|
Post by Wayne Hall on May 7, 2005 1:31:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Hall on Jul 18, 2005 23:39:49 GMT -5
There is an organization called Green Skies concerned with the detrimental effects of aviation. It also has a forum.
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Jul 20, 2005 0:12:05 GMT -5
Re: "Green Skies" - thanks - will take a look at the main site. Unfortunately the forum doesn't look very active. <sigh>
*** I check the following site on a regular basis for monthly and quarterly stats on domestic commercial airline passenger traffic:U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics April Airline Traffic Data: Four-Month Domestic Traffic Up 5.5 Percent From 2004www.bts.gov/press_releases/2005/bts031_05/html/bts031_05.htmlExcerpt: BTS, a part of DOT's Research and Innovative Technology Administration, reported that the airlines carried 209.0 million domestic passengers during the first four months of 2005, up from the 198.0 million carried between January and April 2004 (Table 2). The passengers were carried on 3.25 million flights, up 0.7 percent from the 3.23 million flights operated in 2004 (Table 1)..... (continued) I've done the math and the 1st Quarter 2005 U.S. *domestic* air traffic data breaks down as follows (this is commercial passenger flights ONLY):
3,250,000 flights between January 1 and April 30, 2005 -----> 812,500 flights per month -----> 203,125 flights per week -----> 29,017 flights per day.
I don't think that's enough flights. I think if we really want to total our atmosphere we need to at least double the number of commercial passenger flights per day within U.S. borders.
What do you think?.
|
|
|
Post by EnviroEngr on Jul 21, 2005 21:17:01 GMT -5
Re: "Green Skies" - thanks - will take a look at the main site. Unfortunately the forum doesn't look very active. <sigh>
*** <snip>
Excerpt:
BTS, a part of DOT's Research and Innovative Technology Administration, reported that the airlines carried 209.0 million domestic passengers during the first four months of 2005, up from the 198.0 million carried between January and April 2004 (Table 2). The passengers were carried on 3.25 million flights, up 0.7 percent from the 3.23 million flights operated in 2004 (Table 1)..... (continued)
I've done the math and the 1st Quarter 2005 U.S. *domestic* air traffic data breaks down as follows (this is commercial passenger flights ONLY):
3,250,000 flights between January 1 and April 30, 2005 -----> 812,500 flights per month -----> 203,125 flights per week -----> 29,017 flights per day.
I don't think that's enough flights. I think if we really want to total our atmosphere we need to at least double the number of commercial passenger flights per day within U.S. borders.
What do you think?
. Let's look at that math again momentarily: Months = 4.00 Weeks = 17.14 Days = 120.00 [1/1 & 4/30 inclusive] Starting with 3,250,000 flights, we have: 3,250,000 ÷ 4 = 812,500.00 per month3,250,000 ÷ 17.14 = 189,583.33 per week3,250,000 ÷ 120.00 = 27,083.33 per dayIt's minor in this case, but if you were building an N-dimensional matrix or using a series of sequential equations, the final error margin would almost certainly exceed 100% (or the entire value of the independent variable). Accurately defining the variables and constants in equations is important business once you get to the level of large system perturbations or chaos calculations - such as are found in Climate Models.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Hall on Jul 22, 2005 8:43:14 GMT -5
Javelina and EnviroEngr, why not repost your last messages at the Green Skies forum and see what, if anything, happens???
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Jul 22, 2005 23:58:47 GMT -5
Actually, it's not "minor" in any case.
Your critique is well-taken. Thank you for taking the time to point out the importance of accurately defining the variables and constants in equations.
Obviously I just did a quick calculation based on 4 months, 16 weeks, etc. Next time I'll follow the process you kindly illustrated.
*** As for posting at "Green Skies", Wayne, I'm sorry, but I know a dead forum when I see one. It would be nice if it were otherwise, but I just don't see much energy going into that venue given the length of time it's been online.
