Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

guardian.co.uk: Airlines vow to halve carbon emissions by 2050

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-21-09 05:56 PM
Original message
guardian.co.uk: Airlines vow to halve carbon emissions by 2050
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/21/airlines-carbon-emissions-cut

Airlines vow to halve carbon emissions by 2050

Exclusive: Industry will offer cut at climate change summit to avoid tougher action

Dan Milmo, transport correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 September 2009 23.23 BST

The aviation industry will tomorrow make a dramatic pledge to slash carbon dioxide emissions in half by 2050 in a move that will force up air fares and spark a green technology race among aircraft manufacturers.

The British Airways chief executive, Willie Walsh, will unveil an agreement between airlines, airports and aircraft companies to cut emissions to 50% below 2005 levels by 2050. In a bid to seize the initiative from environmental groups clamouring for higher taxes on the industry, the plan will be presented to world leaders at the United Nations forum on climate change in New York.

Airlines have been accused of dragging their heels over climate change, but the strategic shift reflects industry concerns that it could be ambushed at the global warming summit in Copenhagen in December if it does not address its growing emissions.

Writing in the Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/21/copenhagen-summit-climate-change">climate change secretary Ed Miliband says he is haunted by the possibility that politicians will fail to reach a global climate deal. Calling for a new urgency and spirit of co-operation in the negotiations, he writes: "The fate of every nation on earth hangs on the outcome of Copenhagen. It is too important to play the cards-close-to-your-chest poker games that marked diplomacy of the twentieth century."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
abqmufc Donating Member (590 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-21-09 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. Are we to be content with a 40 year wait?
Thanks for sharing this. I am left puzzled. In 40 years should we not expect that the natural progression on technology and R&D that will bring us the next generation engines and fuels to naturally achieve this? Are we to be happy that in 40 years we will only halve our carbon emissions from airliners? Having a dad who worked for NASA for 30 years I seem to feel we've had the technology for decades to halve emission controls, cut down noise of airliners and better fuel economy. Yet the same issues with auto fuel economy exists for airplanes.

We must demand the change and not allow it to take 40 years.

I think of the progression that has been made in computers and phones in the past 40 years and then can only wonder what is the roadblock on better fuel economy and emission controls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
excess_3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-21-09 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
2. tax on jet fuel for international flight is zero, not a penny .nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-21-09 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
3. It's easy to make promises when most people who check on them will be dead.
Edited on Mon Sep-21-09 11:53 PM by NNadir
This generation - ours - should be damned in history forever for our refusal to do the right thing now.

We are disgusting. We should be ashamed of making that kind of remark. It is irresponsible, unethical, disingenuous and fraudulent to say that our grandchildren should do what we ourselves refuse to do.

What, I ask, is wrong with us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. What is a good renewable solution for airplanes?
I don't know if batteries could handle our airplane infrastructure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. biodiesel - probably from algae
Although any liquid biofuel would probably do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abqmufc Donating Member (590 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Better fuels, better emission controls
Batteries won't work at current trends, but better (cleaner) fuels and better emission controls. Another big issue is airport vehicles are not quantified for Clean Air Act control measures. That means many airports run luggage trucks, food trucks, etc. with terrible emission controls. Just forcing airports and airlines to fix their auto/service fleet at airports would do a great deal.

Finally my father worked for NASA for over 30 years. I recall when I was 8 (1980) that NASA already had developed turbo prop engines that preformed better than jet engines and where quieter (at the time the big issues was noise) and more fuel efficent than jet engines. So where is that technology being used? Only on regional planes that go from Albuquerque to Denver (for example).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
excess_3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. 90 percent of air travel is frivolous
just get rid of it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 04:20 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. This is the one subject where I agree with you.
It is also one of the easiest to fix if there was any honesty in
the world: tax the f*ck out of airplane fuel (like they already do
with anything else on the shit-list - alcohol, petrol, cigarettes)
and watch how much is suddenly being saved.

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. Today's batteries are too heavy and bulky
Biofuels are probably the only practical renewable solution for the near future.

