|
Post by javelina on Aug 28, 2005 1:18:09 GMT -5
Continued from above: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.] (On Page 33)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 (nitrogen oxide) 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 28, 2005 1:23:52 GMT -5
April 24, 2005 - UK
Politicians 'ignoring transport crisis'www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=SQ2411876K&news_headline=politiciansPoliticians have been accused of sweeping transport problems under the carpet during the current election campaign. Transport activists claim the crisis has been bypassed by an obsession with education, health, immigration and the economy. However they warned the new Government on May 6 would have to face up to the issue, particularly its contribution to climate change. Transport now accounts for 26 per cent of emissions in the UK and road traffic continues to rise by about two per cent a year while aviation is predicted to double and even treble by 2030. But politicians consistently avoid making the connection between climate change, transport policy and individual travel behaviour, according to pressure group Transport 2000. Director Stephen Joseph unveiled Transport 2000's Ten Point Plan for action to solve the challenges faced by the next Transport Secretary. It calls for improving public transport with more services to more places with greater frequency, including at evenings and weekends, along with the reintroduction of trams for congested cities. Other recommendations include making walking and cycling safer and more attractive, giving people opportunities to change their travel habits, tackling the growth in air travel, and admitting it is not possible to build our way out of road congestion. The report also calls for a move towards a national road user charging scheme, the integration of transport and land use planning in new developments to reduce the need to travel, a reform of motoring taxes to promote cleaner fuels and vehicles, the tackling of speed and road safety, and reducing road and air freight. Mr Joseph said: "Politicians are brushing climate change and other urgent transport issues under the carpet in this election but the bump is getting too big to hide. "Whoever forms the next government will need face up to some hard issues, such as the need to cut traffic and aviation in order to tackle climate change and protect our environment and quality of life, while keeping Britain moving at the same time." *** NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENT WATCH
Regional Solutions - Northwestern US Fact Sheet: Air Travel Heats Up . . . the Planetwww.northwesthingych.org/reforms/climate_airtravel.aspExcerpt:1. Air travel destroys good ozone, creates bad ozone. In the stratosphere—at altitudes where many military and supersonic jets fly—aircraft pollution destroys ozone. That’s a problem because ozone in the stratosphere is a good thing. It shields the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. In the upper troposphere, at altitudes where most commercial jets fly—aircraft pollution creates ozone. That’s a problem because ozone in the upper troposphere is a bad thing. It’s a potent, though short-lived, climate-changing greenhouse gas. 2. Military aircraft use more fuel apiece than civilian aircraft. A decade ago, military aircraft were one fourth as numerous as civilian aircraft worldwide, yet they consumed roughly one third as much fuel. Furthermore, military jets, with their high performance requirements, produce more climate-changing pollutants, especially nitrogen oxides.3. Airplanes’ contrails may also play a role in climate change. Contrails are high-altitude vapor trails. They form when water vapor in the atmosphere condenses and freezes around tiny, cooled particles of engine exhaust. The three-day grounding of all American air traffic after September 11, 2001 created a natural experiment for studying contrails’ effects. Researchers discovered that the absence of contrails expanded the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures by a full degree Celsius, compared with the average of the last three decades. The difference was even greater in Cascadia and other heavy-air-traffic, mid-latitude regions (see endnote 5). Apparently, contrails dampen natural temperature variations. 4. Airports are also big polluters of local air. Jets release huge plumes of exhaust during taxiing, idling, takeoffs, and landings. For instance, one airplane taking off and landing from JFK airport in the mid-1990s would produce as much nitrogen oxides as a car driven 26,500 miles. Newer planes have improved since then, but fleets are still heavily populated by older vehicles. Many airports nationwide are among the top ten point-source polluters in their city (see endnote 6). END excerpt._______________
TO BE CONTINUED
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Sept 20, 2005 0:25:44 GMT -5
28 May 2005 The Real Cost of Air Travelwww.independent.co.uk/c/?ec=500Excerpt: .....In spelling out what is for most people - and for many politicians - a very uncomfortable truth, they are echoing the warnings of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee. The scientists of the former and the MPs of the latter have set out in detail how the soaring growth in CO2 emissions from aircraft that the cheap flights bonanza is promoting will do terrible damage to the atmosphere and make a nonsense of global warming targets, such as Britain's stated aim of cutting CO2 emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. British emissions of C02 from aircraft, expressed in millions of tons of carbon, shot up from 4.6 million tons in 1990 to 8.8 million tons in 2000. But based on predicted air passenger transport growth figures - from 180 million passengers per year today to 476 million passengers per year by 2030 - they are expected to rise to 17.7 million tons in 2030. Aircraft emissions that go directly into the stratosphere have more than twice the global warming effect of emissions from cars and power stations at ground level and, based on the Government's own calculations, the effect of the 2030 emissions will be equivalent to 44.3 million tons of carbon - 45 per cent of Britain's expected emissions total at that date..... END excerpt. The facts about flying* Air travel produces 19 times the greenhouse gas emissions of trains; and 190 times that of a ship. * Aviation could contribute 15 per cent of greenhouse gases each year if unchecked. * Greenhouse gas emissions caused by UK air travel have doubled in the past 13 years, from 20.1m tons in 1990 to 39.5m tons in 2004. * During the same period emissions from UK cars rose by 8m tons, to 67.8m tons. * One return flight to Florida produces the equivalent CO2 of a year's average motoring. * Emissions at altitude have 2.7 times the environmental impact of those on the ground. * Air travel is growing at UK airports at an average of 4.25 per cent. In 1970, 32 million flew from UK airports; in 2002, 189 million. By 2030 some 500 million passengers may pass through UK airports. * Cargo transportation is growing by 7 per cent a year. In 1970, 580,000 tons of freight were moved by plane; in 2002, 2.2 million tons. It is forecast to reach 5 million tons in 2010. * 50 per cent of the UK population flew at least once in 2001. * Flying 1kg of asparagus from California to the UK uses 900 times more energy than the home-grown equivalent.