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Aug 16, 2005 21:36:43 GMT -5
Contrails and Aviation PollutionAviation Transport 2000.orgwww.transport2000.org.uk/campaigns/Aviation.htmSignificant growth is forecast in the aviation industry both in terms of passenger travel and movement of air-freight. People and the environment face serious threats from this growth, including noise problems, possible cancer clusters around airports and climate change. Transport 2000 says it's time to manage demand for air travel and make aviation pay for the problems it causes. Aviation has been almost the forgotten environmental issue. While growth in road traffic has led to considerable awareness of the problems caused, air travel has continued to rocket over the past few decades almost unnoticed and its effects are less well known. A research report published by Transport 2000 - The Plane Truth: Aviation and the Environment - predicts that by 2015 air travel world-wide could be more than double that in 1995. And if the trend continues, by 2050 passenger-kilometres flown could grow to between five and nine times that in the mid-90s. Aircraft produce large amounts of toxic emissions that are a threat to human health, including nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Research in the US has linked VOCs generated by Chicago-Midway Airport to elevated rates of cancer in the vicinity. Heathrow Airport is already one of this country's main producers of VOCs and building the controversial fifth terminal there will make the situation worse. Aviation also generates levels of noise that pose a serious threat to the health of those who live around airports. The report reveals that World Health Organisation noise limits are regularly exceeded and that one in eight people in the UK are affected by noise pollution from aircraft. In October 2001 the European court of Human Rights ruled that night flights from Heathrow violated the human rights of local residents by denying them a normal night's sleep. The UK Government has, however, successfully appealed against the decision. The latest ruling sets back attempts to bring aviation to account for its effect on local communities around airports and under flight paths. And aviation poses a massive threat to the environment. Its projected growth means that by 2050 it is set to become one of the biggest single sources of greenhouse gas emissions with around 10 per cent of climate change directly attributable to aircraft. On short-haul flights air travel produces around three times as much carbon dioxide per passenger as rail. While motorists could argue that through various taxes they pay something towards the environmental and social problems they cause, air travellers and airlines most certainly do not. Airlines pay no duty or VAT on aviation fuel and there is no VAT on either air tickets or new aircraft. Transport 2000 believes that aviation needs to be held responsible for its effects on people and the environment. If air transport continues to soar in the longer term, then people and the environment will pay the price. Campaigners have called for future demand to be managed to reduce the adverse effects as much as possible. They have proposed an environmental charge on air travel based on emissions and the ending of tax exemptions on aviation fuel. The need for more stringent standards on noise and emissions around airports, better monitoring of the effects of air travel and more promotion of the alternatives, such as rail for short-haul flights, are also clear. Some people say that restricting aviation growth would have serious effects on the economy but The Plane Truth report sheds doubt on this. Professor John Whitelegg, who compiled the report, says this assumption is at best questionable and quite probably flawed, and that limiting aviation traffic might even deliver positive economic benefits..... (continued) The Plane Truth: Aviation and the Environment Transport 2000www.us-caw.org/planetr.pdf
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Aug 16, 2005 21:38:36 GMT -5
Contrails and Aviation PollutionFor Immediate Release February 22, 2000 Contact: Jim Berard (202) 225-6260
Oberstar: GAO Study Links Aircraft Emissions to Global WarmingReport says jet exhaust accounts for a "potentially significant and growing" portion of greenhouse gases WASHINGTON — A new report from the General Accounting Office indicates that commercial jet aviation makes a significant contribution to the problem of global warming. The study further warns that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases can be expected to increase as commercial jet travel continues to grow worldwide. The report was released today by Rep. James L. Oberstar (Minn.), Ranking Democratic Member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The GAO study was done at Oberstar’s request. In his request, Oberstar pointed out that aviation is the fastest-growing segment of the transportation industry, growing at a rate of some five percent annually, and this has brought with it an increasing concern over aviation’s impact on the environment. "On the one hand, the industry’s growth has created concerns about noise, air, and water pollution. On the other hand, environmental concerns have increased the time and cost of development and imposed restrictions on flight patterns, airport use, and airport capacity," Oberstar wrote. The GAO found that, in the United States, aviation emissions accounted for about three percent of the greenhouse gases and other emissions that contribute to the