![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I can think of a very simple solution not mentioned in the Possible Reduction section.
Don't fly.
I can't be the only one to think of it, why isn't it mentioned?
195.26.62.238 ( talk) 06:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It's probably easier if you just go ahead and edit it! - Ahunt ( talk) 19:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the re-write - it looks good! - Ahunt ( talk) 12:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There have been two attempts to remove the paragraph that says:
In addition to the CO2 released by most aircraft in flight through the burning of fuels such as Jet-A (turbine aircraft) or Avgas (piston aircraft), the aviation industry also contributes greenhouse gas emissions from ground airport vehicles and those used by passengers and staff to access airports, as well as through emissions generated by the production of energy used in airport buildings, the manufacture of aircraft and the construction of airport infrastructure.
with edit summaries "Not clear how this fits in" and "This is not related to aviation per se, and is beyond the scope of this article"
I personally can't see that those comments make sense as the paragraph is clearly discussing how facets of the aviation industry, other than actual flying operations, also damage the environment. The paragraph still needs a reference added but otherwise I can see no argument presented for removing it. - Ahunt ( talk) 11:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
"While ethanol also releases CO2 during combustion, the plants cultivated to make it draw that same CO2 out of the atmosphere while they are growing, making the fuel closer to climate-change-neutral." - Pgan002 ( talk) 22:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this section could use some balance, but other than research projects that have not quantified costs or sustainability (see Avgas for some of these) at present I haven't found any refs that could be used. - Ahunt ( talk) 14:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I have moved the "see also" addition (referring to the Sustainable Biofuels page) to this section to the existing "See Also" section. Also, I believe the Johnfos unjustly removed content because it fit the context; however, I will add some cites specific to aviation before replacing it. Coastwise ( talk) 07:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Added this line: Another possible improvement is the electrification of the airplane's nose wheel. At present, landing gear are not driven by an engine on the nosewheel's axle. Instead, the taxying is done using the main engines. - EOS magazine november 2011
Perhaps add some more info
Another issue not mentioned is why turboprop engines and jet engines are more environmental: this has to do with the altitude it allows the aircraft to fly on (the higher, the less air resistance). Piston engines don't allow high cruising altitudes. However, at lower altitudes, piston engines (propelling the aircraft using propellers) are allot more fuel efficient than turboprop and jet engines (operating at the same height). Especially radial and rotary engines are extremely fuel efficient, line engines are a bit less efficient than these (though more than turboprop and jet engines at low altitude) but easier to built.
91.182.172.157 ( talk) 10:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
As discussed at on the Aviation and Climate change talk page the text from that article has been merged into the text from this stub article, leaving the text from this article as the introduction. Much more work needs to be done to integrate the two articles and expand it to cover such subjects as noise and air quality. - Ahunt ( talk) 13:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I think for the purposes of making the article more encyclopaedic and neutral (certain groups love to attack the aviation industry), there should be a comparison between the effects of the aviation industry with others, such as automobiles, electricity generation etc. I seem to recall from somewhere that per annum commercial aviation only contributes 2-3% of total human carbon emmissions, but there is no suggestion of this in the article.
Another quick point related to this is the article's main picture of an aircraft producing contrails. I think the caption should make it clearer that the trails are composed of water or else find a less damning picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.239.20.172 ( talk)
I don't think this article is aiming for neutral. Quoting research from writers, including their "It's amazing how stupid these people are!" (Paraphrased, of course, but people with an axe to grind often use "cognitive bias" to talk down to those who don't change their minds when presented with a one-sided argument.) 130.76.96.145 ( talk) 22:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
This article mentions all of the "bad" that aviation does, yet it completely fails to mention the vast numbers of next generation aircraft that are on order (787, 737, A320, A350, A380, and C-Series) to replace the current fleet of aircraft. It doesn't take "decades" to phase out these aircraft as the article suggests, it takes a technology shift which just occurred. Apparently the environmental movement so hell bent on pointing out all the bad of aviation just missed the tectonic shift that took place this year with regard to aircraft engines without even being forced into doing it.