Perhaps future batteries (or maybe ultracapacitors, like http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1035295_ul-has-received-request-to-certify-eestors-product">EEstor's) will have a more favorable weight to energy ratio.

Fuel cells may be used in the future, but they are not practical today, and may never be.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/07/09/329446/zero-emissions-aircraft-takes-first-flight.html
DATE: 09/07/09
SOURCE: Flight International

Zero emissions aircraft takes first flight

By Aimée Turner

The world's first piloted aircraft capable of taking to the air using only power from http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/16/328233/paris-air-show-eads-chief-engineer-champions-green.html">hydrogen fuel cells has flown, producing zero carbon dioxide emissions during the landmark mission.

The http://www.dlr.de/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-1/86_read-18278/">Antares DLR-H2 - developed by http://www.dlr.de/en/">German aerospace centre DLR together with Lange Aviation, BASF Fuel Cells and Denmark's Serenergy - has a range of 750km (390nm) and can fly for 5h at maximum flying speeds of about 90kt (170km/h).

The DLR says it has improved fuel cell performance capabilities and efficiency to such an extent that the motor glider can take off using fuel cell power alone.

"This enables us to demonstrate the true potential of this technology," says the DLR's http://www.dlr.de/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-624/1045_read-7827/">Johann-Dietrich Wörner, who concedes however that fuel cell use constitutes a more likely alternative to existing on-board energy systems than main propulsion alternatives.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. Nuclear (fission) power of course!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_aircraft
… One design problem, never adequately solved, was the need for heavy shielding to protect the crew from radiation sickness.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. "Trains" is a good one
Back in the UK, I used to travel to Paris every so often (Work, sadly). If I went by train, after 3 hours I'd be in Paris. If I went by plane, after 3 hours I'd hopefully have got as far as the departure gate.

Since the place I used to live wasn't on the high-speed rail network, but did have it's own airport with direct flights to Paris, I have to wonder why we still bother with short-haul.

For trips that can't be replaced I think we're still looking at hydrocarbons, but hopefully pulled from the air rather than the ground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abqmufc Donating Member (590 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. if only in the states we had trains with speed and on time.
I would travel by train if it was realistic for my needs.

I am one of those enviros whose job (in the enviro field) requres me to travel from Albuquerque to DC often as well as to places like Achorage, Seattle, Chicago, and many rural areas. I average 1 to 2 trips per week. We use technology as much as we can (virutal meetings) but someitmes our "clients" (tribes) don't have the infrastructure to hold internet based meetings (as they are still forced to use dial up). Thus we have to meet in places like Anchorage or Seattle or fly out to rural villages/reservations.

If i could take a train from Albuquerque to DC and have it not take 4 days and cost me 4 times the price of a plane ticket (4 hours flight time), I'd be happy to do it. Furthermore, when I or my in-laws have used the train from Tucson or Albuquerque to LA it is always 10 to 12 hours late! That would ruin the use for business travel and often ruins vacation travel. But I use the train from Chicago to Milwaukee whenever I have meetings in Milwaukee as a flight from ABQ to Milwaukee lands in Chicago anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
excess_3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. >What, I ask, is wrong with us< .... It is not us
sham greenie leaders, often in it for the $$,
jet-set around the world,
feast on endangered species,
live in giant houses,
...
then offer environmental plans that always
make the poor and middle class do all of the suffering..
.....
legit environmentalists go along with the plan,
because either they are star-struck, or because they think that
attacking the poor is the only thing that will win
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 04:15 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. I have to say that I totally agree with your post.
> It is irresponsible, unethical, disingenuous and fraudulent to say that our
> grandchildren should do what we ourselves refuse to do.

+

> It's easy to make promises when most people who check on them will be dead.

:applause: :applause: :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. It kind of reminds me of Arizona's water "reforms" in the 1980s, post-CAP
Developers had to guarantee a 100-year supply of water to any homes they built.

Who, pray tell, is going to be around in 100 years to hold them to that legal commitment?

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC