How about mothballing air force one and having OB fly economy? A 747 to fly one guy? No one is worth that.
1
We need to see a comparison of lowest fossil fuel footprints for various kinds of travel, especially for travel legs under 300 miles. And then, for example, if rail is the lowest footprint, that's where our subsidies need to go. Rail also has the advantage on longer routes of overnight Pullman service. Currently this service is priced outrageously high.
3
And how are they going to enforce it on foreign airlines? That will mean they are cheaper and have the larger share of the business, perhaps all of it.
1
Hurray for public health with an added benefit. Maybe now we will get high speed rail in America. I'd even settle for a system in which freight trains yield to passenger trains, instead of the other way around. Currently, passenger trains my be required to wait up to 8 hours for a freight train's right of way. Absurd.
4
We will never have high speed train unless some new tech comes up (like superconductivity at decent temps,) NEVER!!! We have a somewhat decent system in the northeast and it is a disaster waiting to happen. Simple!!
He wants cleaner skies? Then stop the daily chemtrails! That would immediately stop global warming and this whole charade of carbon emissions.
3
When 9/11 grounded all airplanes over the US, the surface temperature abruptly rose across the whole country.
1
Start by banning idling jets on runways awaiting take-off. No getting away from the gate or loading passengers without clearance to take off in under 15 minutes. Apparently the financial burden of wasted fuel is not sufficient inducement to get the airlines and airport operators to treat passengers well. Finally, more intercity trains for short haul trips. Why does anyone fly from NY to DC or NY to Boston?
10
Huge amounts of fuel are wasted while taxiing. Jet engines are inefficient at low speeds. Over 1 ton of fuel for 30 minute's taxiing in a 777.
There's already a space race to make the planes more efficient in flight. Technologies and procedures to reduce taxiing emissions would see like the easiest place to make improvements.
How about a way to tow planes to the runways with electric tow trucks? I asked a pilot about this; he said that the towing vehicles exist but are insanely expensive. But do they have to be? And are they more expensive than 1 ton of fuel times 1 bajillion flights a day?
There's already a space race to make the planes more efficient in flight. Technologies and procedures to reduce taxiing emissions would see like the easiest place to make improvements.
How about a way to tow planes to the runways with electric tow trucks? I asked a pilot about this; he said that the towing vehicles exist but are insanely expensive. But do they have to be? And are they more expensive than 1 ton of fuel times 1 bajillion flights a day?
14
Great thing to look into and have them produced in the US making jobs here. Not everything is improved in the same way. We could do much better getting Europe to restrain soot rather than us constrain CO2, Controlling methane from animal waste is another better idea. Simple!!
Good thing. They should also set limits on school busses. Many schools still use old busses that rely on diesel or have exhausts that spew air pollutants right in front of our kids.
3
Yes! Make all the school buses electric! Kids should be exposed to Diesel fumes, this can be avoided.
1
The EPA is going hard after everything that works, because everything that works uses energy.
It has long forgotten its mission to take care of real pollution.
Either the EPA or our economy will survive, but not both.
PS Really, really nice touch, exempting the private jets of those who push this madness.
PPS. The good thing is, these measures will have time to hit the voters right before the 2016 elections.
Having candidates, like in 2014, say that the biggest problem in the world is the 0C warming shown by satellites for the last 18 years, and/or the minuscule warming of the very deep oceans is particularly important.
It has long forgotten its mission to take care of real pollution.
Either the EPA or our economy will survive, but not both.
PS Really, really nice touch, exempting the private jets of those who push this madness.
PPS. The good thing is, these measures will have time to hit the voters right before the 2016 elections.
Having candidates, like in 2014, say that the biggest problem in the world is the 0C warming shown by satellites for the last 18 years, and/or the minuscule warming of the very deep oceans is particularly important.
4
I've noticed that aircraft in the US tend to be powered up the entire time they are at the gate, whereas in the EU, the engines cut as soon as they are at the gate. This can be done, of course, the airlines will cry about it.
8
The engine in question is the auxiliary power unit, a small turbine-generator, not the main engines, which would be hazardous to the ground crew.
1
You are incorrect.
2
Your information is out of date. Most of the major airlines now use ground power and ground air conditioning units to avoid running the engines or the APU.
5
This problem is easily solved. REDUCE FLYING, American people.
