George Monbiot Turns Up the Heat
by Treehugger Interns on 09.29.06
“I am not writing this book to confirm what you believe is true… As always, I seem destined to offend everyone.”
These are the words of British journalist and environmental campaigner George Monbiot, recently described by the Observer newspaper as “the most astute political and environmental cartographer of his time.” The opening quote was taken from the introduction to his new book Heat – How to Stop the Planet Burning, which is now available in the shops. It looks set to become an important work in the growing literature on climate change. The author challenges the facts and figures promoted by both the oil industry and the environmental lobbies, waging war on deliberate deceit and well-meaning woolly thinking alike. Monbiot claims that even the most ambitious targets for emissions cuts, such as the UK government’s promise of a 60% reduction by 2050, are way below what is needed. He argues that cuts in the magnitude of 90% are vital by 2030 in order to avoid climate change slipping out of our control.
Controversially, for many environmentalists at least, Monbiot believes that campaigning for self-enforced abstinence is a waste of time: “Why bother installing an energy-efficient lightbulb when a man in Lanarkshire boasts of attaching 1.2 million Christmas lights to his house?” Regulation, he argues, is the only way to achieve the level of reduction that is necessary. He claims that many environmentalists, including himself, are hypocrites. He cites examples of friends who campaign against climate change, yet holiday in the Pacific, or work to protect biodiversity, yet serve tuna to their guests. The kinds of changes that are needed, according to Monbiot, can only be achieved with constraints that “apply to everyone, rather than to everyone else… Manmade global warming cannot be restrained unless we persuade government to force us to change the way we live.”
Whilst such massive cuts may, at first, seem unrealistic, Monbiot then sets out to show the means by which he believes they can be achieved. He claims to have succeeded, albeit “by the skin of his teeth”. In fact, he argues, cuts can be achieved in almost every sector of society without significant loss of material comfort or alteration to our way of life. The one exception to this, he believes, is aviation. No amount of innovation or change in the aviation industry is likely to offset it’s projected growth and, he claims, the only option is to significantly curtail our “right to fly”. He accepts that this may well be hard to swallow, but points out that it is only a real hardship for a small, relatively wealthy minority of the world’s population.
Many of the solutions that Monbiot advocates will be familiar to environmentalists – renewable energy, greater efficiency, electric cars etc. However, he is also ruthless in picking apart ideas that he believes won’t work. Building-integrated micro wind turbines are dismissed as “a waste of time and money”, biofuel imports may “accelerate rather than ameliorate climate change”, and carbon offsets are like “pushing your food around your plate to give the impression you’ve eaten it.” Whilst many of Monbiot’s assertions will surprise environmentalists, including myself, there is no doubt that he backs up his arguments with extensive facts and figures. I have not had time, nor am I really qualified, to work out whether these figures add up, but Monbiot’s relentless questioning of, as he puts it, “both friend and foe” is admirable. We need rigorous debate and constant self-reflection if we are to come up with a viable vision for the future. There is no point in promoting solutions that do not work.
The book is accompanied by a new website that seeks to expose the false environmental claims made by industry, celebrities, politicians and the environmental lobby. Targets so far have included Richard Branson, Chris Martin of Coldplay, and the leader of the UK Conservative Party David Cameron. Monbiot is indeed, it seems, destined to offend everyone. Yet in so doing, he sets out a challenge to all of us – namely that our professed environmental beliefs must be backed up by action that actually works, and we must force our politicians to take note. The alternatives are too horrible to consider. I’ll leave you with my favourite quote so far, on why critics who argue that combating climate change costs too much, and would be better spent on foreign aid, are presenting us with a false choice:
“…it becomes clear that this is not a choice between state spending on climate change or state spending on foreign aid and essential public services. It is a choice between state spending on climate change or state spending on coal, oil, roads, farm subsidies, environmental destruction and unprovoked wars.”
[Written by: Sami Grover]
Wait, in terms of aviation, is he saying there is absolutely no way we can curtail the amount of fumes released into the air with every flight (like we're trying to do with cars... and just starting to get succcessful with) or is he saying we're just not working hard enough towards a solution?
I get that flying is environmentally damaging, but it seems like the benefits of having the rest of the world an airport away is probably one of our greatest acheivements, and promoting steps to make it environmentally feasible would be better than shunning it altogether.
There are definitely ways to make flying less damaging (see this), but if we wait 30 years to make changes or just keep flying more and more, those won't have much effect.
but if we wait 30 years to make changes or just keep flying more and more, those won't have much effect.
If we wait thirty years, air transport will be 5% of the problem instead of 2%, and "cheap air travel" will go from less than 1% of the problem to maybe 2% of the problem.
