From the UNIVERSITY OF SURREY and the “I’ll believe air travel pollution is a big climate problem when Bill McKibben and Leo DiCaprio stop flying around the world to tell us how bad it is” department.
Reliance on technological solutions in cutting emissions are ‘myths’ propagating inaction by industry and government
- Damaging emissions from aviation will rise despite assurances from airline industry that air travel will soon become sustainable
- Reliance on technological solutions in cutting emissions are ‘myths’ propagating inaction by industry and government
- Technology could help cut harmful emissions, but must be viewed alongside stronger regulation
A new study published in the journal Transportation Research Part D has explored the ways in which new technologies have been ‘hyped’ by the aviation industry and media as the key to sustainable air travel, perpetuating a culture of non-accountability for increased emissions and subsequent environmental damage.
Researchers from the University of Surrey, in collaboration with NHTV Breda, Netherlands and the University of Otago, New Zealand, explored how new technologies such as alternative fuels, solar flight and a range of aircraft design options are presented by industry and media, alongside the subsequent level of success in practically applying these technologies. The researchers argue that discussion around these technologies creates ‘myths’ of zero-emission flight, shielding the aviation industry from closer scrutiny of its sustainability policies.
“Air travel has experienced substantial growth over the last 40 years. By 2050 energy use in aviation will have tripled, accounting for 19% of all transport energy use in 2050, compared to 11% in 2006,” Dr Scott Cohen, of the University of Surrey explained.
“This is in sharp contrast to pledges by industry to reduce flight emissions through technology, aiming for ‘zero emission flight’ through overly hyped developments such as solar planes and hydrogen fuels.”
“The way in which new technologies are presented constitutes a ‘myth’, a form of propaganda which denies the truth that progress in climate policy for aviation has stalled. The use of these technology myths by industry and government relieves anxiety that nothing is being done, by pointing to future ‘miracle’ solutions, which in reality are unfeasible.”
The team analysed how new aviation technology such as solar flight has been presented by industry as key to sustainable flight. While presented as a possible solution to high-emission flight, the research explored how in fact solar flight is highly unfeasible, with the creators of the first solar plane to fly around the clock admitting that solar planes would “never replace fuel-powered commercial flights”.
Paul Peeters, Associate Professor Sustainable Transport and Tourism, NHTV Breda: “We see a definite pattern when it comes to the hyping of these technologies. Take solar or electric flight. Through the media, the industry successfully presented these technologies as major breakthroughs that would have beneficial implications for future, zero-emission flight. In reality this is rhetoric that takes headlines away from the fact that emissions policy is failing, and continually points to a ‘better future’ just around the corner.”
“While these inventions are fascinating from a research perspective, they won’t act as a panacea for the harmful, climate damaging emissions that the aviation industry is increasingly releasing into our atmosphere. Industry will always wish to present an optimistic view of their role in this issue, but our research has also shown that some politicians are complicit in propagating these myths and need to stop relying on rhetoric and start referring to facts.”
###
But air travel by plebians is doubleplus ungood crimethink!
“Through the media, the industry successfully presented these technologies as major breakthroughs that would have beneficial implications for future, zero-emission flight. In reality this is rhetoric that takes headlines away from the fact that emissions policy is failing, and continually points to a ‘better future’ just around the corner.”
That seems reasonable to me since … through the media, the CAGW industry successfully presented failing climate models as reality with horrific implications for future. In reality this is rhetoric that takes headlines away from the fact that climate models are failing, and continually points to a ‘catastrophic future’ just around the corner.
‘From the UNIVERSITY OF SURREY and the “I’ll believe air travel pollution is a big climate problem when … Leo DiCaprio stop(s) flying around the world to tell us how bad it is” department.’
Aw c’mon, aren’t you being a little hard on our dear Leo (Ludicrous Environmental Ostentatiousness)? As the attached link will demonstrate he doesn’t really travel by air. No, he travels by boat, so he practices what he preaches. Ok, it’s not exactly a boat; it’s a yacht but, when you’re on the open ocean a boat just won’t do. And, it’s not like he owns it; poor Leo had to rent it. Most importantly, you’ll see that he’s got that boat, er yacht, in the tropics: another example of his conservation of fossil fuels. Just as Obama has said; we just can’t live wherever we want and have our AC and our heating. And, as you can see from the lack of clothing on his guests Leo has chosen an area that minimizes his electrical and fossil fuel use.
Speaking of lack of clothing you’ll also notice Leo’s got a gaggle of undernourished young ones with him. What a Good Samaritan, providing housing on his yacht for those poor young ones; almost as if he’s converting that yacht to section 8 housing, eh? And, notice his generosity, taking them shopping, buying them suitable clothing: suitable for saving energy by bathing in surrounding waters.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2897667/Leonardo-DiCaprio-s-Titanic-New-Year-party-goes-class-passenger-aboard-400-000-week-super-yacht-gaggle-girls-tow-float-boat.html#ixzz426V4k39k
By all means try to disregard the SUV transport on those shopping trips. I’m sure it’s just an anomaly.
We need to ask this team to take an equally sober look at wind&solar.
I will believe this is real when the UN ambassadors meet virtually, and all the offices worldwide are razed and made into parks.
Solar flight?? Isn’t the aircraft performing a solar circumnavigation of the globe still stuck in Hawaii? Over a year and still counting? Lenard DiCaprio could have his yacht sail it in substantially less time and likely for less expense. Well, I would have predicted that if they didn’t die in the attempt they would certainly have broke down in Hawaii rather than, say, Uzbekistan!
