported that in 2019 (*) the flights shorter than 500 km in Europe made up 24% of all the flights while they were only responsible for 3.8% of the CO2 emissions of the European air transport. This reinforces the impression that this label will only be cosmetic (unless the actual mid-term goal is to create a tax related to this label) and that the focus should be on investing for improving the energy efficiency of the air transport.

(*) the 2019 figures are mentioned in the text below the chart:
https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/2021-02/eurocontrol-data-snapshot-co2-by-distance.pdf

That chart is comparing apples to oranges: shorter intra-european flights keep the CO2 within European airspaces. However, a long-haul flight (say, Europe to Japan) will spread the CO2 over several continents.
Saying that all the CO2 produced on a long-haul flight is concentrated in Europe, and then pegging that against a short intra-european flight, is a big mistake; it basically renders the study flawed, hence useless.

Where does it state that the CO2 is concentrated in Europe? It shows CO2 in produced in general and obviously it doesnt always matter where the CO2 is produced as it can potentially affect the ecosystem at the other end of the planet.

VSMUT · Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:56 pm

tomcat wrote:
European people took centuries to more or less free themselves from an aristocratic society, the green agenda will send us back to that kind of world within a few decades.

And Antifa is waiting around every corner, right?

Taxes aren't dumped into a black hole. They are in this case going to be invested into technology and jobs.

janders wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
What's wrong with asking the biggest polluters to contribute more towards fixing the problem?

As the linked article states study indicates aviation contributes to 3.5% of global greenhouse gasses.

How about focus on the real sources - heck agriculture and lifestock contribute 24%! All of industry is 21%, while electricity and heat production is 25%.

Seems the focus on airlines is largely wasting time on an inconsequential producer.

Every sector needs to contribute. Reality is that those 3.5% are spent by less than 1% of the global population.

PA727 wrote:
Because, in this case, it's not asking the biggest polluters to contribute. If it were, it would be listed on every private/corporate jet as well, along with a corresponding cost/tax. But that isn't the case here. As of now, it is a labeling system - only for airlines. The tax will most likely come later, which is why there should be a discussion around how it will work for corporate/private transport happening now.

Business jets are already under attack.

Aither · Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:05 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Every sector needs to contribute. Reality is that those 3.5% are spent by less than 1% of the global population.
.

Air traffic is not only about passengers. Over 100 million jobs depend directly or indirectly from aviation.

Netflix generates far more pollution per job created than aviation.

Pollution per generated jobs should be the metrics governments should look at. Otherwise just make everybody poor and yes, there could be less pollution. Maybe, because poor people don't buy solar panels.

VSMUT · Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:12 pm

Aither wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Every sector needs to contribute. Reality is that those 3.5% are spent by less than 1% of the global population.
.

Air traffic is not only about passengers. Over 100 million jobs depend directly or indirectly from aviation.

Exactly why we need tax-funded investments into evolving aviation.

noviorbis77 · Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:13 pm

mxaxai wrote:
mercure1 wrote:
Reportedly, the labels will use high-speed trains as a benchmark for consumer which seems to me to be short-sighted as rail travel not always an option for many city pairs, and also becomes less optimal when distances start getting over 500km (~300miles)

This is a purely informative label for consumers. They can choose to either care or not.

One motivation is to "reduce the risk of 'greenwashing'" and provide a common labeling system. There are three different classes planned, for regional aircraft, narrowbodies and widebodies.

The original "Welt am Sonntag" article also states that CO2 emissions will be just one among several criteria that the new label evaluates. Other engine emissions, as well as noise and the amount of waste the airlines generate (through catering etc.) shall be considered.
https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article2 ... zeuge.html [German]

I would guess most wont care.

Cost and conveneince is the primary factor.

tomcat · Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:17 pm

VSMUT wrote:
tomcat wrote:
European people took centuries to more or less free themselves from an aristocratic society, the green agenda will send us back to that kind of world within a few decades.

And Antifa is waiting around every corner, right?

Taxes aren't dumped into a black hole. They are in this case going to be invested into technology and jobs.

I don't see what you mean with that Antifa sentence. I'm not familiar with that person.

About the use of the taxes, I have provided you a link to an OECD document which illustrates that such taxes are not used to fixing any specific issue.

WayexTDI · Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:22 pm

Draken21fx wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
tomcat wrote:

There are indeed only a few countries within EU where proper HST services are available and even less countries which have good HST connections with other countries. Most of the time, traveling by train across Europe is not much faster than traveling by bus (which is also very energy efficient). On the other hand, where convenient HTS services become available, the air travel rapidly looses a significant market share. This label will actually be of little use for most of the travelers.

