Airlines, Airports, Routes - and climate change

[ATNotts]

Judging by the radical thread drift in the Manchester discussion, perhaps its time to air the subject separately so as not to pee off readers and contributors who's interest doesn't extend to the issue.

First off, commercial aviation isn't going to cease - fact. Second, climate change is real, happening now, and since the dawn of the industrial era at a much faster rate than through previous centuries - also a fact.

How do the stakeholders in the industry (airlines and airports) balance the need for change to reduce emmissions without resorting to PR 'greenwash' that only the gullible fall for with maintaining their businesses and viability? Perhaps its a circle that can't be squared, but I actually doubt that.

Perhaps from an airport standpoint more renewable power generation, reduce heating and lighting in terminals. Perhaps better public transport for staff and PAX.

Perhaps from an airline standpoint an end to slot sitting schedules at major airports, perhaps more direct routings developed through technological advances in air traffic management.

Thats an opening gambit. Perhaps MAN can get its thread back!

[PAXboy]

What we have seen in the last 30 years is that corporations will do the minimum - until forced otherwise. If legislation forces them into action, they will often ask for handouts. Expect more greenwashing.

[LTNman]

Folk just need to take a look at Luton to see how greed and deception go hand in hand. With the airport owned by the council it has declared a climate emergency yet excludes aircraft flying into and out of its airport. In fact the council wants to nearly double movements and has buried its own report that highlights the numbers of people dying each year due to pollution in the town.

The application to nearly double movements is justified by their term Green Controlled Growth, which basically means making the airport zero emissions but allowing substantial increases in aircraft movements and so causing more pollution as being not their problem.

A proposal to introduce sanctions and penalties for not controlling pollution has caused a major hissy fit. This is worth a read, as it is clear that despite the claims regarding green controlled growth there is no such thing and that they care little about the environment so putting their own greed first.

This document has been prepared to express the Applicant’s objection in the strongest possible terms to the imposition of a financial penalty regime.


https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR020001/TR020001-003046-8.187%20Applicant's%20Position%20Paper%20on%20Financial%20Pe nalties.pdf

[ATNotts]

The problem for airlines is that by and large for your average leisure passenger the environmental impact of climbing aboard an aircraft for their weekend break in Barcelona, or two weeks on the Turkish Riviera is so far down their list of priorities as to be virtually non-existent. I avoid flying when travelling to the near continent, not because I have bought a membership the the Green Party, or have mates who block roads in the name of "saving the planet" but because the hassle factor of putting the (polluting) car on to the (allegedly green) Le Shuttle train is lower than flying. That being the case airlines aren't going to attract passengers on the back of having acquired the latest aircraft that have a lower environmental impact, and certainly aren't going to pay more for their tickets to travel on a shiny new 737-MAX than a written down 737 Classic. The only incentives to airlines come from the bean counters that can see an investment in modern equipment will reduce their fuel bills and therefore their seat-mile costs, and at some airports benefits in lower charges for operating modern aircraft. Aside of that the PR departments can use modern "green(er)" equipment as a method of upping their airline's profile.

Perhaps the best way to push a move towards greener flying is by international cooperation on taxation for older generation aircraft, or conversely incentives for newer aircraft but this is hardly likely to happen with so many, not the least commercial, vested interests. I don't see taxing passengers extra to fly is really a starter since, at least in Europe the taxes and charges on tickets already often exceed the raw cost of a ticket and the passenger simply won't wear that when it comes to the ballot box.

Although it is really tinkering around at the edges some taxation on leisure flying would send a message, and in my view business aircraft should also have their climate impact recognised by levies that really ought to drive some of the users towards the front end of commercial flights rather than flitting around the globe in glorious isolation, leaving an excessive carbon footprint in their wake.

[TURIN]

As I said on the Manchester thread. Aviation accounts for about 3% of GLOBAL CO2 emissions.
You can cut air traffic by half and it would not make a blind bit of difference to the climate change problem.

Surface transport, heavy industry and energy production are the big problem. Tackle those first, then start on aviation.

Fiddling while Rome burns!

[LTNman]

Ryanair is now one of the top 10 carbon emitters within Europe, a league which had until now been exclusively occupied by coal plants.



https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/ryanair-joins-club-europes-top-10-carbon-polluters/

[LGS6753]

One of the largest emitters of carbon residue are the data centres at the heart of the technology sector. I have read that its emissions are larger than aviation globally. So folks, give up @rsebook, Twit, Instamoron and Crapchat if you really want to "save the planet"!

[Ascupart]

Surface transport, heavy industry and energy production are the big problem. Tackle those first, then start on aviation.
We don't have the luxury of tackling greenhouse gas emissions one at a time. We need to make serious reductions across all sectors. While it's true that aviation is a (relatively) small part of global emissions (see here (https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation) for impact) those emissions are caused by a minority of the global population. As noted in this article (https://partner.sciencenorway.no/climate-change-global-warming-transport/1-of-people-cause-half-of-global-aviation-emissions-most-people-in-fact-never-fly/1773607)

​​​​​​1% of people cause half of global aviation emissions. Most people in fact never fly

If the people who do fly flew less often that would have an immediate impact on emissions.

[Ascupart]

One of the largest emitters of carbon residue are the data centres

They certainly do use a lot of electricity but that electricity can be transitioned to renewable sources as is currently being done be Amazon (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-58981631). That's not really an option for aviation so the solution there is for all of us to fly less.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Keep in mind that the UK has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 45% between 1990 - 2020, presumably more by now. And one of the UK's leading emitters - the Port Talbot steelworks - has recently announced closure. Only six countries globally are ahead of the UK on this - Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria and Finland - all of which have much smaller populations than the UK. So there's no need to beat-up on the UK. This country is more than doing it's share in the continuing drive to reduce pollution.

[inOban]

We were able to reduce our CO2 emissions rapidly by decarbonising our electricity production and exporting what was left of our manufacturing industries. France was already generating all its electricity from nuclear and hydro so has more difficulty in further decarbonisation.

[TURIN]

We don't have the luxury of tackling greenhouse gas emissions one at a time. We need to make serious reductions across all sectors. While it's true that aviation is a (relatively) small part of global emissions (see here (https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation) for impact) those emissions are caused by a minority of the global population. As noted in this article (https://partner.sciencenorway.no/climate-change-global-warming-transport/1-of-people-cause-half-of-global-aviation-emissions-most-people-in-fact-never-fly/1773607)



If the people who do fly flew less often that would have an immediate impact on emissions.
It may have an impact on emissions but it would be negligible See above. Halving our use of air transport would cut emissions by less that 1.5% globally.
Halving our use of surface transport on the other hand would make a profound impact.
Ditto energy.
As has been stated above, the UK has reduced its emissions by 45%, but not by reducing air travel, it has targeted the major polluters.

[LTNman]

Global warming will have an effect on air travel as some destinations become no go areas for travellers. You just need to look at the areas around Barcelona to see the future yet everyone here seems to be blind as to what will eventually happen to humanity.

Catalonia: State of emergency declared as region faces worst ever drought https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68167942

Climate change does not cause all droughts, but increased heat in the atmosphere exacerbates dry spells. Temperatures in the Mediterranean region are increasing 20% faster than the global average, according to the UN and rises are expected to continue unless there are drastic cuts to emissions.
​​​​​​​

[Vokes55]

Global warming will have an effect on air travel as some destinations become no go areas for travellers. You just need to look at the areas around Barcelona to see the future yet everyone here seems to be blind as to what will eventually happen to humanity.