What's it like to be asleep behind the wheel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.210.199 ( talk)
Perhaps new aircraft designs such as blended wing body aircraft and other airplanes with other improvements can be mentioned in the article (new article section). Notable are:
109.130.138.81 ( talk) 11:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Some things that need to be implemented in the article are:
KVDP ( talk) 12:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The contrails themselves create a significant short term cooling effect during the day/morning and warming effect during the night/evening. This was observable on Sept 12, 2001 when were few commercial flights. World average temperatures were 0.5C higher that day. Not only is this alarming that the world average temperature is actually 0.5C higher than we think, but it also means that by encouraging flights during the morning rather than evening would help reduce world temperatures. Cam Forman ( talk) 12:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Mention what environmental impact statements are required in regards to the environmental effects of aviation/archive 1. Jidanni ( talk) 03:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Do we need a new article for this or could this be incorporated into this? i.e. Climate change to increase flight turbulence http://rt.com/news/climate-change-air-travel-science-transatlantic-541/ prokaryotes ( talk) 09:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, are there any alternatives to the Monbiot quotations? The article is not very good from a technical perspective. For example,
It is my opinion that the article is very heavy-handed, and has cherry picked to support a point. There are kernels of truth in the article, but it synthesises very heavily, and rarely considers all the alternatives. If there are any substitutes, such as from some kind of academic or government literature, this would be far better 129.67.86.87 ( talk) 20:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
There are two outdated sections, Kyoto Protocol and Emissions Trading. These should be revised and put under an overarching section, International Regulation of Aviation GHGs. The existing material (with some revision) can be historical subsections. The more recent news that needs to be included is the failure to initiate the European ETS scheme a few years ago due to pressure from China and others, and the fact that aviation emissions were once again not included in the most recent COP, in Paris. One article that may contribute to this is: "Omission of aircraft pollution in Paris deal worrisome: EU climate boss" at [1], and surely there is other coverage. I am short on time for taking this on, so am hopeful that someone else will -- not a very big task. Coastwise ( talk) 17:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
A clean-up/reorganize tag was placed at the top of the article in December 2014. No specific problems have been pointed out here on the talk page, nor has any discussion taken place. In the absence of that, can the tag be removed? What is the policy on that? Coastwise ( talk) 22:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
This article would be greatly improved with a breakdown of kg/l of fuel per passenger km/mile for various types of aircraft and routes. It is good that there is much on CO2 emmissions per passenger for distance travelled but it could benefit from a more basic comparison of amount of fuel used in addition as opposed to only concentrating on one resulting emmission from the burning of fuel resources.
For example:
Aircraft Type | kg/ppm London - Sydney (via Dubai) | kg/ppm New York - Washington |
---|---|---|
Airbus a380-800 | X.X kg/ppm | X.X kg/ppm |
Boeing 787 | X.X kg/ppm | X.X kg/ppm |
Gulfstream G650 | X.X kg/ppm | X.X kg/ppm |
149.241.194.134 ( talk) 17:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Environmental impact of aviation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
One option that I have not seen mentioned is in regards to the aircraft engine preheating phase (the aircraft engine is normally run on the ground well in advance of take-off to preheat the engine). See also here. The thought I'm having is that this fuel could be fed to the aircraft via a fuel line connected to the aircraft. That way, storage space in the the fuel tanks isn't wasted (some of the fuel in the tanks will otherwise be spend even before take-off). In practice, it means that the aircraft is made to carry an extra tank (which increases the aircraft's weight causing a slightly higher fuel consumption).
If the aircraft would instead be connected to a tank on the ground, using a fuel line, this extra tank in the aircraft wouldn't be needed (otherwise put, if you were to fill up all tanks in the aircraft, all fuel would actually be spend on propulsion, and so the aircraft would be able to fly a bit further -which could be important for long-haul flights-).
Besides this -and here comes the intresting bit-, the fuel fed via the fuel line to the aircraft warming up its engine on the ground, could be hydrogen. Hydrogen could be generated on-site, and as such does not need to be stored. Since it doesn't need to be stored, there's no need for a tank that is able to withstand very high pressure (important !, as aircraft tanks are not able to withstand the pressure needed). Also, hydrogen is both emissionless, and it will also be far cheaper than aviation fuel (like kerosene).
Perhaps that we could mention this in the article, if there are any notable reports that detail this idea.
KVDP ( talk) 10:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Just read the article on EMALS, see http://www.treehugger.com/aviation/civilian-airplanes-could-one-day-take-off-electric-catapults.html and http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21598325-electromagnetic-launchers-hurling-objects-electrical-energy-giving
I'm wondering whether we shouldn't mention that the catapults could allow the plane designers to make aircraft designs with far smaller/less powerful engines (hence also burning less fuel). The idea I have is that the engines currently need to be quite powerful to allow the plane to get airborne, but if the plane is helped into the air with the catapult, that won't be needed any more, and the engines only need to be powerful enough to help it "stay in the air" (and propel it at say 800 km/h) instead.