8
I think like very agency in the Obama administration there is overreach. We need to correct this. These agencies have gone hog=wild with regulation and hopefully once Obama is gone, the EPC can be reined in. For now we need lawsuits and the courts to control the EPA. This was not what the EPA was supposed to be when it was created.
4
Another fan of air pollution, in the name of states' rights, no doubt.
8
What about dirty air and water appeals to you so much?
6
CO2 is not real pollution
1
One note worth remembering is that most of the pollutants (and noise) is generated by the oldest airplanes in the fleet. US air carriers are allowed to operate airplanes using 30 and 40 year old technology that are significantly more polluting than a modern airplane. While research still has some improvements to deliver, much improvement could be had by getting rid of ancient polluters. Delta, American and other airlines still operate significant numbers of MD-80 airplanes using technology (and pollutant levels) from the 1980’s. Getting rid of them would go a long way to reducing both noise and pollution.
9
True enough and easy to say but airplanes are not like cars, and they can and do fly for decades. Some are re-engined which can positively impact this issue but that is very complex and not a normal occurrence.
2
Even a 30-y.o. MD-80 is worth millions, should we just scrap billions or even trillions of dollars worth of planes? Consider who will pay for this modernization effort since the airlines (actually the leasing companies) can't just sell the planes if we truly want emissions to go down.
What about the pollutants released in making the steel, aluminum, plastics, etc. for the new planes, and for the energy used to recycling the old planes back into raw materials?
What about the pollutants released in making the steel, aluminum, plastics, etc. for the new planes, and for the energy used to recycling the old planes back into raw materials?
2
It is grotesque (can't find words bad enough, as they are not actions) that the overreaching wealthy are not subject to this. They are part of the problem, and blind avoidance of reality is not solving the problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/business/energy-environment/climate-de...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/business/energy-environment/climate-de...
10
"Government overreach"
The boy who cried wolf, of course. They will do it until the cows come home, aka consequences.
As people are encouraged to think the only problem is getting lots more fuel, weather gets weirder, water dries up, species die, and on and on.
Think! Open your mind. Exercise real skepticism, please, for all our sakes. Is it possible that poisoning our only home might not be such a good idea? Do we really need more billionaires jetting around and creating obscene markets (example: art prices):
The boy who cried wolf, of course. They will do it until the cows come home, aka consequences.
As people are encouraged to think the only problem is getting lots more fuel, weather gets weirder, water dries up, species die, and on and on.
Think! Open your mind. Exercise real skepticism, please, for all our sakes. Is it possible that poisoning our only home might not be such a good idea? Do we really need more billionaires jetting around and creating obscene markets (example: art prices):
6
Aircraft may be the "largest remaining unregulated source of greenhouse gas emissions" from the transportation sector, but the largest unregulated source of any type is likely to be the two-stroke engine that powers yard equipment - lawnmowers, weed whackers and leaf blowers. There's a reason these incredibly polluting engines were banned from outboard boat motors: They pollute at a rate about 1,000 times that of a car engine.
Don't belive me? See this report by the California Air Resources Board:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/mailouts/msc0005/msc0005.pdf
Note that this study dates from the year 2000, and compares leaf blowers to 1999 light trucks - when such vehicles were far dirtier than today's models. With tens of thousands of gardeners in suburban areas running such engines for the bulk of their eight hour+ work days, the amount of reactive gases and particles from yard equipment is comparable to the pollution from all cars and non-diesel trucks.
Everyone blithely ignores this enormous factor. Be sure to wave to your "gardener" as you drive off in your Prius; just a couple of uses of a leaf blower undoes a year of savings from your green vehicle.
Don't belive me? See this report by the California Air Resources Board:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/mailouts/msc0005/msc0005.pdf
Note that this study dates from the year 2000, and compares leaf blowers to 1999 light trucks - when such vehicles were far dirtier than today's models. With tens of thousands of gardeners in suburban areas running such engines for the bulk of their eight hour+ work days, the amount of reactive gases and particles from yard equipment is comparable to the pollution from all cars and non-diesel trucks.
Everyone blithely ignores this enormous factor. Be sure to wave to your "gardener" as you drive off in your Prius; just a couple of uses of a leaf blower undoes a year of savings from your green vehicle.
19
Not only air but noise pollution. Any chance people will give us a do-over? They're too lazy and like all their modern conveniences, but not the science that tells them there are limits to exploitation on a finite planet.
