Aviation’s Problem With Greenhouse Gases

0

In politics, the third rail—that thing you do not touch—is Social Security. Aviation journalism has its own third rail and it’s called aircraft emissions as a cause of global warming. The reason this subject is untouchable is because by and large, readers of aviation publications view flying airplanes as a quiet refuge away from the clamor of life’s daily travails that somehow should exist independent of politics. In the aviation press, we tend to pander to this fantasy because it’s just easier not to start the argument.

But along comes Aviation Weekto lay a fat copper grounding rod across the live rail with a commentary by Antoine Gelain suggesting that the aviation community is lying to itself with regard to the sustainability of air travel at current growth rates. He reports that air travel has doubled in the past 15 years—since 9/11—and will double again during the next 15. To be perfectly fair about this, however, in the U.S., jet fuel consumption has been flat during that period; it’s risen in the rest of the world.

Depending on whose data you accept or reject, aviation accounts for up to 9 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions and measured by seat mile, ton mile or revenue mile—or any other metric—it’s the least efficient, most carbon polluting form of transportation, or very near so. That’s because of the speed penalty; if you want to go fast or fly your Maine lobsters to Atlanta in four hours, it’s gonna take a lot more fuel than the train will.

Gelain’s view is the uptake of biofuels isn’t nearly fast enough to reverse or even flatten aviation’s escalating world GHG contribution and more efficient airframes and engines won’t help enough, either. The big lie is that aviation pays glossy corporate lip service to GHG, but ignores the single biggest driver: rising air travel demand. And as long as airlines and airplane manufacturers push that growth—and why would we expect them not to?—no serious solution to climate issues will emerge in which aviation has a role.

Strong stuff. And you have only to read the comments to Gelain’s essay to understand the intensity of the divide on this issue. My favorite was from a reader who described himself as a 747 Captain: “Climate change is a political tool to give governments money and control.” I give people who don’t accept the theory of anthropogenicglobal warming (AGW) the benefit of the doubt with the label of “skeptic” rather than the more charged “denier.” But I’ll go with denier for that comment.

Climate change skepticism doesn’t neatly split along party and ideological lines, but generally, people who believe the government screws up everything and should have little or no role in daily life are the skeptics, the “good government” do-gooders are the believers. There was a time in this country when the twain could meet, but no more.

Wealth is an interesting divider, too. He who has the wealth to pay for a $5000 trans-Atlantic first class seat probably doesn’t know or care that his share of the carbon load is much higher than the poor sod in seat 38B because his seat weighs four times as much. If you believe in AGW, you’ll understand that the heavier seat exacts an unpaid cost in the form of carbon pollution that causes widespread harm. If you’re a skeptic, you’ll just enjoy your shrimp cocktail and wonder what all the fuss is about.

The argument reaches incandescence when the veneer of airlines committing to biofuels is stripped away, leaving the stark conclusion that less flying—lower demand—is the only meaningful solution. That’s Gelain’s argument. Although I think that’s generally right, I think it’s just another form of unsustainability. The airlines will not raise their prices to reduce demand; Boeing and Airbus will not ration airliner production to save the planet; people who can afford a European vacation will not take the ship instead.

I think that means that any significant demand reduction—or slowing of growth, really—will come from regulation or a carbon tax, two sides of the same coin. And that’s where the EPA is going with its plans to regulate GHGs, including aviation emissions. I wish them luck. I just don’t see the political or market will to make this a realistic policy in the U.S. Similarly, people who talk about “market solutions” to GHG emissions are, in my view, just blowing figurative smoke. Altruism and social responsibility are the kale and creamed spinach of virtues. Nice on paper; non-existent in reality. And yes, I will have more shrimp, thanks.

A faint hope is that the millennial generation and their offspring will actually be greener than their parents and will confront the climate challenge, or begin to. There’s some reason to believe this might be true. Polls show that millennials accept the AGW theory to a larger degree than baby boomers do, they drive less and we sure as hell know they fly little airplanes less. An administrator at one of the big flight academies recently told me students are morally committed to eliminating lead in avgas and are strongly interested in electric aircraft and green technologies in general.

Boeing and Airbus, by the way, are paying attention. Whether they have legs or not, both Boeing and Airbus have electric transport aircraft in the concept phase. And even if they do have legs, there’s no assurance that these policies and technologies will affect the outcome of dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. If I sound glum about this, I am. While I agree with Gelain’s conclusion, I doubt if policies will gel to reduce air travel demand significantly. And even though I think the data supporting AGW is settled and incontrovertible, I’m less convinced we can affect the outcome much in aviation. The big gains will be in cars and electric power generation and these are already being made. Carbon emissions in the U.S. are in slight decline because cars have become more efficient and electric generation has tilted toward natural gas and away from coal.

But here’s one bright spot. Piston GA’s role in all this is trivial. We burn about 250 million gallons of fuel a year while cars burn about 140 billion gallons. We’re barely a rounding error and consumption is trending downward. But then you already knew that.

LEAVE A REPLY