Catalonia: State of emergency declared as region faces worst ever drought https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68167942

Barcelona is already a no go area in July and August. Not because it’s a bit hot, but because of the shear number of tourists. If that spike in tourist numbers is spread out over cooler months due to Barcelona becoming a “no go area” in the summer because of a few red blobs on weather maps and climate hysteria, that can only be a good thing.

The seasonality of tourism in Europe is what makes it unsustainable for many countries, islands and businesses, not only across southern Europe but for airlines across the continent. Look at the number of aircraft parked up all day across the UK right now and compare it to the congestion and chaos of August. Spreading tourism more equally throughout the year would be a huge positive.

Oh wait, I forgot positivity isn’t allowed in the environmental echo chamber.

As for what will happen, Europe will continue on it’s path of economic self-destruction, whilst the rest of the world laughs and carries on as normal.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Global warming will have an effect on air travel as some destinations become no go areas for travellers.

For each destination which becomes less suitable, another will become more suitable.

​​​​​​​Isle of Man ... the new Mallorca??? 😀😀😀

[SWBKCB]

They certainly do use a lot of electricity but that electricity can be transitioned to renewable sources as is currently being done be Amazon (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-58981631). That's not really an option for aviation so the solution there is for all of us to fly less.

Although there is a Bitcoin factory in the States which has bought a coal-powered power station and id looking for more.

[Ascupart]

CO₂ emissions from aviation have doubled in the last 30 years, and are likely to keep rising (https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions)

Taking all of these effects into account, the authors estimate that aviation has accounted for approximately 3.5% of effective radiative forcing to date. Another study estimates that it has been responsible for 4% of global temperature rise since pre-industrial times.

What can be done?

[TURIN]

A very good article, and proves my point.
Climate change is not caused by aviation.

[SWBKCB]

A very good article, and proves my point.
Climate change is not caused by aviation.

Obviously not the sole source, but a contributor.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Err ... natural processes, anyone? Remember those???

[ATNotts]

Err ... natural processes, anyone? Remember those???
You can bury your head in the sand as deep as you want, or stick a pair of underpants on your head and a pencil up each nostril but that doesn't change the science.

A great deal of the rapid (in geological terms) climate change IS DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVITY. Aviation is a part of the problem, as is shipping, road transport and indeed human population.

Commercial aviation is playing its part in trying to reduce emissions, along with a fair bit of greenwash. There is more that could be done, not least curbing the mushrooming use of business aircraft. Also ensuring, as low cost airlines do, maximising loads on aircraft.

[Ascupart]

Err ... natural processes, anyone? Remember those???
I'm curious what your point it, since we know that

As stated in this article (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/)
Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed since 1950, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[Ascupart]

UK airline emissions on track to reach record high in 2024 (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/apr/19/uk-airline-emissions-on-track-to-reach-all-time-high-in-2024)

Sector may breach the government’s Jet Zero strategy which pledged not to surpass 2019 CO2 figures

[andymartin]

UK airline emissions on track to reach record high in 2024 (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/apr/19/uk-airline-emissions-on-track-to-reach-all-time-high-in-2024)

Sector may breach the government’s Jet Zero strategy which pledged not to surpass 2019 CO2 figures

Well I'm still burning tyres in my back yard, and I ain't giving up flying anytime soon.

[TURIN]

Obviously not the sole source, but a contributor.
A very, very minor contribution.
It's crazy to shut down flying to tackle climate change.
It's crazy to even consider using alternate fuels. The overall effect is minimal.
Let's focus on tackling the big CO2 emitters, that will make a difference.

[Ascupart]

A very, very minor contribution.
It's crazy to shut down flying to tackle climate change.
It's crazy to even consider using alternate fuels. The overall effect is minimal.
Let's focus on tackling the big CO2 emitters, that will make a difference.
No one is suggesting that we 'shut down flying', but if we all flew less that would certainly make a difference.
We need to tackle all sources of CO2 emissions, including aviation, if we have a chance to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

[PAXboy]

I first became seriously aware of climate change around 1995. One branch of my family were then farmers (outside the UK) and they said that the reduced rainfall and other changes was unlike anything that they had seen in 40 years. As I read more I cam to the conclusion that: The chances of the countries of the world getting their collective act together - in time - to prevent major climate change = Zero.

In the subsequent 27+ years, I have seen nothing to make me change my mind. Yes, inroads are being made but they will not be enough.

[andymartin]

No one is suggesting that we 'shut down flying', but if we all flew less that would certainly make a difference.
We need to tackle all sources of CO2 emissions, including aviation, if we have a chance to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

'If we all flew less'??
So the family who take their one foreign holiday per year by plane shouldn't go anywhere? Absolute nonsense.

[Ascupart]

'If we all flew less'??
So the family who take their one foreign holiday per year by plane shouldn't go anywhere? Absolute nonsense.
Let me phrase this in a way that's easier for you. If, globally, fewer flights were taken, then that would make a real difference to aviation emissions. So maybe your family holidays abroad every other year. Hardly a big sacrifice.

And keep in mind you can travel by rail to France and beyond. Or holiday at home.

Remember that around 80% of the global population has never flown - yet they will suffer just as much from climate change (more so, probably, since they tend to live in poorer parts of the planet).

[ATNotts]

'If we all flew less'??
So the family who take their one foreign holiday per year by plane shouldn't go anywhere? Absolute nonsense.
If less flying took place might be a better way of looking at it. When you look a cargo operations so many of the ad hoc flights involve long environmentally damaging positioning flights. Look for example at some of Atlas Air and National's positioning legs. A lot of the air cargo uplift can be layed at the feet of "Chinese Tat" that western consumers apparently "need" delivered next day. Great for the industry, apalling for the environment.

Then the mushrooming of bizjet flying needs curbing, probably through a global agreement on penal taxes, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

[Mr Mac]

I think the Elephant in the room re Climate change is not flying or indeed power generation or in steel production or cars etc it is people. The world’s population has grown exponentially and these people have higher expectations than their forefathers and there by creating more demand. Address the population explosion but nobody wants to mention that as a factor as it’s far easier to point at shiny planes or cars or whatever.

Cheers
Mr Mac

[kcockayne]

Totally true, Mr.Mac. ALL of the world's problems revolve entirely around the fact that there are far too many people on the planet. What is more; there is nothing that will be done that will solve any of these problems.

[TURIN]

No one is suggesting that we 'shut down flying', but if we all flew less that would certainly make a difference.
We need to tackle all sources of CO2 emissions, including aviation, if we have a chance to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
How much less flying would you like everyone to do?
If we cut all flights by 50% it would reduce global CO2 emissions by..... Wait for it... less than 1.5%!!!
That is not going to make a difference, at all.
Cut surface transport, power generation and industrial emissions by. 50%? Now were talking.

[APU.INOP]

How much less flying would you like everyone to do?
If we cut all flights by 50% it would reduce global CO2 emissions by..... Wait for it... less than 1.5%!!!
That is not going to make a difference, at all.
Cut surface transport, power generation and industrial emissions by. 50%? Now were talking.

Well said! Unfortunately with aviation being a very "visible" contributor to Co2 emissions (even though that contribution is comparatively quite low,) it will likely always find itself in the crosshairs

[Ascupart]

How much less flying would you like everyone to do?
If we cut all flights by 50% it would reduce global CO2 emissions by..... Wait for it... less than 1.5%!!!
That is not going to make a difference, at all.

How do you know that?

No one is suggesting that we ONLY cut aviation emissions. We need to cut emissions wherever we can.