5
Did you see the ad here today for a new generation of yard equipment powered by lithium ion batteries? Such regulation is becoming technically feasible.
5
Next time you're flying somewhere, look out the window and contemplate for a moment how far off the ground you are. Than think of the EPA employees and political appointees fixing to mess around with those engines under the wing.
I don't know how many remember what happened when governmental emission controls were imposed on the American auto industry in the 1970s. The car engines became a complete mess; your Chevy or Ford could hardly make it up a hill. The Japanese cars that were not subject to Federal standards continued to run just fine. That's when the Japanese overtook the American market, and the Americans never fully recovered. It took years before American engineers could make motors work well under government imposed standards. Happy flying.
I don't know how many remember what happened when governmental emission controls were imposed on the American auto industry in the 1970s. The car engines became a complete mess; your Chevy or Ford could hardly make it up a hill. The Japanese cars that were not subject to Federal standards continued to run just fine. That's when the Japanese overtook the American market, and the Americans never fully recovered. It took years before American engineers could make motors work well under government imposed standards. Happy flying.
2
Without those standards we didn't even get seat belts.
It took computer technology to develop really efficient engine controls.
It took computer technology to develop really efficient engine controls.
3
Don't forget the oxygen sensor technology, developed by Bosch. This, combined with fuel injection, had the biggest effect on emissions.
time to return to prop driven aircraft. Instead of internal combustion engines, powerful electric motors susing new the BIN magnets and fed by a H2 fuel cells to provide electricity, could eliminate all emissions.
The speed of the craft might be reduced as much as 15 % but the benefits to the atmosphere would be enormous. No pilot would ever have to worry again, about whether to dump 1000's of pounds or kilos of Jet fuel into the air to prevent it's burning in a possible accident.
The speed of the craft might be reduced as much as 15 % but the benefits to the atmosphere would be enormous. No pilot would ever have to worry again, about whether to dump 1000's of pounds or kilos of Jet fuel into the air to prevent it's burning in a possible accident.
1
Ask yourself something. Who would you rather deal with, the IRS or the EPA?
The IRS is staffed by people who are just doing their job, following and applying the law as enacted by Congress. The EPA is staffed by zealots who make it up as they go along.
If you make a mistake with the IRS, the worst they can do is collect what you owe plus penalties and interest, both of which are prescribed by law. You are only threatened with imprisonment if you willfully and knowingly break a law. If you make a mistake with the EPA, they can swoop in and take everything you own. They can imprison you using their own concept of how their own regulations are interpreted.
The IRS is never going to show up at your door with armed individuals to enforce the law. The EPA can muster a small army and blow you off the face of the earth for resisting them.
And yeah, I like clean air, water and land, but the EPA has so far overstepped their authority that they need to be completely shut down. Then we need to rationally start all over again with huge numbers of checks, balances and legal protections for citizens.
The IRS is staffed by people who are just doing their job, following and applying the law as enacted by Congress. The EPA is staffed by zealots who make it up as they go along.
If you make a mistake with the IRS, the worst they can do is collect what you owe plus penalties and interest, both of which are prescribed by law. You are only threatened with imprisonment if you willfully and knowingly break a law. If you make a mistake with the EPA, they can swoop in and take everything you own. They can imprison you using their own concept of how their own regulations are interpreted.
The IRS is never going to show up at your door with armed individuals to enforce the law. The EPA can muster a small army and blow you off the face of the earth for resisting them.
And yeah, I like clean air, water and land, but the EPA has so far overstepped their authority that they need to be completely shut down. Then we need to rationally start all over again with huge numbers of checks, balances and legal protections for citizens.
1
So, the right to pollute should be right up there with the right to bear arms?
1
The IRS shows up with weapons all the time. They have legal police powers too
It is surprising how many administrative agencies have armed police.
The nation would be well served with easier arbitration processes
It is surprising how many administrative agencies have armed police.
The nation would be well served with easier arbitration processes
It would be interesting to see the difference in pollution-per-passenger comparing a modern airliner with all seats full to a private jet with one or two seats occupied.
I'm pretty sure that those who can and do fly in private jets contribute a lot more emissions per trip than do those of us who use airline transportation. Is there any chance that can and will be changed? About as likely as the sun not coming up tomorrow.
I'm pretty sure that those who can and do fly in private jets contribute a lot more emissions per trip than do those of us who use airline transportation. Is there any chance that can and will be changed? About as likely as the sun not coming up tomorrow.
