By Vijay Jayaraj
Indian low-cost carrier IndiGo recently made headlines with its record-breaking order of Airbus passenger jets. The deal, worth an estimated $50 billion, is the largest single order in Airbus history.
While the order for 500 of the A320neo aircraft is a major coup for Airbus, it is being termed a “setback” for climate action. It is worth noting that Air India, another large carrier, recently placed orders totaling $70 billion in retail value for 470 aircraft from Airbus and Boeing, including 70 twin-aisle models.
These orders from IndiGo and Air India for 970 new planes are signs of India’s growing economic power and rising middle class. Air travel is closely associated with economic growth, and these orders will help meet the subcontinent’s growing demand.
However, the orders are another example of emerging economic powerhouses like India and China openly resisting the global climate madness and its calls to reduce fossil fuel emissions.
Aviation Industry and Emissions
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has set numerous goals to reduce carbon emissions by 2050. As per IATA, “at the 77th IATA Annual General Meeting in Boston, USA, on 4 October 2021, a resolution was passed by IATA member airlines committing them to achieving net-zero carbon emissions from their operations by 2050.”
Achieving this goal will require a significant reduction in emissions. It is unclear whether IndiGo’s new aircraft deal will help meet the IATA’s emissions goals. The A320neo is more fuel-efficient than previous models, but it still produces significant emissions.
According to Airbus, the A320neo emits 20% less CO2 than the A320ceo, its predecessor. However, this still means that each A320neo will emit around 100 tons of CO2 per year. That is around 50,000 tons of new emissions per year in addition to the emissions from IndiGo’s existing large fleet. That’s considerably more than zero – net or otherwise.
Paris Agreement and Net Zero Are Meaningless
Numerous national leaders have set ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which they believe will reverse a modest warming of the climate that they irrationally deem dangerous. The Paris Agreement, for example, calls for global emissions to peak by 2030 and to be at an ill-defined net zero by 2050. The agreement provides no reasonable way of achieving the goal nor a scientifically valid reason for doing so.
Signatories of the Paris Agreement include India and France, home countries of the aircraft purchasers and of Airbus, respectively.
India is already the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and its aviation sector is one of the fastest-growing in the world. With an increasing population already at 1.4 billion, the government is under pressure to provide affordable air travel to citizens. As a result, it is unlikely to restrict travel even if such measures are necessary to reduce emissions.
France has taken a different approach to the problem of climate change, banning short-haul flights within the country to cut emissions. The new bill prohibits flights when a train trip of 2.5 hours or less is available. The law has been met with mixed reactions with environmentalists complaining that it doesn’t go far enough.
Now, France has allowed Airbus to take all-time record-breaking orders from IndiGo and Airbus. It is quite difficult to understand why France would stop its own citizens from flying but would approve aircraft production for short-haul flights in India.
The incongruity of France – site of the Paris Agreement’s signing – allowing huge aircraft orders from high-emission countries illustrates the net zero proponents’ ongoing divergence from reality. Developing countries will continue to defy international climate goals as they become more intentional about addressing economic concerns.
This commentary was first published at BizPac Review, June 23, 2023, and can be accessed here.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, UK and resides in India
Photo Credit:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VT-ILY_-_IndiGo_-_Airbus_A321-251NX_-_MSN_10490_-_VGHS.jpg
Md Shaifuzzaman Ayon, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
To hell with climate action.
Most of those jets are likely to still be in service come 2050.
Should anyone be surprised here? Countries, businesses, industries and consumers will first and foremost do what best suits their interests, well-being, convenience and bottom lines. China and India in particular have made it clear that they will make attempts to meet emissions-reductions targets whenever it’s convenient for them politically or economically, not according to some unrealistic UN guidelines.
It really sucks knowing that the communists in China and quasi-Hindu nationalists in India have more care and respect for their citizens than eco-nazis running most of the western countries, especially Canada.
You may be mistaking intelligence for caring.
While Indian and Chinese governments do not bow to the climate alarmists, neither do they greatly respect the lives of their citizens. Of course, we are headed in the wrong direction in both accounts.
Well, perhaps not surprising, but refreshing to see that the investors and banks in India are not completely controlled by BlackRock and the other ESG-demented funds.
There are apparently limits as to what countries will do to virtue signal.
Sadly, the U.S. hasn’t hit that limit yet. Maybe when the gas (petrol) line riots begin?
Numerous national leaders have set ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which they believe will reverse a modest warming of the climate that they irrationally deem dangerous.
Well, more likely they believe that ‘stating these ambitious goals’ makes them look good, but when it comes to selling India a few billion dollars worth of emitters, who would pass up the opportunity?
Yes, and with lots of deal incentives from the EU to push the order when not preaching about climate change.
India should just refer to them as ‘private’ jets, thus coming into line with EU handling of air travel.
Or claim they are powered by natural gas.
Company management had not much choice – could they back off without declaring themselves nationalized?
A320neo will emit around 100 tons of CO2 per year.
========
That seem incredibly low when you consider per capital emissions are on the order of 10 tons. I would have thought a big jet needs maybe 25 tons of fuel per flight, which translates into 75 tons of co2 when burned.
The global fleet of Airbus A320 aircraft emitted 114 million tons of co2 in 2019. I think the 100 tons of co2 per year cannot be right.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1189360/carbon-dioxide-emissions-narrowbody-aircraft-model/#:~:text=During%202019%2C%20passenger%20aviation%20flights%20carried%20out%20on,million%20metric%20tons%20of%20carbon%20dioxide%20%28CO%202%29.