Agriculture sector: We can eat less meat , reduce tilling.
Road transportation: Electrification of vehicles - already in progress.
Energy generation: Move to renewables and nuclear
Shipping: Tough to solve, LNG is possible but of dubious value.
Aviation: ? SAF is possible but is currently way more expensive then traditional fuel, and can we ever produce enough of it?

It's tough for people to give up food or using electricity at home. But cutting out a flight makes a huge difference to a person's carbon footprint.
The obvious first step would be to target the 1% of flyers who make up half of global emissions (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/17/people-cause-global-aviation-emissions-study-covid-19). But we must all do our part.

[Ascupart]

I think the Elephant in the room re Climate change is not flying or indeed power generation or in steel production or cars etc it is people. The world’s population has grown exponentially and these people have higher expectations than their forefathers and there by creating more demand. Address the population explosion but nobody wants to mention that as a factor as it’s far easier to point at shiny planes or cars or whatever.

Cheers
Mr Mac
This is wrong. It's not the number of people that is the issue, it's what we do. There are tremendous inequalities in emissions. (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipVxxxqwBQw&ab_channel=Kurzgesagt%E2%80%93InaNutshell

[Asturias56]

Its not just numbers - its aspirations. 40 years if you had a bicycle in Jakarta you weren't poor and if you owned a motor bike you were middle class.

Now the middle class all have cars - and they travel further, start to take holidays abroad, want bigger houses, A/C etc etc

[Ascupart]

Aviation fuel plan supports growth of British aviation sector (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/aviation-fuel-plan-supports-growth-of-british-aviation-sector)

Interesting to read that

While we recognise SAF may be more expensive than traditional jet fuel in the immediate term, we’re ensuring decarbonisation doesn’t come at the expense of consumers. This plan is part of our approach to ensure that the rationing of flights through ‘demand management’ is ruled out.

Hmm, I wonder what the next government's view will be on that.

[chaps1954]

Exactly the same as every body else so no change.
One of the big problems are the wars with all the weapons and fuel being burned so lets ban wars and Volcanos and wild fires whilst we are at it

[ATNotts]

Exactly the same as every body else so no change.
One of the big problems are the wars with all the weapons and fuel being burned so lets ban wars and Volcanos and wild fires whilst we are at it
They only one of those that the human race has control of is war and I'd stand four square behind that ambition.

Sadly the human race is incapable of such a quantum leap.

[TURIN]

It's tough for people to give up food or using electricity at home. But cutting out a flight makes a huge difference to a person's carbon footprint.
The obvious first step would be to target the 1% of flyers who make up half of global emissions (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/17/people-cause-global-aviation-emissions-study-covid-19). But we must all do our part.
Yes, cutting out flying makes a huge difference to the personal carbon footprint... of a very small number of people.
You could ban all business jets, limit frequent flyers to a couple of return flights a year and it would not make a difference at all to the climate change problem. I don't know why people can't see this. We don't need to cut carbon emissions by half of one percent, it needs cutting by tens of percent. Aviation cannot do that.
Power generation, surface transport and heavy industries reliance on fossil fuels are the only areas where change can make a difference.
We are Fiddling around with reducing emissions from already very efficient gas turbines but it won't make a damn difference.

[ATNotts]

TURIN,

You are absolutely right, but as Tesco have been telling us ad nauseum for years "every little helps". There needs to be a sea change in public attitudes and demands. Fast fashion and the "must have now" attitude towards buying throw away tat has to change and people have to be convinced to move away from cars for short journeys.

Baby steps in these areas as well as reducing wasteful aviation activity such as private jets, positioning etc could together produce meaningful reductions. In isolation aviation is a small cog in a large wheel.

[Ascupart]

We don't need to cut carbon emissions by half of one percent, it needs cutting by tens of percent. Aviation cannot do that.
Exactly - which is why we need to reduce CO2 emission from all sources, including aviation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/58160547

[TURIN]

That's all very well but cutting aviation emissions by 10% only cuts global emissions by 0.3%.
Cutting cement production by 10% would have a greater effect.

[kcockayne]

You can argue all you want about what is effective or not effective, what can be done & what can’t be done, what produces the most pollution & what produces the least; & it may well be, for all I know, that aviation does not rank very high on the pollution scale. But, what I do know (or perhaps more correctly, suspect) is that nothing meaningful will be done about it all until way after the deadline for doing it has passed. We are stuck with global warming. We had better hope that its ramifications are not anywhere near as bad as has been suggested. The world is too wrapped up in its wasteful & profligate lifestyle to be prepared to make the adjustments which might arrest global warming. The really unfair aspect of it is that it will be those who didn’t pollute the most who suffer the worst, & first.

[ATNotts]

kcockayne,

I fear you are absolutely right. Western / developed nations are too full of their own importance and the human race too influenced by religions that tell them we (humans) are superior beings that have a God given right to rape and pillory the planet. Sad really.

That however shouldn't stop those who can see the writing on the wall from trying to encourage change.

Nobody here would be proposing banning air travel as a means to an end but its more about marginal gains across all polluting sectors that might buy the planet time.

[PAXboy]

Likewise, many developing nations want the 'western lifestyle' and their politicians are very keen to provide.
Q.E.D.

[Asturias56]

many people in the "West" want a "western lifestyle" - they feast on influencers, social media, stories about consumption, travel and spending

That horse bolted a longgg time ago

[TURIN]

And yet we see a proliferation of wind power generation especially in western Europe. The UK alone has cut its reliance on fossil fuels massively since the 1980s. In the winter months between a third and a half of power generation comes from wind. We are doing something positive, I just hope the rest of the world follows. Texas seems to have some huge wind farms, maybe there's hope yet even for oil rich areas.

[kcockayne]

I cannot deny that the UK, & others have made great efforts to address the power generation problem. The question is, “is it enough ?” It probably isn’t, at the moment. We have to more than redouble our efforts in this area. The depressing realization is that there are so many more dimensions to address in our attempt to stop (or even, reverse) global warming. The list is practically endless; & addressing it seriously & effectively will demand so many sacrifices from us , as regards our current & future lifestyles, that I fear that the requisite changes will not prove acceptable without strong government direction & imposition; & equally strong civil resistance & severe social unrest. For instance, what will happen if we in the UK &, what is referred to as “the west”, make all the changes required of us, & the Chinese , Indians, Russians etc. , whoever, decide not to ? I can only see, in that instance, impoverished Western economies which cannot compete with those that don’t change in the same way that we MIGHT; resulting in civil unrest here & war against those “unco-operative societies” who refuse to do anything meaningfully appropriate, & who carry on as before (with much stronger economies than we have, as a result). My understanding of the situation , & the likely response to it, is that what is necessary is going to be unobtainable - for so many different reasons - that we are already past the “point of no return”.
I may be wrong, but there are SO MANY humans doing such stupid things & reluctant to consider adjusting their lifestyle aspirations significantly downwards - & I am one of them- that we will not address this situation with the gravity & expedition that it requires.

[PAXboy]

Not airline but this is the kind of problem the world faces. Notwithstanding the amount of plastic used in the airline worl.
The number of fossil fuel and petrochemical industry lobbyists has increased by more than a third at UN talks to agree the first global treaty to cut plastic pollution, analysis shows.

Most plastic is made from fossil fuels via a chemical process known as cracking, and 196 lobbyists from both industries are at the UN talks in Ottawa, Canada, where countries are attempting to come to an agreement to curb plastic production as part of a treaty to cut global plastic waste, according to analysis by the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel).

