When looking at aviation’s
contribution to our overall emissions, it is helpful to look at two different
types of emissions, the first being local air quality pollutants (near the
ground) and the other being greenhouse gases (emissions at altitude). It’s important
to note that as aviation grows as an industry, there will also be an increase
in the amount of emissions produced by aviation transportation vehicles. According
to the FAA (2005), “currently aviation contributes 0.4 percent” of the national
NOx (harmful pollutant) inventory (p. 4). The FAA (2005) also stated that when
compared to aviation, emissions from road transportation modes out number
aviation emissions (p. 8). The FAA (2005) further stated that because an
aircraft is operated at altitude, most of the emissions would not have a ridiculous
affect on local air quality on the ground (p. 8).
In
the same source above, published by the FAA (2005), the transportation industry
was cited for making up about 27 percent of the national emissions of
greenhouse gases where aviation is about 2.7 percent of the national inventory
(p. 10). We can see that the aviation industry does in fact contribute to air pollution,
however as of this 2005 report, it is a fairly small number. With that said,
the FAA (2005) does project that “aircraft greenhouse gas emissions in the US
will increase 60 percent by 2025” (p. 10).
With
this projection, and others like it, comes a need to combat the harmful
emissions produced by aircraft. In October of this year the UN ratified an agreement
in Paris, one of which the US was a part of, to govern emissions from
international airline flights. Joan Lowy (2016) reported that the agreement sets airlines' carbon emissions in the year 2020 as
the upper limit of what carriers are allowed to discharge” (para. 2). “Airlines
that exceed that limit in future years, as most are expected to do, will have
to offset their emissions growth by buying credits from other industries and
projects that limit greenhouse gas emissions” (Lowy, 2016, para. 2).
This
is arguably the first major step the UN has provided towards limiting the
amount of pollutants produced by international airlines. The first phase of the
plan, covering 2021 to 2027, is voluntary for UN members and becomes mandatory
from 2028 through 2035. The 15-year plan is expected to reduce carbon emissions
by 2.5 billion tons (Lowy, 2016, para. 7). According to Lowy (2016), “the deal
applies only to international flights, which account for about 60 percent of aviation”
(para. 10). The Paris agreement also calls for new emission reduction
regulations to be put into place. The is an agreement that our new
president-elect is not on board with. Donald Trump has stated that “the climate
change deal is bad for US business and said that the pact allows foreign
bureaucrats control over how much energy we use” (BBC, 2016, para. 12). He further
commented that "any regulation that's outdated, unnecessary, bad for
workers or contrary to the national interest will be scrapped and scrapped
completely,” and that “we’re going to do all this while taking proper regard
for rational environmental concerns” (BBC, 2016, para. 5 & 6).
While
I fully believe in responsibly taking measures to ensure that our environment is
looked after, especially in with regards to aircraft emissions in a growing
aviation industry, I think that the responsibility should first fall on the
airline operators and aircraft engine manufacturers before we move onto a UN
agreement. I say give the engineers more of a chance in reducing the carbon
footprint left by their engines. Lowy (2016) stated in her article that US
airlines “carried 24 percent more passengers and cargo in 2015 than they did in
2000, while improving their fuel efficiency by 31 percent and emitting 6
percent less CO2” (Lowy, 2016, para. 18). I think our efforts should be
focused more on engineering a way to reduce emissions rather than taking the
time and effort to set up a system of trading carbon credits.
References
BBC News. (2016). Donald
Trump Would ‘Cancel’ Paris Climate Deal. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36401174
Federal Aviation Administration. (2005). Aviation & Emissions A Primer. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/aeprimer.pdf
Lowy, J. (2016, Oct. 6). UN Agreement Reached on Aircraft
Climate-Change Emissions. U.S. News.
Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-10-06/un-agreement-reached-on-aircraft-climate-change-emissions
Caleb,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion that we should give the engineers more time to improve efficiency on their own before joining the agreement with reduction laws. The airlines already have a huge incentive to improve efficiency in order to decrease their fuel costs. In today's market, 33% of their operating costs are fuel related. They would save a substantial amount per year if they were able to decrease that even by a few percent.
I like how you said that the engineering of aircraft, and aircraft engines should be the area of focus for the attempt for eliminating emissions. There has already been a great deal of progress seen in this area with some of the modern aircraft emerging in the industry. I think that this efficiency of engines will continue to improve, and if when this carbon credit system begins, it will not impact aviation as much as other industries.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you said engineers of aircraft should be given the opportunity to make aircraft more eco friendly before jumping into the UN agreement. This gives companies opportunities to fix environmental issues before jumping into an agreement we dont need to. Although it would be a great idea, i still also be the focus should be put on road transportation.
ReplyDeleteI like what you stated about how the responsibility should first fall on the airline operators and manufacturers before requiring a UN agreement. As I stated in my post, it is the goal of airlines to be more efficient and burn less fuel already, without regulations from the UN.
ReplyDelete