I don’t recall any articles about solar flights replacing fossil fuel flights. Even the UN has ignored transport in its intent to reduce emissions. Quite simply renewable fuels cannot do the tasks FF does in transport. It is an engineering impossibility. Bio fuels are simply feel good area of research.
The media hypes any solar powered aircraft accomplishments as if they are “breakthroughs” on the way to solar powered aircraft for anything other than publicity. What they never say (possibly because of the basic ignorance of the reporters) is that the only “breakthroughs” are in lightweight construction and materials. The problem is that the weight of the actual cargo and passengers can’t be reduced through any kind of lightweight technology.
Word problems have a tendency to throw me. Is Dr Cohen saying that by 2050 aviation will be 33% more fuel effecient?
“By 2050 energy use in aviation will have tripled, accounting for 19% of all transport energy use in 2050, compared to 11% in 2006,” Dr Scott Cohen, of the University of Surrey explained.
If airline pilots come under radiation exposure regulations, there could conceivably be temporary shortages of available pilots and crewmembers due exposure limits having been exceeded.
I feel that the increasing CR levels as we enter this grand solar min. will trigger changes in aviation industry engineering and human resource practices, affecting the availability and expense of high altitude flights. This appears to be ‘higher on the radar’ than carbon emission reduction at present.
We airline pilots always had a layer of tinfoil inside our hats.
Pocket a dosimeter for a month and see how funny you think it is. This cloud chamber movie is only 2877 meters up. Imagine the dose at 250 miles on the ISS. It’s a serious issue, not a joke. Aircrew cancer has been an issue for a long time.
A UK airline ran a dosimeter for six months, and said everything was OK to the flight crew. But would not give anyone the resulting data. It is a worry, as I have 19,000 hours at high altitude.
A generation that grew up on Captain Planet cartoons could almost be forgiven for thinking large-scale solar-powered flight was feasible. The Planeteers had their sleek, solar-powered, emissions-free Eco-Cruiser, after all. When you’re grade school age, devilish details like energy density calculations typically don’t occur to you. Neither do questions like, “Why don’t they just tell the rest of the world how to build Eco-Cruisers, the selfish bastards?”
Over 5,200,000 BARRELS per DAY of half-burned kerosene poured into our air from 25,000 feet over your house and mine. What can be wrong with that?
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=jet-fuel
Am I the only one who noticed how wonderfully blue the sky got after 9/11 when they were all GROUNDED?
Half-burned? Troll harder.
I noticed how “wonderfully blue” the september skies were before 9/11.
http://sarahjanenelson.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/sept-11th-8.jpg
It’s hilarious to see Gang Green pointing fingers at who’s responsible for green myths. For every finger they point, a hundred get pointed back at them.
The black “smoke” from the B-52s is actually unburned fuel particles due to water injected into the engines to increase thrust during takeoff.
“you’re right. Aviation Week was once my favorite magazine. Penton Publishing bought them and now there is usually AGW propaganda somewhere in each issue.”
That long preceded Penton’s acquisition of AW&ST and related properties. They’ve been on that bandwagon for years.
I don’t get it. If they’re concerned about pollution from airplanes why are they spraying all that stuff in the sky? I live in Central Coast California. About every 3 days 2 planes fly exactly the same path close to my house. Occasionally one forgets to turn on his white trail and I see him do it. At specific times they fly grids in other parts of town. After it rains we have a lovely deep blue sky w big beautiful white clouds. Then they write these white trails that slowly spread over the whole sky, leaving it sort of whitish, dismal & usually cloudless.
“….Turns on its white trail….!” It’s called Condensation and whether or not it appears is entirely dependent upon the outside air temperature at the altitude that the plane is flying at, not a switch inside the plane. Its the exhaust from the planes engines. Same thing you see from a car exhaust on a very cold morning. Air currents (also called wind) at altitude disperse the condensation over time. Also if the temperature at that altitude happens to rise slightly, which it will when the sun shines, just like it always has since the planet gained an atmosphere, can also cause the trails to disappear.
David, this began about 4 years ago & these aren’t exhaust. These trails are very thin & you can watch them spread across the whole sky. Previous to this we almost always had deep blue skies. Now we never do, except after a rain– until they come & do it again. This is open country with lots of farmland and no industries to pollute. We have only a couple of quite small airports. Exhaust doesn’t spread across the whole sky; that’s ridiculous.
“Damaging emissions from aviation”
Damaging what? Are you actually talking about carbon dioxide emissions?
If so, do you have any way of accurately explaining Earth’s surface temperature with radiation calculations? If not, I for one do not accept that extra radiation from one molecule of carbon dioxide in 2,500 other molecules (these other molecules holding 99.96% of the thermal energy in the atmosphere) could raise the already-warmer surface temperature. So I don’t accept the IPCC concept of adding the flux of back radiation to the flux of solar radiation and then calculating the surface temperature using Stefan-Boltzmann based on uniform flux (night and day) supposedly striking a flat Earth surface supposedly acting like a blackbody.
Do you subscribe to a belief in this false physics, Anthony Watts?
Solar powered flight carrying hundreds of passengers. hahaha. The politicians and greens bought THAT? Yeah it’s possible… if it’s a zeppelin!