The 196 lobbyists registered for the talks represent a 37% increase from the 143 lobbyists registered at the last talks, in Nairobi. This in turn was a 36% increase on the previous year’s number. Increased plastic production is a major part of the fossil fuel industry’s plans for the future, and any attempts to curb production, such as those being discussed at the UN talks, are an obvious threat to their profits.

The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/25/fears-grow-over-rising-number-of-oil-lobbyists-at-un-plastic-pollution-talks)


The communities most affected by plastic pollution, including Pacific small island states, are at the talks in far fewer numbers and do not have the same access to meetings with member states, Ciel said.

Tori Cress, communications manager at the environmental group Keepers of the Water, which is part of the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus at the talks, said: “Industry lobbyists are enjoying seats on state delegations while the communities most impacted by the plastic crisis struggle to have their voices heard.

“While we are surrounded by industry-sponsored pro-plastics ads, Indigenous peoples’ representatives experience lack of access, are given extremely limited time to speak, and lack recognition even at the First Nations table. Plastics have poisoned our water and what happens to the water happens to people.”

Discussions at the UN treaty talks in Ottawa are attempting to break the deadlock between fossil fuel nations and others pushing for an ambitious treaty to deal with the whole lifecycle of plastic.

[Asturias56]

"And yet we see a proliferation of wind power generation especially in western Europe. The UK alone has cut its reliance on fossil fuels massively since the 1980s. I"

Vast incentives, tax breaks, higher prices - works every time

Recently the Govt tightened the terms a bit and they got no takers for the next offshore wind bidding round

[Officer Cartman]

If you want to help the climate, don’t worry about aviation as it’s the square root of naff all in the big scheme. The best way to help the climate is to stop cutting down the rainforests and have less babies.

The 90s the population was just over 6 billion, it’s now over 8 billion.

[ATNotts]

If you want to help the climate, don’t worry about aviation as it’s the square root of naff all in the big scheme. The best way to help the climate is to stop cutting down the rainforests and have less babies.

The 90s the population was just over 6 billion, it’s now over 8 billion.
Look, you are absolutely right regarding population, but if a BBC report this week is to be believed births are falling now.

However if all the smaller (not insignificant) polluters do something rather than saying its not their responsibility, while the larger contributors also take steps, which they are doing, we may be in a better place. Fortunately aviation is making an effort but there's far too much green wash going on, not necessarily by airlines, but by airports too.

[TURIN]

"And yet we see a proliferation of wind power generation especially in western Europe. The UK alone has cut its reliance on fossil fuels massively since the 1980s. I"

Vast incentives, tax breaks, higher prices - works every time

Recently the Govt tightened the terms a bit and they got no takers for the next offshore wind bidding round
The only thing that has put the prices up is the wholesale price and distribution of gas/oil. Not 'green' energy.
Still what price is the future worth?

[Asturias56]

UK Govt Announcement 2023

The government has increased the maximum price for offshore wind projects in its flagship renewables scheme to further cement the UK as a world leader in clean energy. Following an extensive review of the latest evidence, including the impact of global events on supply chains, the government has raised the maximum price offshore wind and other renewables projects can receive in the next Contracts for Difference (CfD) auction to ensure it is performing effectively.

The CfD scheme ensures renewable energy projects receive a guaranteed price from the government for the electricity they generate, encouraging continued investment in the UK - which is already home to the world’s 5 largest operational offshore wind farm projects and has increased electricity generation from renewables from 6% in the first quarter of 2010 to 48% in the first quarter of this year.

The maximum strike price has been increased by 66% for offshore wind projects, from £44/MWh to £73/MWh, and by 52% for floating offshore wind projects, from £116/MWh to £176/MWh ahead of Allocation Round 6 (AR6) next year.

[SWBKCB]

Following an alert from the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC), the European Commission and EU consumer authorities (Network of Consumer Protection Cooperation - CPC - Authorities) sent letters to 20 airlines identifying several types of potentially misleading green claims and inviting them to bring their practices in line with EU consumer law within 30 days.

Key elements of the action:

The European Commission and the CPC network, have identified several types of potentially misleading practices by 20 airlines, such as:

creating the incorrect impression that paying an additional fee to finance climate projects with less environmental impact or to support the use of alternative aviation fuels can reduce or fully counterbalance the CO2 emissions;


using the term “sustainable aviation fuels” (SAF) without clearly justifying the environmental impact of such fuels;
using the terms “green”, “sustainable” or “responsible” in an absolute way or use other implicit green claims;
claiming that the airline is moving towards net-zero greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) or any future environmental performance, without clear and verifiable commitments, targets and an independent monitoring system;
presenting consumers with a “calculator” for the CO2 emissions of a specific flight, without providing sufficient scientific proof on whether such calculation is reliable and without the information on the elements used for such calculation;
presenting consumers with a comparison of flights regarding their CO2 emissions, without providing sufficient and accurate information on the elements the comparison is based on.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_2322



How many posts before we get into a Brexit hamsterwheel!? :ok:

[ATNotts]

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_2322



How many posts before we get into a Brexit hamsterwheel!? :ok:
Glad to see action being taken on "green wash". I wonder when / if the UK and other administrations will follow the EU's excellent example.

[ManUtd1999]

It's not really about stopping your average family going on their summer holiday. But there does need to be a realisation that:
a) aviation will be one of the hardest industries to decarbonise, so we need to get started ASAP
b) reducing unnecessary flying will be an important part of that.

I think a good first step would be to reform Air Passenger Duty to help influence airline and customer behaviours. Some sort of "climate multiplier" on top of the current rates:

0.75 for flights on next-gen or turboprop aircraft.
3 for flights where there is a viable train alternative (eg, >5 direct trains per day, <5 hrs journey).
10 for private jets (or 50 tbh).
1 for everything else (ie, unchanged).

[kcockayne]

Look, let's face it. Aviation is, as has been said above, going to be one of the most difficult industries to decarbonate. Frankly, I don't see how it can be done - short of banning the greater part of the industry from operating at all. What will be the result of such action ? 1. Hardly anyone flying 2.Most airlines out of business 3. Tens of millions out of work 4. Tens of thousands of very expensive a/c lying idle 5. A huge number of people unable to survive financially 6. Many finance companies, banks etc. unable to reclaim their investments in the industry 7. Other industries adversely affected financially, because their customers (formerly reliant on the aviation industry for their livelihood) are unable to afford their services/products 8. Governments unable to control civil unrest brought on by the aviation shutdown 9. A huge reduction -90%+ in global travel 10. Any other cataclysm you can think of,
But, relax, for these, & other reasons brought on by the practicalities of action for overcoming "Global Warming"; nothing meaningful will be done.
We will have to hope that the whole theory is incorrect - which may be a very vain hope - & carry on much as we did before !

[Expatrick]

Look, let's face it. Aviation is, as has been said above, going to be one of the most difficult industries to decarbonate. Frankly, I don't see how it can be done - short of banning the greater part of the industry from operating at all. What will be the result of such action ? 1. Hardly anyone flying 2.Most airlines out of business 3. Tens of millions out of work 4. Tens of thousands of very expensive a/c lying idle 5. A huge number of people unable to survive financially 6. Many finance companies, banks etc. unable to reclaim their investments in the industry 7. Other industries adversely affected financially, because their customers (formerly reliant on the aviation industry for their livelihood) are unable to afford their services/products 8. Governments unable to control civil unrest brought on by the aviation shutdown 9. A huge reduction -90%+ in global travel 10. Any other cataclysm you can think of,
But, relax, for these, & other reasons brought on by the practicalities of action for overcoming "Global Warming"; nothing meaningful will be done.
We will have to hope that the whole theory is incorrect - which may be a very vain hope - & carry on much as we did before !