4
Let me guess, the GOP says, "NO".
1
"Jetliners today are about 70 percent more fuel efficient per seat mile than they were in the 1960s..."
Yes because they have more seats crammed in a jet than they did in the 1960's. Quit spinning the information.
The airlines and manufacturers can do better, they just need to be told to do it.
Yes because they have more seats crammed in a jet than they did in the 1960's. Quit spinning the information.
The airlines and manufacturers can do better, they just need to be told to do it.
3
Global warming doesn't endanger human health.
Tell that to the families of the drowning victims of super storm Sandy or the recent flooding in Texas. And the Supreme Court has already upheld the endangerment finding allowing EPA to regulate GHG emissions from other sources.
2
Sorry Serge, the two events you noted were not related to global warming. No proof of this relationship exists. Neither of the weather events were unique in history and they can simply be explained by normal occurances such as el-nino, the location of high pressure systems in conjunction with low pressure systems and the location/strength of the jet stream. Weather and climate change (which is a odd term to use for specefic events since the climate has been changing since the begining of time and no one denies this fact
) are complely different concepts.
) are complely different concepts.
2
Sandy was so destructive because it hit at high-tide in NY Harbor, affecting Long Island, NYC, and NJersey. It wasn't the first storm to hit at high tide either.
There is already an incredible drive toward fuel efficiency for economic reasons. This is an example of the administration regulating something merely because they can. Look at Warren and her quest to regular car dealers or the power grab against e-cigarettes as further examples. Government loves to expand its power for its own sake.
2
The party's over folks. Time to pay the piper.
2
It's 2015. Climate change is a settled science. Temperature anomalies in the Arctic are going through the roof, the permafrost is melting and the Arctic ice cap is disappearing before our eyes. Extreme weather events are daily news stories. What's it going to take to change our unsustainable lifestyles?
I shudder at the thought of a Republican presidency, where one of their first tasks will be to dismantle the EPA. What are they thinking?
I shudder at the thought of a Republican presidency, where one of their first tasks will be to dismantle the EPA. What are they thinking?
8
A number of people have posted great comments on how difficult this is going to be to achieve and how the industry already strives for efficiency, making these efforts fairly moot in the practical sense even if they score political points with the base (although they probably loose the same if not more points on the other side).
The upside is however, is that regulations actually increases economic activity and spur the economy. It forces companies to spend more on research and compliance, this means more spending on employees and equipment which is a net benefit as opposed to companies simply sitting on profits are they are very keen on doing in the current economic era.
The upside is however, is that regulations actually increases economic activity and spur the economy. It forces companies to spend more on research and compliance, this means more spending on employees and equipment which is a net benefit as opposed to companies simply sitting on profits are they are very keen on doing in the current economic era.
4
Spur which country's economy???
Why not private jet aircraft?
7
High level humidification and cloud-seeding by all these airplanes every day probably helps reflect enough sunlight to mask some of the insulating effect of CO2 buildup in the atmosphere.
2
A few years ago, PBS (Frontline?) had a good peace on global cooling mediated by particulates and contrails. As I recall, the show began with data collected from the days immediately after 9/11 when all commercial flights were grounded globally, and temps jumped. The take home message was that potential global warming was actually much worse than currently manifested and that continued reduction of particulates, thereby reducing global cooling forces, will exacerbate current warming.
1
Terrific, so now the Airlines can add another sur-sharge to an airline ticket, Government mandated cleaner engines!
3
I want to praise and thank President Obama for excluding private jets. Interfering with my and other Americans' freedom to buy their own jet and fly when and where they want would have been a horrible thing to lose. Its a shame what this will do to the freedom of other Americans, but surely sacrifice is needed to fight the scourge of global warming. Not that I'm saying there is global warming, mind you. Freedom!!!
13
With all due respect to Bruce Rozenblit, GE uses "dry low NOx" (DLN) technology on their gas turbines including their aeroderivative turbines. You can bet that GE the jet engine manufacturer will love this new rule because it will drive new engine purchases and GE will have a leg up on Pratt and Whitney or Rolls Royce because of GE's power turbine experience. Tjis will definitely create jobs.
2
What about simply banning weekend excursion flights?
The government bans people from throwing candy wrappers in the street, but it's perfectly legal to spew lots of pollutants straight into the atmosphere on the way to a weekend of gambling in Vegas.