Why this is given so much attention is beyond me.
Hats off to him, I say. Anyone who pushes harder and screams louder and invokes true FEAR that our current tepid actions are insignificant (California's recent legislation, for example). Yes, fear. Everyone needs to be AFRAID of what is happening and true warriors like Monbiot know the effectiveness of this tool. I've ordered the book and can't wait to check it out.
The thing with air travel is not just how much, it's also where. Emissions at high altitude have much bigger effects on the ozone layer AFAIK.
The thing with air travel is not just how much, it's also where. Emissions at high altitude have much bigger effects on the ozone layer AFAIK.
On the ozone layer? I think you're confounding two different problems.
CO2 emissions are going to have the same effect regardless of where. The main difference with airplane emissions is contrails, but those have a mixed effect.
if we wait thirty years, air transport will be 5% of the problem, instead of 2%
Anonymous, I think the problem is that those 2% and 5% figures you give are as a percentage of global emissions, no? Yet developed countries, who are the ones needing to cut their emissions most dramatically, are responsible for a massive majority of airtravel, both domestic and international. It is therefore a much higher total of their national emissions. If the UK, for example, needs to cut its emissions by 90%,or even a mere 60%, then it probably needs to cut its aircraft emissions by around 90% (or 60%). There might be some room for manouver if other sectors manage much greater cuts than those needed, but given the tight timeframe this is a tall order. Cuts of this magnitude are almost certainly impossible if airtravel continues to grow at current rates, and are probably impossible even if it stays at current levels. The only option, then, is to curtail the number of flights, and provide alternatives wherever possible, and to make sure those planes that do fly are as efficient as possible.
As I said in my post, I'm not necessarily qualified to analyse all the figures Monbiot gives myself, so I'll resort back to the evidence the author has provided in the book. Hope it clarifies some of the points he's making. I'd be interested to know if you feel he's mistaken (I'm from the UK and about to marry an American, so I would love to fly with a clean conscience!).
One of the major peices of evidence he cites is a 2005 study by the Tyndall Centre, one of the leading centres for climate change research:
If we attempt to stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere at 550 parts per million (which roughly corresponds to the governments target), and aviation continues to grow as the government envisages, by 2050 it would account for 50 per cent of our carbon emissions. If we tried to stabilize them at 450 parts (which is closer to my [Monbiot's] target) flying would produce 101 per cent of the carbon the entire economy was able to release. If the carbon emissions were multiplied by 2.7, to take into account the full impact of aviation on the climate, the figures would be 134 per cent and 272 per cent respectively.
I believe this study is available free to download online from the Tyndall Centre website.
I must say I dislike Monbiot with a passion. All he ever seems to do is blame people he doesn't agree with politically and call for bans, taxes and more layers of regulation. I don't see him making any POSITIVE suggestions anywhere, it's all alarmist doom, personal attacks and thinly veiled class war. As a result I have very little time for anything he says.
Anonymous, I think the problem is that those 2% and 5% figures you give are as a percentage of global emissions, no? Yet developed countries, who are the ones needing to cut their emissions most dramatically, are responsible for a massive majority of airtravel, both domestic and international. It is therefore a much higher total of their national emissions.
If you include international bunker fuels, it comes to 3.4% for the United States (239.5 out of 7,074.4 Tg CO2 equivalent total emissions - as of 2004).
Coal used for electricity generation is 8 times that much. Personal transportation (cars and light trucks) is 5 times as much.
Point is, if you take care of 1/13 (a mere 8%) of the personal transport and coal-fired electricity issue, it's the same as if you eliminated air transport altogether.
Again, so-called "wasteful personal air travel", which is what seems to be the source of ire for Mr. Monbiot et al, is obviously a small (and subjectively assessed) portion of air transport overall, so the portion of change applied to coal-fired electricity and personal transport needed to be equivalent to eliminating "wasteful personal air travel" is even smaller than 8%.
I can't even begin to address the countless logical errors in Mr. Monbiot's arguments. He would be advised to spend less time preening his intellectual appearance and more time thinking about the relative scale of things, the likelihood of where changes can occur, and most importantly, the possibilities for solutions which he fails to acknowledge (eg, high-speed ground transport substitutes for a portion of air transport).
Anonymous, I'm as ill equipped to judge the accuracy of your figures as I am to judge the accuracy of Monbiot's. What are the sources for the 3.4% figure you quote? Does it include multiplier effects of NoX, contrails etc.? Either way,even if you're figures are correct, 3.4% and growing fast, with very few likely short-term solutions for cutting emissions. Seems to me it should be addressed, and soon.
