Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
|
Behemoth
|
Airlines Savaged by Ministerhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6233019.stm
|
boisdevie1
|
The criticism is a bit rich. What is the govt doing to really tax airline travel? And will they have the guts to stop Stanstead having a second runway?
And what about this carbon trading? Surely isn't that going to allow most airlines to carry on as normal? Obviously it depends what limits they set on carbon emissions but I don't expect they'll set the limits on the low side so we'll still see loads of aircraft pollution.
|
thos
|
| boisdevie1 wrote: | | What is the govt doing to really tax airline travel? |
The Government is of the opinion that it has to comply with International Conventions. In this case Document 8632 of the International Civil Aviation Organization http://www.icao.int/icaonet/dcs/8632/8632_3ed_en.pdf.
See http://www.icao.int/icao/en/env/taxes.htm
and also Appendices H and I of http://www.icao.int/icao/en/env/a35-5.pdf
This is not an area where any government can take unilateral action.
|
boisdevie1
|
| Quote: | | This is not an area where any government can take unilateral action. |
Wonderful. So basically no government is likely to do anything about it whilst the environment goes slowly down the swanee.
|
tahir
|
| boisdevie1 wrote: | | Quote: | | This is not an area where any government can take unilateral action. |
Wonderful. So basically no government is likely to do anything about it whilst the environment goes slowly down the swanee. |
Pretty much, as Virgin has shown in their recent decision to use "tugs" to get their planes to and from runways rather than their own engines an economic benefit will bring much quicker change. It'd be nice to see a firm of engineers/university dept looking at ways to increase airport/airplane efficiency
|
thos
|
| boisdevie1 wrote: | | Quote: | | This is not an area where any government can take unilateral action. |
Wonderful. So basically no government is likely to do anything about it whilst the environment goes slowly down the swanee. |
No, but governments must first change the ICAO regulations. The ICAO is, of course, aware of the issue, but ranks it behind safety and security, but ahead of efficiency. http://www.icao.int/icao/en/strategic_objectives_2005_2010_en.pdf
| ICAO wrote: |
Strategic Objective C: Environmental Protection — Minimize the adverse effect of global civil aviation on the environment
Minimize the adverse environmental effects of global civil aviation activity, notably aircraft noise and aircraft engine emissions, through the following measures:
1. Develop, adopt and promote new or amended measures to:
- limit or reduce the number of people affected by significant aircraft noise;
- limit or reduce the impact of aircraft engine emissions on local air quality; and
- limit or reduce the impact of aviation greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate.
2. Cooperate with other international bodies and in particular the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in addressing aviation’s contribution to global climate change.
|
http://www.icao.int/icao/en/pres/kobeh/20061211_SAA_en.pdf
| ICAO wrote: |
The impact of aircraft gas emissions is another very serious challenge, one that could generate enough public pressure to halt the growth of air transport. The problem is that while aircraft today are 70 per cent more energy efficient than they were in the 1970s, the sustained growth in the number of flights means that aviation will be polluting more. Part of the solution is to pursue our work diligently through the ICAO Council’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), in close cooperation with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and other interested parties, to limit or reduce the impact of aviation greenhouse gas emissions.
Another avenue to CO2 savings is the implementation of improved communications, navigation, surveillance and air traffic management (CNS/ATM) systems. The concept is simple. If aircraft are allowed to fly the most fuel-efficient routes, we help the environment and we save time and money in the process. Every minute saved in flight, saves 160 kg of CO2 emissions. Over the past few years, achieving shorter routes has led to the reduction of millions of tonnes of CO2 emissions.
For example, in 2005, governments worked with IATA to shorten 300 routes worldwide. The implementation in 2003 of the EMARSSH routes, in which ICAO played a leading role, shortened routes between Southeast Asia and Europe by 30 minutes. And routes between the Philippines and Japan have been shortened by 36 nautical miles.
These results are impressive, yet the potential is even greater. Airspace management improvements in the Pearl River Delta could save 1 million tonnes of CO2 a year. Better regional coordination on the approach routes into Hong Kong could shave 20 minutes and 3 tonnes of CO2 off each flight. For the upcoming 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, routes over Russia into Weixian, China could also be reduced by 20 minutes. In Europe, the story is much the same. A fully optimized European ATM network could result in annual CO2 savings of about 12 million tonnes, equivalent to removing 3 million cars from European roads. |
There are 36 member states on the Council, most of whom are in favour of reducing emissions, so getting 19 to agree should be feasible.
|
thos
|
| tahir wrote: | | It'd be nice to see a firm of engineers/university dept looking at ways to increase airport/airplane efficiency |
Many groups are doing this, with far more expertise than 'a firm of engineers/university dept'. For example Eurocontrol.
http://www.eurocontrol.int/environment/public/subsite_homepage/homepage.html
|
Nick
|
They'll be relying on universities and firms of engineers.
|
boisdevie1
|
It's not bloody rocket science is it? Air travel = big pollution. So use it less.
Only problem is that most people think that the ability to travel by air is their 'right'.
Like my mum who 'needed' a holiday so flew to Egypt. And my daugher who flew to Spain for a holiday. Unless we get people to realise (and more importantly care about) the effects of their actions then we're well and truly stuffed.
Me. I don't hold out much hope to be honest.
|
Milo
|
| boisdevie1 wrote: | | It's not bloody rocket science is it? Air travel = big pollution. So use it less. Only problem is that most people think that the ability to travel by air is their 'right'. Like my mum who 'needed' a holiday so flew to Egypt. And my daugher who flew to Spain for a holiday. Unless we get people to realise (and more importantly care about) the effects of their actions then we're well and truly stuffed. Me. I don't hold out much hope to be honest. |
I do, but mainly because I'm an optimistic chap. Sack your family? 
I thought O'Leary came across as a first class oik with his ".... Being savaged by a dead sheep - as we were by this minister this morning - is like water off a duck's back.''
I didn't hear any reporter mention amongst their little packages of stats what I understand to be a fact, which is that pollution by holiday-type aircraft has proportionately far more impact because of where most of it takes place, i.e. a bloody long way up.
|
|