The government bans people from throwing candy wrappers in the street, but it's perfectly legal to spew lots of pollutants straight into the atmosphere on the way to a weekend of gambling in Vegas.
8
tell that to the people in Las Vegas who will then lose their jobs when the customers stay home.
This is going to be very, very difficult to accomplish. Jet engines are already very clean burning as they are continuous combustion devices that operate at steady high temperature. Since the exhaust provides the thrust, nothing can be added, like a catalytic converter, to clean up any remaining pollutants. Nitric Oxides are produced at high temperature combustion but high temperature is required for higher efficiencies.
If CO2 is the primary pollutant that is desired to be removed, the only way to do that is increase efficiency. The airplane manufacturers and airlines have done an excellent job of increasing efficiency because wasted fuel costs money and reduces profit. Engines keep getting better, more people are being packed into planes, low fill flights have been eliminated, and aerodynamic drag is reduced with each new model.
The system has already been made highly fuel efficient to satisfy shareholders and Wall Street, and it will continue to do so.
The only real way to make a dent in airplane CO2 is to not fly. That means an alternative must be available. We won't build high speed rail, so none is available. The government is barking up the wrong tree on this one. Looks like another case of ivory tower-itis, only curable with practical experience.
If CO2 is the primary pollutant that is desired to be removed, the only way to do that is increase efficiency. The airplane manufacturers and airlines have done an excellent job of increasing efficiency because wasted fuel costs money and reduces profit. Engines keep getting better, more people are being packed into planes, low fill flights have been eliminated, and aerodynamic drag is reduced with each new model.
The system has already been made highly fuel efficient to satisfy shareholders and Wall Street, and it will continue to do so.
The only real way to make a dent in airplane CO2 is to not fly. That means an alternative must be available. We won't build high speed rail, so none is available. The government is barking up the wrong tree on this one. Looks like another case of ivory tower-itis, only curable with practical experience.
21
Kinda tough to take rail from NY to London.
3
The airline industry has already demonstrated biologically-derived jet fuel. The ultimate answer is a carbon-neutral synthetic fuel of some kind.
Bruce: so what is your proposal? Airplanes will be allowed to crowd the skies more and more, and allowed to emit more and more GHGs? As simple as that?
With pun intended, that will not fly.
Airplane manufacturers are in a comfort zone, doing pretty much more of the same, for the last 50 years.
Time for a little discomfort now....
With pun intended, that will not fly.
Airplane manufacturers are in a comfort zone, doing pretty much more of the same, for the last 50 years.
Time for a little discomfort now....
I commend the Obama administration for all the measures they have taken to curb carbon emissions. Just think what could have been accomplished if we had a forward thinking Congress that would cooperate instead of obstructing every common sense environmental measure. But of course, since the GOP controlled Congress is in the pocket of the Koch brothers et al, that is to be expected.
Thank you President Obama for taking steps so we don't end up with air quality like India and China.
Thank you President Obama for taking steps so we don't end up with air quality like India and China.
16
oooh, the evil Republicans and Koch brothers--the founts of all that is wrong....How about discussing the subject on the merits? Not all environmental regs are common sense. Some are overreach or economically/technical impractical. Some will impose higher costs on our economic activity. If we, the people, are willing to pay those costs, so be it. But let's have a realistic discussion based on the facts.
Largest problem. Airplanes pollute in the layers of atmosphere that heavily weigh on environment.
Only real way to solve this is to reduce instant mobility demanded by society.
Good luck. Not easy.
Only real way to solve this is to reduce instant mobility demanded by society.
Good luck. Not easy.
11
This is absolutely outrageous. To cut some fraction of 3% of total American emissions in CO2, the president wants to cause further chaos in the airline industry? Look what earlier government tampering (deregulation) did to the industry. I'm sorry I voted for him.
3
Do you not realize that regulation is a more egregious form of government tampering!
In addition to CO2, aircraft emit a number of other substances having climate effects, including black carbon (soot), nitrous oxide, water vapor (in the generally dry stratosphere, this matters) and produce contrails. The full effect of these are not fully understood but are estimated bring net climate forcing of aircraft to 2x to 4x that of the CO2 emissions alone. Given the continuing growth of air travel, it is critical that these be fully assessed and that appropriately regulated.
3
A breakthru for common sense unimaginable in any GOP regime.