Also, I haven't made up from the articles on whether they intent to use a new plane design (with strengthened airframe) or just strengthen existing plane designs, or whether they'll use an extra frame/trolley or something instead (this is important because in the case a new plane design is needed anyhow, integrating less powerful engines would certainly be an option). KVDP ( talk) 17:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Would it not be relevant to add a paragraph about alternatives to airtravel under the section about Reducing air travel? I am thinking of mainly trains, but also ferries, even buses could be included. Discussing how these could become more attractive alternatives in comparison to airplanes. This could include all from promoting nighttrains where one can sleep, faster train connections between major cities, subsidies, easier ways to connect travels where one need to change train/ferry/bus, ways to make it more affordable. When I took the train to Paris from Gothenburg(Sweden) I had to walk around several hours in the cold in the middle of the night in cities while waiting for a connection, and it cost more than twice what it cost to fly. It is not so strange people decide to fly then. Another possibility for making people choose slower means of transportation could be to reduce workweeks per year, so that people don't feel stressed to get to their destination, but have time to let the travel itself take some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.95.57 ( talk) 03:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Environmental impact of aviation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/1716When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Notwithstanding negative impact of aviation on the environment, as a concept it has to be given credit for the general efficiency in use of its seating capacity (80% by Lufthansa in 2017) as opposed to trains and cars (around 30%-45%). When in cruise flight no significant noise reaches the earth surface and only 3 KM runway (and further airport infrastructure) at departure and arrival point is required for any mileage flown in between. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guppiebugs ( talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
British Airways to "offset" domestic flight emissions from next year, carbon neutrality pushed back to 2050. Article by Gwyn Topham, transport correspondent, The Guardian, 2019 October 10
The gist: British Airways states their domestic air travel impact is 400 kilotons of CO2 gas emissions per annum. The entire IAG (BA parent company) global impact is 29.9 megatons of CO2 exhaust / year. Entire global aviation industry is 915 million tons (!) of CO2 emissions / year. A single London-Toronto flight consumes 70 tons of jet fuel in a B-747 Jumbo Jet, which continues to serve until 2024, versus 43 tons in a new A350-1000 twinjet plane.
BA boss states they consider 3.2m euros (3m UKP), i.e. 1/40th the price of a single new Airbus 321 jet airliner, as full voluntary off-set compensation for their 400kT british domestic CO2 emissions. They refuse to compensate globally, because kerosene-fuelled long distance aviation has no alternative and people are societally entitled to fly and other airlines of the world should also act. Greenpeace UK's spokesperson has expressed distress about those statements. 80.99.111.252 ( talk) 10:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey friends,
I've been researching this topic a bit. In a few places here the article refers to the actual radiative forcing effect of aviation to be several times worse than from just the CO2 emitted (presumably from carbon particulate, NOx generation, and water vapor). However, i can't find a source for these numbers and am worried it is inconsistent with the current scientific consensus.
Reference 38 in the article says the IPCC says it's several times higher:
A round-trip flight between New York and Los Angeles on a typical commercial jet yields an estimated 715 kilos of CO2 per economy class passenger, according to the International Civil Aviation Organization. But due to the height at which planes fly, combined with the mixture of gases and particles they emit, conventional air travel has an impact on the global climate that’s approximately 2.7 times worse than its carbon emissions alone, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As a result, that roundtrip flight’s “climatic forcing” is really 1,917 kilos, or almost two tons, of emissions
..but there is no citation.
Here's what i found in IPCC WG3 AR5, p.611:
Relative to CO2, major short-term impacts stem from black carbon, indirect effects of aerosols and ozone from land vehicles, and aerosols and methane emissions associated with ships and aircraft. Their relative impacts due to the longer atmospheric lifetime of CO2 will be greatly reduced when integrated from the present time to 2100
ipcc 2018
It's possible the author of ref 38 is referring to this 1999 IPCC study and the associated radiative forcing bar charts. ipcc 1999
But more recent publications are more circumspect about the impacts of non-CO2 aviation emissions.
Here we do not include the effects of aviation emissions on contrails and cirrus clouds. The IPCC estimates a RF of 10 mWm−2 for the contrail effects (2), although the impacts of aviation emissions on cloudiness are highly uncertain
nasa 2010
This paper on contrail radiative forcing says this:
The global net radiative forcing of contrail cirrus is roughly nine times that of young contrails, making it the single largest radiative forcing component connected with aviation. It is important to note
that contrail cirrus have a much shorter lifetime than long-live greenhouse gases. This difference in lifetime influences the relative importance of contrail cirrus and other forcing agents for climate change when estimating their impact for remote time horizons.
