14 January 2015

Final Approach And Landing

The aims of this blog have been to investigate aviation in the context of global climate change. In this final post, I aim to review and reflect on what I have learnt. It doesn't take much research to know that aviation has large impacts on the environment - you can hear planes, see contrails and watch YouTube videos of planes dumping fuel mid-flight! I tried to vary the topics I covered within the umbrella of aviation and environmental change, in order to try and build a larger picture and put it into context without only considering the scientific and measurable effects. 

The first set of posts looked at aircraft emissions, focusing on contrails. Following on from that I explored what people understood and thought of the environmental impacts of flying, where the responsibility should lie, and what measures should be taken to working towards making it sustainable. The last few posts have considered how the aviation industry is currently responding to environmental challenges and goals. 

Despite knowing that there is no easy fix for making aviation greener, in conducting research for the blog, I got to understand more the different perspectives and motives people have and what flying means to them (academics, policy makers, ordinary people, manufacturers). Scientific knowledge and insights of the effects of planes on the environment has not translated to more environmentally conscious flyers, as they continue to benefit from the opportunities and connectivity flying has enabled. 

Looking to the future, I will continue to follow how commercial aviation adapts to or is under increasing pressure to diversify from using liquid based carbon fuels, from a technological perspective - until then, I'm still saving up for my first class ticket, on the longest route possible on the world's-only-fully-double-decker-aircraft-the-practically-carbon-neutral-airbus-a380!


Thanks for reading!

11 January 2015

Airports Of The Future

Aircraft themselves are only one part (albeit an important one) of the aviation industry. They are not the only component of the process of air travel - to get on a plane, we first need to check in, maybe take a selfie, or post and upload a photo at the airport! 

Schrenk et al. (2009) have commented on the fact that aviation related, eco friendly developments have been focused on the technological improvement of aircraft themselves, and not on places like airports, which contribute a significant amount of pollution. In the last couple of posts for example, I have looked at how new materials, new types of fuel and more efficient aircraft shapes have been developed, and are actually being tested on or used on civilian flights. 

As well as having the same kinds of environmental impacts conventional buildings have, airports contribute significantly more in the categories of noise, air quality, surface water and soil quality, and habitat and wildlife management (Airports Council International, 2008). There are no quick fixes to such long standing environmental issues as these, and as with the development of more sustainable aircraft, we aren't going to see ultra, eco friendly, better than carbon zero airports anytime soon. In a paper released in October last year  Sahrir et al. (2014), commented how an upgrade to Kuala Lumpur International Airport, broke many "safe" limits including in particulate matter and noise, and the writers called for better economic and social objectives to be defined in accordance to environmental limits in order to protect critical natural resources. With many airports upgrading and expanding, vying to become global hubs and many more airports being planned to be built, even if good technology is going into the airport and it will be a degree more sustainable, thought still needs to go in the construction. 

Thank goodness Chicago's O'Hare airport got the memo. This article from The New Economy writes of how since 2003, "sustainability has underpinned every single aspect of running the operations at O’Hare", however they also note that "only the most green-minded passengers will see the evidence". I don't dispute that they are environmentally conscious in what they do, however what with a lot of effort going into designing the aircraft of the future in terms of the materials, technology, fuel and passenger experience all being considered, should the same drastic changes be expected of airports?

This article from CNN shows that the airports of the future may be following suit! It even shows how established airports can still being at the forefront of environemntal sustainability - Heathrow's newly re-opened Terminal 2 has been recognised for its sustainability. Chicago's O'Hare is even stepping up its game too by allowing goats, sheep, llamas and burros to graze on land around the airport - thats something even the least most green-minded person will be able to see! 