RE: Alternatives. Monbiot does actually look at high-speed rail. Unsurprisingly, for those who say he's a doom monger and a nay sayer, he suggests that their potential is also limited:
"... a discussion paper by Professor Roger Kemp of Lancaster University shows that energy consumption rises dramatically at speeds over 200kmph. Increasing the speed from 225 kmph to 350 kmph, he reveals, almost doubles the amount of fuel they burn... Even if trains were confined to 250 kmph, Kemp's graph suggests, trains would still consume 14 litres of fuel per seat, giving us a carbon cut of just 30 per cent. In reality, the effects of ultra-high-speed trains would be worse than this, for they would draw people not only out of planes, but also out of slower trains and coaches."
I'm not saying the guy is right. This, after all, is only quoting one discussion paper, and we all know that journalists can be very selective as to which research they quote. But I am certainly finding his book an interesting challenge to conventional environmental wisdom. I look forward to seeing your responses to his numbers - you've obviously got more of a head for figures than me.
it's all alarmist doom . . .
Indeed, it is alarmist doom. To dismiss it because of its alarmist notions is high foolishness. What we need more of is alarm sounding, not less. The environmental movement is riddled with people who erroneously believe we have the luxury of time. Again, hats off to Monbiot for tugging on the bell ropes.
I don't see him making any POSITIVE suggestions anywhere.
I'm not always the biggest fan of Monbiot either. However, I would recommend reading the book. It is full of some very positive suggestions. He has taken on the challenge of showing how we can make MASSIVE cuts in Co2 with little or no loss in material comfort. I'd say that is pretty positive.
Just because some of his suggestions (e.g. regulations, limits to aviation) are not what we want to hear, does not mean his arguments are necessarily flawed. And I certainly welcome anyone who is questioning claims by industry that they can sort it out by themselves.
Don't get me wrong, I welcome Branson's calls for a 25% cut in aviation emissions, but even if they are achieved these will be cancelled by his plans for expansion (less fuel burned = cheaper tickets = more passengers). Likewise I welcome car manufacturer's announcements of new hybrids and/or hydrogen cars etc. but, if past efforts are anything to go by, these announcements will be atleast greatly exagerated (and some will be downright fabrication) in order to keep the threat of regulation off their backs.
The point MGR makes about not waiting 30 years is also vital, and something that Monbiot covers convincingly in his book. Most industry solutions to aviation and many other problems (e.g. the hydrogen economy), even if they are all they are cracked up to be, are some way down the line. The problem is with Co2 emissions that a tonne saved now is worth much more than a tonne saved in 20 years time i.e. a slow rate of emissions reductions gradually speeding up to reach our goal ends up generating much more Co2 over time than steeper reductions immediately that gradually taper off as we get nearer and nearer our goal (The graph in the book illustrates this much more clearly than I can in words). And if this weren't enough, given the threat of some of earth's "feedback" mechanisms (e.g. melting permafrost, greater forest fires) kicking in, some of which look like they are already being activated, I personally want huge reductions as quickly as possible. I just can't see the gradual creep towards LED lightbulbs and a slow improvement in fuel-economy standards delivering the kind of cuts we need.
´Wait, in terms of aviation, is he saying there is absolutely no way we can curtail the amount of fumes released into the air with every flight (like we're trying to do with cars... and just starting to get succcessful with) or is he saying we're just not working hard enough towards a solution?´
He is saying that the advances in fuel-efficiency for each individual flight, which there will be, will not be anywhere near enough to displace the huge increases in global warming emmissions from continued increases in global aviation traffic. Technology alone will not be enough - it will need to be coupled with reductions in air traffic. This in effect means individuals need to be more responsible when it comes around to deciding whether to fly or not.
´If we wait thirty years, air transport will be 5% of the problem instead of 2%, and "cheap air travel" will go from less than 1% of the problem to maybe 2% of the problem. Why this is given so much attention is beyond me.´
If we wait thirty years and society falls for your arguments, it will be 15% or more and one of the biggest problems, if not the biggest. It was 3.5% of the problem a couple years back and is more than that now. And ´cheap´ air travel will be the biggest share of that 15% because the only reasons air passenger traffic are increasing so fast are because of low-cost airlines.
Luckily for us, it is only beyond you.
