Modern aircraft have the same fuel efficiency per passenger as modern compact cars.
Haldane Dodd Air Transport Action Group
This is a misleading fact when we are talking about climate pollution for three reasons:
1) jet engines at 30,000 feet create THREE TIMES more climate pollution per liter of fuel than cars do on the ground. (See IPCC special report on aviation). So even if fuel consumption per passenger were the same, the climate impact is three times greater if you fly. The issue is climate impact not fuel consumption.
2) fuel efficiency per passenger on newest jets = average car with ONLY ONE PERSON IN IT. But US govt stats show average car driving between cities has 2 passengers. So an honest accounting says per passenger fuel use is half as much for average car than jet.
3) Passengers in cars can dramatically reduce their climate pollution per person by filling the seats in the car and by choosing a high-efficiency vehicle. For example a Prius with 4 people will cut climate pollution by 90% compared to an average jetliner per passenger. Passengers on jets have no control over reducing their climate damage.
I look forward to the day the aviation industry treats its customers like adults by being honest and transparent in their conversations about climate change.
I appreciate the quality and honesty in the comments about my article above. A rarity for a climate article these days.
To those that have also dramatically reduced their climate pollution from jet travel I say thank you. It is inspiring to see the needed level of commitment from somewhere towards a safe climate system. Like many of you I've found that there are unexpected rewards from "slow" travel. Also, as some have mentioned, there is a sense of "worth" tied to the act of going to distance places that makes discussion about this topic difficult. People who otherwise care about the climate can be in deep denial about the oversized damage from jet pollution. For me, these are the most difficult people to engage with on the issue.
To those that plan to continue with their current levels of climate pollution from jet travel I hope you consider letting the airlines know about any displeasure you have around the fact that they won't limit the rate of growth of flights to a level that allows climate damage to be reduced.
A final observation is the notion that an industry should reduce its total climate pollution is not the same as saying that industry should shut down. It should innovate and grow within the constraints of ever reducing their total climate pollution. It is a straw man argument to say that civilization would collapse if we shut down aviation or oil or coal. That isn't what is being asked. What is being asked is to reduce the climate pollution from all aspects of life at a pace that ensures a stable, livable climate.
Existing efficency targets lead to climate failure
Haldane Dodd wrote:
...three targets: 1) improve efficiency of aircraft operations by 1.5% per year until 2020...
Haldane Dodd Air Transport Action Group
Efficiency improvements of 1.5% lead to climate "catastrophe".
PricewaterhouseCoopers recently released their latest "Low Carbon Index" report. It shows that if the world were to increase carbon efficiency by 1.5% per year it would result in 1,200ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and +6C in global warming. The International Energy Agency calls +6C a "catastrophe" for human society.
PwC shows that a safe climate system of less than +2c warming requires decarbonizaton of 5.1% per year, every year, for the next 38 years if that is the metric we are going to focus on.
The global aviation industry has ONE plan in place (voluntary only) and that is the 1.5% efficiency effort. Clearly that leads to climate failure. This can be evidenced by the ICAO fuel burn chart I show and talk about in my article. It shows that success at 1.5% target leads to near quadrupling of jet fuel burning.
International jet fuel has far lower tax burden than road fuels
Haldane Dodd wrote:
You mention that we have no plan "to pay anything for the climate damage they cause", and yet we already do - currently, passengers and airlines pay over $7billion per year in emissions and fuel related taxes around the world. Hardly any of the dozen or so governments that collect this actually use it for environmental purposes, but that is not our fault. In fact, if they were to use that money to offset aviation emissions through certified carbon credits it would pay for ALL the CO2 emitted by the entire aviation industry twice over!
Haldane Dodd Air Transport Action Group
International aviation pays very little in fuel taxes and far less than road transport drivers do. Here in BC our government just removed the last fuel tax from international jet fuel. The result is that jet travel has a significantly reduced fuel tax rate compared to road travel making the most climate damaging way of travelling (jet setting) the least taxed. This is the opposite of what a carbon tax is designed to do: create an economic incentive to choose the least climate damaging option.
As far as applying the fuel tax to carbon emissions, this is a big red herring. The total tax burden of different fuel choices is what should be looked at. The fuel tax on road fuels in BC equals a carbon tax equivalent of $152/tCO2. On top of that is our official carbon tax of $30/tCO2. Combined they give the equivalent of $182/tCO2. For internation jet fuel in BC the tax is now $0 -- exempt from both fuel taxes and carbon taxes. How convienent.