global warming phenomenon. While this percentage is small in relative terms—other transportation sources contribute 23 percent, and other industrial emissions account for 41 percent—aviation emissions are potentially significant for a number of reasons: -- Jet aircraft emissions are deposited directly into the upper atmosphere and some of them have a greater warming effect than gases emitted closer to the surface, such as automobile exhaust -- The primary gas emitted by jet aircraft engines is carbon dioxide, which can survive in the atmosphere up to 100 years. -- Carbon dioxide combined with other exhaust gases and particulates emitted from jet engines could have two to four times as great an impact on the atmosphere as carbon dioxide emissions alone. -- The growing demand for jet air service is likely to generate more emissions that cannot be offset by reductions achieved through technological improvements alone. The report recommended further research into the impact of jet exhaust on the global atmosphere to help guide the development of new aircraft engine technology. It also called upon governments to reduce emissions through improved air traffic control and regulatory and economic incentives. The report released today is the first in a series of studies on the environmental impact of aviation stemming from Oberstar’s request. Text of the report (GAO/RCED-00-57) is available on line at www.gao.gov/archive/2000/rc00057.pdf
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Aug 16, 2005 21:40:37 GMT -5
Contrails and Aviation Pollution20 October 2003 EurActiv.com
UK aviation industry recognises need to address aviation's climate change impactIn short: On 13 October the EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström discussed with the UK aviation industry alternatives as to how to reduce the impact of aviation on climate change. Background: Aviation is estimated to contribute around 3.5 per cent to human-induced global warming. And the growing number of flights is likely to exacerbate the problem of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions in the coming decades. A study from Cambridge University entitled "Aviation and the global atmosphere" suggests that the impact of aviation on climate change could grow to between 5 and 15 per cent of the total human-induced impact by 2050 (with a mid-range scenario of 6 per cent). Issues: On 13 October, the British Airport Association (BAA) organised a seminar to determine the best approach to address the impact of aviation on climate change. Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström, UK aviation minister Tony McNulty, BAA chief executive Mike Clasper, Friends of the Earth senior climate & transport campaigner Roger Higman and British Airways chief economist & head of environment Andrew Sentance focused discussions in particular on the role of aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme. Positions: Referring to the appropriate instruments which could be implemented within the aviation industry to combat climate change Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström mentioned three instruments: --- The exemption of taxation on kerosene should be ended. The new Community Directive on energy taxation will allow Member States to tax kerosene on domestic flights and - on the basis of bilateral agreements - intra-EU flights; --- An 'en route emissions charge' could be introduced. The Commission is currently considering the results of a study on 'en route charges' that could form the basis for a Commission proposal; --- The EU emissions trading scheme should be applied to aviation. The commission is studying how this could be achieved. The British Airport Association considers that "the aviation industry cannot grow unless it tackles its global impacts: by making the most of the positive economic, social and cultural benefits of aviation, and by constantly striving to drive down the negative impacts on its local communities and the environment". Supplemental links here: www.euractiv.com/Article?tcm...34-16&type=News*** An excerpt from Dr. Rita Colwell's December 4, 2002 speech to a planning workshop in Washington, DC:.....Scale is an important consideration for observing the atmosphere as well—to paraphrase Thoreau, knowing when and where to look. Here we see contrails left by jet aircraft in the sky over Southern California. When all commercial aircraft were grounded after September 11, 2001, a unique portal opened onto surface temperature. The range in daily temperature on those days without jet flights proved to be the widest in 30 years. The reason: Contrails block sunlight by day and retain heat on the earth by night.....www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/forum/col...techngwkshp.htm
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Aug 16, 2005 21:43:04 GMT -5
Contrails and Aviation PollutionHistorical and Future Trends in Aircraft Performance, Cost, and Emissions
Joosung Joseph Lee B.S., Mechanical Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1998
Submitted to the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the Engineering Systems Division in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics and Master of Science in Technology and Policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology September 2000