´If you include international bunker fuels, it comes to 3.4% for the United States (239.5 out of 7,074.4 Tg CO2 equivalent total emissions - as of 2004).´
It is quite amazing that Mr.Anonymous keeps insisting that air traffic is only 1 or 2% of the problem and can quickly and easily come up with figures of 3.4 when it is to his argumentative convenience. This 3.4 figure, which is misleading since it only counts CO2 emisssions rather than total air traffic contribution to global warming (surely he must be smart enough to realize that CO2 is only one of the greenhouse gase emitted by planes that contribute to global warming), nevertheless should highlight the arguments made that developed countries need to reduce air traffic. If the EUs and USs figures are only slightly higher than the world´s total, that means developing countries are contributing almost nothing. If they are to achieve comparable air traffic flows to that of developed countries WITHOUT developed countries reducing their current air traffic, the global levels will shoot straight through the roof.
´Coal used for electricity generation is 8 times that much. Personal transportation (cars and light trucks) is 5 times as much.´
Mr. Anonymous seems insistent on confusing humans with monkeys. He seems to think that because we have other big problems, we can only deal with one or two at a time. We are too few and too stupid to deal with all problems at the same time. I happen to disagree. We are not monkeys. We are not stupid. And there are more than enough of us to deal with all of the thousands of issues that need to be dealt with simultaneously to control global warming.
´Point is, if you take care of 1/13 (a mere 8%) of the personal transport and coal-fired electricity issue, it's the same as if you eliminated air transport altogether.´´
Very misleading comment. That would be true if air traffic remained static in growth. But to remain static we would have to stop increases in the developed world at the current levels AND prohibit the development of air traffic in China, India, Brazil, Russia and all of the rest of the developing world. Both of which Mr. Anonymous is basically arguing against with his other arguments. Mr.Anonymous´ argument is hightly specious and irresponsible.
´Again, so-called "wasteful personal air travel", which is what seems to be the source of ire for Mr. Monbiot et al, is obviously a small (and subjectively assessed) portion of air transport overall, so the portion of change applied to coal-fired electricity and personal transport needed to be equivalent to eliminating "wasteful personal air travel" is even smaller than 8%.´
First, irresponsible air passenger traffic is a considerable portion of the air traffic problem in the developed world, where rich people have money to spend irresponsibly. It is a highly insignificant problem in the Third world where they don´t - yet. Second, it is growing extremely fast NOW in the first world - faster than all other air transport - due to more and more low-cost airlines and the resultant competition that is leading to price wars and decreasing air ticket prices. The same phenomena is expected to take root, and to some extent already is, in the Thirld world. So today, air passenger traffic is exploding in the West and tomorrow it will do so everywhere else. Closing our eyes to this problem doesn´t make it go away.
´I can't even begin to address the countless logical errors in Mr. Monbiot's arguments.´
I haven´t read his arguments, but I have read yours. And if your countless errors in logic are anything to go by, his logic must be pretty good.
´He would be advised to spend less time preening his intellectual appearance and more time thinking about the relative scale of things,´
I advise you to do exactly the same.
´the likelihood of where changes can occur, and most importantly, the possibilities for solutions which he fails to acknowledge (eg, high-speed ground transport substitutes for a portion of air transport).´
There are numerous solutions to promoting responsible air traffic. Solutions that are, as you once mentioned, like ´picking the low hanging fruit.´ It is much easier to increase airline fuel taxes in the EU from their current level of 0 to say 25% or more than it is to build a widespread system of wind farms. It is far easier to include the airline industry in the CO2 cap-and-trade system than it is to develop large-scale and widespread bike infrastructure. It easier to establish a citizen carbon-allowance system than to stop global deforestation. It is exponentially easier to reduce air traffic than to change our energy infrastructure. Furthermore, I suggest Mr. Anonymous simply take a look at Japan´s transport infrastructure to see what is possible before saying it isn´t. Widespread use of bullet-trains, hydrofoils, and high-efficiency cars. He should stop trying to make things easier for low-cost airlines and start trying to make things easier for the rest of mankind.
It is quite amazing that Mr.Anonymous keeps insisting that air traffic is only 1 or 2% of the problem and can quickly and easily come up with figures of 3.4 when it is to his argumentative convenience. This 3.4 figure, which is misleading since it only counts CO2 emisssions rather than total air traffic contribution to global warming
No, what's quite amazing is that you're telling me I'm a liar. Pay attention. I said "CO2 equivalent", which means it includes ALL greenhouse gas emissions. If you were actually familiar with the subject, this nomenclature would be familiar to you.
See Table 3-5 for the bunker fuel numbers, and Table 3-7 for jet fuel and aviation gasoline numbers.