In the UK the road fuel tax is equivalent to a carbon tax of $527/tCO2.
If you want to show that jet fuel has a higher equivalent carbon tax burden than road fuel, that would be very interesting. But the data I see shows the opposite. Jet fuel is incentivized for burning by a significantly lower tax burden.
There is no industry "plan" to reduce or pay for climate damage
Haldane Dodd wrote:
I want to tackle one of the things you mention in very strong terms: the global aviation industry DOES have an industry-wide emissions reduction plan. In fact, we are one of the only industries in the world to have one at a global level.
Back in 2009, leaders of the world's airlines, airports, air traffic control and aircraft and engine manufacturers met in Geneva, Switzerland and signed a commitment to three targets: 1) improve efficiency of aircraft operations by 1.5% per year until 2020; 2) cap our emissions, despite growth in traffic from 2020; and 3) to reduce net CO2 emissions from aviation to half of what they were in 2005, by 2050.
Haldane Dodd Air Transport Action Group
Thank you for responding Haldane.
However I do not agree that the "targets" you mention qualify as "plans". They don't. Saying so is misleading.
The global aviation industry has no mechanism or policy -- no plans -- to meet these targets.This has been going on for years and years. No plan. None. The industry has been very clear in rejecting all calls for any market measures (pricing on pollution).
I read widely and deeply in this area. I've read the ICAO's latest Environmental Report (2010) cover to cover many times as well as many other documents from industry.
What I say in my article is true. There is no plan to reduce total climate pollution or pay for it. The global fuel burn chart produced by the ICAO says it all.
Hyperzombie says in a comment above that summers in Vancouver are set to get drier. Yep. They already have gotten significantly drier. And that has been leaving our rivers and streams lacking in summer flows and as a result becoming over-heated. The BC Government has charts and stats on how Fraser is warming so much over recent decades that salmon runs are threatened on low-flow, hot-water years.
Summer has always been the dry season in Vancouver and this part of BC. And as I said at the start of my article, global warming in general means most rainy areas become rainier and most dry areas become drier. That applies to times of the year as well. We are increasing the extremes of the hydrological cycle by burning coal, oil and natural gas.
Added up over the entire year however Vancouver has been getting more rain as the climate gets warmer.
James, you asked about my data for Vancouver rainfall increasing 12% over the year. In a note at the end of my article I explain my data sources and timeframes:
"Note: In my chart and calculations I used Environment Canada rainfall data for the official Vancouver weather station at YVR. Climate trends are usually based on 30 year averages. I compared the average rainfall for earliest three decades in the records (1940's, 1950's and 1960's) to the most recent 30 years."
I added up all the rainfall for all 30 years between 1940-1969. Then I added up all the rainfall from the most recent 30 years. The increase was around 12%.
Hyperzombie, I listed my station and data source. If you are going to claim that the top weather station in Vancouver has inaccurate data as you say you should at least provide the name of the more accurate weather station that you say proves no trends on temps, rainfall and snowfall. Otherwise it is just your "uh, uh, did not" vs actual weather records. Please enlighten us.
Joseph Fournier, nobody is saying "no to Canadian Oil." People are saying "no" to a radical expansion of the tar sands. The reason is that it is so big and so dirty a source of energy that radical expansion of it threatens the prosperity of future generations. People are saying we have enough oil production in Canada, we need -- like the IEA says -- to transition to alternatives that don't destabilize our climate to the point of "catastrophe".
We most certainly are going to leave millions of barrels of oil in the ground. We don't have a choice unless we repeal the laws of physics and chemistry. The only question is how big a carbon bubble we are going to inflate before we are forced to pop it.
Dr. Martin, the terms "tar sands" and "oilsands" have been used interchangably from day one in Alberta. The old timers used both all the time. The historian use both. In recent years the terms have taken on meaning for each side of the climate-stability vs. cheap-energy debate. Those who focus on climate-stability tend to use "tar sands" because it sounds dirtier which is their concern. Those that focus on cheap-energy tend to use "oilsands" (or "OILSANDS" as you call them) because oil is their main concern. On the rest of your comments, perhaps you should read my article again as I think you missed things I did say and seemed to read things I didn't say.