2000 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reservedExcerpt: 2.2 Aviation and the Environment Today Aviation has now become a major mode of transportation and an integral part of the infrastructure of modern society. Currently, aircraft account for more than 10% of world’s passenger miles traveled (Schafer and Victor, 1997b). Aviation directly impacts the global economy in the form of commercial passenger travel, freighter transport, and business travelers, involving the suppliers and operators of aircraft, component manufacturers, fuel suppliers, airports, and air navigation service providers. In 1994, the aviation sector accounted for 24 million jobs globally and financially provided $1,140 billion in annual gross output (IATA, 1997). Because of its growing influence on the global economy and the wide range of industries involved, the activities of the air transport industry have been directly circumscribed by public interest. Energy use and environmental impact, as represented by air pollution and noise, are two important drivers for today’s aviation sector. Currently, aviation fuel consumption corresponds to 2 to 3% of the total fossil fuels used worldwide, and more than 80% of this is used by civil aviation. In comparison, the entire transportation sector burns 20 to 25% of the total fossil fuels consumed. Thus the aviation sector alone uses 13% of the fossil fuels consumed in transportation, being the second largest transportation sector after road transportation (IPCC, 1996b). In the future, total aviation fuel consumption is expected to continue to grow due to the rapid growth in air traffic volume. The subsequent increase in aircraft engine emissions has drawn particular attention among the aviation industry, the scientific community, and international governments in light global climate change. Through various forums among global participants, the effort to address these issues concerning growing aviation emissions has recently culminated in the IPCC Special Report on Aviation and the Atmosphere. In review of this document, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) describes the current status of aviation and global climate as, "Aviation’s effects on the global atmosphere are potentially significant and expected to grow” (GAO, 2000). Aircraft engines emit a wide range of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, and particulates. The environmental issues concerning these aircraft emissions originally arose from protecting local air quality in the vicinity of airports and have grown to global environmental issues, two of which may bear the direct consequences of aviation. One is climate change, which may alter weather patterns, and, for supersonic aircraft, stratospheric ozone depletion and resultant increase in ultraviolet-B (UV-B) at the earth's surface (IPCC, 1999). The resultant radiative forcing from these aircraft emissions discharged directly at altitude is estimated to be 2 to 4 times higher than that due to aircraft carbon dioxide emissions alone, whereas the overall radiative forcing from the sum of all anthropogenic activities is estimated to be a factor of 1.5 times that of carbon dioxide emissions at the ground level. IPCC global modeling estimates show that aircraft were responsible for about 3.5% of the total accumulated anthropogenic radiative forcing of the atmosphere in 1992 as shown in Figure 2.1 (IPCC, 1999). A number of direct and indirect species of aircraft emissions have been identified to affect climate. Carbon dioxide and water directly influence climate by radiative forcing while their indirect influences on climate include the production of [excess] ozone in the troposphere, alteration of the methane lifetime, formation of contrails, and modified cirrus cloudiness. As for the species that have indirect influences on climate, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and water vapor impact climate by modifying the chemical balance in the atmosphere (IPCC, 1999). The atmospheric sources and sinks of CO2 occur principally at the earth’s surface through exchange between the biosphere and the oceans. CO2 molecules in the atmosphere absorb the infrared radiation from the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. An increase in CO2 atmospheric concentration causes a warming of the troposphere and a cooling of the stratosphere. Thus, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is one of the most important factors in climate change. Water influences climate through its continual cycling between water vapor, clouds, precipitation, and ground water. Both water vapor and clouds have large effects on the radiative balance of climate and directly influence tropospheric chemistry. Water is also important in polar ozone loss though the formation of polar stratospheric clouds. This can directly affect the radiative balance of climate and have a chemical perturbation on stratospheric ozone.
Furthermore, it takes longer for water emissions to disappear in the stratosphere than in the troposphere, so these aircraft water emissions increase the ambient concentration and directly impact the radiative balance and climate. Thus, new concerns have arisen regarding increasing contrails and enhanced cirrus formation. Figures 2.2a and 2.2b show a contrail coverage in 1992 and its estimate in 2050 (IPCC, 1999). [See .pdf link provided below for a look at Figures 2.2a and 2.2b.] Nitrogen oxides are present throughout the atmosphere. Their influence is important in the chemistry of both the troposphere and the stratosphere as well as in ozone production and destruction processes. In the upper troposphere and lowermost stratosphere, NOx emissions from subsonic aircraft tend to increase ozone concentrations. The ozone then acts as a greenhouse gas.