I'm not going to deal with the rest of your novel.
from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
4.8 What are the Overall Climate Effects of Subsonic Aircraft?
The climate impacts of different anthropogenic emissions can be compared using the concept of radiative forcing. The best estimate of the radiative forcing in 1992 by aircraft is 0.05 Wm-2 or about 3.5% of the total radiative forcing by all anthropogenic activities. For the reference scenario (Fa1),the radiative forcing by aircraft in 2050 is 0.19 Wm-2 or 5% of the radiative forcing in the mid-range IS92a scenario (3.8 times the value in 1992).
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/av(E).pdf
Like I said - 3.5% now, 5% by 2050.
Now tell us how the IPCC is "hightly specious and irresponsible".
"I'm not always the biggest fan of Monbiot either. However, I would recommend reading the book."
I think the main reason I dislike him so much is the sneering way he suggests anything which doesn't conform to his World View is wrong, no debate. He strikes me as doing it purely for attention, as whatever cause is going, he'll have something to say about it, usually involving blaming someone (normally Jeremy Clarkson, who seems to be at fault for everything from antisocial behaviour to Third World debt) and then telling us that what we need is an end to globalisation, capitalism, more regulation, more taxes, bigger Government and so on. I just find him exceedingly odious. He will quite simply never be happy. If he hasn't got something to moan about, he doesn't have a column, hence he's never going to say "you know what, x industry has actually done a really good job cleaning up their act", he'll just rant about "wasteful aviation" then jet off to Australia for a lecture tour...
I find Monbiot's understanding of the political side of these issues very simplistic. I haven't read this book, but I recently read "The Age of Consent", and found it incredibly disappointing. He denigrates the work of the global justice movement as being too idealistic and fragmented, and proposes setting up a "world government" instead. He strikes me as being very unrealistic, self-aggrandizing, and with a poor understanding of how political structures shape the possibilities for change.
Thank you for the useful link. I went ahead and took a look at it and ran the numbers myself. According to your link, aviation´s total for 2003 was 290.4 of CO2 equivalent, this out of a total for the US in that year of 6959.1. 290.4/6959.1= 4.2% This number is odd considering that you claimed the 2004 figure came out at 3.4%. So I am not saying you are lying about your calculations, I am saying you must be confused.
´I'm not going to deal with the rest of your novel.´
And I wont deal with the rest of yours.
´The climate impacts of different anthropogenic emissions can be compared using the concept of radiative forcing. The best estimate of the radiative forcing in 1992 by aircraft is 0.05 Wm-2 or about 3.5% of the total radiative forcing by all anthropogenic activities. For the reference scenario (Fa1),the radiative forcing by aircraft in 2050 is 0.19 Wm-2 or 5% of the radiative forcing in the mid-range IS92a scenario (3.8 times the value in 1992).´
First, I am glad you finally got off the 1 to 2% figure. Thank you. Second, this figure that you quote was published in 1999. So we can say that the current figure is higher than 3.5.
As for the 5% you quote, it is but one of a number of figures they calculated for 2050. The highest figure they calculated came out to 15%.
According to your link, aviation´s total for 2003 was 290.4 of CO2 equivalent, this out of a total for the US in that year of 6959.1. 290.4/6959.1= 4.2% This number is odd considering that you claimed the 2004 figure came out at 3.4%.
You sure like dickering over little tiny things.
Let's take a look at the most recent data (2004).
Total US Greenhouse Gas Emissions = 7,074.4 Tg CO2 Eq.
Emissions from Jet Fuel, including international bunkers = 237.4 Tg CO2 Eq.
Emissions from Aviation Gasoline = 2.1 Tg CO2 Eq. [ibid.]
(237.4 + 2.1)/7,074.4 = 3.39%
So I am not saying you are lying about your calculations, I am saying you must be confused.
Apparently the confused person is you, because I keep getting the same numbers no matter how many times you claim I'm lying and/or wrong.
First, I am glad you finally got off the 1 to 2% figure. Thank you.
Yes, we're now all the way up to 3 or 4% -- and 5% in 44 years. Look at us claw up the ladder of insignificane to another level of insignificance.
You seem to keep forgetting what is at issue is so-called "irresponsible cheap air travel". I am giving you not only straight emissions numbers, but also including radiative forcing numbers and so forth -- FOR ALL AIR TRANSPORTATION. Dig all you want, but "irresponsible cheap air travel" (whatever that is, and whoever thinks they're fit to determine such a thing) is, at the most generous, 1/2 or less of air transport in total -- probably much less. So, you're left with less than 2% today and at most 2.5% forty-four years into the future.
I know this is very, very important to you to bash rich people and airplanes, but the numbers are NEVER going to add up to anything worth worrying about. It just won't.