Mexico City has got the idea!  Source, CNN

4 January 2015

Fuel Of The Future

Today, I am going to look at the future of providing fuel for aviation. It is estimated that by 2026, 221 billion gallons of aviation fuel will be needed against the 95 billion gallons used in 2007 (Hendricks et al. 2011)

Regardless of  increasing technological improvements to aircraft that I have touched upon in previous posts, fuel for aviation has been growing at a rate of 4% annually, whereas the fuel efficiencies of aircraft have been increasing at a rate of 1% annually, so addressing the source of fuel for aviation will be critical in helping to achieve  lower carbon emissions,  a goal which the aviation industry has set for itself (Hendricks et al. 2011)

Substituting some of this fuel with biofuels such as ethanol or biodiesel, which are currently being used as in fuel in cars is not an option due to the specific fuels required for aviation. Thus ways in which biofuels for aviation can be produced without competing with arable land or freshwater resources, do not lead to further deforestation, and do not have wider environmental or social impacts have to be considered (Hendricks et al. 2011)Pagowski (2003) praised the suitability of hydrogen as a fuel to be used in aviation, despite uncertainty on how to actually implement it. A liquid, highly cooled hydrogen fuel in aircraft would render water vapour and smaller quantities of nitrogen oxides as the only emissions. 

Despite the aforementioned fuel options, there may be other factors at play which explains the relative hindrance in the development of alternative fuels for aircraft in comparison to other motor vehicles. Kivits et al. (2010) attribute this to the infrastructure involved. A change in transport fuel will make current aircraft and airport infrastructure unsuitable. The paper names privately owned airports as reluctant to finance and accommodate future air traffic operations, which contributes to aviation being the slowest of major transport systems to adapt to a carbon constrained future. 

The airliner manufacturers (Airbus and Boeing) themselves have been named as responsible for the set back (Kivits et al. 2010). The airframes of many new aircraft in development and production are built around the use of carbon based fuel and turbo engines. It will take Airbus and Boeing many years to pay for projects like the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Airbus a380 (20 years!). These are planes which represent cutting edge technology and concern for the environment, and that's even before they make a profit on them! Therefore potential investment in research and development into new plane shapes and fuel types can not be justified financially. 

Though not looking dissimilar for other aircraft, the relatively larger size of the a380, and the more powerful engines on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, meant that airports had to invest in their infrastructure. Either upgrade or lose out. What would have been done if these aircraft were significantly different? Would they have even been built? As a compromise to environmental efficiency, the proposed Boeing 777x has wings which fold in, so they fit into many smaller airports that the 777 currently serves. 

The development of alternative aviation fuels is an important priority, however without even looking that much into the subject,  it can be seen that there are many apparent set backs when considering the wider effects of going about making such changes to fuel and aircraft efficiency. Turbo engine powered aircraft have been operational since the 1960s and there has been little variation. The simple question of looking at other energy sources for planes requires a whole technological "paradigm change" as Kivits et al. (2010, 3) puts it, something that no one is prepared to do at the moment. Rather than ignoring the issue, biofuel mixes, which wouldn't require great changes to current aircraft or ground infrastructure are currently being investigated and tested.

When putting the previous post into context, it is easy to see why investment is made on smaller environmental initiatives (such as interior cabin materials), as this is something that funding probably permits and does not require substantial infrastructural changes.   


Biofuel made from algae mixed with normal jet fuel have already been tested by airlines!

31 December 2014

The Walls Need Watering

Having spent some time looking at emissions relating to aviation and people's perceptions about aviation and climate change, I aim to now investigate what steps are being made to make aviation greener. 

In the video I posted in the second blog post, Willie Walsh talks about the responsibility the aviation industry faces to continually innovate and improve its environmental impact. As a slightly different introduction into this, I am posting a video that commercial aircraft manufacturer, Boeing posted on their YouTube channel a couple of months ago. 

In the video, they show how they are developing cabin interiors made out of the flax plant, commonly used in the production of cloth as a way of minimising their environmental impact, yet not compromising on performance or safety. 


I believe it is a small step in terms of the overall negative impact aircraft emissions have on the atmosphere (I've not even considered anything else but the aircraft flying - the environmental impact of an airport or manufacturing a plane for instance). However it demonstrates well the continuous strive for improvement, and the effort going into the development of more environmentally friendly materials. 