On the other hand, NOx emissions from supersonic aircraft at the higher altitudes tend to deplete ozone.NOx emissions are also known to contribute to the reduction in the atmospheric lifetime of methane, which is another greenhouse gas (IPCC, 1999). Particles related to aviation are principally sulfate aerosols and soot particles, which impact the chemical balance of the atmosphere. During operation, aircraft engines emit a mixture of particles and gases (e.g. SO2 - sulfur dioxide) evolving into a variety of particles mainly composed of soot from incomplete combustion and sulfuric acid (H2SO4) from the sulfur in the aviation fuel. These particles then contribute to the seeding of contrails and cirrus clouds, potentially altering the total cloud cover in the upper troposphere. The sulfate aerosol layer in the stratosphere affects stratospheric NOx and hence ozone [depletion] (IPCC, 1999). Overall, aircraft emissions are unique because they are directly discharged at the high altitudes and may affect the atmosphere in a different way than ground level emissions do. The radiative forcing from aircraft engine emissions is estimated to be 2 to 4 times higher than that due to aircraft carbon dioxide emissions alone, whereas the overall radiative forcing due to the sum of all anthropogenic activities is estimated to be a factor of 1.5 times that of carbon dioxide emissions at the ground level (IPCC, 1999). END Excerpt. www.mit.edu/people/jjlee/docs/lee_thesis.pdf
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Aug 16, 2005 21:45:53 GMT -5
Contrails and Aviation Pollution3 December 2003 The Guardian UK
Low flying 'would aid air quality'www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/s...1098385,00.html The environmental havoc wreaked by aviation could be brought under control if aircraft cruised at a lower altitude and flew in straight lines, according to leading scientists. Just weeks ahead of a likely announcement on new runways from the transport secretary, Alistair Darling, experts suggested the rapid rise in emissions from air transport could be halted if the industry operated more efficiently. Keith Mans, chief executive of the Royal Aeronautical Society, yesterday claimed pollution could be controlled even if the industry grows at the forecast rate of 3%-5% a year. "If we invest in technology, invest in operational improvements and look at the problems in a holistic way, there is a good chance we will be able to at least stabilise emissions in the medium term," said Mr Mans. New research suggests that by flying 6,000ft lower than their present cruising altitude, airlines could cut the damage caused by vapour trails by 47% - although they would burn 6% more fuel. Vapour emissions are viewed as a big contributor to global warming. Greener by Design, a group of academics urging the industry to take on board environmental issues, believes that improved air traffic control could cut emissions by a further 10% if planes no longer had to fly "zig-zag" patterns and were able to avoid queuing for take-off and landing slots. The findings contradict warnings from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution that expansion in air travel is unsustainable. *** 3 December 2003 The Guardian UK
Low flying 'would aid air quality'www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/s...1098385,00.html The environmental havoc wreaked by aviation could be brought under control if aircraft cruised at a lower altitude and flew in straight lines, according to leading scientists. Just weeks ahead of a likely announcement on new runways from the transport secretary, Alistair Darling, experts suggested the rapid rise in emissions from air transport could be halted if the industry operated more efficiently. Keith Mans, chief executive of the Royal Aeronautical Society, yesterday claimed pollution could be controlled even if the industry grows at the forecast rate of 3%-5% a year. "If we invest in technology, invest in operational improvements and look at the problems in a holistic way, there is a good chance we will be able to at least stabilise emissions in the medium term," said Mr Mans. New research suggests that by flying 6,000ft lower than their present cruising altitude, airlines could cut the damage caused by vapour trails by 47% - although they would burn 6% more fuel. Vapour emissions are viewed as a big contributor to global warming. Greener by Design, a group of academics urging the industry to take on board environmental issues, believes that improved air traffic control could cut emissions by a further 10% if planes no longer had to fly "zig-zag" patterns and were able to avoid queuing for take-off and landing slots. The findings contradict warnings from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution that expansion in air travel is unsustainable. *** 9 July 2003 Aviation Today and Tomorrow Elmar Uherek - Mainz Institute, Germanywww.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/n9.html
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Aug 16, 2005 21:51:06 GMT -5
Contrails and Aviation Pollution12/4/03 BBC News