As for the 5% you quote, it is but one of a number of figures they calculated for 2050. The highest figure they calculated came out to 15%.
Apparently you have no experience with long-term modelling. I'm sure they could concoct a scenario which made it come to 50%. Who cares? The only thing which is relevant is the probability of something occurring. That is why it's common sense to use the most-likely scenario as the baseline.
But again, by 2050, this game is either lost or won -- and no one, no matter how big their brain, has the ability to even the vaguest sense of accuracy with respect to predicting the outcome of this 44 years from now.
Here, in the present, in the time that matters and the one we can best measure, it is a tiny contributor to global warming, and it simply won't get much bigger (since, sadly, other things continue to grow as well).
You're intent on your outlook, and no amount of factual information or reason is apparently going to sway you from that outlook. So perhaps you should just let it rest.
I haven't heard a retraction or apology from you for the "highly irresponsible and specious" remark, among many personal insults you lobbed.
The IPCC's numbers are in line with mine. So, are they "highly irresponsible and specious", or do they have some sort of pass that lets their numbers (which are the same as my numbers) be "responsible" and "trustworthy"?
Do you or do you not consider the IPCC a legitimate authtority on climate change? If so, and since they say it's 3.5% in 1992 and most likely 5.0% in 2050 (ie, in the distant future), it would mean it's about 3.8% today -- including the radiative forcing you insist on including.
So, they say 3.8%. in 2006. By 2030 (Monbiot's "crucial" date) it will be 4.4%.
Slice and slice, it is still dwarfed by coal for electricity and personal transport. Heck, cement making even contributes more.
Prioritize. Bang for the buck. Changeability. Realism.
And I wont deal with the rest of your [novel]
Um, I wrote one paragraph. Hardly a lengthy treatise compared to what you're writing.
Here's some more context.
Growth in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, US, 1990-2004 (Tg CO2 Eq., with % incr. in parentheses)
Automobiles... 17.5 (2.8%)
Light Duty Trucks... 210.5 (66.8%)
Light Vehicles... 228.0 (24.4%)
Coal, Electricity Generation... 379.8 (25.0%)
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, All... 965.4 (15.8%)
Air transport... 16.0 (7.2%)
So, let's get some context here.
The INCREASE in emissions by light-duty trucks alone (ie, personal SUVs and trucks) from 1990-2004 is 88% of TOTAL emissions from air transport.
The INCREASE in emissions by coal-fired electricity generation is 159% of TOTAL emissions by air transport.
The growth in emissions by light vehicles, even on a percentage basis, is 3.4 times that of air transport. Coal-fired electricity grew at 3.5 times the rate of emissions from air transport.
In fact, growth in emissions from air transport was less than half the rate for all emissions growth. Consequently, air transport accounted for 3.7% of emissions in 1990 and 3.4% in 2004 -- ie, THE SHARE HAS GONE DOWN. In fact, the absolute amount has ALSO GONE DOWN - from a peak in 2000 of 253.7 Tg CO2 Eq. to 239.5 Tg in 2004 -- a decrease of 14.2 Tg.
Granted, these are US and not International figures, but seeing as the US makes 1/4 of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, it's highly relevant. It also flies directly in the face of hysteria about some extreme growth rate in emissions, when in fact the exact opposite is occurring in the country which is the biggest polluter.
Another thing which Mr. Monbiot and his fellow travelers seem to miss is that even in the UK, emissions from air transport only went up 0.1 Tg from 2000-2003. Even from 1990 to 2004, the air transport sector only increased emissions by 18.6 Tg -- less than 9% of the amount of increase for light-duty trucks in the US.
Say by some miracle Mr. Monbiot's dream comes true and the entire UK goes cold turkey on all air transport -- including air mail, military flights, and so forth. Doing so would drop the amount of greenhouse gas output on the planet by a "huge" amount -- a whole 1/10 of 1%.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D5695.xls
For anyone who is interested in a very detailed analysis of GHG emissions across a wide range of angles, WRI put out an excellent report last year.
http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers.pdf
-You sure like dickering over little tiny things.-
As do you, unfortunately.
-Mr Anonymous calculations:(237.4 + 2.1)/7,074.4 = 3.39%-
Once again thank you for the useful new links. Here are the correct calculations.
---Internatioanal Aviation Bunker Fuels - 2004 - 59.9 + Jet Fuel - 2004 - 237.4 + Aviation Gasoline 2.1 = 299,4 divided by 7074,4 = 4.2%----
Please try not to misquote the EPA again.
-Apparently the confused person is you, because I keep getting the same numbers no matter how many times you claim I'm lying and/or wrong.-
I hope the new calculation for 2004 has finally cleared your perpetual confusion.