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Sept 20, 2005 0:27:31 GMT -5
31 May 2005
EU says aviation likely to join emissions tradetoday.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2005-05BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The aviation sector will likely join the European Union's emissions trading scheme to tackle pollution rather than face a fuel tax, the EU's environment chief said on Tuesday. The European Commission is currently studying three options for dealing with aviation emissions -- inclusion in emissions trading, a fuel tax or extra ticket charges. "It is the most probable to be approved," EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas told a news conference, referring to the inclusion of aviation in the EU's emission trading scheme. But he said airlines were unlikely to join the landmark system until after 2012, when the first time period covered by the climate change treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol ends. "It will be difficult to do it before, but we shall try." The EU launched its emissions trading system in January. The scheme sets limits on the amount of carbon dioxide (C02) energy-intensive installations like power plants can emit and allows them to buy or sell allowances that give them the right to release the main gas blamed for global warming. European airports and some major airlines -- including British Airways <BAY.L> have come out in favour of an inclusion in the system, saying it would be more beneficial to the environment than a tax. The Commission's report on aviation is due in June or July, Dimas said, and a final decision would not be made until then. *** EUROPA Air Transporteuropa.eu.int/comm/transport/air/index_en.htm
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Sept 20, 2005 0:29:37 GMT -5
June 3, 2005
Setback for PM on air travel emissionswww.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/03/nclim03.xml&sSheet=/news/Tony Blair's aim to make climate change a priority for Britain's presidency of the EU has suffered a serious setback after the European Commission said it would be impossible to curb emissions from air travel before 2012. Aviation is the only industry not covered by the Kyoto climate change treaty which requires countries to cut their fossil fuel emissions. Emissions of carbon dioxide from aircraft have risen by 70 per cent across Europe since 1990, because of the growth of low-budget airlines. Scientists say that the effect of emissions from aircraft is twice that at ground level because of the water in vapour trails. Britain had wanted to include aviation in the EU's emissions-trading scheme, which requires industries to offset any increase in emissions with savings elsewhere, by 2008. But Stavros Dimas, the Greek EU Environment Commissioner, said it would not be possible. Also likely to be controversial during the British presidency of the EU, which starts next month, are new curbs on sulphur emissions from shipping - projected to exceed sulphur emissions from all other sources by 2020. The EU has agreed to reduce the amount of sulphur allowed in fuel used in Baltic, North Sea and Channel ports from 3 per cent to 1.5 per cent. As an alternative, ship owners will be allowed to use a flue-gas desulphurisation technology that uses sea water. Meanwhile, Britain will play a leading role at the first meeting of parties to the Kyoto treaty in Montreal later this year. There will be a new effort to get the United States to tackle global warming. Catherine Day, the director general of Environment at the European Commission, said: "Don't write off the United States; write off Kyoto".
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Sept 20, 2005 0:33:57 GMT -5
June 19, 2005
How carbon causes global warmingobserver.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1509762,00.html Why do carbon dioxide emissions heat up the planet? The temperature of the Earth depends on a balance between incoming energy from the Sun and the energy that bounces back into space. Carbon dioxide absorbs heat that would otherwise be lost to space. Some of this energy is re-emitted back to Earth, causing additional heating of the planet. What are the major sources of carbon dioxide? Most man-made carbon emissions come from burning fossil fuels for energy. In the UK, the biggest emitters are from transport and the domestic sectors, of which aviation is the fastest growing. Because of their varying chemical constituents, different fossil fuels produce different amounts of carbon dioxide. Coal produces most, then oil, and then gas. Which country produces most carbon? The US emits the most: 5,800 million tonnes every year. Next is China, over 3,000; Russia, over 2,000; Japan, 1,200; and India, 1,000 million tonnes. Other major emitters are Germany, 800; Canada, 600m; the UK, 500m; and Italy, 47m. *** Re: Warming:
One more time:July 11, 2004
Planes take heat as global warming culprits Exhaust creates clouds that trap atmospheric heatwww.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040711/news_1n11contrail.htmlExcerpt: .....The moisture levels over the United States did not increase during the study period. But the amount of cirrus clouds did. "Cirrus clouds can have a net warming or net cooling effect on the Earth, depending on how thick they are," Minnis said. "Cirrus clouds from contrails tend to be thin, and the effect of thin clouds tends to be warming."After using satellite data to double-check his information, Minnis concluded that air traffic was adding enough contrails to the atmosphere to increase the coverage of cirrus clouds. He also looked at surface temperatures using a database with 25 years of global weather records and found that temperatures increased in the United States along with the cirrus clouds. Out of concerns about the environment, the airline industry in Europe is investing in research to reduce contrails, Minnis said. There are two main options: -- Change the propulsion system of planes so water vapor isn't injected into the atmosphere. -- Avoid flying in humid areas of the upper atmosphere. "Basically that would mean flying lower," he said. "But the trade-off there is that the air is thicker, so the plane is less efficient and you burn more fuel."..... END excerpt.