Fly Lower to Cut Climate Impactnews.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3288003.stmFlying aircraft 6,000 feet (1.8 kilometres) below current altitudes could help curb the contribution to climate change made by aircraft. UK scientists say this would result in a 47% reduction in contrails, the exhaust streams produced by aircraft. Contrails can evolve into cirrus clouds that may trap terrestrial radiation, driving up global temperatures. The suggestion comes out of computer modelling at Manchester Metropolitan University and other institutions. "Climate change is a real, measurable phenomenon," said Manchester's Professor David Lee, an author of the research who was speaking at the Science Media Centre in London. Cirrus clouds - typically thin and wispy - occur about 20,000 feet (6 km) over the Earth's surface, and above. They are composed of ice crystals that form through the freezing of super-cooled water droplets. 3D simulation The researchers came to their conclusions by developing a computer simulation model of the total global aircraft traffic. This took account of different flying routes, altitudes, flight frequencies, and aircraft types. They also used meteorological data to calculate where the aircraft would hit conditions favourable for contrails, or condensation trails. The exhaust clouds form more frequently where there is high atmospheric humidity. This simulation was then played through a 3D computer grid which revealed the contrail coverage produced by the virtual air traffic. This can be used to calculate the contrail contribution to the total climate change effect from aviation which is assessed using a measure known as radiative forcing. This describes how an environmental process affects the energy balance of the Earth and atmosphere. The team tried several scenarios in which they looked at the effect of flying aircraft 2,000, 4,000 and 6,000 feet below their current levels. Flying aircraft at 6,000 feet below their current altitudes reduced the contrail coverage by 47% in the simulation. Conventional altitudes for commercial aircraft are between 20,000 (6 km) and 40,000 feet (12 km). Icy clouds Although contrails have been observed evolving into cirrus clouds, there are currently no figures on their contribution to the formation of cirrus clouds globally. Dr Paul DeMott, an atmosphere scientist at Colorado State University, US, was cautious about the factors behind cirrus cloud formation on a worldwide scale. "I think there is at least some potential impact of aircraft causing more cloudiness, but you have to have the right conditions for cirrus cloud formation," he said. "I think it's fair to say, we're still not completely certain about the direction or magnitude of cirrus clouds on [climate change]. We need to know more about their distribution in the atmosphere," he added. The study is a joint project between nine different partners across Europe, including Manchester Metropolitan University, the German Aerospace Centre and the University of Oslo. The UK Government's white paper on the future of aviation, expected next month, will outline a 30-year strategy for the aircraft industry. The industry has been looking at options for stabilising emission levels from aircraft in line with projected passenger growth of 3-5% over a similar period.
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Aug 16, 2005 22:05:03 GMT -5
Contrails and Aviation Pollution16 January 2004 The Scotsman
Peer Bids to Curb Aircraft Pollutionnews.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2415135A bid to halt UK airport expansion through curbs on polluting aircraft fumes will be made in the House of Lords today. Green Party peer Lord Beaumont of Whitley will urge support for his private member’s bill which is being debated at Second Reading. The Air Traffic Emissions Reduction Bill, would require the Government to set targets for reducing all greenhouse gas emissions linked to aviation. The Government does not count aircraft pollution in its climate change plans, although aviation is currently the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. Exhaust fumes from aircraft at cruising altitudes are much more damaging than the same emissions at ground level and there are regular warnings from leading scientists of the threat to the world’s weather systems if atmospheric overheating is not checked. Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said: “It’s as simple as this: to meet our commitment to reducing emissions we need to reduce emissions from aircraft. “If you’re trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions it’s perverse to exclude the fastest growing source of those emissions.” The Bill would require a 5% cut in aviation emissions by 2010, compared with 2000 levels, then a 10% cut by 2015 and a 50% cut by 2050. Lord Beaumont: “Emissions targets would help us to achieve the 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that we need to help stop climate change.” The boom in the aviation industry is largely sustained by an international agreement that bans aviation fuel tax, the Chicago Convention. John Whitelegg, Professor of Sustainable Transport at Liverpool John Moores University and a leading Green Party spokesman said his party could solve this problem. “In the short term, the Chicago Convention could be partially circumvented by putting charges on emissions and on air traffic congestion. “This would help reduce demand where currently demand is stimulated by huge tax breaks and hidden subsidies. “The charging level proposed by the Green Party would also raise revenue for sustainable transport projects in the short term. “It would raise more than £170 million from Heathrow airport alone in the first year. “If this Bill goes through, it will be the beginning of the end of a policy of mollycoddling the aviation industry with tax breaks and hidden subsidies. And we’ll see some real progress on climate change.”
