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: 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.