7
Congressional resistance to applying and adhering to the rules of the Clean Air Act do indeed endanger all of us, not only in this country, but throughout the world. Americans fly more than any other people in the world, yet it is the poor in places such as India, with long, punishing heat waves, and Bangladesh, which suffers stronger and longer monsoon seasons, that suffer from our selfish inaction. Sure, it will take time and effort to get planes cleaner and more fuel efficient, but necessity is the mother of invention, and clean air is nothing if not necessary. Let's do this.
3
I work for EPA and have a degree in International Aviation and Outer Space Law. I can't even tell you what office this is coming out of. EPA doesn't utilize internal talent for squat.
3
"I'm not a scientist" appears to be a necessary qualification to be elected to the principle body that allocates public resources in the US.
I feel your pain. I worked at the DOE before running afoul of the Reagan administration.
You should hear the talk in industry. They think regulators are stupid and lazy. Of course, some are but I used to give Bechtel and Williams Brothers executives heart burn from "doing my (regulatory) job" too efficiently; that's a quote.
Keep at it. Remember, you're doing your job not for your boss but his boss, though I doubt if he ever thinks about it. You're doing your job for the American people.
You should hear the talk in industry. They think regulators are stupid and lazy. Of course, some are but I used to give Bechtel and Williams Brothers executives heart burn from "doing my (regulatory) job" too efficiently; that's a quote.
Keep at it. Remember, you're doing your job not for your boss but his boss, though I doubt if he ever thinks about it. You're doing your job for the American people.
2
According to Argonne Laboratory, in 2006, the US made 6 times as much gasoline as kerosene-type aviation fuels. This is a small part of the market to oil refiners. In most refineries, that I've been in, aviation fuel units operate in batches --- not continuously as do most units. Some airlines saw this coming and began to secure their own refineries: e.g., the purchase of the Marcus Hook refinery near Philadelphia by Delta Airlines. My point is that this market will be surrendered or the price will be absorbed by the customer: the flying public.
As for cleaning up jet fuel: good luck. Complex, ringed, branched hydrocarbons are key to providing the Octane numbers needed for take-off. These compounds can be made to burn more efficiently, e.g, by catalytic reaction or by altering the formulation to include agents to perhaps improve combustion but there are definite limits. Catalysts like platinum add weight to the air frame but changes to the engine combustion chamber could make the desired improvements.
In the end, this new ruling could have very positive effects. A few years ago, the EPA ruled on diesel fuel efficiency. This led to more efficient train engines that GE marketed successfully through the world.
As for cleaning up jet fuel: good luck. Complex, ringed, branched hydrocarbons are key to providing the Octane numbers needed for take-off. These compounds can be made to burn more efficiently, e.g, by catalytic reaction or by altering the formulation to include agents to perhaps improve combustion but there are definite limits. Catalysts like platinum add weight to the air frame but changes to the engine combustion chamber could make the desired improvements.
In the end, this new ruling could have very positive effects. A few years ago, the EPA ruled on diesel fuel efficiency. This led to more efficient train engines that GE marketed successfully through the world.
11
"Republicans have called the new rules an example of government overreach that will cost jobs and stifle the economy."
This is their Pavlovian response to ANY regulation, be it clean air/water regulation, financial regulations, and all the way down to wheelchair ramp regulations.
Everything costs jobs and stifles the economy to them, everything except their own policies which have a track record of actually stifling the economy and costing jobs.
This is their Pavlovian response to ANY regulation, be it clean air/water regulation, financial regulations, and all the way down to wheelchair ramp regulations.
Everything costs jobs and stifles the economy to them, everything except their own policies which have a track record of actually stifling the economy and costing jobs.
41
I don't understand the older generation. Every time the Federal Government attempts to curb pollution, all of you seem to take the side of the polluters. Is there something I'm not understanding here?
14
This is just incorrect. Many of us are working hard on the problem. How about the younger generations addiction to spectacle, constant attendance on mobile devices, etc. As far as I know, the ones most fixated on lower gas prices and heavily polluting entertainment are the young.
Avoidance is equal opportunity as to generations.
Avoidance is equal opportunity as to generations.
