The National Observer has an eye-opening report on the "spectacular expansion" of jet fuel consumption in our hyper-connected world.
The burning of jet fuel is increasing by an additional 44 million litres every day — an additional 16,000 million extra litres each year. That's like burning 1,000 tanker trucks more than the day before. And then 1,000 more than that the next day … ad nauseum.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) credits the "spectacular expansion" of jet fuel burning, along with increasing plastic production, for fuelling the vigorous rise in global oil demand.
At current rates, the aviation industry will soon be dumping a billion tonnes of CO2 per year into our atmosphere. That exceeds the combined emissions of 135 nations … for everything.
...the industry isn't planning to stop at a billion tonnes. They are spending trillions of dollars to buy more jetliners, expand airports and build the fossil fuel infrastructure that will push their climate pollution to ever more dizzying heights.
...
On top of that, the best climate science indicates that burning jet fuel in the upper atmosphere creates additional warming from other greenhouse gases and contrail cloudiness. While less well quantified, the full climate impact is estimated to be between 1.5 times CO2 at the low end, and five times CO2 at the high end.
...
Aviation's soaring climate pollution carries another large, though little appreciated, climate risk: the industry produces very little value from each tonne of CO2 it emits. The economists' term is "high carbon intensity," while a more colloquial term is dirty dollars.
The industry's own GDP and CO2 numbers show they emit around 1,200 grams of CO2 per dollar of GDP they produce. For context, China's coal-choked economy emits only a third as much CO2 per dollar.
The aviation industry says: "If aviation were a country, it would rank 20th in size by GDP (similar to Switzerland)." What they don't mention, but the chart shows clearly, is that the industry dumps 15 times more climate pollution than Switzerland to get there.
However you slice it, there is growing risk — to industry, investors and humanity — from driving such a breakneck expansion of a "three-times-dirtier-than-China" industry into the teeth of the gathering climate storm.The author contends the only viable solution is the "peak flight" option by which the number of flights/passenger miles would be frozen at today's levels. Then new technologies should be enough to gradually reduce overall GHG emissions. The downside is that we would land into an allocation quandry - rationing. Who gets to fly, who stays grounded? Do we all get one flight per year, two flights per year, perhaps one flight every two years? If we're to avert calamity the friendly skies may become somewhat less welcoming.
Don't worry, it'll never happen. Why not? Because it would be a forum for equitable allocation. Climate change and equitable considerations are not welcome at places like Davos or on Capitol Hill. That could open a hornet's nest of claims pertaining to carbon budgets, etc. The plebs might want their fair/fare share of the action and we cannot be having that, can we?
7 comments:
I am confused!
After 911 this happened.
https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set-the-stage-for-an-unlikely-climate-change-experiment/
About a year after the attacks, Carleton, David Travis, a geographer at the University of Wisconsin, and another colleague argued in a paper that thin clouds created by contrails reduce the range of temperatures. By contributing to cloud cover during the day, they reflect solar energy that would otherwise have reached the earth’s surface. At night, they trap warmth that would otherwise have escaped.
The effect during the three days that flights were grounded was strongest in populated regions where air traffic was normally densest. The increase in range came to about two degrees Celsius.
FWIW.
Combat global warming by rationing energy...
TB
Another take on consumption..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_States_military
Note, the US air force uses 10% of the nations fuel.
TB
Rationing air travel, the number of hops per person, would be a form of fuel rationing, TB.
If you're permitted just one overseas flight every two or three years that's rationing. Perhaps those of us who've already given up on air travel will be able to make a few bucks selling our quota. Think of it as a form of carbon trading.
.. we (Boss & I) do one return trip flight yearly (Turks & Caicos) Boss may do odd return flight per business reasons. My son & his wife may average 2 return flights together, annually. Be very interesting to see and estimate what it would cost to 'offset' .. ie penalize (which is an OK option, maybe) or to actually compensate somehow (which we would all accept easily)
Regardless, the environmental cost you have posted is astonishing ! Realistically, Boss & I are looking at permanent relocation somewhere warm or tropical and seriously marine oriented. Turks perhaps. I will need to work, generate income, Boss will not.. Amen. Ideally fish will supplant beef in our diet & we will grow everything we possibly can, along with adapting to local produce & supply etc. Also ideally - we will stay 'off the grid' via solar and wind and condensation for water mini systems. I will need a still or beer fermenting system & may be inclined to raise a tich of herb, purely for scientific research purpose. No car of course.. bikes are a must. An Albacore class sailboat with oarlocks will be fab as the easterly trades are constant. I would not mind learning drone operating skills in advance.. that may complement my photographic, video & media knowhow. Again, I will have to generate income or have contra value services or capabilities
Visitors will be welcomed, especially those bringing hard to get necessities. That's my foggy plan. I would wrap up this adventure on spaceship earth content .. if I can do that.. plus contribute to Canadian values and potentials to the very end of the road. Jets ? They won't be neccessary, thanks
Any fuel rationing, or reduction of things like tourism, would reduce GDP and be problematic for Govt.
Right now there's travel reduction due to the virus.
it has been estimated that private jets with their miniscule load of passengers produce 10,00 times the carbon that a regular commercial flight does!
TB
Sal, I would think long and hard before moving to the tropics. You need to factor in sea level rise; threats to the freshwater supply; severe storm events of increasing frequency, intensity and duration; the warnings about "climate departure" predicted to begin setting in right where you're looking beginning in the 2020s; issues of food security and the impact of climate migration heading north. Don't forget, we also tend to visit those destinations in the winter season when their climate is mildest. We avoid the blistering hot summers and the hurricane season. What you've seen is not necessarily what you will get in the future, even the near future.
Post a Comment