SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
'Worse Than Anyone Expected': Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions
Greenhouse gas emissions from commercial air travel are growing at a faster clip than predicted in previous, already dire, projections, according to new research — putting pressure on airline regulators to take stronger action as they prepare for a summit next week.
The United Nations aviation body forecasts that airplane emissions of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas, will reach just over 900 million metric tons in 2018, and then triple by 2050.
But the new research, from the International Council on Clean Transportation, found that emissions from global air travel may be increasing more than 1.5 times as fast as the U.N. estimate. The researchers analyzed nearly 40 million flights around the world last year.
"Airlines, for all intents and purposes, are becoming more fuel efficient. But we're seeing demand outstrip any of that," said Brandon Graver, who led the new study. "The climate challenge for aviation is worse than anyone expected."
Airlines in recent years have invested in lighter, more fuel-efficient aircraft, and have explored powering their planes with biofuel.
Over all, air travel accounts for about 2.5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions — a far smaller share than emissions from passenger cars or power plants. Still, one study found that the rapid growth in plane emissions could mean that by 2050, aviation could take up a quarter of the world's "carbon budget," or the amount of carbon dioxide emissions permitted to keep global temperature rise to within 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.
[...] The decision by Greta Thunberg, a young climate activist, to sail across the Atlantic rather than travel by air ahead of her speech at the United Nations next week, has refocused attention on aviation's role in causing climate change and its consequences, including sea-level rise and more intense heat waves, hurricanes, flooding and drought.
Climate protesters have said they plan to gather in Montreal next week, where airline regulators are set to hold their own summit.
William Raillant-Clark, a spokesman for the U.N. aviation body, stood by its emissions projection, which he said was "the most up-to-date" and provided "a clear picture on the future environmental trends." He added that the group "endorses and welcomes wholeheartedly" calls for the aviation industry to address climate change with greater urgency.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @09:19AM (11 children)
Actually, driving individually is much more polluting. Planes burn about 2l/100km while the cars are at least double that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Medium-haul_flights [wikipedia.org]
They would have to get there in full buses, which makes it about 0.5l/100km. Almost anything else, except fully packed cars, is more polluting than the planes.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday September 22 2019, @11:08AM (1 child)
I am assuming you mean 'per person'?
And I think you need to check your figures [howstuffworks.com]:
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Sunday September 22 2019, @05:09PM
There are almost no 747s still in service for passengers these days. It's an old plane, a really huge plane, and a fuel guzzler, so it's not a good example to use for airplane fuel efficiency numbers. A 777 would be a better choice if you want to look at something commonly used for intercontinental flights, and a newer 737 (NG) or A320 for domestic/shorter-range flights.
But yeah, he probably means per passenger, which is what's important anyway. The problem with comparing planes to cars is that with planes, you're moving hundreds of people and a big metal can that holds them, whereas with cars, you have a 3-5000 pound metal box on wheels that you have to move around, each one with 1 person (2 if you're lucky). The amount of overhead per passenger with cars is truly enormous. So yeah, planes burn a lot of fuel, but they also move a LOT of people through the air as they do it. Trains are even better, as they can move even more people usually, and even though the cars are quite heavy, they're not having to fight gravity much.
If we were really serious about reducing carbon emissions from air travel, we'd be building more high-speed rail lines and taxing shorter-range flights to help pay for it. Planes are of course the only sensible choice for intercontinental travel, but for shorter inter-city travel trains make more sense, but you have to have a society and a government smart enough to realize this and push it.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Sunday September 22 2019, @12:09PM (2 children)
You forgot trains, by far the least polluting transport, especially if electric. You are probably American, if so don't worry, most Americans do. I know most American passenger trains are crap but this is a World article.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:02PM
Trains? In America?
Only if it is over our cold dead bodies!
Oh wait, that sounds like a movie ... Snowpiercer
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday September 22 2019, @05:11PM
If you ignore the electric bit (or assume electricity is generated from fossil fuels, as much of it is), ships are probably the least polluting transport. Of course, ships are also pretty slow, so people don't use them for intercontinental travel much: most people don't have the luxury of being able to take 3 months off for a vacation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:07PM (5 children)
Lots of things are more efficient than aircraft - but only in theory.
The thing is that aircraft make it possible to travel long distance more quickly, which makes it easier to tolerate the conditions necessary to achieve that fuel economy. Everyone complains about flying cattle class, but you can put up with it for three hours. To achieve the same fuel economy per passenger on other transport, you would have to put up with it for two or three days. Nobody is riding a fully loaded bus for three days, nobody is riding a packed train for three days in an ordinary seat. (Maybe in a sleeper, but then so much for the fuel economy advantage).
And that's just for cross continent travel. Intercontinental travel without aircraft takes weeks.
It's almost as if people and businesses working together and making free choices naturally choose the most efficient way to do things! Unbelievable! Well, to certain people anyway.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Sunday September 22 2019, @04:25PM (3 children)
Trains can travel a hell of a lot faster than buses.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday September 22 2019, @05:15PM
In places like Japan and Germany, they certainly do. In America, not so much.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @07:01PM
Not in America. It would be restricted to 80 mph max and have to stop at every farm in Big Joe's constituency.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @06:03AM
Not faster than planes, though.
Americans frequently like to travel between, for example, Los Angeles and New York. This is a distance roughly equivalent to traveling from Lisbon to Bucharest (it's actually a little farther). I attempted to plan a train trip from Lisbon to Bucharest and it would take three days, plus changing trains six times.
Trains work in Europe because Europeans don't frequently go very far.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Sunday September 22 2019, @05:46PM
"Nobody is riding a fully loaded bus for three days"
Really? I've certainly done it on charter buses, tour buses, etc.
Nobody is a pretty strong word.
A couple days on Greyhound isn't that uncommon for me and though it varies as passengers get off and on at stops the bus is usually far from empty.
I've not flown commercial since about 2005. Nothing against it, but it's happened that when I've been taking long trips recently I've usually needed to take a lot of stuff with me so it was a fully loaded Suburban perhaps with cargo trailer. (I used to do lighting and sound for some sci-fi conventions.)