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Sept 20, 2005 0:37:23 GMT -5
Aviation and The Global Atmosphere 3.6. Radiative Properties of Aerosols, Contrails, and Cirrus Cloudswww.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/040.htmVISUAL AIDwww.ariannaonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19486&page=1&pp=10*** June 20, 2005
Targets to cut aviation pollutionnews.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4109716.stmNew targets to reduce the environmental impact of air travel are being launched by the UK's aviation industry. Airlines, airports and aircraft manufacturers aim to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases produced by new aircraft over the next 15 years. Companies want aircraft built within that period to produce half of the carbon dioxide they currently emit. Air travel is expected to triple over the next 30 years, amid concerns about its impact on the environment. The new objectives have received the backing of most of the UK's aviation companies. There will also be similar targets to reduce the noise pollution caused by passenger aircraft in future. BBC transport correspondent Tom Symonds said environmentalists were likely to criticise the plan for not seeking to reduce the amount of aircraft in Britain's crowded skies. They had wanted larger taxes imposed on air travel, he said. "But the companies behind the strategy say it's radical - and will deliver improvements to the environment." 'Fly now, grieve later' The targets come as Brendon Sewill, a former Treasury adviser, said the government's current policy for dealing with aviation emissions would not solve the problem of pollution. In "Fly now, grieve later", a study published by the Aviation Environment Federation, Mr Sewill said Britain was "the world's worst climate change culprit" after the US as far as aviation was concerned.He said there were a number of ways that the UK could combat aviation pollution. His suggestions include increasing the air passenger duty airport departure tax, imposing VAT on air tickets, abolishing duty-free sales and and ending the planning system to discourage airport expansion. *** June 21, 2005
Aircraft emissions to double by 2030 despite hi-tech jets By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondentbusiness.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8209-1662662,00.html GREENHOUSE gas emissions from aircraft will double by 2030 even if airlines invest in new fuel-efficient planes, the industry predicted yesterday. Any savings in average emissions per flight will be eclipsed by the huge growth in air travel forecast for the next 25 years. British airlines, airports and aerospace manufacturers yesterday published a strategy for improving efficiency, which included an ambitious target for halving emissions per trip. The Sustainable Aviation group, which includes British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, Airbus UK and BAA, the airports operator, has been set up to lobby against environmental taxes on aviation. The European Commission is investigating the feasibility of a tax on aviation fuel or an emissions charge as an alternative, or in addition, to extending its emissions trading scheme to airlines. The group aims to introduce new aircraft by 2020 that will produce 50 per cent less carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, than equivalent new aircraft did in 2000. Other targets include reducing nitrogen oxides by 80 per cent and noise by 50 per cent. The group admits that improvements in efficiency will not keep pace with the rising number of flights. Roger Wiltshire, the chairman of the group, said: “Growth in demand for air travel may well exceed growth in technology’s ability to offset emissions.” The Government estimates that passenger numbers will more than double, from 200 million in 2003 to 470 million in 2030. Aircraft carbon dioxide emissions, even assuming that fuel efficiency targets are met, are predicted to increase from 8.8 million tonnes in 2000 to 18 million by 2030. The group admits that emissions of greenhouse gases at cruising altitude are far more damaging than emissions at ground level. Environmental groups say that the impact is three times greater. At this rate, a passenger on a return flight from London to New York would contribute twice as much to global warming as the average driver does in a year. The group pledged to cooperate with scientists in investigating the impact of emissions at altitude. It also gave a commitment to report each airline’s fleet fuel efficiency by the end of 2005. This will expose those airlines which have failed to invest in new aircraft. Airlines will also encourage passengers to make voluntary contributions to offset their carbon emissions. Several projects, including Future Forests and Atmosfair, already offer air passengers the opportunity to pay for carbon-reducing measures such as planting trees. British Airways is going further by working with customers from large corporations to help them to offset all their carbon dioxide emissions. Andy Kershaw, BA’s environmental affairs manager, said that the airline would calculate the emissions from all flights booked by a company and then jointly invest in sustainable projects around the world. The group hopes to persuade the Government that aviation can best help the environment not by reducing its own emissions but by paying for other industries to cut theirs. Mr Wiltshire rejected calls for environmental taxes on flights, describing them as a “blunt, inappropriate and ineffective weapon”. But the group admitted that airlines were unlikely to find an alternative to fossil fuels to power aircraft for several decades. The GreenSkies Alliance, a coalition of environmental groups opposed to the growth of aviation, said that the targets in the strategy were merely commitments to conduct research and that there was no guarantee they would be met. Jeff Gazzard, the alliance’s co-ordinator, said: “The best that can be said is that this strategy, if it happens — and it’s a really big if — will make things a little less horrible than would otherwise be the case.”