And aviation is, all too often, a convenient scapegoat - I'd expand on that but I must go and turn on my aircon.

[ATNotts]

It's not really about stopping your average family going on their summer holiday. But there does need to be a realisation that:
a) aviation will be one of the hardest industries to decarbonise, so we need to get started ASAP
b) reducing unnecessary flying will be an important part of that.

I think a good first step would be to reform Air Passenger Duty to help influence airline and customer behaviours. Some sort of "climate multiplier" on top of the current rates:

0.75 for flights on next-gen or turboprop aircraft.
3 for flights where there is a viable train alternative (eg, >5 direct trains per day, <5 hrs journey).
10 for private jets (or 50 tbh).
1 for everything else (ie, unchanged).


That is a sound concept. Reward the less damaging, penalise the unnecessary and keep the status quo for the majority. The precise figures can be debated, but for private jets your 50 figure is probably not unreasonable.

[PAXboy]

Shipping. The container ships, the bulk carriers and (fewer) the cruise ships.

As a large part of the world decided to outsource their manufacturing to the Orient, then ship it across the globe and, as we need to import oil and gas across the globe - we see the problem.

[TURIN]

Look, let's face it. Aviation is, as has been said above, going to be one of the most difficult industries to decarbonate. Frankly, I don't see how it can be done - short of banning the greater part of the industry from operating at all. What will be the result of such action ? 1. Hardly anyone flying 2.Most airlines out of business 3. Tens of millions out of work 4. Tens of thousands of very expensive a/c lying idle 5. A huge number of people unable to survive financially 6. Many finance companies, banks etc. unable to reclaim their investments in the industry 7. Other industries adversely affected financially, because their customers (formerly reliant on the aviation industry for their livelihood) are unable to afford their services/products 8. Governments unable to control civil unrest brought on by the aviation shutdown 9. A huge reduction -90%+ in global travel 10. Any other cataclysm you can think of,
But, relax, for these, & other reasons brought on by the practicalities of action for overcoming "Global Warming"; nothing meaningful will be done.
We will have to hope that the whole theory is incorrect - which may be a very vain hope - & carry on much as we did before !
Climate change is real.
Blaming aviation for it is not the answer.

[TURIN]

That is a sound concept. Reward the less damaging, penalise the unnecessary and keep the status quo for the majority. The precise figures can be debated, but for private jets your 50 figure is probably not unreasonable.
It won't make a blind bit of difference to CO2 emissions.

[kcockayne]

Climate change is real.
Blaming aviation for it is not the answer.
I completely agree with you - all I intended to say, was that I don’t think that anything meaningful or effective to deal with it will ever be done. Therefor, we have to hope that there is a mistake in the theory, or that we get lucky !

[Ascupart]

Climate change is real.
Blaming aviation for it is not the answer.
I don't think anyone wants to blame aviation as the sole source of climate change. But it is a source of climate change.

We're in a boat, it's holed beneath the waterline. Just because the holes are bigger at the other end of the boat that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be bailing too.

[Asturias56]

Whatever we do the world i getting warmer - we may be able to affect the rate of change but it won't affect the destination

[andymartin]

It's great that the world is warming up as of course far less people die of the heat as they do from the cold. Just ask those pensioners huddled around their one bar electric fire.
Global warming yes please 👍

[Ascupart]

It's great that the world is warming up as of course far less people die of the heat as they do from the cold. Just ask those pensioners huddled around their one bar electric fire.
Global warming yes please 👍
Presumably you're trolling? I don't think anyone could seriously believe that global warming is a good thing.

But, just in case you're sincere, deaths from climate change won't just come directly from extreme heat (https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/summer-heat-waves-already-deadly-in-asia-and-its-still-spring/ar-AA1o2bwp) or cold or other extreme weather (https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/death-toll-from-floods-in-brazil-reaches-83-with-climate-change-viewed-as-a-major-driver/ar-BB1lY5w5). Deaths will happen because there won't be enough food. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/14/third-of-global-food-production-at-risk-from-climate-crisis)

[TURIN]

I don't think anyone wants to blame aviation as the sole source of climate change. But it is a source of climate change.

We're in a boat, it's holed beneath the waterline. Just because the holes are bigger at the other end of the boat that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be bailing too.

Every time climate change is mentioned on the news, the first image you see is a big jet taking off or in the cruise laying contrails. When you ask the general public how much aviation contributes to CO2 emissions the, mostly, uninformed take a guess at around 20%. When you point out that it's closer to 3% they are totally surprised.
The narrative from the MSM is 'AVIATION BAD'.

Fixing the big holes gives you a chance of staying afloat. Fixing the small ones means you're going to sink no matter how hard you bail.

[SWBKCB]

Aviation is conspicuous consumption - how often do you see a containership, where as aircraft and their images are everywhere.

There's also the subliminal effect - aircraft are noisy and fast, so they must be wasteful, right? Where as ships float, so they must be efficient as water is doing the heavy lifting. That's just common sense!

[ATNotts]

Aviation is conspicuous consumption - how often do you see a containership, where as aircraft and their images are everywhere.

There's also the subliminal effect - aircraft are noisy and fast, so they must be wasteful, right? Where as ships float, so they must be efficient as water is doing the heavy lifting. That's just common sense!
Containerships are definitely "bad" but while they are chucking tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere they are also moving many more tonnes of products that we need, or at least want. The container shipping industry is supposedly playing its part in reducing emissions. For really wasteful emissions look no further than the "float apartment blocks" or as they are called, cruise ships.

Nobody (well except the extremists) asked for aviation to be stopped, but for real, as opposed to greenwash, steps to be taken to reduce its impact and thankfully some steps are being taken. As with all sectors though, the steps aren't big enough.

[Asturias56]

It's great that the world is warming up as of course far less people die of the heat as they do from the cold. Just ask those pensioners huddled around their one bar electric fire.
Global warming yes please 👍

Problem is that climate change will lead to big changes in where people live and where their food comes from. Substantial migration of hundreds of millions of people will occur. No-one wants this but there really will be no alternative. We can't STOP climate change but we can perhaps SLOW it

[PAXboy]

I agree Asturias56 When looking at things to reduce,we know that a family flying to a holiday once a year is not a big problem and provides them with an important part of their life. In the last couple of days I noticed two things that some will claim are VITAL to their very existence:

1) How does the Met Gala in NYC benefit the world? All those clothes and effort and human ingenuity ...
2) How does the Formula 1 circuit help us? How much fuel do they use going round in circles and then (sometimes) flying the cars across the world to do it again? I can see that a few men collect 'fame' and money' but ...

These are not popular views but, if you want to add in other fuel hungry events like Tractor Pulls and Indy 500, they start to add up. I wonder if anyone has done a carbon footprint assesment of them?

[Expatrick]

Problem is that climate change will lead to big changes in where people live and where their food comes from. Substantial migration of hundreds of millions of people will occur. No-one wants this but there really will be no alternative. We can't STOP climate change but we can perhaps SLOW it

And adapt to it, where possible.

[421dog]

From a resource standpoint, we’re doing it wrong.

There is a substantially scarcer supply of “portable fuel” than there is of stationary energy supplies.

