Red, Green & Blue: How Do We Cut Airline Emissions?
A booming airline industry might be great for the economy, but it’s wreaking increasing havoc with the environment. Aviation today spews out only 3 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, but the segment is expanding fast — faster, in fact, than any improvements in efficiency are likely to keep pace with. According to the Christian Science Monitor,
"Efficiency is only set to improve at 1 or 2 percent per year at best, while the number of passenger kilometers is growing at 5 or 6 percent," says Peter Lockley, head of policy development at the Aviation Environment Federation, a British think tank. "So emissions are going up steadily in the gap between the two."
For some, the answer is to stop flying now, cold turkey. To halt an entire industry dead in its tracks, though, is sure to risk massive, global economic damage. So what other options are there?
The best idea would seem to be a carbon tax on air travel that is hiked incrementally over the next decade or two to the point that flying is increasingly discouraged … and enough funding is raised to support research and development for more sustainable travel alternatives. It’s a better solution than continuing with business as usual, which appears certain to ramp up greenhouse gas emissions to unacceptable levels in the very near future.
Tags: air travel, Aircraft, airline industry, airlines, carbon dioxide emissions, climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse gases, Red, Green and Blue, Transportation
- Uncategorized
August 28th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
OK Shirley… my wife works in down-town Chicago… the commute from Nashville even in our relatively efficient Accord would certainly add up to more than the carbon costs of the flight she’s on divided by the 150 people on the plane… that’s before considering the extra 7 hours one way of travel time.
Again, I’m going to be the optimist here… I think Boeing is already coming to the rescue. Check this out:
I’ll still go for the general tax on oil which would affect jet fuel as well but to target such an important and useful industry is a bad idea.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Two problems, Jimmy:
One, for a trip of equal distance, airline emissions per passenger are higher than those for car trips (Stats from the U.K. Dept. of Transport put carbon emissions at 44.7 kg/passenger for a fully loaded plane traveling 298 km, vs. 36.6 kg/passenger for a car with 1.56 passengers).
Two, as the Christian Science Monitor article pointed out, while airline efficiency can improve considerably, the increased volume of flights expected in coming years more than outweighs those efficiency benefits … and that’s assuming every plane in operation today is replaced ASAP by a more efficient model, hardly likely considering the average aircraft’s pricetag.
I know you’re a fan of a general oil tax, but what would be so bad about a gradually increasing, similar tax on air travel? It wouldn’t be onerous in the early years, but as it increased, the incentive to improve airline efficiency, switch to more sustainable modes of transportation or teleconference would rise substantially. By raising the tax incrementally over time, the airlines would also have a chance to adjust without too much pain.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Since the car would only have one passenger I think I’ve still got the math but not by as much as I thought. I still think it’s pretty absurd to say that this airplane flight should be replaced by 200 people driving to and from Chicago ever week though.
The reason the tax on oil works better for me is that it’s a two edged sword. First it encourages conservation from an environmental perspective… but then it also better indexes the cost of oil to its real geopolitical, economic(trade deficit) and environmental impact.
A carbon tax on air transportation doesn’t address as well the geopolitical and economic problems that are more particular to oil.
A good by-product of your plan would be that it might help keep the riff raff off the planes though. It’s like when they started charging use fees at our state parks in Tennessee… Ahhh… they became such pleasant places to visit after that
August 28th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Ah, the hoi polloi argument … sigh. It is amazing, though, how a couple bucks’ entry fee drives so many people away: I’ve seen carloads of tourists turn around at our National Park beaches just because it costs $2 to get in.
OK, then, how about an oil tax on air travel that’s indexed to the price of crude? I still prefer the carbon tax approach, but think an oil tax would help, considering that oil prices are likely to keep going in only one direction … up. So we’re still likely to see incremental increases in the tax as time goes by.
August 28th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
I’m with you there… an oil tax that indexes its cost to its real environmental and geopoltical impact solves a lot of problems without having a ton of government control and regulation in the middle.
Using the revenues to help fund alternative energy research seems a smart investment as well.
How much do the travel hours saved factor into your thinking about airline travel? I personally don’t fly anymore when I go to Atlanta. It’s about a two and a half to three hour ride to the Northside from here so dealing with the airlines, parking, security, delays and car rental is just not worth it.
But Chicago is an 8 hour ride vs. a 1 hour flight.
California is about a 4 hour flight vs. a two day car trip. Sometimes it just makes sense to fly.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
From a greenhouse gas/environmental perspective, I don’t take hours traveled into account; I know it’s important to the people who travel (myself included), but the Earth doesn’t care whether we take 1 hour or 15 to get somewhere.
On the other hand, I’m with you about Atlanta. It’s the main hub for most flights into and out of my hometown (near Pensacola), but I do anything to avoid flying through (or to) there. Anyone who’s spent an afternoon at the Jazz Lounge killing time between flights will understand. : )
August 29th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
(Stats from the U.K. Dept. of Transport put carbon emissions at 44.7 kg/passenger for a fully loaded plane traveling 298 km, vs. 36.6 kg/passenger for a car with 1.56 passengers)
Shirley, I’m curious: where did you get those numbers? Do you have a document that I could read? I don’t doubt them qualitatively, but the actual numbers should vary depending on the type of aircraft flown as well as the “stage length” (distance traveled). 298 km is quite a short flight, but I don’t know if the takeoff and landing was simulated here.
As for addressing aviation emissions, I think a big part of the solution is appropriate (read: non-crop-based) biofuels, and there is a member of my research group looking at alternative fuels for aviation. The FAA has a Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative, CAAFI.
September 2nd, 2007 at 2:45 am
Have you heard about easyJet’s goal to build a fleet of jets that will emit 50% less CO2 than today’s short-haul jets? They plan to have them in the air by 2015:
http://intelligenttravel.typepad.com/it/2007/07/when-the-sky-go.html#more