1
I strongly back action on global warming, but I'm not sure I support this. Enormous gains in efficiency have been made in the last two decades in engine technology - with fuel being such a large percentage of airline costs, there is an enormous incentive to improve efficiency (which is really the only way to reduce emissions). I don't think additional regulation is necessary. Yes, flying is a carbon-intensive activity. Rather than wasting efforts on making the industry do something it is already doing, I'd rather see a carbon tax enacted, with the proceeds used to build something like high speed rail between shorter city pairs where flying is least efficient. Let's price the impact of flying into the cost of the ticket and use the proceeds to provide alternatives.
11
There may be incentive to cut fuel costs but these are limited by the fuel available. Refiners maximize energy output not necessarily combustion efficiencies. That's why air plan engines are very inefficient.
In addition, the airplane designers go for performance not efficiency. And, they, too, are limited by fuel.
As for non-commercial fuel used by small-medium air planes, it should be pointed out that this is the last fuel where tetra ethyl lead (TEL) is used to control knocking: an engine stroke requires that the fuel burn the entire length of a stroke not explode in a microsecond and coast to the end of the stroke. The industry can't seem to get away from lead.
Note that ethylene bromide is another contaminant that the EPA is trying to control. This bromide is used in 4/5ths of all lead-containing non-commercial aviation fuels.
In addition, the airplane designers go for performance not efficiency. And, they, too, are limited by fuel.
As for non-commercial fuel used by small-medium air planes, it should be pointed out that this is the last fuel where tetra ethyl lead (TEL) is used to control knocking: an engine stroke requires that the fuel burn the entire length of a stroke not explode in a microsecond and coast to the end of the stroke. The industry can't seem to get away from lead.
Note that ethylene bromide is another contaminant that the EPA is trying to control. This bromide is used in 4/5ths of all lead-containing non-commercial aviation fuels.
The article did not mention if other countries have emission standards-Europe ?
2
Yet another power grab by the EPA that was enabled by a badly written Clean Air act law. Whats next regulating human farts due to their emission of methane? Hopefully the next President and Congress will overhaul the law and institute sensible regulations that everyone can live with. In the meantime the EPA's funding should be drastically reduced.
3
Please read the article earlier this week about the air quality and health issues in India. Children with permanently scarred lungs from air pollution. Do you really want to live in a country without an EPA? Do you really believe industries will clean up after themselves?
3
Note to Republicans: Environmental catastrophe will cost jobs and be bad for the economy.
38
Expanding population endangers human health through increased carbon emissions, fossil fuel consumption, and global warming.
The EPA should set new limits on human reproduction.
The EPA should set new limits on human reproduction.
18
I must have missed the right's sudden conversion to limiting populaion growth. If that has happened, let me be the first to applaud. All environmental problems stem from massive human overpopulation which the planet simply cannot withstand. Climate change is the most obvious, but the destruction of vast ecosystems, from the Arctic to the grasslands to the tropical forests to the oceans, is destroying Earth's capacity to sustain life. One or two billion people can all live like Americans and Europeans; ten billion cannot. Unless we can reduce birth rates and gradually lower the human population, neither humans nor most other species have a long term future.
1
If we all choose to live like Gandhi, perhaps this planet can hold 25 billion of us, and praying consumes hardly any energy at all.
A good start would be for Republicans to stop opposing affordable health care, access to contraception and sex education.
2
Since when has anyone heard of emissions testing for airplanes?
"I'm sorry but your airplane has an expired inspection sticker, and is grounded until, safety and pollution emissions testing standards have been re certified."
"I'm sorry but your airplane has an expired inspection sticker, and is grounded until, safety and pollution emissions testing standards have been re certified."
Since the EPA started generating rules for things like NOx in 2007. Planes are given extensive periodic safety checks and disqualified for flight if the plane fails the checks (at 500 hours for A-checks and 4-5 years for more extensive D-checks)
Planes are grounded all the time for failure of safety checks. All the time.
I'm not sure what the point behind your question is but I imagine it is a bit of snark aimed at these new rules.
It is well passed time that emissions standards were developed, tightened and enforced for all uses of fossil fuels. Marine engines need to be next on the list, particularly large cruise ships and tankers, both in terms of emissions and efficiency.
Planes are grounded all the time for failure of safety checks. All the time.
I'm not sure what the point behind your question is but I imagine it is a bit of snark aimed at these new rules.
It is well passed time that emissions standards were developed, tightened and enforced for all uses of fossil fuels. Marine engines need to be next on the list, particularly large cruise ships and tankers, both in terms of emissions and efficiency.
18