1 ton of CO2 is emitted from burning about 106 gal of jet fuel. Thus this is off by a factor of several thousand. The issue with mass of CO2 is that the Mol Wt is 44 for CO2 and 12 for Carbon and 14 for HC fuel. Thus each carbon atom burned increases the mass by 44/12. So it looks really bad.
If only CO2 was that bad for the atmosphere, but it isn’t. But it is really good for plants!
The A22 hold 58 tons of fuel max and every ton of jet fuel creates 3 tons of CO2, so a single flight of an A22 max yield is 174 tons of CO2.
So 100 tons of CO2 per flight. Not per year.
It is true that Indian Governments likely spend little time worrying about the “low caste” people, although probably much more than the UK Government does worrying about British white workers.
But the Indians seem to have realised that it is time that every village has access to a decent electricity supply and that at least that level of “wealth” will be enormously beneficial to India. Good luck to them.
As it happens, my dad was born in Bombay. (Thanks, British Raj!) I wonder if I can wangle an Indian passport?
Congratulations to these two Indian airlines for so obviously ignoring the scaremongering from the climate alarmists! Now for some other countries to follow suit – especially Germany and Britain!
From the article: “Now, France has allowed Airbus to take all-time record-breaking orders from IndiGo and Airbus. It is quite difficult to understand why France would stop its own citizens from flying but would approve aircraft production for short-haul flights in India.”
The French politicians get to virtual signal at home, while keeping their political contributors happy with large sales of aircraft to India. Win, win.
India is acting in the interests of… India. Western countries could benefit from adopting this strategy.
This is how things work in the real world. Meta operates a fake fact checker team to conduct censorship on climate framing skeptics while spending this much on private jets for Zuck.
It’s almost as bad as Obama’s seaside mansions after warning of rising seas climate alarmism.
No conscience is required in both cases.
story tip
Meta splurged $2.3 million on Mark Zuckerberg’s private jet travel last year—and the most among the S&P 500 (yahoo.com)
[QUOTE FROM ARTICLE] “France has taken a different approach to the problem of climate change, banning short-haul flights within the country to cut emissions. The new bill prohibits flights when a train trip of 2.5 hours or less is available. The law has been met with mixed reactions with environmentalists complaining that it doesn’t go far enough.”
Unlike India, France has a well-developed network of high-speed trains, which have a top speed of about 300 km/hr or 185 mph. The most popular high-speed train line in France runs between Paris and Lyon, which takes just about two hours one-way, so it’s not surprising they would outlaw flights where trains take less than 2.5 hours. The same trip by car takes about 4.5 hours via the autoroutes (speed limit 130 km/hr = 83 mph), and the trains do emit less CO2 per passenger-mile than either cars or planes.
Of course, given the security concerns on commercial airlines, it usually takes about 1.5 hours to check in, check one’s baggage, and go through security at the departure airport, then another half hour to pick up the baggage on arrival. If the trip by train is less than 2.5 hours from one train station to another, a traveler actually saves time by taking the train.
India is a much larger country than France (nearly 6 times its land area), meaning that the average trip between major cities is likely about 2.4 times more distance than in France. India does not have a well-developed system of high-speed trains or even roads, so for travelers in a hurry, there is no competition from trains or driving. For example, a trip from New Delhi to the southern tip of India takes 49 hours by car, but a little over 3 hours by plane. A traveler who can afford the plane flight would be crazy to spend an exhausting three days driving plus two nights in hotels to make the same trip.
So if India has enough demand for air travel to justify the purchase of 500 Airbus, why not?
C’mon… I should think someone working for the CO2 coalition would at least be capable of some basic internet searching ability and some rudimentary arithmetic!
An A320neo burns 6,000 lbs per hour of Jet-A at cruise. (double or triple on takeoff and climb but lets just use the cruise value)
https://aviationinfo.net/a320-fuel-burn-per-hour-airbus-a320-fuel-consumption/
From elementary mass balance of chemical equations Jet-A is C12H26,
and 2C12H26 + 37O2 > 24CO2 + 26H2O.
Thus by weight 340 grams of Jet-A yields 1056 grams of CO2 when combusted.
So one unit weight of jet fuel produces 3.106 units weight of CO2.
So an airliner like this flies 5 hours a day for 200 days a year, i.e. 1000 hours per year.
That is 6,000,000 lbs of Jet-A per year, or 3,000 tons.
Thus an A320neo produces 9,317 tons of CO2 per year!!!
Not “100 tons” as this misinformed article states! (2 orders of magnitude wrong)
(heck a B737-800 burns 30,000 lbs of fuel to fly from JFK to LAX in about 5 hours. That is 15 tons of fuel and 45 tons of CO2 in one day so 100 tons per year for a plane with similar specs to the 737 is of course ludicrous)
Do your homework. Don’t trust what other so called “journalists” have written!
There is NO route to zero CO2 emissions for commercial, or business or general aviation anytime in the foreseeable future (unless eliminating aviation was your goal). You simply cannot produce the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels required for aviation – unless you believe in fairy dust and unicorn farts!
On the other hand, a medium haul Airbus or a Boeing are almost as fuel efficient as traveling by car per passenger mile. (car with 4 people 0.221 lbs CO2 per passenger mile, and a B737-800 with 160 people is 0.222 lbs CO2 per passenger mile)
If you are going to try to counter the Climate Cult Catastrophe narrative with argument, at least get your numbers right!
ferdberple already pointed this out. He estimated about 100 tons of CO2 per flight, not per year.