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Sept 20, 2005 0:39:13 GMT -5
June 28, 2005
Europe may force airlines to pay for CO2 emissions By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondentbusiness.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9077-1671950,00.html AIRLINES will be forced to buy permits to cover all their carbon dioxide emissions under European proposals to address the growing contribution that flights make to global warming. Ticket prices for return trips within the European Union will increase by between approximately £1 and £6, according to the option favoured in a report for the European Commission. Aviation could join the European emissions trading scheme as soon as 2008, although British Airways believes that 2010 is more likely. The scheme would apply only to routes within the European Union. Unlike other industries taking part in the scheme, aviation would not be given “grandfather” rights to cover its existing emissions. CE Delft, the consultancy employed by the Commission to advise on the feasibility of aviation joining the scheme, said that it would be fairer to hold an auction in which CO2 permits were sold to the highest bidder. The study concluded: “Auctioning appears to be the most attractive option for allocation.” It found that grandfathering would penalise start-up airlines because, unlike long-established carriers such as BA, they would have no free allocation of permits to cover their historical emissions. Grandfathering would also give airlines no incentive to reduce their emissions before the start of the scheme. BA condemned CE Delft’s proposal, saying that an auction system would be far more expensive and would produce no extra environmental benefit. Andrew Sentance, BA’s chief economist, said: “Auctioning would involve large sums of money being taken out of the aviation industry which would serve no environmental benefit. It would be damaging to the competitiveness of the European industry.” CE Delft admitted that the system would reduce the growth in the market for flights in Europe by pushing up prices but it said that assuming that the price of a permit remained within a range of €10 to €30 per tonne of CO2, the impact on growth would be “relatively small”. It said: “The main conclusion is that none of the policy options considered in this study will damage the competitive position of EU airlines relative to non-EU airlines.” However, the scheme could undermine the aggressive growth strategies of Europe’s budget airlines, especially Ryanair, which plans to double passenger numbers to 70 million by 2012. They would have to buy increasing numbers of permits each year. BA supports the scheme largely because its passenger numbers have been declining for several years and are not expected to grow significantly The Commission is expected to issue a policy document next month based on CE Delft’s recommendations. Britain has made the inclusion of aviation in the emissions trading scheme a priority for its presidency of the European Union, which starts on Friday. Mr Sentance welcomed CE Delft’s proposal that the scheme should not take account of the extra damage that greenhouse gas emissions do when emitted at cruising altitude. The report came as British Airways shares lost 15p to 260.75p amid fears that the increase in fuel surcharge would damage demand.
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Sept 20, 2005 0:40:42 GMT -5
July 6, 2005
Last Shuttle Flight Made Clouds Over Antarcticanews.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=96&ncid=96&e=3&u=/space/20050706/sc_space/lastHigh altitude clouds were detected over Antarctica shortly after the fateful launch of the space shuttle Columbia. The fact that some of these clouds are born out of shuttle exhaust may require a rethinking of their role as a diagnostic for global climate change. Researchers using satellite and ground-based instruments tracked the exhaust plume from Columbia's liftoff from Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Jan. 16, 2003. The plume was roughly 650 miles long and two miles wide. "Our analysis shows that the Columbia's exhaust plume approached the South Pole three days after launch," said Michael Stevens from the Naval Research Laboratory. As with all shuttle launches, about 97 percent of this exhaust turns into water - a by-product of the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen fuel. The resulting 400 tons of extra water in the atmosphere has an observable effect on cloud formation.Other rocket launches inject water into the atmosphere, but none so much as the shuttle launch vehicles. Because of low temperatures and the high concentrations of water from Columbia's exhaust, Stevens and his colleagues observed a significant increase in polar mesospheric clouds over Antarctica in the days following the launch. Polar mesospheric clouds - also called noctilucent clouds - form in the summer over the poles at altitudes of about 52 miles (84 kilometers), making them the highest clouds in the Earth's atmosphere. They have been monitored in recent years because they are thought to be sensitive to the temperature and humidity of the atmosphere. "Because the brightness, occurrence, and range of the clouds have been increasing, some scientists have suggested that they are indicators of global climate change," said Xinzhao Chu from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "That role needs to be reconsidered, however, because of the potential influence of water vapor in shuttle plumes." Shuttle missions have been on hold since 2003, after Columbia and its crew were lost during reentry. The return to flight is scheduled for July 13 of this year. A paper describing these results appears in the July 6 issue of Geophysical Research Letters. *** Companion article to the above-posted:June 10, 2003