Nature 2011
Thoughts? Any experts lurking on here? < Wes Hermann ( talk) 03:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I have read through this entire page and there appears to be an anti aviation bias in some areas. Given wikipedia is meant to be a neutral information provider this should be looked into and corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.83.232 ( talk) 17:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm always so happy when I see people have the guts to bin large chunks of overly specific text. Thanks for your efforts. I reworded and found a source for the statement. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 16:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Given the fact that carbon offsetting schemes are almost never as effective as they hope to be, we cannot state in wikivoice that these airlines are carbon neutral, at least not with these sources. In 2008, these discussions were not yet developed. The websites of these airlines themselves are inappropriate here, and probably too specific for this article. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 14:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
An alarmist WP:POV maybe given WP:Undue weight, borderline obfuscation, with references from scientific papers giving them an argument from authority with lengthy and intimidating WP:DOI identifiers, but difficult to verify: convoluted academic writing using jargon, sometimes behind WP:PAYWALLs, sometimes cherrypicked by extracting the information an aviation-critic wants but not giving the other side.
Please try to be flawless with your reference mining. Thanks.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 09:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
This article makes the critical assumption that the environmental impact is wholly composed of in-flight emissions. While in-flight emissions do account for the lion's share of aviation emissions this should be explicitly stated. Other contributers such as infrastructure and manufacturing of airplanes should still be addressed. Mining of metals and particularly rare earth minerals used for electronics and electricity requirements of airports are particularly obvious environmental impacts. It would be interesting to see also what the environmental impact of end-of-life aircraft is.
In terms of operating emissions, what proportion arise from take-off, landing, cruising and taxiing? Philipp.governale ( talk) 03:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I have moved these two sections from the article to here for further work as they are not ready for mainspace. I had tried to edit them to fix the awful grammar and sentence structure, but in fact I think, even with that all repaired, most of these additions add up to very little substance and some duplication, and I am not convinced there is much here that can or should be saved.
If any editor would like to propose new versions of these please add your version below, or alternatively, discuss:
Stages of Flight
There are many stages in a flight that have different amounts of carbon emissions such as take offs, landings, and taxiing around to different terminals and gates at the airports. Some misconceptions of emissions from aviation is that a majority of the emissions come from take off and landing, but a study in 2010 showed that taxiing and idling is the largest source of emissions in the landing-takeoff cycle. [1] About twenty-five percent of emissions come from this landing-take off cycle, which means that connecting flights are actually worse for the environment than direct flights that might be longer because with connecting flights there are more frequent landings, taxiing, idling, and takeoffs that are unnecessary. [1]
Often times there is a queue of aircrafts that are waiting to take off, while stopped in this queue on the taxiway, about 18% of the aircraft's fuel is being consumed. [2] Data taken in 2012 showed that 18m metric tons of C02 is released just in the taxiing portion of flight takeoffs. Aircrafts taxiing accumulate for about 76% of fuel consumption in the take off process while accelerating only takes about 3%, other factors include making turns on the taxiway which requires about 6% of fuel consumption, and the rest of the 15% of fuel consumption is used when the aircraft is idling on the taxiway [2] .
While short term solutions would include more efficient trafficking on runways, as well as enhanced tools for ground and local controllers to control traffic, the long term solution has to come from the aircraft manufactures themselves. [2]
and
Integrating Modeling
With the improvement of scientific knowledge and integrated modeling the FAA can better understand the environmental effects of aviations and can set regulations and goals for the organization to meet to become more environmentally aware. The FAA will only make decisions after seeing that they are backed up by scientists, so creating models that can take into account the cost-benefits analysis of potential solutions it will help the FAA's advanced decision making process [3]
Center of Excellence (COE) is a partnership that the FAA has been working with almost two decades. The COE complies of 75 universities around the United States that has helped the FAA by advancing aviation science and technology to help bring solutions to the problems that are being created in this industry, while also helping the FAA have a return on their investments [3].
Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) is another research program which is managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academy of Science [3]. Although they are managed by the National Academy of Science they are funded by the FAA to help research and create new practical solutions to airport operations. A number of the research that the ACRP has done has included the environmental concerns of aviation as well as proposed some practical guidance for airports to incorporate to reduce their emissions [3]. Since this program is authorized in the FAA it is anticipated that this program will continue to perform research projects and grow in the future leading airports in more guidance on how to improve their environmental performance.
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
- Ahunt ( talk) 03:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Bentley University is a private university focused on business and located in Waltham, Massachusetts... - Ahunt ( talk) 15:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Haleyferraris,
Tjpratt24. Peer reviewers:
Fcatauro.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I can think of a very simple solution not mentioned in the Possible Reduction section.