Modern aircraft have the same fuel efficiency per passenger as modern compact cars.
Haldane Dodd Air Transport Action Group
This is a misleading fact when we are talking about climate pollution for three reasons:
1) jet engines at 30,000 feet create THREE TIMES more climate pollution per liter of fuel than cars do on the ground. (See IPCC special report on aviation). So even if fuel consumption per passenger were the same, the climate impact is three times greater if you fly. The issue is climate impact not fuel consumption.
2) fuel efficiency per passenger on newest jets = average car with ONLY ONE PERSON IN IT. But US govt stats show average car driving between cities has 2 passengers. So an honest accounting says per passenger fuel use is half as much for average car than jet.
3) Passengers in cars can dramatically reduce their climate pollution per person by filling the seats in the car and by choosing a high-efficiency vehicle. For example a Prius with 4 people will cut climate pollution by 90% compared to an average jetliner per passenger. Passengers on jets have no control over reducing their climate damage.
I look forward to the day the aviation industry treats its customers like adults by being honest and transparent in their conversations about climate change.
I appreciate the quality and honesty in the comments about my article above. A rarity for a climate article these days.
To those that have also dramatically reduced their climate pollution from jet travel I say thank you. It is inspiring to see the needed level of commitment from somewhere towards a safe climate system. Like many of you I've found that there are unexpected rewards from "slow" travel. Also, as some have mentioned, there is a sense of "worth" tied to the act of going to distance places that makes discussion about this topic difficult. People who otherwise care about the climate can be in deep denial about the oversized damage from jet pollution. For me, these are the most difficult people to engage with on the issue.
To those that plan to continue with their current levels of climate pollution from jet travel I hope you consider letting the airlines know about any displeasure you have around the fact that they won't limit the rate of growth of flights to a level that allows climate damage to be reduced.
A final observation is the notion that an industry should reduce its total climate pollution is not the same as saying that industry should shut down. It should innovate and grow within the constraints of ever reducing their total climate pollution. It is a straw man argument to say that civilization would collapse if we shut down aviation or oil or coal. That isn't what is being asked. What is being asked is to reduce the climate pollution from all aspects of life at a pace that ensures a stable, livable climate.
Thanks again to all for the interesting comments.
...three targets: 1) improve efficiency of aircraft operations by 1.5% per year until 2020...
Haldane Dodd Air Transport Action Group
Efficiency improvements of 1.5% lead to climate "catastrophe".
PricewaterhouseCoopers recently released their latest "Low Carbon Index" report. It shows that if the world were to increase carbon efficiency by 1.5% per year it would result in 1,200ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and +6C in global warming. The International Energy Agency calls +6C a "catastrophe" for human society.
PwC shows that a safe climate system of less than +2c warming requires decarbonizaton of 5.1% per year, every year, for the next 38 years if that is the metric we are going to focus on.
The global aviation industry has ONE plan in place (voluntary only) and that is the 1.5% efficiency effort. Clearly that leads to climate failure. This can be evidenced by the ICAO fuel burn chart I show and talk about in my article. It shows that success at 1.5% target leads to near quadrupling of jet fuel burning.
To
You mention that we have no plan "to pay anything for the climate damage they cause", and yet we already do - currently, passengers and airlines pay over $7billion per year in emissions and fuel related taxes around the world. Hardly any of the dozen or so governments that collect this actually use it for environmental purposes, but that is not our fault. In fact, if they were to use that money to offset aviation emissions through certified carbon credits it would pay for ALL the CO2 emitted by the entire aviation industry twice over!
Haldane Dodd Air Transport Action Group
International aviation pays very little in fuel taxes and far less than road transport drivers do. Here in BC our government just removed the last fuel tax from international jet fuel. The result is that jet travel has a significantly reduced fuel tax rate compared to road travel making the most climate damaging way of travelling (jet setting) the least taxed. This is the opposite of what a carbon tax is designed to do: create an economic incentive to choose the least climate damaging option.
As far as applying the fuel tax to carbon emissions, this is a big red herring. The total tax burden of different fuel choices is what should be looked at. The fuel tax on road fuels in BC equals a carbon tax equivalent of $152/tCO2. On top of that is our official carbon tax of $30/tCO2. Combined they give the equivalent of $182/tCO2. For internation jet fuel in BC the tax is now $0 -- exempt from both fuel taxes and carbon taxes. How convienent.