Rocket Exhaust Leaves Mark Above Earthwww.space.com/scienceastronomy/shuttle_clouds_030610.htmlWater-laden exhaust from a space shuttle can drift over the North Pole and create elusive high-altitude clouds visible only at night, according to a surprising new study. The discovery was made serendipitously with data collected by a German satellite launched and retrieved eight days later during a Space Shuttle Discovery mission. Surprised scientists watched the clouds develop from water that had been shuttled into the upper atmosphere by the very craft that lofted the satellite into orbit. Ground-based observations helped confirm the exhaust plume's travels. The findings, from mission STS-85 in 1997, were reported May 31 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. The cloud type that developed, called noctilucent, also occur naturally. Scientists know little about how or why they form. The clouds are too thin to see from Earth during the day and become visible only after sunset, when the lower atmosphere darkens and the Sun continues to reflect off the clouds. A shuttle's exhaust is 97 percent water, a byproduct of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. About half of the water vapor produced by the main fuel tank ends up in the thermosphere, Earth's relatively warm and outermost atmospheric region that begins about 55 miles (88 kilometers) up. An investigation of the satellite's data, collected during eight days of orbits, showed that water vapor from the shuttle traveled to the Arctic in the thermosphere. The vapor then settled down to the chilly mesosphere, about 51 miles (82 kilometers) high. In the mesosphere, where temperatures can drop below minus 220 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 140 Celsius), the vapor turned into ice particles, making clouds. Drop in the bucket? At first thought, it might seem like a shuttle's exhaust would be a drop in the atmospheric bucket of moisture. "Indeed, this was a surprise to us," said study leader Michael Stevens, a physicist at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington. But the outer atmosphere is thin and tenuous. A little goes a long way. "It's a little like pouring a bucket of water onto your driveway -- spatially, the repercussions can be quite widespread," Stevens told SPACE.com. "Lower in the atmosphere, there is much more water, so it would be like pouring a bucket into a swimming pool." He noted that mysterious noctilucent clouds have been spotted since at least the late 19th Century, so rockets are not their only cause. Much of the study was based on the Naval Research Laboratorys Middle Atmosphere High Resolution Spectrograph Investigation (MAHRSI) instrument, which was aboard the satellite. The research was funded in part by NASA. Contrail cousins The shuttle-inspired clouds are not very similar to condensation trails left by commercial airliners, which are created just as the exhaust is emitted, and at much lower altitudes. Jet contrails, as they're often called, involve particles in exhaust that give water vapor a place to condense. While the exhaust can be humid, the process relies on water vapor already in the atmosphere. A study performed in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, when U.S. skies were clear of airplanes, found that contrails have a small but measurable effect on daily temperatures on Earth. The temperature range was more than one degree Celsius (about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) larger than when contrails were present, scientists reported in the journal Nature. Meteorologists sometimes glean information from jet contrails. How readily one forms, and how long it persists, suggests how much moisture is in the air. Contrails also contribute about 1 percent of manmade greenhouse effects, a 1999 report showed. More study needed Stevens and his colleagues never intended to track Discovery's emissions. But over the mission's first two days, they noticed signatures of the water vapor plume high above the Arctic that "got our attention, and one thing led to another. This was not the plan; the shuttle plume was never considered in any of our operations. Sometimes, some of the most interesting science comes to you." More work is needed to understand how the plume moved northward so quickly. Also, with only one study of rocket-fueled clouds to go on, it's not clear if the Space Age alters the atmosphere much beyond creating a few high, mostly invisible clouds. Stevens said the study found no evidence for any other environmental effects. Other rocket launches might also contribute to the formation of noctilucent clouds, he said, but further study is needed to find out. "The shuttle injects by far the most water per launch into the upper atmosphere of any launch vehicle currently operating," Stevens said. With dozens of other rockets going up in a typical year, his team would like to study their possible cumulative effect in generating the mysterious polar clouds.