Don't fly.
I can't be the only one to think of it, why isn't it mentioned?
195.26.62.238 ( talk) 06:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It's probably easier if you just go ahead and edit it! - Ahunt ( talk) 19:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the re-write - it looks good! - Ahunt ( talk) 12:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There have been two attempts to remove the paragraph that says:
In addition to the CO2 released by most aircraft in flight through the burning of fuels such as Jet-A (turbine aircraft) or Avgas (piston aircraft), the aviation industry also contributes greenhouse gas emissions from ground airport vehicles and those used by passengers and staff to access airports, as well as through emissions generated by the production of energy used in airport buildings, the manufacture of aircraft and the construction of airport infrastructure.
with edit summaries "Not clear how this fits in" and "This is not related to aviation per se, and is beyond the scope of this article"
I personally can't see that those comments make sense as the paragraph is clearly discussing how facets of the aviation industry, other than actual flying operations, also damage the environment. The paragraph still needs a reference added but otherwise I can see no argument presented for removing it. - Ahunt ( talk) 11:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
"While ethanol also releases CO2 during combustion, the plants cultivated to make it draw that same CO2 out of the atmosphere while they are growing, making the fuel closer to climate-change-neutral." - Pgan002 ( talk) 22:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this section could use some balance, but other than research projects that have not quantified costs or sustainability (see Avgas for some of these) at present I haven't found any refs that could be used. - Ahunt ( talk) 14:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I have moved the "see also" addition (referring to the Sustainable Biofuels page) to this section to the existing "See Also" section. Also, I believe the Johnfos unjustly removed content because it fit the context; however, I will add some cites specific to aviation before replacing it. Coastwise ( talk) 07:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Added this line: Another possible improvement is the electrification of the airplane's nose wheel. At present, landing gear are not driven by an engine on the nosewheel's axle. Instead, the taxying is done using the main engines. - EOS magazine november 2011
Perhaps add some more info
Another issue not mentioned is why turboprop engines and jet engines are more environmental: this has to do with the altitude it allows the aircraft to fly on (the higher, the less air resistance). Piston engines don't allow high cruising altitudes. However, at lower altitudes, piston engines (propelling the aircraft using propellers) are allot more fuel efficient than turboprop and jet engines (operating at the same height). Especially radial and rotary engines are extremely fuel efficient, line engines are a bit less efficient than these (though more than turboprop and jet engines at low altitude) but easier to built.
91.182.172.157 ( talk) 10:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
As discussed at on the Aviation and Climate change talk page the text from that article has been merged into the text from this stub article, leaving the text from this article as the introduction. Much more work needs to be done to integrate the two articles and expand it to cover such subjects as noise and air quality. - Ahunt ( talk) 13:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I think for the purposes of making the article more encyclopaedic and neutral (certain groups love to attack the aviation industry), there should be a comparison between the effects of the aviation industry with others, such as automobiles, electricity generation etc. I seem to recall from somewhere that per annum commercial aviation only contributes 2-3% of total human carbon emmissions, but there is no suggestion of this in the article.
Another quick point related to this is the article's main picture of an aircraft producing contrails. I think the caption should make it clearer that the trails are composed of water or else find a less damning picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.239.20.172 ( talk)
I don't think this article is aiming for neutral. Quoting research from writers, including their "It's amazing how stupid these people are!" (Paraphrased, of course, but people with an axe to grind often use "cognitive bias" to talk down to those who don't change their minds when presented with a one-sided argument.) 130.76.96.145 ( talk) 22:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
This article mentions all of the "bad" that aviation does, yet it completely fails to mention the vast numbers of next generation aircraft that are on order (787, 737, A320, A350, A380, and C-Series) to replace the current fleet of aircraft. It doesn't take "decades" to phase out these aircraft as the article suggests, it takes a technology shift which just occurred. Apparently the environmental movement so hell bent on pointing out all the bad of aviation just missed the tectonic shift that took place this year with regard to aircraft engines without even being forced into doing it.
