EU On Collison Course With US Over Airline Carbon Cap Proposal
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 09.26.07
This is one of those "Big Ideas" for climate management that looks to be headed nowhere. So, back to lifestyle choices for a bit.
"The International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations body that oversees global air travel, has scheduled a vote in Montreal this week, perhaps as early as today, on the European plan. U.S.-led opposition is mounting...Under the European Commission's proposal, European airlines would be forced to cap emissions starting in 2011, and foreign airlines flying into Europe would join the plan in 2012...The U.S., supported by Brazil, Japan, China and others, rejects the European plan as an unacceptable unilateral burden on companies."
Air transport globally is estimated to account for up to 9% of cultural sources of greehouse gas emission, and this is anticipated to double (approach 20%) within a few decades.
See also this earlier TreeHugger post on the European plan. Via: Wall Street Journal OnLine, Europe, U.S. Split on Emissions Image credit:: Aerospace News
Nice. Europe (Airbus) tries to build a plane that nobody asked for (A380) and nobody wants, which they can't build to their own schedule anyways, now wants to force everybody to look at it as an option (more people per plane would reduce emissions). Never mind the fact that such large aircraft require larger airfields and the infrastructure that goes with it.
If they want to reduce emissions on aircraft they need to look at slowing them down a little and allow for advanced propeller or extremely high-bypass jets. Instead of building to fly at mach .80 or .85 they should drop back to .75 or even .7 where they could get better fuel economy (less fuel burned) and potentially less noise.
-Lego
in aviation slower speeds does not neccessarily mean less fuel burnt. the amount of energy required to maintain altitude is a significant and constant power requirement in the form of drag on the wings. At slower speeds a greater wing span is necessary to achieve the same amount of lift. However increasing wing span increases weight, which increases the energy required to maintain altitude.
Aircraft are already optimised in terms of operating speed, avgas isnt cheap. The last of the "we need speed economy be damned" aircraft, comercial anyway, ala concorde, were phased out a few years ago.
high bypass jets are only more economical than a standard aircraft for very long range flights, though still worth looking at.