-Yes, we're now all the way up to 3 or 4% -- and 5% in 44 years. Look at us claw up the ladder of insignificane to another level of insignificance.-
Yes, closer to 4%. Thank you for finally admitting that. As for the 5% figure, it is one of seven possible plausible scenario figures that the IPCC came up with. 5 being one of the LOWEST. And 15 being the highest. The 5 figure assumes some level of regulation to reduce air traffic. The 15 figure assumes completely unconstrained air traffic growth - which happens to be what you are advocating. So I believe 5 will come about if we start doing something about air traffic now. And 15 will come about if people listen to you. Furthermore, the IPCC assumes continued total global increases in global warming gases. So the 15 figure would be a bigger share of a bigger pie.
--You seem to keep forgetting what is at issue is so-called "irresponsible cheap air travel".--
No, what is at issue is ALL air travel together. People need to be responsible in flying or transporting goods whether it cost $10 or $100. But cheap air tickets make possible increased irresponsibility of air traffic. And are the reason air traffic is increasing so fast.
--I am giving you not only straight emissions numbers,--
You have been doing anything but. You keep finding ways to confuse numbers and calculations.
-but also including radiative forcing numbers and so forth-
The radiative forcing number that you quoted from the IPCC was .05 for 1992. They say:´According to the range of scenarios considered here, the forcing
is projected to grow to 0.13 to 0.56 Wm-2 in 2050´ So this radiative forcing (AKA global warming contribution) will grow either to over two times bigger with regulations to limit air growth or over ten times bigger with unconstrained growth.
--Dig all you want, but "irresponsible cheap air travel" (whatever that is, and whoever thinks they're fit to determine such a thing) is, at the most generous, 1/2 or less of air transport in total -- probably much less.-
Let me see. You admit that it could be 50% today and at the same time that this is minor? And this being today. For the fastest increases are coming from air passenger traffic driven by cheaper and cheaper flights from low-cost airline competition. So it will be more than 50% in the near future - probably much bigger.
-So, you're left with less than 2% today and at most 2.5% forty-four years into the future.-
You keep finding ways to try to get low-cost airlines off the hook. New ways to shrink the numbers and make the problem look...how do you say it, ´insignificant.´ Air passenger traffic needs to be reduced if we are to keep the future total air traffic contribution to global warming at 5% and that of cheap air passenger traffic at 2.5%. Without regulation NOW, the number will be much higher than 2.5 - probably more than 10% of total global warming.
-I know this is very, very important to you to bash rich people and airplanes,-
I know it is very important for you to try and characterize rich people as irresponsible people who are opposed to society implementing regulations to curb global warming, but in my opinion, your negative view of rich people is way off. The majority are responsible people trying to do the right thing about global warming. As for planes, you also like to try to make people think that they are all irresponsible and that all oppose moves to regulate air traffic growth when nothing could be further from the truth. There are already numerous EU airlines who have publicly voiced support for market-based regulatory schemes.
--but the numbers are NEVER going to add up to anything worth worrying about. It just won't.--
The numbers already add up. And clearly so. You just can´t add them.
-Apparently you have no experience with long-term modelling. I'm sure they could concoct a scenario which made it come to 50%.-
They said they COULD in the IPCC report. For this reason, they decided to keep to the seven most PLAUSIBLE scenarios that they could come up with. All of those scenarios already incorporate continued airline fuel and operational efficiencies in their calculations. So the main differences are based on economic factors which affect demand for air PASSENGER traffic.
--Who cares?--
Obviously the airlines since it is they who asked the IPCC to come up with these figures so that they would have some idea of their contribution to global warming now and in the future. And why did they ask the IPCC? Because the IPCC is the most authoritative instution with regards to global warming calculations - they were set up by the international community for that express purpose. To figure out how much global warming is going on and what the sources are and what might be possible solutions.
-The only thing which is relevant is the probability of something occurring. That is why it's common sense to use the most-likely scenario as the baseline.-
The most-likely scenario is a 5% figure. Why do I say this now? Because I know that EU governments will begin implementing air traffic regulations soon. They are currently in the discussion and design phase of these regulations. And I know that as soon as the EU has their regulations up and running, the US will soon thereafter copy them. And when the US does this, the rest of the world will follow. And this is what the IPCC is expecting in their 5% baseline scenario figure - the most probable scenario. So why do I keep pushing the 15% figure? To make clear to those that might be confused on this issue that without air traffic regulations, the IPCC calculated figure of 15% for unregulated traffic growth would be the ´most realistic´ figure.