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Aug 16, 2005 22:08:02 GMT -5
Contrails and Aviation Pollution3 March 2004 Environmental News Service
Jetting Toward Climate Changewww.climateark.org/articles/...sp?linkid=29940CHICAGO, Illinois, March 3, 2004 (ENS) - Commercial jet aviation has the potential to soon become the number one cause of human caused climate change, according to a professor of industrial and operations engineering at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor. The study by Dr. Katta Murty cautions that major increases in commercial flights and expansions of airports would not only add to greenhouse gas emissions, but could further harm the protective ozone layer that surrounds the Earth. Current industry projections predict the world's air transportation industry could triple within two decades. "It is an important problem to analyze at what altitudes additional releases of greenhouse gases will have maximum impact on global warming," according to Murty. "This study also points out that the much more rapid melting of polar ice near the North Pole compared to that at the South Pole," she said, "may have been caused by the very large fraction of jet air flights in the world occurring over the northern polar region." Murty says jet aircraft atmospheric damage is unique in that exhaust emissions from such aircraft are deposited not only in the lower atmosphere but also in the cloud forming troposphere and higher, where resulting contrails are formed and other chemicals remain to interact for decades. According to Dr. David Travis, professor and chair, Department of Geography and Geology, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, research "has demonstrated that jet contrails have caused substantial increases in the high cloud coverage over the most heavily trafficked regions of the United States and Europe." Travis says these increases in high clouds have led to suppression of the temperature range causing both daytime cooling and nighttime warming in areas where contrails are most abundant. "During the three days following September 11th - when no commercial aircraft were flying - the skies across the United States were remarkably clear with a much wider range in temperature between day and night, giving an indication of how the U.S. climate used to be prior to the days of aviation," Travis said. The findings of these researchers - along with the recently publicized study by consultants to the U.S. military warning of the environmental, social and political impacts of climate change - are more evidence the United States needs to rethink its transportation system, says Jack Saporito of the Alliance of Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare (AReCO). "Now, more than ever, there is support and urgency to demand a U.S. moratorium on all airport expansion projects currently in the works," Saporito said. "Furthermore, there is a real need for environmental impact reviews to be taken seriously and results stringently enforced." Originally posted at: www.ens-newswire.com/login/i...-09.asp#anchor5The above-referenced study:
Greenhouse Gas Pollution in the Stratosphere Due to Increasing Airplane Traffic; Effects on the Environment
Katta G. Murty Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
10 November 2000, revised 26 November 2000www.areco.org/planetravel.pdf
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Aug 16, 2005 22:10:41 GMT -5
Contrails and Aviation Pollution15 March 2004 The Scotsman
Aviation Policy 'Will Have Huge Global Warming Impact' By Amanda Brown, Environment Correspondent, PA Newsnews.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2652045Government aviation policy will have a “massive” impact on global warming over the next 30 years, an all party group of MPs [members of Parliament] warns today. The powerful Environmental Audit Committee says the Department for Transport is failing to recognise the problem adequately. MPs accuse the department of not accepting the disparity between its air travel policy and pledges by the Government to reduce harmful carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide is the chief global warming gas that is overheating the atmosphere and leading to extreme weather events worldwide such as flooding, drought and storms, according to environment scientists. They warn that industrialised countries must curb fossil fuel burning and exhaust fumes from transport – most notably from aircraft and road vehicles. But the Environmental Audit Committee’s report says that the recent aviation White Paper actively promotes a huge growth in air travel over the next 30 years. “The environmental impact of this – in particular in terms of emissions and the contribution to global warming – will be massive,” the MPs warn. “The Department for Transport (DfT) has failed to recognise this adequately or to accept the disparity between its policy on aviation and the major commitments the Government has given to reduce carbon emissions and develop a sustainable consumption strategy. “The DfT has implicitly adopted a ‘predict and provide’ approach which is based on assuming a substantial real increase in the price of air travel. “We are emphatically not arguing for a hairshirt approach or ‘pricing people off planes’. “But we do feel that the DfT, in conjunction with the Treasury, could have used economic instruments more to moderate the forecast increase in growth and to send out a long term signal to the aviation industry.” The committee says that, given the Government’s expressed desire to incorporate aviation in the EU Emissions Trading System from 2008, “we are astonished that the department appears to have done no research on some of the key issues which need to be resolved, or to model the impact of including aviation in a cross-sectoral emissions trading system. “Such research is essential even before any draft proposals can be contemplated. Given the timescales involved, we think it might soon be too late to achieve the target date of 2008.” The MPs say that if aircraft emissions increase on the scale predicted by the DfT, the UK’s 60% carbon emission reduction target, which the Government set last year, will become “meaningless and unachievable”. The report adds: “The most we could hope to attain would be about 35%. “The DfT admitted that the target would need to be looked at should international emissions be allocated to national inventories – and this can only mean with a view to watering it down.” The Government is urged to recognise the difficulties it faces in meeting its year 2050 carbon target. “If it did so, it would be forced to take more action now and develop an adequate policy response. “It should not continue to hope that the solution lies in technological advances as the weight of evidence suggests that the scope for these is limited,” the MPs say.
|
|