What's it like to be asleep behind the wheel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.210.199 ( talk)
Perhaps new aircraft designs such as blended wing body aircraft and other airplanes with other improvements can be mentioned in the article (new article section). Notable are:
109.130.138.81 ( talk) 11:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Some things that need to be implemented in the article are:
KVDP ( talk) 12:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The contrails themselves create a significant short term cooling effect during the day/morning and warming effect during the night/evening. This was observable on Sept 12, 2001 when were few commercial flights. World average temperatures were 0.5C higher that day. Not only is this alarming that the world average temperature is actually 0.5C higher than we think, but it also means that by encouraging flights during the morning rather than evening would help reduce world temperatures. Cam Forman ( talk) 12:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Mention what environmental impact statements are required in regards to the environmental effects of aviation/archive 1. Jidanni ( talk) 03:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Do we need a new article for this or could this be incorporated into this? i.e. Climate change to increase flight turbulence http://rt.com/news/climate-change-air-travel-science-transatlantic-541/ prokaryotes ( talk) 09:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, are there any alternatives to the Monbiot quotations? The article is not very good from a technical perspective. For example,
It is my opinion that the article is very heavy-handed, and has cherry picked to support a point. There are kernels of truth in the article, but it synthesises very heavily, and rarely considers all the alternatives. If there are any substitutes, such as from some kind of academic or government literature, this would be far better 129.67.86.87 ( talk) 20:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
There are two outdated sections, Kyoto Protocol and Emissions Trading. These should be revised and put under an overarching section, International Regulation of Aviation GHGs. The existing material (with some revision) can be historical subsections. The more recent news that needs to be included is the failure to initiate the European ETS scheme a few years ago due to pressure from China and others, and the fact that aviation emissions were once again not included in the most recent COP, in Paris. One article that may contribute to this is: "Omission of aircraft pollution in Paris deal worrisome: EU climate boss" at [1], and surely there is other coverage. I am short on time for taking this on, so am hopeful that someone else will -- not a very big task. Coastwise ( talk) 17:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
A clean-up/reorganize tag was placed at the top of the article in December 2014. No specific problems have been pointed out here on the talk page, nor has any discussion taken place. In the absence of that, can the tag be removed? What is the policy on that? Coastwise ( talk) 22:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
This article would be greatly improved with a breakdown of kg/l of fuel per passenger km/mile for various types of aircraft and routes. It is good that there is much on CO2 emmissions per passenger for distance travelled but it could benefit from a more basic comparison of amount of fuel used in addition as opposed to only concentrating on one resulting emmission from the burning of fuel resources.
For example:
Aircraft Type | kg/ppm London - Sydney (via Dubai) | kg/ppm New York - Washington |
---|---|---|
Airbus a380-800 | X.X kg/ppm | X.X kg/ppm |
Boeing 787 | X.X kg/ppm | X.X kg/ppm |
Gulfstream G650 | X.X kg/ppm | X.X kg/ppm |
149.241.194.134 ( talk) 17:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Environmental impact of aviation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
One option that I have not seen mentioned is in regards to the aircraft engine preheating phase (the aircraft engine is normally run on the ground well in advance of take-off to preheat the engine). See also here. The thought I'm having is that this fuel could be fed to the aircraft via a fuel line connected to the aircraft. That way, storage space in the the fuel tanks isn't wasted (some of the fuel in the tanks will otherwise be spend even before take-off). In practice, it means that the aircraft is made to carry an extra tank (which increases the aircraft's weight causing a slightly higher fuel consumption).
If the aircraft would instead be connected to a tank on the ground, using a fuel line, this extra tank in the aircraft wouldn't be needed (otherwise put, if you were to fill up all tanks in the aircraft, all fuel would actually be spend on propulsion, and so the aircraft would be able to fly a bit further -which could be important for long-haul flights-).
Besides this -and here comes the intresting bit-, the fuel fed via the fuel line to the aircraft warming up its engine on the ground, could be hydrogen. Hydrogen could be generated on-site, and as such does not need to be stored. Since it doesn't need to be stored, there's no need for a tank that is able to withstand very high pressure (important !, as aircraft tanks are not able to withstand the pressure needed). Also, hydrogen is both emissionless, and it will also be far cheaper than aviation fuel (like kerosene).
Perhaps that we could mention this in the article, if there are any notable reports that detail this idea.
KVDP ( talk) 10:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Just read the article on EMALS, see http://www.treehugger.com/aviation/civilian-airplanes-could-one-day-take-off-electric-catapults.html and http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21598325-electromagnetic-launchers-hurling-objects-electrical-energy-giving
I'm wondering whether we shouldn't mention that the catapults could allow the plane designers to make aircraft designs with far smaller/less powerful engines (hence also burning less fuel). The idea I have is that the engines currently need to be quite powerful to allow the plane to get airborne, but if the plane is helped into the air with the catapult, that won't be needed any more, and the engines only need to be powerful enough to help it "stay in the air" (and propel it at say 800 km/h) instead.
