IATA to cut CO2 emission by 50% by 2050!
Keith Parkins | 26.10.2009 14:15 | Climate Chaos | Energy Crisis | Globalisation
The decision by IATA to cut CO2 emissions by 2050 is a step in the right direction, although it should be 80% by 2050, not 50%, 50% is not enough. But how does this square with IATA committed to aviation growth? 
http://bit.ly/TZwa1
Er, it does not. The claim by IATA to achieve 50% cut in CO2 by 2050 does not withstand close scrutiny. Their idea of 'cuts' is to make use of discredited carbon trading, in other words the reality is business as usual.
http://www.carbontradewatch.org/
It is possible for aviation to reduce carbon emissions, but the means to do so are counter-intuitive.
More runways. More runways would be like more roads, the traffic expands to maximise usage. Runway expansion would therefore have to be tied with a cap on flights. Nor does this imply a third runway at Heathrow or more concrete and tarmac. It implies better use of existing runways, with possibly a shifting from London to the regions.
A plane needs to come down on continuous descent, that is to almost glide in to land. This is not happening, aircraft are being held in stacks.
A plane needs to hit maximum optimum cruising altitude and air speed as quickly as possible. This means full thrust on takeover, rapid climb. But this also means maximum noise to those in the vicinity of the airport..
Aircraft are approaching their theoretical efficiency, there is not much more can be achieved. The efficiency gains we have seen have in recent years been a mere 1% per annum. No one is offering a scrapage scheme to get rid of old aircraft.
If we are to see reductions in CO2 emission it means better use being made of existing aircraft and cuts in the number of movements. What is totally unacceptable is the business aviation that flies out of Farnborough Airport with an average passenger occupancy of 2.5 passengers per flight! It makes the 30+ passengers business flights BA are proposing from City of London Airport appear efficient.
EU environment ministers have agreed a 10% cut in CO2 emissions from aviation by 2020. This does not go anywhere near far enough. If we ares serious about stabilising global temperature rises at below 2 degrees Centigrade and bringing carbons level in the atmosphere down to less than 350 ppm, the we have to see a cut of 10% by 2010.
http://www.1010uk.org/
http://www.350.org/
A motion was tabled in the House of Commons by the LibDems to commit to a reduction in CO2 emissions of 10% by 2010. It was defeated by 297 votes to 226 votes. All but 12 Labour MPs voted against. Politicians huff and puff on climate change and the need for action, but when there is a call for action all we get is a puff of hot air perfumed with the putrid stench of corruption. As we have seen with the expenses scandal, MPs are more interested in lining their own pockets than acting for those they are elected to serve. http://bit.ly/4E3ZYe http://bit.ly/2D0e6X
Farnborough Airport is seeking doubling of flights over existing numbers. This would mean a doubling of CO2 emissions. This runs contrary to the Climate Change Act making mandatory a cut of 80% by 2050, contrary to what IATA has agreed, contrary to what the EU Environment Minister have agreed.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/07/434470.html?c=on
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/07/435417.html?c=on
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/09/438822.html
Gatwick has been bought by GIP,a hedge fund, who will wish to squeeze maximum profit out of Gatwick. Bad news for airlines, bad news for passengers, bad news for the locality. Gatwick was sold for £1.5 billion. GIP also own City of London Airport. http://bit.ly/1pqBZQ
The government has served an Article 14 Directive on Crawley Council to stop the council approving expansion of Gatwick North Terminal. This was as a direct result of GACC demanding tough conditions on noise, air pollution and CO2 emissions which Crawley were unwilling to impose. Expansion of the North Terminal would enable Gatwick to handle 20,000 more flights than 2008, so on a par with expansion at Farnborough Airport. This is larger than the overall movements at many regional airport which puts Farnborough and Gatwick expansion in context.
http://www.gacc.org.uk
An Article 14 Directive is served to stop a local planning authority approving a planning application.
The price of light crude oil recently hit $81.37 a barrel . As fuel costs are the biggest single cost to airlines, rising fuel costs will hit any desire to expand. We are probably already seeing the end of low cost airlines as they have already been chopping some of their routes.
Biofuels is not the answer. Apart from the land it would use, denial of land for food production, destruction of pristine forest and demand on water, biofuels for aviation require extra processing, thus extra energy demand. http://bit.lyxA9SE
Southend Airport has submitted a planning application to extend its run runway length from 1605 to 1905 metres in order that it can handle bigger and heavier planes.
BAA has shelved plans for a third runway at Heathrow. Maybe the airline industry has finally woken up to the reality that unconstrained expansion is no longer possible.
EU wants shipping and aviation to be part of any agreement at Copenhagen. http://bit.ly/3QYZsl
Aviation now contributes 4.9% to climate change.