It is idiotic that we are burning natural gas in ludicrous quantities, to generate electricity when, for the same amount of carbon per KWh (more or less) we could be using the essentially inexhaustible reserves of coal in our country (which is now being largely exported). LNG works great to run vehicles, and if we weren’t pissing it all away, we’d be able to use it to fuel OTR trucks (like FedEx and UPS do now) for essentially eternity.

the convenience of diesel and gasoline are hard to beat for small vehicle propulsion, and the advent of hybrid technology for stop and go driving is hard to argue with.

Kerosene is essentially a byproduct of gasoline (and lighter than octane hydrocarbon distillation/cat cracking).
that’s why the airlines can often buy it for the same or less than the spot price of high quality crude when they do it on longer term contracts.

Bunker Oil, the stuff that is left over, after all the good things are removed, doesn’t cost very much, but has a lot of energy in it, if you’re ingenious enough to know how to use it. Most of the worlds shipping lines use it in giant diesel engines that require a pre-heater to liquify the stuff sufficiently to actually be injected into the cylinders.
There is literally not much else one could use this stuff for except road construction/maintenance, and we are using what is essentially chemical garbage to power a big chunk of the world’s commerce.

Intercontinental air traffic requires an energy-dense fuel source, and Kerosene fits the bill beautifully.

[SWBKCB]

I agree Asturias56 When looking at things to reduce,we know that a family flying to a holiday once a year is not a big problem and provides them with an important part of their life. In the last couple of days I noticed two things that some will claim are VITAL to their very existence:

1) How does the Met Gala in NYC benefit the world? All those clothes and effort and human ingenuity ...
2) How does the Formula 1 circuit help us? How much fuel do they use going round in circles and then (sometimes) flying the cars across the world to do it again? I can see that a few men collect 'fame' and money' but ...

These are not popular views but, if you want to add in other fuel hungry events like Tractor Pulls and Indy 500, they start to add up. I wonder if anyone has done a carbon footprint assesment of them?

F1 is aware of it's carbon footprint - they would argue that the reason that the large motor manufacturers are involved is that competition drives innovation and F1 power units are remarkably efficient. Similarly the big oil companies are involved because of the drive for synthetic fuels.

The biggest impact individuals can make is to eat less meat.

[ATNotts]

I agree Asturias56 When looking at things to reduce,we know that a family flying to a holiday once a year is not a big problem and provides them with an important part of their life. In the last couple of days I noticed two things that some will claim are VITAL to their very existence:

1) How does the Met Gala in NYC benefit the world? All those clothes and effort and human ingenuity ...
2) How does the Formula 1 circuit help us? How much fuel do they use going round in circles and then (sometimes) flying the cars across the world to do it again? I can see that a few men collect 'fame' and money' but ...

These are not popular views but, if you want to add in other fuel hungry events like Tractor Pulls and Indy 500, they start to add up. I wonder if anyone has done a carbon footprint assesment of them?

Well over the past 48 hours F1 has contributed no less than 4 x 777 and 2 x 747 freighters from MIA into EMA, each one positioned out after unloading their "toy" cars and ancillary equipment, meanwhile their drivers doubtless flew out of Florida on biz jets. A totally frivalous emission of carbon, and thats without the race.

The technology argument of the manufacturers and oil companies is largely greenwash. Curiously I still can't buy a McLaren city car, nor a Ferarri for that matter.

Aviation isn't the villain of the piece, nor is F1, nor tractor pulls but the latter two are just not acceptable when we are all supposed to be "doing our bit".

[SWBKCB]

The technology argument of the manufacturers and oil companies is largely greenwash. Curiously I still can't buy a McLaren city car, nor a Ferarri for that matter.

No, but you can drive EV cars derived from technology developed and tested in motorsports, and synthetic fuels are on the way. Competition speeds up innovation.

[ATNotts]

No, but you can drive EV cars derived from technology developed and tested in motorsports, and synthetic fuels are on the way. Competition speeds up innovation.
I absolutely grant you that Formula E will have advanced battery technology, but unless there's a way of making synthetic fuels without using up valuable agricultural land its a red herring, or greenwash.

My real beef is the flying of the F1 cars around, along with the drivers and hangers on.

[TURIN]

The real CO2 culprits are actually the fans according to this article.
https://thevarsity.ca/2023/10/01/formula-1s-race-to-sustainability-a-climate-commitment-or-greenwashing/#:~:text=F1%27s%20biggest%20environmental%20challenge%20is,o f%20carbon%20dioxide%20every%20season.
If people travelling to watch a race would/could use greener transport it would have a much bigger effect than the race cars or the air transport could ever have.
This is my point. Air transport is not the problem, surface transport is a much bigger polluter.

[ATNotts]

The real CO2 culprits are actually the fans according to this article.
https://thevarsity.ca/2023/10/01/formula-1s-race-to-sustainability-a-climate-commitment-or-greenwashing/#:~:text=F1%27s%20biggest%20environmental%20challenge%20is,o f%20carbon%20dioxide%20every%20season.
If people travelling to watch a race would/could use greener transport it would have a much bigger effect than the race cars or the air transport could ever have.
This is my point. Air transport is not the problem, surface transport is a much bigger polluter.
Nobody would deny that. People are wedded to their cars, and the supposedly environmentally concious younger generation are no exception.

For myself although I own a small city car I only drive to the shops for the big weekly shop, otherwise its a combination of foot, plus tram and / or bus. Obviously it helps that I have an OAP bus and tram pass but the principal benefit is my physical fitness while also reducing my carbon footprint.

Conversely the 16 year old up the road is driven to 600m to school every day.

Point is that all sectors, and all people need to buy into consuming less. I really worry, for my grandchildren, that far too many people and businesses have their heads stuck ostrich-like in the sand. Aviation shouldn't be singled out, but equally shouldn't have an opt out.

[TURIN]

The thing is, commercial aviation is self policing. Airlines want more fuel efficiency to increase profits and/or keep prices down to remain competitive. The result is manufacturer's strive for better engines and aircraft design innovation. The 787 is a great example, it's claimed to be 20% more efficient than the aircraft it replaced.
The same could be said for surface transport, however, cutting aviation emissions by 20% is only scratching the surface, cutting surface transport emissions by 20% would have a huge effect.

[Ascupart]

The thing is, commercial aviation is self policing. Airlines want more fuel efficiency to increase profits and/or keep prices down to remain competitive. The result is manufacturer's strive for better engines and aircraft design innovation. The 787 is a great example, it's claimed to be 20% more efficient than the aircraft it replaced.

More fuel efficiency is welcome, unfortunately the predicted growth in aviation would probably offset that gain. People are pinning their hopes on SAF but I can't see it scaling up to meet even current demand.

From 'Reducing emissions in aviation' (https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/transport/reducing-emissions-aviation_en)

Policy actions and the efforts of industry have led to improvements in fuel efficiency over recent years. For instance, the amount of fuel burned per passenger dropped by 24% between 2005 and 2017. However, these environmental benefits have been outpaced by a sustained growth in air traffic, with passengers in 2017 flying on average 60% further than in 2005.

The current government in its 'Jet Zero' policy states that it does not want to manage demand in order to reduce emissions (https://theconversation.com/climate-change-the-fairest-way-to-tax-carbon-is-to-make-air-travel-more-expensive-191632). It will be interesting to see what the next government's view is on that.

[PAXboy]

I know that the F-1 people and the fuel companies tout the rapid research, and all the big companies have an excuse.

The root of the problem is that humans are programmed to look at the next year, possibly three. Looking at history, seeing the repeating cycles and then projecting forward? Not so much! The politicians know that they do not get elected by promising no disaster in 25/50 years time.

A simple example of sewarage in the Thames river (data edited from Wikipedia)
The scientist Michael Faraday described the situation in a letter to The Times in July 1855, shocked at the state of the Thames.