It seems there is much self evaluation on what can be made better as the environment is a word so closely tied with aviation in the minds of many people today. Although as has been stressed in the posts looking at peoples perceptions, technological change alone is not sufficient in making reality the ambitious goals set for aviation related emissions reduction. 

28 December 2014

Air Travel, Alleviator Of Poverty

To conclude this series of post I have been doing about peoples perceptions about climate change and aviation, I am going to look at a recent article concerning tourism and its effect on the environment (Peeters and Eijgelaar, 2014). It zooms out of what people are thinking and looks to possible future scenarios and current gaps in research. 

The article questions where to strike the balance between tourism in developing countries  as a tool for development and efforts to reduce and mitigate aviation related climate change. Looking at tourism in developing countries, long haul air travel to such places is involved and these emissions contribute a large proportion to the emissions of tourism. 

The article states that despite the number of guest nights and trips not increasing, there has been an increase of tourism related emissions. This reflects the increasing distances that people travel to go on holiday (to more tropical and developing countries). This has also been confirmed in de Brujin et al. (2012). The paper also backs up what I wrote about in the last post about how technological change alone is not sufficient in being able to reduce aviation related emissions (to below 2005 levels). 

With this in mind, difficulty arises in the possibility of setting limits or increasing costs for long haul travel when having these air travel options available is currently benefiting many developing countries. Curbing the growth of aviation encounters strong opposition from tourism and transport sectors on the grounds of the 'poverty ethics argument' (Peeters and Eijgelaar, 2014). This is as a result of acknowledging air transport in efforts by developing countries to develop sustainably through tourism, impeding upon this is seen as taking a step back. 

Rather than the people themselves justifying why they continue to travel by air despite knowing the impacts it has on the environment as I have looked at in the past couple of posts. Insights from this paper see how people who are benefiting from (long haul) air travel yet who may not have access to it themselves are having their views represented on behalf on them. The UN for instance in its past conferences on climate change have made the case for aviation growth relating to poverty alleviation (Peeters and Eijgelaar, 2014)

Thus in light of the scientific effects air travel has on the environment and continuous calls for it to be made greener and more efficient and regulated, policy makers it seems (as well as people themselves) continue to see the benefits of air travel. When considering how much it contributes to development as this post has explored, it makes the debate on where and to what extend to curb and restrict aviation that much more difficult considering that as well as responsibilities to the environment and nature, we also must take care of each other, and aviation has made many things possible that were not within just a couple of generations! I'm sure those living near an airport fight path would disagree! 

Wonder if the noise bothers them? (Source: Live Mint)

21 December 2014

Please Fill Out The Passenger Feedback Form

In the last post I started to consider peoples attitudes towards flying. I am going to bring the topic of aviation and climate change closer to home in this post and look at the attitudes of British tourists, and how climate change influences their travel decisions. I will be  looking at the findings of Hares et al. (2010) and Gössling and Peeters (2007)  .

It has been estimated that from an average British holiday that involves air travel, 60-95% of the holiday's contribution to global warming can be attributed to the flight.  (Gössling and Peeters, 2007). With the number of international tourists and number of people flying only predicted to increase, (Hares et al. 2010) look at behavioural changes of tourists flying as a way to potentially reduce aviation related emissions. Behavioural changes comes in a list that also includes technological changes and market based changes. They estimate technological changes will reduce aircraft emissions by approximately 20% by 2050, and mention the unpopularity of market based approaches such as fuel taxes, which have been opposed in the past. 

There is a general consensus that people talk about tourism travel and everyday life as two different entities, talking more responsibility for everyday life (Becken, 2007). When a group of people were interviewed (Hares et al. 2010), general observations included that there were different understandings of what climate change was at the offset, with many people being skeptical about it. As far as going to address their impact on the environment through flying, many participants in the study believed that their individual actions were negligible. When speaking of their consciousness to general environmental concerns, where they did take steps in life to reduce their impacts, these were heavily tied with the financial costs of doing so. Many people for example said they recycled, which is seen as being popular due to its low cost and minimal inconvenience for the individual doing it.