Will Copenhagen be little more than hot air?
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/09/438590.html
Websites
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/
http://www.planestupid.com/
http://www.airportpledge.org.uk/
http://bit.ly/TZwa1 Er, it does not. The claim by IATA to achieve 50% cut in CO2 by 2050 does not withstand close scrutiny. Their idea of 'cuts' is to make use of discredited carbon trading, in other words the reality is business as usual.
http://www.carbontradewatch.org/ It is possible for aviation to reduce carbon emissions, but the means to do so are counter-intuitive.
More runways. More runways would be like more roads, the traffic expands to maximise usage. Runway expansion would therefore have to be tied with a cap on flights. Nor does this imply a third runway at Heathrow or more concrete and tarmac. It implies better use of existing runways, with possibly a shifting from London to the regions.
A plane needs to come down on continuous descent, that is to almost glide in to land. This is not happening, aircraft are being held in stacks.
A plane needs to hit maximum optimum cruising altitude and air speed as quickly as possible. This means full thrust on takeover, rapid climb. But this also means maximum noise to those in the vicinity of the airport..
Aircraft are approaching their theoretical efficiency, there is not much more can be achieved. The efficiency gains we have seen have in recent years been a mere 1% per annum. No one is offering a scrapage scheme to get rid of old aircraft.
If we are to see reductions in CO2 emission it means better use being made of existing aircraft and cuts in the number of movements. What is totally unacceptable is the business aviation that flies out of Farnborough Airport with an average passenger occupancy of 2.5 passengers per flight! It makes the 30+ passengers business flights BA are proposing from City of London Airport appear efficient.
EU environment ministers have agreed a 10% cut in CO2 emissions from aviation by 2020. This does not go anywhere near far enough. If we ares serious about stabilising global temperature rises at below 2 degrees Centigrade and bringing carbons level in the atmosphere down to less than 350 ppm, the we have to see a cut of 10% by 2010.
http://www.1010uk.org/ http://www.350.org/ A motion was tabled in the House of Commons by the LibDems to commit to a reduction in CO2 emissions of 10% by 2010. It was defeated by 297 votes to 226 votes. All but 12 Labour MPs voted against. Politicians huff and puff on climate change and the need for action, but when there is a call for action all we get is a puff of hot air perfumed with the putrid stench of corruption. As we have seen with the expenses scandal, MPs are more interested in lining their own pockets than acting for those they are elected to serve.
http://bit.ly/4E3ZYe http://bit.ly/2D0e6X Farnborough Airport is seeking doubling of flights over existing numbers. This would mean a doubling of CO2 emissions. This runs contrary to the Climate Change Act making mandatory a cut of 80% by 2050, contrary to what IATA has agreed, contrary to what the EU Environment Minister have agreed.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/07/434470.html?c=on http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/07/435417.html?c=on http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/09/438822.html Gatwick has been bought by GIP,a hedge fund, who will wish to squeeze maximum profit out of Gatwick. Bad news for airlines, bad news for passengers, bad news for the locality. Gatwick was sold for £1.5 billion. GIP also own City of London Airport.
http://bit.ly/1pqBZQ The government has served an Article 14 Directive on Crawley Council to stop the council approving expansion of Gatwick North Terminal. This was as a direct result of GACC demanding tough conditions on noise, air pollution and CO2 emissions which Crawley were unwilling to impose. Expansion of the North Terminal would enable Gatwick to handle 20,000 more flights than 2008, so on a par with expansion at Farnborough Airport. This is larger than the overall movements at many regional airport which puts Farnborough and Gatwick expansion in context.
http://www.gacc.org.uk An Article 14 Directive is served to stop a local planning authority approving a planning application.
The price of light crude oil recently hit $81.37 a barrel . As fuel costs are the biggest single cost to airlines, rising fuel costs will hit any desire to expand. We are probably already seeing the end of low cost airlines as they have already been chopping some of their routes.
Biofuels is not the answer. Apart from the land it would use, denial of land for food production, destruction of pristine forest and demand on water, biofuels for aviation require extra processing, thus extra energy demand.
http://bit.lyxA9SE Southend Airport has submitted a planning application to extend its run runway length from 1605 to 1905 metres in order that it can handle bigger and heavier planes.
BAA has shelved plans for a third runway at Heathrow. Maybe the airline industry has finally woken up to the reality that unconstrained expansion is no longer possible.
EU wants shipping and aviation to be part of any agreement at Copenhagen.
http://bit.ly/3QYZsl Aviation now contributes 4.9% to climate change.
Will Copenhagen be little more than hot air?
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/09/438590.html Websites
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/ http://www.planestupid.com/ http://www.airportpledge.org.uk/
Keith Parkins
Homepage:
http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/