--But again, by 2050, this game is either lost or won --
Quite true, that is why we need to take airline emissions seriously today and not tomorrow.
--and no one, no matter how big their brain, has the ability to even the vaguest sense of accuracy with respect to predicting the outcome of this 44 years from now.--
That was what the IPCC was set up for by the international community. To collect the smartest brains on the planet to try to figure out the problem and where it is headed. But I guess you have a bigger brain then the international community and all of the experts at the IPCC put together. At least that is whay you seem to be arguing. You know better than them.
--Here, in the present, in the time that matters and the one we can best measure, it is a tiny contributor to global warming, and it simply won't get much bigger (since, sadly, other things continue to grow as well).--
Here, in the present, in the time that matters and the one we can most do something about, is where we need to head off problems before they develop. Problems such air traffic, which is close to 4% of our current global warming problem, that will potentially grow to 15% if people fall for specious and irresponsible arguments, that is amongst the very easiest global warming problems to fix, and that, sadly, will grow to take a bigger share of a bigger global warming problem - a 15% share if governments do nothing to regulate current air traffic increases.
--You're intent on your outlook, and no amount of factual information or reason is apparently going to sway you from that outlook. So perhaps you should just let it rest.--
Mr. Anonymous, you are intent on your outlook and no amount of factual information or reason is apparently going to sway you from that outlook. So perhaps you should just let it rest.
--I haven't heard a retraction or apology from you for the "highly irresponsible and specious" remark, among many personal insults you lobbed.--
First, I have not insulted you, and I am sorry to hear that that is whay you believe. Second, I have not heard a retraction or apology from your ´hysterical´ and ´zeolout´ and ´novel´ remarks, among many personal insults you have directly and indirectly lobbed at me.
--The IPCC's numbers are in line with mine.--
Actually, they are not in line with yours. You quoted them as saying that air traffic contribution to global warming was 3.5% in 1992 and one paragraph later said: See, as I said, 3.5% NOW. No, not now, in 1992 - over 14 years ago. Second, you quoted them as saying that one possible scenario figure for 2050 was 5%, a figure which happens to be one of the lowest of seven with 15% being the highest. And one paragraph later said: See, as I told you, 5% in 2050.
--So, are they "highly irresponsible and specious",--
Nope. Not one itsy-bitsy bit. I support everything stated in the report that you so graciously provided a link to. They say that air traffic was contributing 3.5% of the problem in 1992, that air passenger traffic was increasing considerably faster than passenger-km fuel efficiencies, that air passenger traffic would grow substantially over the coming decades and that this would lead to large increases in global warming contribution, that they came up with seven scenario figures for 2050 to gauge the evolution of air traffic´s contribution to global warming, that of these seven figures 5% was the second lowest and 15% the highest plausible outcomes, that these figures both assume continued fuel and operational efficiencies, that the 5% figure assumes moderation of air traffic growth as a result of increases in regulation and establishment of alternative transport methods, and so on and on. I agree with absolutely EVERYTHING they say. As opposed to you, who agrees with a few things they say and quote those few things out of context. It is you who is making specious and irresponsible arguments.
or do they have some sort of pass that lets their numbers (which are the same as my numbers) be "responsible" and "trustworthy"?
--Do you or do you not consider the IPCC a legitimate authtority on climate change?--
The most authoritative. It is you who does not. Try quoting them in context.
--If so, and since they say it's 3.5% in 1992 and most likely 5.0% in 2050--
Most likely 5% in 2050 because they, like me, believe regulations will be implemented to reduce air traffic growth in the near future. But if society falls for specious and irresponsible arguments that argue against any type of regulations on air traffic of any kind at any time, then the figure will be 15%. But the IPCC does NOT believe it very probable that society will fall for such arguments, just as I do not believe they will, for the vast majority of people are responsible people who will support governentments implementing the necessary regulations to limit global warming impacts, which for air traffic means policies to control air traffic growth.
--(ie, in the distant future),--
I will still be living in 2050. I will still be riding around on my mountain bike - if global warming does make the heat unbearable that is. So, for me, it is not so distant. And I happen to believe anyone else who expects to be alive then will think more or less the same. In any case, that doesn´t mean that they aren´t contributing to global warming now. All sectors, all businesses have a responsibility to try and reduce their global warming impact. Many airlines realize and are taking directions forward in this regard, including discussing with politicians how best to develop regulations and market-mechanisms to promote responsible air travel.
--it would mean it's about 3.8% today -- including the radiative forcing you insist on including.--
Yes, I agree. I think it is about 3.8% today. Including the radiative forcing which is only appropriate to include.