Also, a recent data snapshot from Eurocontrol reported that in 2019 (*) the flights shorter than 500 km in Europe made up 24% of all the flights while they were only responsible for 3.8% of the CO2 emissions of the European air transport. This reinforces the impression that this label will only be cosmetic (unless the actual mid-term goal is to create a tax related to this label) and that the focus should be on investing for improving the energy efficiency of the air transport.

(*) the 2019 figures are mentioned in the text below the chart:
https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/2021-02/eurocontrol-data-snapshot-co2-by-distance.pdf

That chart is comparing apples to oranges: shorter intra-european flights keep the CO2 within European airspaces. However, a long-haul flight (say, Europe to Japan) will spread the CO2 over several continents.
Saying that all the CO2 produced on a long-haul flight is concentrated in Europe, and then pegging that against a short intra-european flight, is a big mistake; it basically renders the study flawed, hence useless.

Where does it state that the CO2 is concentrated in Europe? It shows CO2 in produced in general and obviously it doesnt always matter where the CO2 is produced as it can the potential to affect the ecosystem at the other end of the planet.

Of course CO2 rejected in the atmosphere affects everybody on Earth.
But how can you compare intra-European flights and CO2 rejection with extra-European flights and CO2 rejection, and then peg them against each other?

oldJoe · Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:10 pm

tomcat wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
tomcat wrote:
European people took centuries to more or less free themselves from an aristocratic society, the green agenda will send us back to that kind of world within a few decades.

And Antifa is waiting around every corner, right?

Taxes aren't dumped into a black hole. They are in this case going to be invested into technology and jobs.

I don't see what you mean with that Antifa sentence. I'm not familiar with that person.

About the use of the taxes, I have provided you a link to an OECD document which illustrates that such taxes are not used to fixing any specific issue.

Antifa is not a person. It means Anti-fascist action
Yes , "VSMUT" is right that taxes are not dumped in black holes. Germany invested alot in the last years to get greener and this is not for free.

Galwayman · Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:20 pm

tomcat wrote:
The leading low cost airlines with their young fleets, high seat densities and high load factors will come out on top.

Yes thats perfect - and the half empty, space wasting airlines with older aircraft like United airlines will be shown up for their sloppiness. It's win win ....

Aesma · Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:41 pm

PA727 wrote:
Because, in this case, it's not asking the biggest polluters to contribute. If it were, it would be listed on every private/corporate jet as well, along with a corresponding cost/tax. But that isn't the case here. As of now, it is a labeling system - only for airlines. The tax will most likely come later, which is why there should be a discussion around how it will work for corporate/private transport happening now.

One will lead to the other. The yellow jackets in France were very unhappy that they paid lots of tax on their diesel fuel and aviation doesn't pay any.

The gas guzzling tax in France for sports cars, powerful SUVs etc. (calculated on CO2 emissions) was 20000€ last year, 30000€ this year, 40000€ next year.

This tax goes directly to pay for rebates on electric cars.

AA94 · Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 pm

Galwayman wrote:
tomcat wrote:
The leading low cost airlines with their young fleets, high seat densities and high load factors will come out on top.

Yes thats perfect - and the half empty, space wasting airlines with older aircraft like United airlines will be shown up for their sloppiness. It's win win ....

Unsure what point you're attempting to make. Pre-COVID, UA wasn't flying empty planes around. Of course, there are the typical fluctuations in demand which may render individual flights more/less full, but legacy airlines don't hold on to 800+ aircraft to fly them around empty for fun.

Draken21fx · Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:48 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
Draken21fx wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
That chart is comparing apples to oranges: shorter intra-european flights keep the CO2 within European airspaces. However, a long-haul flight (say, Europe to Japan) will spread the CO2 over several continents.
Saying that all the CO2 produced on a long-haul flight is concentrated in Europe, and then pegging that against a short intra-european flight, is a big mistake; it basically renders the study flawed, hence useless.

Where does it state that the CO2 is concentrated in Europe? It shows CO2 in produced in general and obviously it doesnt always matter where the CO2 is produced as it can the potential to affect the ecosystem at the other end of the planet.

Of course CO2 rejected in the atmosphere affects everybody on Earth.
But how can you compare intra-European flights and CO2 rejection with extra-European flights and CO2 rejection, and then peg them against each other?

Well if I understood correctly your question the answer is quite simple.

Eurocontrol investigates flights originating from European airports and their impact on CO2. Destination is irrelevant.

You can have plenty of flights departing from a European airport and arriving at a non European one of less than 500km so those would count towards the <500 km total.

Similarly you can have a intra-European flight of >4000km.

Again destination does not matter, rather than number of flights.

The correct debate in my eyes wouldnt be intra-European vs non intra-European but km per passenger flown vs emissions but the >4000km flights would be leading that metric as well but maybe not by that much though.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net