The Great Stink was an event in Central London during July and August 1858 in which the hot weather exacerbated the smell of untreated human waste and industrial effluent that was present on the banks of the River Thames. The problem had been mounting for some years, with an ageing and inadequate sewer system that emptied directly into the Thames.

The [Bazalgette] system became operational in 1875

That is 20 years for a problem that had been building for decades and was on their doorstep. Where are we now?

[LGS6753]

I recommend this documentary on You Tube which dissects the science behind climate change. It's worth the 80 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYrTvjCYqQ8&t=4s

[Ascupart]

I recommend this documentary on You Tube which dissects the science behind climate change. It's worth the 80 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYrTvjCYqQ8&t=4s

I recommend that you might want to first understand why this 'documentary' is nothing but a recycling of old climate myths. "It's a who's who of the organised climate change denial movement"
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-the-movie-a-hot-mess-of-cold-myths.html

'Fake graphs and daft conspiracy yarns'
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/fake-graphs-and-daft-conspiracy-yarns-in-durkins-latest-propaganda-film/

Climate The Movie "the cold truth" debunked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQlEAL6N80g&ab_channel=Scienceandclimate

[SWBKCB]

I absolutely grant you that Formula E will have advanced battery technology, but unless there's a way of making synthetic fuels without using up valuable agricultural land its a red herring, or greenwash.

Formula 1 were way ahead on battery technology. And yes, it needs to be reduction not displacement. Shutting Port Talbot so you can then buy the same amount of steel from China is greenwash.

Aviation shouldn't be singled out, but equally shouldn't have an opt out.

Agreed!

Point is that all sectors, and all people need to buy into consuming less.

Agreeing again (I'll be kicked out of JetBlast :uhoh:) - as I said earlier, the single biggest individual contribuion is to eat less meat. If I've remembered the figures correctly, agriculture is responsible for 40% of greenhous gas ommisions, with arable 10% and livestock related 30%.

[GROUNDHOG]

All those green drivers charging electric cars today, just 1.44% of your charge is coming from wind power today and very little more from solar, so you are not charging on zero carbon fuel. I will not feel guilty about my next long haul flight. Flying domestically when it can be avoided, probably the greenest alternative, I drive a diesel car that does 50mpg plus on trips between Cornwall and London Airports so on the basis of the above statistic I am probably being as green as I can be!!!
And I eat NO meat.

[Ascupart]

All those green drivers charging electric cars today, just 1.44% of your charge is coming from wind power today and very little more from solar, so you are not charging on zero carbon fuel.
I believe most people charge their EVs overnight when nuclear power is a significant proportion of energy generation. And we also import energy from various countries and most generation in France is nuclear.
I have a petrol car although I rarely use it (so rarely in fact that I disconnect the battery to stop it discharging). Keeping the car you have and using other forms of transport where possible is a good idea. But when maintenance is not longer possible, and a car must be replaced, then BEVs are greener than ICE.

[ATNotts]

All those green drivers charging electric cars today, just 1.44% of your charge is coming from wind power today and very little more from solar, so you are not charging on zero carbon fuel. I will not feel guilty about my next long haul flight. Flying domestically when it can be avoided, probably the greenest alternative, I drive a diesel car that does 50mpg plus on trips between Cornwall and London Airports so on the basis of the above statistic I am probably being as green as I can be!!!
And I eat NO meat.
Where does that statistic come from? Looks to me as though its one for Tim Harford.

If EVs are being charged overnight, as is sensible given there are cheaper kW/h rates available then if there is wind, and there usually is, much will come from that renewable source. Had I got an EV I could have charged it any day this week using my own generation from solar, or from battery storage. I'm not suggesting for a moment that more than 50% of EV charging is using renewables, but 1.44% appears very low, and rather too precise.

Also please remember that however good your diesel fuel consumption is (ours is too) you and I are both chucking NOX into the atmosphere along with CO2.

I am also a very bad lad, enjoying red meat on a regular basis, though probably not in the quantities I used to.

[GROUNDHOG]

Where does that statistic come from? Looks to me as though its one for Tim Harford.

If EVs are being charged overnight, as is sensible given there are cheaper kW/h rates available then if there is wind, and there usually is, much will come from that renewable source. Had I got an EV I could have charged it any day this week using my own generation from solar, or from battery storage. I'm not suggesting for a moment that more than 50% of EV charging is using renewables, but 1.44% appears very low, and rather too precise.

Also please remember that however good your diesel fuel consumption is (ours is too) you and I are both chucking NOX into the atmosphere along with CO2.

I am also a very bad lad, enjoying red meat on a regular basis, though probably not in the quantities I used to.
Gridwatch Templar is the source. No idea who Tim Harford is?

[TURIN]

It depends where you are and time of year. Over the winter months in the UK windpower is often supplying more than 50% of all UK demand, average is about 30%. Right now it's about 4%.

[ATNotts]

Gridwatch Templar is the source. No idea who Tim Harford is?

Presents the excellent "More or Less" on BBC Radio 4 that investigates principally potentially dubious statistical claims. Well worth a listen on BBC Sounds.

[ATNotts]

It depends where you are and time of year. Over the winter months in the UK windpower is often supplying more than 50% of all UK demand, average is about 30%. Right now it's about 4%.
Moving back to aviation, BHX is installing more than 12,000 solar panels along the SW facing noise bund that they claim will provide 20% of their electricity. An example of the kinds of action the sector can take.

Coming back to your post, while wind won't be supplying much this week solar will be doing more of the heavy lifting.

[PAXboy]

This is amusing:
Thousands of Americans are flying to Europe for Taylor Swift – groupies are changing travel forever

The US dollar’s strong value against the euro is set to increase spending on apparel, memorabilia and Eras Tour products
The Independent (UK) (https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/taylor-swift-stockholm-edinburgh-eras-b2541366.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-gb)


Thousands of Taylor Swift fans who missed out on her US tour last year or didn't want to buy exorbitantly priced tickets are flying to Europe.

The star will kick off the 18-city Europe leg of her record-setting Eras Tour in Paris on Thursday, and planeloads of Swifties plan to follow in the coming weeks.

The arena where Swift is appearing says Americans bought 20 per cent of the tickets for her four sold-out shows. Stockholm, the tour's next stop, expects about 10,000 concert-goers from the US

Who is going to tell them?

[Vokes55]

This is amusing:

The Independent (UK) (https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/taylor-swift-stockholm-edinburgh-eras-b2541366.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-gb)




Who is going to tell them?


1) How does the Met Gala in NYC benefit the world? All those clothes and effort and human ingenuity ...
2) How does the Formula 1 circuit help us? How much fuel do they use going round in circles and then (sometimes) flying the cars across the world to do it again? I can see that a few men collect 'fame' and money' but ...


Translation: “I’m not interested in these things so they’re unnecessary and should be banned.”

[PAXboy]

No Vokes55. I do NOT suggest they are banned - as that will be impossible. I can see why people enjoy all those things. I understand why people cross continents to watch their sports team play. I do other things and am by no means 'green'. I once travelled long haul for three days just to attend the wedding of someone. Recently, for business, I decided to attend a lecture at first hand and took two internal flights.

The reason I pointed out those items, is that the multifarious activities of humans all have an effect on the climate. There are a million activities that could be selected for that list. Humans have become so clever at exploiting the planet - how do we slow down? The answer is, I suggest, that we won't.