In the UK the road fuel tax is equivalent to a carbon tax of $527/tCO2.
If you want to show that jet fuel has a higher equivalent carbon tax burden than road fuel, that would be very interesting. But the data I see shows the opposite. Jet fuel is incentivized for burning by a significantly lower tax burden.
I want to tackle one of the things you mention in very strong terms: the global aviation industry DOES have an industry-wide emissions reduction plan. In fact, we are one of the only industries in the world to have one at a global level.
Back in 2009, leaders of the world's airlines, airports, air traffic control and aircraft and engine manufacturers met in Geneva, Switzerland and signed a commitment to three targets: 1) improve efficiency of aircraft operations by 1.5% per year until 2020; 2) cap our emissions, despite growth in traffic from 2020; and 3) to reduce net CO2 emissions from aviation to half of what they were in 2005, by 2050.
Haldane Dodd Air Transport Action Group
Thank you for responding Haldane.
However I do not agree that the "targets" you mention qualify as "plans". They don't. Saying so is misleading.
The global aviation industry has no mechanism or policy -- no plans -- to meet these targets.This has been going on for years and years. No plan. None. The industry has been very clear in rejecting all calls for any market measures (pricing on pollution).
I read widely and deeply in this area. I've read the ICAO's latest Environmental Report (2010) cover to cover many times as well as many other documents from industry.
What I say in my article is true. There is no plan to reduce total climate pollution or pay for it. The global fuel burn chart produced by the ICAO says it all.
Hyperzombie says in a comment above that summers in Vancouver are set to get drier. Yep. They already have gotten significantly drier. And that has been leaving our rivers and streams lacking in summer flows and as a result becoming over-heated. The BC Government has charts and stats on how Fraser is warming so much over recent decades that salmon runs are threatened on low-flow, hot-water years.
Summer has always been the dry season in Vancouver and this part of BC. And as I said at the start of my article, global warming in general means most rainy areas become rainier and most dry areas become drier. That applies to times of the year as well. We are increasing the extremes of the hydrological cycle by burning coal, oil and natural gas.
Added up over the entire year however Vancouver has been getting more rain as the climate gets warmer.
James, you asked about my data for Vancouver rainfall increasing 12% over the year. In a note at the end of my article I explain my data sources and timeframes:
"Note: In my chart and calculations I used Environment Canada rainfall data for the official Vancouver weather station at YVR. Climate trends are usually based on 30 year averages. I compared the average rainfall for earliest three decades in the records (1940's, 1950's and 1960's) to the most recent 30 years."
I added up all the rainfall for all 30 years between 1940-1969. Then I added up all the rainfall from the most recent 30 years. The increase was around 12%.
If you have other questions, please ask...
Hyperzombie, I listed my station and data source. If you are going to claim that the top weather station in Vancouver has inaccurate data as you say you should at least provide the name of the more accurate weather station that you say proves no trends on temps, rainfall and snowfall. Otherwise it is just your "uh, uh, did not" vs actual weather records. Please enlighten us.
Joseph Fournier, nobody is saying "no to Canadian Oil." People are saying "no" to a radical expansion of the tar sands. The reason is that it is so big and so dirty a source of energy that radical expansion of it threatens the prosperity of future generations. People are saying we have enough oil production in Canada, we need -- like the IEA says -- to transition to alternatives that don't destabilize our climate to the point of "catastrophe".
We most certainly are going to leave millions of barrels of oil in the ground. We don't have a choice unless we repeal the laws of physics and chemistry. The only question is how big a carbon bubble we are going to inflate before we are forced to pop it.
Dr. Martin, the terms "tar sands" and "oilsands" have been used interchangably from day one in Alberta. The old timers used both all the time. The historian use both. In recent years the terms have taken on meaning for each side of the climate-stability vs. cheap-energy debate. Those who focus on climate-stability tend to use "tar sands" because it sounds dirtier which is their concern. Those that focus on cheap-energy tend to use "oilsands" (or "OILSANDS" as you call them) because oil is their main concern. On the rest of your comments, perhaps you should read my article again as I think you missed things I did say and seemed to read things I didn't say.