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. 

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)

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 

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!

Open Skies

It is not only the planes themselves that have an impact on the environment. The ways in which they are regulated also needs to be taken into consideration as this can determine where aircraft can fly, how often, and if they meet a set of standards. I am going to look at the environmental impacts of the EU-US Open Skies Agreement, which was written about by Mayor and Tol (2009). In addressing the environmental concerns, I also hope to make apparent the complexities in co-ordinating global air travel. 

The EU-US Open Skies Agreement was launched in 2007 and came into effect the following year. It had the aim of making aviation a more levelled playing field between Europe and the USA, two of the largest global aviation markets. It was to remove  bilateral agreements in place between the USA and countries of Europe, and replace it with a single aviation agreement. It was hailed from and economic and financial point of view - but its environmental impacts have not been extensively examined - which is where the article  (Mayor and Tol 2009) comes in handy!

The agreement allows European and American carriers to fly to any city in the opposite continent, from any city in their own. This liberalisation allows for greater competition to and from both small airports and larger hubs. Before this for example British Airways and Virgin Atlantic were the only two British carriers entitled to fly from London Heathrow to JFK in New York (Heathrow's most flown route). Such an agreement would undoubtedly result in increased passenger flows and traffic. More details of the agreement can be found in this Guardian article.

The paper hints at greater carbon dioxide emissions that will make climate policy objectives increasingly difficult to achieve, especially considering that only until recently was aviation included into European emission reduction policies. A model to predict future scenarios resulting from increased tourist travel and lower plane fares as a result of the agreement was used. It found that the global emissions will increase will be smaller than the increase in transatlantic travel, due to a reduction in travel to other places, as a result of more transatlantic flights.

Do not unfasten your seat belt to go and book your dream holiday to America just yet though! A single person on a round trip transatlantic flight from New York to Europe will produce 1 to 2 tonnes of carbon dioxide, according to this article from the New York Times. It  discusses aviation emission reduction policies - where it describes the EU emissions trading scheme prohibition act of 2011 as a "somewhat lonely attempt to rein in planet-warming emissions." It is safe to say they weren't on board!

Open Skies:
Mon - Fri 7am - 10pm
Sat 7am - 11pm
Sun 9am - 6pm

I See A Ship Out The Window

Over the posts so far, I have been exploring how aircraft effect the environment in terms of the emissions they release when they fly. I aim to put this into context and compare it with other modes of transport - after all as I mentioned in my very first post (and is talked about in the video in the second post), although planes appear to be absolutely detrimental to the environment from the media attention they receive, they only account for around 2% of annual global CO₂ emissions.

Fugletvedt et al. (2008) wrote about how although contributing significantly to global emissions, the contribution of different modes of transport has not been quantified. They  predict that whereas today (or in 2008!) transport in general accounted for 20-25% of total annual CO₂ emissions, by 2050 this is estimated to rise to 30-50%. 

The paper describes four main mechanisms through which all transport related emissions can effect the climate. These are:

1. The direct emission of greenhouse gases, notably CO_2.

2.  The emission of indirect greenhouse gases, for example gases like nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide that affect the oxidising capacity of the atmosphere.

3. The direct emission of aerosols or aerosol precursors such as black and organic carbon and sulphur compounds. 

4. The indirect emission of aerosols that trigger alterations in the distribution and properties of clouds. 

Note that many of these effects has already been discussed in relation to aviation in previous posts. 

Attributing these effects to certain modes of transport is difficult because multiple chemical and physical mechanisms can occur when these emissions are released. The paper highlights further difficulty in calculating the climatic costs of transport due to the differing time scales involved. The effects of  transport emissions on ozone, sulphates and black carbon may last months and days, where as more well mixed greenhouse gases (methane, CO₂, and NO_x) have an adjustment period of decades and centuries. Based on these timescales, it is estimated that current emissions from transport will be responsible for 16% of the integrated net forcing over the next 100 years for all man made emissions. The paper  places road transport as being responsible for the most warming and shipping for producing the greatest cooling effect. 

Complementing the above mentioned paper is Berntsen and Fuglestvedt (2008). They have expanded on how depending on time scale, different modes of transport, have differing effects on the climate (not surprising seeing as the same author worked on the aforementioned paper). They reiterate that different effects and emissions from transport can result in either a warming or cooling effect. Looking at the year 2000, road transport is seen to have the largest effect on global mean temperature. Road travel comes before aviation, which despite having strong but short-lived effects, they can resonate up to a decade after emission. In contrast shipping results in a cooling effect  (through the release of sulphur dioxide and NO_x) which can last up to 4 years after emission but on a longer timescale, shipping too leads to a warming effect. 

More work on the matter was done a couple years later by Borken-Kleefeld et al. (2010)  - also featuring Fuglestvedt as a co-author (I would have been more surprised not to have seen his name!). Anyway, they again emphasise looking at the timescales of modes of transport in relation to the type of radiative forcing caused. They mention that air travel results in a lower temperature change per passenger-kilometre than the car... in the long run. And that per passenger-hour travelled, aviation's impact is higher than for cars, which doesn't really come as a surprise!

By looking into the effects of different modes of transport, it has become apparent that there is no one way at looking and comparing them. There are many variables to consider: the time scales involved with the emissions, frequency of use, size of the emissions released, passenger-kilometre, passenger-hour.. maybe if you stop for food a the service station? I agree with Berntsen and Fuglestvedt (2008) in the difficulty of accounting for different modes of transport on creating policy for the improvement and reductions of this sector... when for example would you set a time scale when at first the effects of shipping emissions are cooling but then revert to warming? And that air travel is worse on a short scale but road travel is worse overall in the long run. 

Future temperature change (in K) from different modes of transport based on constant emissions for the year 2000. Taken from Berntsen and Fuglestvedt (2008)