[Expatrick]

We have relatives (in the UK) who, aside of their annual 3 week trip to Florida, indulge in numerous European breaks (by air of course) plus the odd Mediterranean cruise. Now that, in my opinion is over the top - made all the more irritating by the fact that although they persist, they really do not seem to appreciate their destinations!

[saryutou]

Hi aviators! As a fact, I am writing my Master's thesis at the moment on sustainability in air transportation, and this thread is a gold mine of opinion and professional view for me to analyze. Just wanted to say thanks for speaking it out loud!

[GROUNDHOG]

It would be very interesting to me to have a genuine comparison of my pollution levels in a real world situation. I know what my car emits and can calculate how much that is over 250 miles between Newquay and Gatwick but what does an ATR72 emit over a one hour sector? Not sure how this is all measured but would like to sort fact from fiction!

[TURIN]

Try this calculator.
https://oceanfdn.org/calculator/

[ATNotts]

Try this calculator.
https://oceanfdn.org/calculator/
Interesting, but obviously an American calculator as on the "getting around" page neither "on foot" or "train" are options!

We're away ATM having driven to The Netherlands, and it reckons we've emitted .49 tonnes of CO2.

[GROUNDHOG]

It would be very interesting to me to have a genuine comparison of my pollution levels in a real world situation. I know what my car emits and can calculate how much that is over 250 miles between Newquay and Gatwick but what does an ATR72 emit over a one hour sector? Not sure how this is all measured but would like to sort fact from fiction!
Just attempted to calculate from published data and flying on the ATR72 is roughly 3 or 4 times as polluting over that sector per passenger than driving, but, of course that will be way out if the aeroplane is not full or I put five people in the car opposed to my calculation for one person. Of course I may be wrong.

[Asturias56]

not really surprising is it? You're not trying to propel your car to 20,000 ft and 280 kt - well you might be but...............

[PAXboy]

‘Magical thinking’: hopes for sustainable jet fuel not realistic, report finds

IPS report says replacement fuels well off track to replace kerosene within timeframe needed to avert climate disaster

“While there are kernels of possibility, we should bring a high level of skepticism to the claims that alternative fuels will be a timely substitute for kerosene-based jet fuels,” the report said. Chuck Collins, co-author of the report, said: “To bring these fuels to the scale needed would require massive subsidies, the trade-offs would be unacceptable and would take resources aware from more urgent decarbonization priorities.

“It’s a huge greenwashing exercise by the aviation industry. It’s magical thinking that they will be able to do this.”

The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/14/sustainable-jet-fuel-report)

[Jonty]

Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive thinktank,

Tells you everything you need to know about the quality and impartiality of the "report".

[GROUNDHOG]

not really surprising is it? You're not trying to propel your car to 20,000 ft and 280 kt - well you might be but...............
Not surprising but very relevant to whether we should be encouraging flying domestically if there is another practical way.

[PAXboy]

Yes, I should have added several emojis for the 'progressive' view. They are certainly progressing in one direction! However, that is the kind of thing that has been circulating for 30 years.

[Asturias56]

Not surprising but very relevant to whether we should be encouraging flying domestically if there is another practical way.

It's a good question - In the last couple of months I've flown, driven and trained up and down the Uk a fair bit - driving was worst by far - the roads were packed, there were interminable road works and it was highly stressful. Train & plane - good and bad on both - delays and cancelations on both but also very easy trips as well. Both more cash-out that driving of course.

[PAXboy]

Portugal announces: New international airport announced as European country celebrates record tourism. The government has also said it would build the long-delayed high-speed train connection between Lisbon and Madrid.
The airport will be built in the municipality of Alcochete, across the River Tagus from Lisbon, Prime Minister Luis Montenegro announced on Tuesday after decades of back-and-forth over the location.

The new airport will be built at the site of a military airfield in Alcochete, about 40 km (25 miles) east of Lisbon, and should the ready by 2034. This location has been favoured by an independent technical commission, which had studied several possible sites.

Infrastructure Minister Miguel Pinto Luz said the project would cost up to 9 billion euros ($9.74 billion), adding it would be built using EU funds, public-private partnerships and airport tariffs and not through the state budget.

The new airport will replace Lisbon’s Humberto Delgado airport, just near the city centre, but the current airport will be expanded while the new airport is being built.

The government has also said it would build the long-delayed high-speed train connection between Lisbon and the Spanish capital of Madrid by 2034.



The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/new-airport-lisbon-portugal-spain-b2545353.html)

[Ascupart]

‘Magical thinking’: hopes for sustainable jet fuel not realistic, report finds (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/14/sustainable-jet-fuel-report)IPS report says replacement fuels well off track to replace kerosene within timeframe needed to avert climate disaster
“But it’s true that the industry has been slow to pick things up. We are now trying to find solutions, but we are working at this problem and realizing it’s a lot harder than we thought. We are late to the game. We are in the dark ages in terms of sustainability, compared to other sectors.”

[Ascupart]

Eight climate activists arrested in Germany over airport protest (https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/18/climate-activists-arrested-germany-munich-airport)

About 60 flights cancelled after members of Letzte Generation glue themselves to ground at Munich

[PAXboy]

Last week I detailed from Portugal: "The new airport will replace Lisbon’s Humberto Delgado airport, just near the city centre, but the current airport will be expanded while the new airport is being built."

Today I read from South Africa:
New multibillion rand airport aims to rival Cape Town International

Plans for the Cape Town Winelands Airport near Durbanville are advancing after South African entrepreneur and managing director of rsa.AERO, Nick Ferguson, announced that the private airport group has signed a 15-year agreement with the German airline Lufthansa Group.
Cape Town News Website (https://www.capetownetc.com/news/new-multibillion-rand-airport-aims-to-rival-cape-town-international/)
So, who is going to tell these people NO - we need to cut back on air travel?

[Ascupart]

Why aviation chiefs fear net zero could cripple air travel (https://archive.is/1iRss)

Interesting article, including this bizarre statement

“The fact is that airlines don’t make planes, they don’t make engines and they don’t refine SAF. So you can understand if they are getting exasperated.”

Hey, it's not our fault guv! We're just make money out of polluting the atmosphere, we didn't make the fuel!

[PAXboy]

Printed in today's The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/03/ex-ba-boss-green-aviation-costs-willie-walsh-iata)
Green aviation policies should be abandoned if the costs outweigh the benefits, the head of the world’s most influential airlines body has said.

Willie Walsh, the director general of the International Air Transport Association (Iata) and a former British Airways boss, said achieving net zero by 2050 was “existential, not optional”. However, he also suggested governments should have the courage to stop green policies and change tack if they were not producing the intended results.

The comments came as part of Walsh’s keynote speech at Iata’s annual general meeting in Dubai on Monday, in which the body revealed that the global aviation sector would achieve a net profit of more than $30bn (£24bn) this year, up by $3bn on last year’s figure.

[Ascupart]

Printed in today's The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/03/ex-ba-boss-green-aviation-costs-willie-walsh-iata)
He's saying exactly what you would expect him to say - abandon green policies if it means the industry might lose money. An industry leader is not going to suggest that, if technology doesn't provide solutions, aviation should be limited to hit emission targets.

[PAXboy]

Yes indeed. Corporate CEOs have been saying that for 30 years and acting upon it. Which is one of the reasons that we are where we are. Here is another airline project:
Bark Air (http://air.bark.co.)

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1000x667/jgal0029_copy_bc0382a0c718f74fd0d60d9e9aa8ad68b45ed13d.jpg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1000x667/jgal9742_copy_46f91d26618773636771316919cd5595bbde3723.jpg
Niche market? Money to be made!