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Sept 20, 2005 0:43:17 GMT -5
July 16, 2005
EU regulators to delay proposal to put cap on airline pollutionwww.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=96582July 15 -- European Union regulators will delay for at least two months until September plans to put caps on pollution by airlines such as Deutsche Lufthansa AG as the EU reviews the cost of environmental measures. The European Commission, the EU’s regulatory arm, is putting off next week’s scheduled release of the proposal as commissioners such as Guenter Verheugen, in charge of industrial policy, call for broader scrutiny of environmental goals. ‘‘There are always people putting growth first and the environment later,’’ Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas told reporters yesterday in Brussels. ‘‘It’s economically important to take the right steps now for protection of the environment and health. This will contribute to, not fight, growth.’’ Commission President Jose Barroso and Verheugen have vowed to ease the regulatory burden on European companies to boost economic growth that has trailed the U.S. in 12 of the past 13 years. The stance risks causing a policy split in the commission and the 25-nation bloc, which is also committed to fighting global warming. The EU is imposing carbon-dioxide limits on 11,400 power plants and factories in the energy, steel, paper, pulp, glass, lime, brick, ceramics and cement industries. Companies that exceed their limits must buy permits from businesses that emit less or pay a penalty, creating an incentive to cut pollution. Greenhouse gases The system targets the most common greenhouse gas and is part of the EU’s fight against climate change under the global Kyoto Protocol. An initial trading period runs from this year through 2007 and a second phase from 2008 through 2012. Dimas wants to add airlines to the system sometime after 2008 and before the end of 2012. In June, he said the first year aviation could realistically be included is 2009. The strategy paper on cutting aircraft pollution will mention two other options: a fuel tax and a flight surcharge. Dimas has said over the past several months that emissions trading is the most probable of the three. European airlines would prefer to be included in emissions trading than to face a fuel tax, while the case for surcharges is weakened by the possible damage to consumer demand and the lack of a link to environmental performance. -- Bloomberg
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Sept 20, 2005 0:47:08 GMT -5
A little background reading:January 2005
Fly the Frugal Skies How low-cost airlines have transformed Europe—and what it means for Americawww.reason.com/0501/fe.mw.fly.shtmlEvery Friday afternoon at a Heathrow Airport bar, there is an informal gathering of the “Pojkvän Club”—a group of London men who jet off every weekend to visit their far-flung girlfriends. (Pojkvän is Swedish for “boyfriend.”) “Of my six closest friends from Glasgow University, four of us now have European partners,” Pojkvän Club member Fraser Nelson wrote in The Scotsman last April. “The low-cost airline revolution has changed lives.” In Prague, where just about the only foreign languages spoken 15 years ago were German and bad Russian, there are English-language signs in the windows of bars all over town warning: “No stag parties.” In Bratislava, where traveling to next-door Vienna was verboten until 1989, Slovaks who still can’t afford the 200-mile train trip to Salzburg are now excitedly comparing notes on their recent weekend forays to Venice and Mallorca. In the lovely southwest France region of Dordogne, locals now refer to the area as “the Dordogne-shire,” due to all the Brits buying up local vacation homes. Every summer, Spanish golfers swarm the Welsh countryside to enjoy their sport away from the hometown heat. Dreary industrialized corners of Europe—Stansted, England; St. Etienne, France; Hahn, Germany—have become improbable boomtowns, while secondary travel destinations such as Edinburgh and Cardiff have been transformed into sizzling tourist magnets, with boutique hotels, Irish pubs, and youthful commerce galore. In less than a decade, the Southwest Airlines revolution has swept through sclerotic Europe like a capitalist hurricane, leaving a fundamentally altered continent in its wake. Low-cost airlines have grown from zero to 60 since 1994 by taking Southwest’s no-frills, short-haul business model and grafting on infinitely variable pricing, aggressive savings from the contemporaneous Internet revolution, and the ripe, Wild West opportunities of a rapidly deregulating and expanding market. Europeans, fed up with costly train tickets, annoying motorway tolls, and Concorde-style prices from national “flag carriers” such as Air France and Lufthansa, have defected to the short-hoppers in droves—200 million, nearly 45 percent of the entire E.U. population, took a low-cost flight in 2003 alone..... (continued) *** July 14, 2005 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.htmlThursday, July 14, 2005 — U.S. airlines carried 5.5 percent more domestic passengers and flew 0.7 percent more domestic flights during the first four months of 2005 than they did during the same period in 2004, the U.S. Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) today reported, in a release of preliminary data (Table 1). 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) *** The 1st Quarter 2005 U.S. domestic air traffic data for commercial passenger airline flights only breaks down as follows:
3,250,000 flights between January 1 and April 30, 2005 -----> 812,500 flights per month -----> 189,583 flights per week -----> 27,083 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. Actually, given current projections, we probably will have doubled the number of commercial passenger airline flights by the year 2020.
Bye Bye blue sky.
We'll all be breathing CO2, wearing mylar and sh_tting coal.