Also, I haven't made up from the articles on whether they intent to use a new plane design (with strengthened airframe) or just strengthen existing plane designs, or whether they'll use an extra frame/trolley or something instead (this is important because in the case a new plane design is needed anyhow, integrating less powerful engines would certainly be an option). KVDP ( talk) 17:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Would it not be relevant to add a paragraph about alternatives to airtravel under the section about Reducing air travel? I am thinking of mainly trains, but also ferries, even buses could be included. Discussing how these could become more attractive alternatives in comparison to airplanes. This could include all from promoting nighttrains where one can sleep, faster train connections between major cities, subsidies, easier ways to connect travels where one need to change train/ferry/bus, ways to make it more affordable. When I took the train to Paris from Gothenburg(Sweden) I had to walk around several hours in the cold in the middle of the night in cities while waiting for a connection, and it cost more than twice what it cost to fly. It is not so strange people decide to fly then. Another possibility for making people choose slower means of transportation could be to reduce workweeks per year, so that people don't feel stressed to get to their destination, but have time to let the travel itself take some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.95.57 ( talk) 03:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Environmental impact of aviation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/1716When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Notwithstanding negative impact of aviation on the environment, as a concept it has to be given credit for the general efficiency in use of its seating capacity (80% by Lufthansa in 2017) as opposed to trains and cars (around 30%-45%). When in cruise flight no significant noise reaches the earth surface and only 3 KM runway (and further airport infrastructure) at departure and arrival point is required for any mileage flown in between. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guppiebugs ( talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
British Airways to "offset" domestic flight emissions from next year, carbon neutrality pushed back to 2050. Article by Gwyn Topham, transport correspondent, The Guardian, 2019 October 10
The gist: British Airways states their domestic air travel impact is 400 kilotons of CO2 gas emissions per annum. The entire IAG (BA parent company) global impact is 29.9 megatons of CO2 exhaust / year. Entire global aviation industry is 915 million tons (!) of CO2 emissions / year. A single London-Toronto flight consumes 70 tons of jet fuel in a B-747 Jumbo Jet, which continues to serve until 2024, versus 43 tons in a new A350-1000 twinjet plane.
BA boss states they consider 3.2m euros (3m UKP), i.e. 1/40th the price of a single new Airbus 321 jet airliner, as full voluntary off-set compensation for their 400kT british domestic CO2 emissions. They refuse to compensate globally, because kerosene-fuelled long distance aviation has no alternative and people are societally entitled to fly and other airlines of the world should also act. Greenpeace UK's spokesperson has expressed distress about those statements. 80.99.111.252 ( talk) 10:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey friends,
I've been researching this topic a bit. In a few places here the article refers to the actual radiative forcing effect of aviation to be several times worse than from just the CO2 emitted (presumably from carbon particulate, NOx generation, and water vapor). However, i can't find a source for these numbers and am worried it is inconsistent with the current scientific consensus.
Reference 38 in the article says the IPCC says it's several times higher:
A round-trip flight between New York and Los Angeles on a typical commercial jet yields an estimated 715 kilos of CO2 per economy class passenger, according to the International Civil Aviation Organization. But due to the height at which planes fly, combined with the mixture of gases and particles they emit, conventional air travel has an impact on the global climate that’s approximately 2.7 times worse than its carbon emissions alone, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As a result, that roundtrip flight’s “climatic forcing” is really 1,917 kilos, or almost two tons, of emissions
..but there is no citation.
Here's what i found in IPCC WG3 AR5, p.611:
Relative to CO2, major short-term impacts stem from black carbon, indirect effects of aerosols and ozone from land vehicles, and aerosols and methane emissions associated with ships and aircraft. Their relative impacts due to the longer atmospheric lifetime of CO2 will be greatly reduced when integrated from the present time to 2100
ipcc 2018
It's possible the author of ref 38 is referring to this 1999 IPCC study and the associated radiative forcing bar charts. ipcc 1999
But more recent publications are more circumspect about the impacts of non-CO2 aviation emissions.
Here we do not include the effects of aviation emissions on contrails and cirrus clouds. The IPCC estimates a RF of 10 mWm−2 for the contrail effects (2), although the impacts of aviation emissions on cloudiness are highly uncertain
nasa 2010
This paper on contrail radiative forcing says this:
The global net radiative forcing of contrail cirrus is roughly nine times that of young contrails, making it the single largest radiative forcing component connected with aviation. It is important to note
that contrail cirrus have a much shorter lifetime than long-live greenhouse gases. This difference in lifetime influences the relative importance of contrail cirrus and other forcing agents for climate change when estimating their impact for remote time horizons.