The findings of this paper tie in well with those of (Gössling and Peeters, 2007). They attribute development, low cost air travel and increased leisure time to the transition of travel from the wealthy to hypermobility of many more people throughout Europe, where such movement of people is now considered the norm. Action from society doesn't materialise due to uncertainty in the topic. Many people do not see their individual behaviour to be accountable -  the paper addresses this as "psychology of denial". The paper also addresses how some misinformation about the impact of aviation stems from the aviation industry itself, which use scientific language and enthusiasm about technological change to paint a more positive image than reality. An example used is that the emissions performance of aircraft are often compared to small cars with low occupancy rates, which are themselves not considered environmentally friendly. When comparing cars to aircraft, cars with higher occupancy rates should be considered for a more accurate comparison. 

In comparing the findings from these two papers from the study done in Rocinha, the Brazilian favela, which was covered in the last post, despite the relatively greater understanding of the impact of air travel in Europe and the UK, there does not appear to be a dissimilar response from that of Rocinha. People flying to go on holiday or to see family once to a few times a year do not consider themselves to be the problem. Shaw and Thomas (2006) write of how people in the UK see themselves as having a right to fly and take holidays abroad. 

Should anyone still be reading this! What do you think? Would you fly less in a bid to reduce your own environmental impact, if you go on holiday? Do you see it as your problem? 

We can always just take Bus 24 to Australia anyway?! It runs 24/7 and has Wi-Fi. 

Calling at Pimlico, Paris, Pune and Perth 

15 December 2014

First Class Passengers Can Start Boarding

In the last post I talked about the EU-US Open Skies Agreement, which demonstrated how it is necessary to take more than just the environmental impact of the aircraft itself into consideration when looking at the overall impact of aviation. I aim to build further on this today by looking at the types of people who fly and how and why this would affect things. 

I will be looking at an article (Freire-Medeiros and Name, 2013) exploring the attitudes people living in Rio de Janeiro's largest  favela, Rocinha, have towards flying, often for the first time. I will compare it with a report (Collins et al. 2008) about private jets. 

The general consensus that was reached by the people interviewed in Brazil (Freire-Medeiros and Name, 2013) was that a shift from taking a bus to travel, compared to a plane reflected the changing economic status of a person. By being able to fly, the people perceive themselves as leading a better life (along with a trip to Disneyland and a shopping stopover in Miami - a common "strategy" to define middle class!). One family came to the conclusion that even though they lived in the favela, they were not poor because they could afford to fly. 

On the subject of the environment, most of the people interviewed did not dispute it was an important, man made problem, and that steps were needed to reduce global carbon emissions. When quizzed about green taxes on flights however, although they saw themselves as part of the problem, they justified their reasons for continuing to fly because it is something that they do not do often. Instead they believed people who travelled more often (like their boss) should pay an extra green tax. Through talking to the residents of this "middle class poor" in Rocinha, it demonstrated that despite their economic prosperity increasing in that they could now afford to buy plane tickets, the people were still economically very conscious and that despite an increase in economic status, they remain aware about their expenses and environmental impact. 

In contrast to some of the people of Rocinha, who have just been able to afford to fly, Collins et al. (2008) refer to private jets as "one of the most powerful symbols of extreme inequality". The report makes the point that private jets not only burden taxpayers (the report is from the USA), shareholders and other air travellers, they also degrade the environment, social cohesion and public security. 

To put some of this into perspective, The environmental impact of flying in a private jet for an hour is the equivalent to driving for a whole year. And general aviation, which includes private jets, pays 3% air traffic control costs despite using 16% of the services, whilst commercial aviation pays 95% when it uses 73%. Private jets emit the same types of pollution and emissions as commercial airliners that I have talk about in previous posts, however they do not carry half as many passengers and the report highlights that 40% of private jet flights in the U.S fly empty with no passengers on board.

In a world where such inequality prevails, many people that are just beginning to see the benefits of flying believe that their circumstances mean that they should not have to pay of for the environmental burden of flying. This is in contrast to the minority where the world is not only their oyster but they are most likely having an entrée of oysters in their private jets whilst en route to Oyster Bay!


Window seats for everyone!