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Sept 20, 2005 0:50:23 GMT -5
June 2005
European Federation for Transport and the Environment News Release and Position Paper - June 1, 2005 Emissions Trading for Aviation in 2012: too little, too late Measures to Curb the Climate Change Impact of Aviationwww.t-e.nu/Article126.html*** Title: Variability of contrail formation conditions and the implications for policies to reduce the climate impacts of aviation
Authors: Williams, V., and Noland, R. B. Year of Publish: 2005 Journal Name: Transportation Research D. Volume No: 10 Journal No: 4 Pages: 269-280www.cts.cv.ic.ac.uk/html/ResearchActivities/publicationDetails.asp?PublicationID=468Abstract:This paper describes an approach to balance the climate benefits of contrail reduction against the penalties incurred when cruise altitudes are restricted. Altitude restrictions are targeted by selecting, for each six-hour period, the altitude that provides the greatest reduction in contrail for the lowest increase in carbon dioxide emission. Calculations are for western Europe. This paper discusses the variability in contrail formation conditions in the region and presents contrail reductions and carbon dioxide emission increases obtained with this optimised approach, which compare favourably with fixed altitude restrictions. A new method is also developed to estimate contrail fractions within three-dimensional grids. Conclusions discuss potential operational issues associated with a varying altitude restriction policy. *** July 25, 2005
EU emissions trade to dampen aviation demand - studytoday.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2005-07BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Passenger demand for air transport will grow at a "slightly slower rate" if aviation is included in the European Union's emissions trading scheme, a document by the EU executive Commission showed on Monday. Airlines would pass on the cost of being part of the trading scheme to consumers, who would see ticket prices rise by up to 9 euros ($10.86) for a return flight, the document said. The EU has been looking at ways to reduce airline pollution in the fight against global warming, and Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas has said inclusion in the bloc's landmark emissions trading system was the most probable measure to be recommended by the executive Commission. Commissioners are expected to discuss the issue this autumn. Other options being considered include a fuel tax and extra ticket charges. A Commission document, seen by Reuters, confirmed Dimas' preference for emissions trading and laid out some of the practical and financial consequences to the sector. "Air transport demand would not fall but simply grow at a slightly slower rate," the document said. It estimated that demand growth would slow by 0.2-3.0 percent over a five-year period "compared to business-as-usual growth of more than 4 percent per year." The Commission wants the scope of the system to include emissions from all flights departing from the 25-nation EU in order to keep a level playing field between European carriers and other airlines. This would ensure EU airlines were not put at a competitive disadvantage in the sector, the paper said. It said limiting the system's scope to intra-EU flights alone would also have a fewer environmental benefits. The EU launched its current emissions trading system in January. The scheme sets limits on the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) energy-intensive installations like power plants can emit and allows them to buy or sell allowances that give them the right to release the main gas blamed for global warming. European airports and some major airlines, especially British Airways, have come out in favor of an inclusion in the scheme. Dimas has said the Commission will study adding new gases and sectors but cautioned it would take time to do so. He said earlier this year it would be difficult to bring airlines into the system before the end of 2012, when the first time period covered by the climate change treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol ends.
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Sept 20, 2005 0:53:24 GMT -5
July 25, 2005
Pollution levy could push up price of European air faresnews.ft.com/cms/s/85e3ead0-fca8-11d9-8386-00000e2511c8.htmlTicket prices for return flights out of European airports could rise by up to €9 ($10.85, £6.25), under Brussels plans to make airlines pay for the pollution they cause. The European Commission wants to include airlines in its strategy to tackle climate change, putting them in the same category as power generators and oil refineries. Under plans seen by the Financial Times, the Commission wants airlines included in Europe's emissions trading scheme, which caps the amount of carbon dioxide an industry is allowed to produce. The proposal has the backing of the British European Union presidency, and is accepted by some big airlines, including British Airways. An aide to Stavros Dimas, EU environment commissioner, said: "Some airlines see this as inevitable and the least bad solution, but Lufthansa is among those which are concerned." Mr Dimas said that including airlines in the emissions trading scheme was "the most promising way forward", preferable to alternatives including a tax on kerosene or a new ticket tax. His draft proposal accepts that the cost of the emissions crackdown is "likely to be passed on to air transport users" with a surcharge on a return ticket of up to €9. Mr Dimas hopes to present his plan in the autumn, after a wide-ranging environmental programme was approved in principle by the Commission last week. However, new legislation is unlikely to come into force until several years after the original 2008 target date. The draft paper says: "As regards the coverage of flights, the Commission believes that all emissions from any flight departing from the EU should be included." The inclusion of non-EU airlines would help protect the competitiveness of European airlines. The Commission adds that limiting the scheme to flights both departing from and landing inside the EU would address only 40 per cent of the emissions caused by flights leaving European airports. Europe's emissions trading scheme which started on January 1, the first of its kind in the world, caps emissions of carbon dioxide. Companies are issued with free permits for each tonne of carbon dioxide they may produce. Cleaner companies that do not use their allowance can sell their permits on the market to companies lagging behind. The Association of European Airlines said it was evaluating the emissions trading scheme but was already using better technology to reduce emissions. *** Visual Update from Holland:July 1st through July 19th 2005:www.contrails.nl/contrails-2005-3/default.htm*** Nice, huh?