Nature 2011
Thoughts? Any experts lurking on here? < Wes Hermann ( talk) 03:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I have read through this entire page and there appears to be an anti aviation bias in some areas. Given wikipedia is meant to be a neutral information provider this should be looked into and corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.83.232 ( talk) 17:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm always so happy when I see people have the guts to bin large chunks of overly specific text. Thanks for your efforts. I reworded and found a source for the statement. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 16:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Given the fact that carbon offsetting schemes are almost never as effective as they hope to be, we cannot state in wikivoice that these airlines are carbon neutral, at least not with these sources. In 2008, these discussions were not yet developed. The websites of these airlines themselves are inappropriate here, and probably too specific for this article. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 14:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
An alarmist WP:POV maybe given WP:Undue weight, borderline obfuscation, with references from scientific papers giving them an argument from authority with lengthy and intimidating WP:DOI identifiers, but difficult to verify: convoluted academic writing using jargon, sometimes behind WP:PAYWALLs, sometimes cherrypicked by extracting the information an aviation-critic wants but not giving the other side.
Please try to be flawless with your reference mining. Thanks.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 09:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
This article makes the critical assumption that the environmental impact is wholly composed of in-flight emissions. While in-flight emissions do account for the lion's share of aviation emissions this should be explicitly stated. Other contributers such as infrastructure and manufacturing of airplanes should still be addressed. Mining of metals and particularly rare earth minerals used for electronics and electricity requirements of airports are particularly obvious environmental impacts. It would be interesting to see also what the environmental impact of end-of-life aircraft is.
In terms of operating emissions, what proportion arise from take-off, landing, cruising and taxiing? Philipp.governale ( talk) 03:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I have moved these two sections from the article to here for further work as they are not ready for mainspace. I had tried to edit them to fix the awful grammar and sentence structure, but in fact I think, even with that all repaired, most of these additions add up to very little substance and some duplication, and I am not convinced there is much here that can or should be saved.
If any editor would like to propose new versions of these please add your version below, or alternatively, discuss:
Stages of Flight
There are many stages in a flight that have different amounts of carbon emissions such as take offs, landings, and taxiing around to different terminals and gates at the airports. Some misconceptions of emissions from aviation is that a majority of the emissions come from take off and landing, but a study in 2010 showed that taxiing and idling is the largest source of emissions in the landing-takeoff cycle. [1] About twenty-five percent of emissions come from this landing-take off cycle, which means that connecting flights are actually worse for the environment than direct flights that might be longer because with connecting flights there are more frequent landings, taxiing, idling, and takeoffs that are unnecessary. [1]
Often times there is a queue of aircrafts that are waiting to take off, while stopped in this queue on the taxiway, about 18% of the aircraft's fuel is being consumed. [2] Data taken in 2012 showed that 18m metric tons of C02 is released just in the taxiing portion of flight takeoffs. Aircrafts taxiing accumulate for about 76% of fuel consumption in the take off process while accelerating only takes about 3%, other factors include making turns on the taxiway which requires about 6% of fuel consumption, and the rest of the 15% of fuel consumption is used when the aircraft is idling on the taxiway [2] .
While short term solutions would include more efficient trafficking on runways, as well as enhanced tools for ground and local controllers to control traffic, the long term solution has to come from the aircraft manufactures themselves. [2]
and
Integrating Modeling
With the improvement of scientific knowledge and integrated modeling the FAA can better understand the environmental effects of aviations and can set regulations and goals for the organization to meet to become more environmentally aware. The FAA will only make decisions after seeing that they are backed up by scientists, so creating models that can take into account the cost-benefits analysis of potential solutions it will help the FAA's advanced decision making process [3]
Center of Excellence (COE) is a partnership that the FAA has been working with almost two decades. The COE complies of 75 universities around the United States that has helped the FAA by advancing aviation science and technology to help bring solutions to the problems that are being created in this industry, while also helping the FAA have a return on their investments [3].
Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) is another research program which is managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academy of Science [3]. Although they are managed by the National Academy of Science they are funded by the FAA to help research and create new practical solutions to airport operations. A number of the research that the ACRP has done has included the environmental concerns of aviation as well as proposed some practical guidance for airports to incorporate to reduce their emissions [3]. Since this program is authorized in the FAA it is anticipated that this program will continue to perform research projects and grow in the future leading airports in more guidance on how to improve their environmental performance.
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
- Ahunt ( talk) 03:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Bentley University is a private university focused on business and located in Waltham, Massachusetts... - Ahunt ( talk) 15:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Haleyferraris,
Tjpratt24. Peer reviewers:
Fcatauro.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)