Another five years of this and it will all seem perfectly normal.*** July 30, 2005
Concern over airport growthwww.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&categoryCity politicians are becoming increasingly concerned over the effects Norwich Airport's rapid expansion is having on the environment. Airport bosses project that over the next 20 years the airport's capacity will grow from about half a million passengers per year to two million passengers, as more and more flights and destinations become available. But according to Government figures the growth of airports generally is having a disproportionate effect on global warming compared with other modes of transport. Today, Norwich North MP Ian Gibson criticised the airport for not taking the environmental impact of its expansion seriously enough, while Green Party spokesman Adrian Ramsey called for an end to the expansion altogether. Last July the British Government revealed a flight from London to Manchester emitted nearly 45kg of carbon dioxide per passenger. The next nearest was the car at 19kg (based on three passengers in the car), followed by rail (5.2kg) and coach (4.3kg). Dr Gibson said aviation pollution was a serious issue that had not been properly addressed. "The door has been opened for more flights without considering the effects on the environment, but the environment is very much on people's agenda now. "It seems to me that Norwich Airport has not realised the issue, but has focused on getting more flights. "Once it was the issue of noise and nuisance planes caused to people living around the airport. Now it is shifting towards the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The world is on edge because of these levels." Mr Ramsey said the airport was "irresponsible" to want to continue to grow at such a massive rate to the detriment of local residents and the environment. "Transport is the biggest issue in climate change and air travel is at the centre of that," he said. He called on the Government to introduce aviation fuel tax to create a "level playing field" between others modes of transport. Hereward Cooke, deputy leader of Norwich City Council, said he was deeply disturbed about the Government figures, but insisted it was up to international politicians to resolve. Richard Jenner, Norwich Airport managing director, said the issue of pollution could not be tackled on an airport-by-airport basis. "It looks like the Government and the European Commission is now beginning to develop a will to try to tackle the issue," he said. "There's been talk of fuel tax and taxes on emissions and various other regulations. "That's the only way we can really tackle it."
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Sept 20, 2005 0:58:08 GMT -5
8/6/05
Planes go greener by shifting altitudewww.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18725115.000AIRCRAFT could reduce their impact on global warming just by making small changes in altitude. The streams of water vapour and ice particles that form behind an aircraft, called contrails, are known to create cirrus clouds. These clouds can trap heat radiating from the Earth's surface and thus add to global warming. Until now the only strategy to avoid contrails was for planes to reduce their altitudes from about 33,000 feet to as low as 24,000 feet. At this height the air is not supersaturated with ice, so contrails cannot form. But it is not ideal. "If you lower the altitude substantially you place a heavy load on air traffic control, and the engines don't operate as efficiently," says Hermann Mannstein at the German Aerospace Center in Oberpfaffenhofen. This is because aircraft engines are optimised to fly at higher altitudes. Now, Mannstein's team has used balloon measurements of relative humidity in the atmosphere to show that the regions of supersaturated air are only about 500 metres thick, and can easily be avoided. The ability to determine the exact altitude of these regions is limited at present, but such information could soon be relayed to pilots or obtained directly via sensors on the aircraft, says Mannstein (Transportation Research Part D, vol 10, p 421). *** It's not news at this point that persistent contrail proliferation and resulting, chronic regional contrail cirrus coverage are considered a significant enough contribution to surface warming that governments are willing to invest (and in fact are investing) in research on mitigation and/or avoidance of contrail formation. Entire air traffic control systems are currently being restructured in line with the goal of avoiding, or at least minimizing, the formation and proliferation of persistent contrails and contrail cirrus.
This situation is quite different from the self-limiting wartime scenarios some people like to invoke as being analogous to what we're seeing now on a regular basis.
The aviation sector (and particularly the air cargo sector) is the fastest-growing source of emissions which not only contribute to regional surface warming but exacerbate ozone production in the upper troposphere and destroy ozone in the lower stratosphere._______________
TO BE CONTINUED
|
|
|
Post by javelina on Sept 21, 2005 0:37:28 GMT -5
20 September 2005
Aviation 'huge threat to CO2 aim'news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4266466.stmIf the rapid growth in air travel is not curbed UK households and businesses will have to cut carbon dioxide emissions to zero, a report has warned. The action is needed if the government aim of reducing emissions by 60% before 2050 is to be met, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research claims. It says ignoring aviation has led to a "serious underestimation" of what is needed to combat climate change. Ministers say UK air passenger numbers will rise from 180m to 475m by 2030. 'International competitiveness' The report warns that even halving aviation's current growth rate would leave huge cuts to be made elsewhere. "If the UK government does not curb aviation growth, all other sectors of the economy will eventually be forced to become carbon neutral," said Dr Kevin Anderson, who led the research at the Manchester University research centre. "It will undermine the international competitiveness of UK industry." Under current rules, aviation and shipping are not considered part of a country's CO2 output, but the researchers urged ministers to change this. Aviation is considered especially polluting because of the large amount of fuel used at high altitude. Road transport The findings are part of a five-year study by the Manchester University's Tyndall Centre into CO2 emissions over the next 45 years. The report, Decarbonising the UK, describes ways of cutting CO2 emissions from road transport, housing, industry and coal-fired power stations. It also looks at the role of renewable energy, nuclear power and hydrogen fuel in providing low carbon energy supply. The government's target of a 60% cut in CO2 is based on the amount in the atmosphere that scientists say is safe to avoid dangerous climate change.
|
|