does this mean they are finally going to address aerosol spraying from aircraft?
I challenge Air Force One to follow the same law as everyone else.
1
Reverse the changes Bush made in the "Clean Air" laws before he left office and Public Law 105-85 ... that garbled contradictory piece of heinous legislation should be burned. Hold those involved accountable. OOPS, Obama fixed it so they are untouchable.
“Airplane carbon pollution is skyrocketing, ..." The article later exposes the person who said that as a liar.
1
There are liars alright all backed by corporate money!
These rules should be enforced on private planes as well. One of the biggest pollution problems we face is the increase of sociopathic behavior from the superrich, who don't care what happens in the future, even if they're informed about it. They are insulated from reality and appear to think consumption is an end in itself, to be increased without end, just to impress some imaginary arbiter of extravagance.
I can't believe it even makes them happy.
I can't believe it even makes them happy.
3
Cut emissions from planes? Please President Obama lead the way with retiring that polluting 747's that you fly around in.
2
With all the water shortages around the world why are bio fuels even a consideration? Unless they can come up with a GMO that grows with sea water forget it.
2
If you're going to press issues like this then it shouldn't be implemented until affordable technology is in place to actually accomplish it. You'll never get there doing what some advocate as forced entry right away because the people who use it simply can't afford it. Do you think airplanes would be full if ticket prices doubled? They're already on the line. One of the best operators out there, Southwest, only fills 80% of their seats. Airlines are now only getting back to a profitable operation so this is not smart at all to kill it after decades of problems and no technology you can just bolt on.
1
To put the article in context, what is the percentage of total greenhouse gases introduced into the environment by the all aircrafts each year? What percentage of the whole are we dealing with? I think it is substantial.
I can hear the climate change deniers screaming Obama is a villain, even thought he Pentagon has been cutting admissions for years now.
1
I'm still having a problem with The E.P.A's Ruling that Fracking dosen't polute the water.
2
What is really good to see is that the EPA is getting more teeth again, after years of languishing.
2
re: efficiency improvements -- it is interesting to note this conclusion from a 2005 report from the Netherlands National Aerospace Laboratory at http://tinyurl.com/o7plj7n:
This report assesses how the fuel efficiency of commercial aircraft has developed since their introduction in the 1930s. Existing estimates, such as the oft-cited 70% improvement from the IPCC Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere, ignore the record of the pre-jet era. Based on bottom-up (micro) and top-down (macro) analyses of aircraft fuel efficiency, it can be concluded that the last piston-powered aircraft were as fuel-efficient as the current average jet. This result was obtained by comparing several large piston-engined aircraft with both old and new jet airliners and was confirmed by the macro analysis, which reveals a sharp increase in fuel consumption per seat-kilometre as piston-engined aircraft were replaced by jet-engined. The last piston-powered airliners were at least twice as fuel-efficient as the first jet-powered aircraft.
This report assesses how the fuel efficiency of commercial aircraft has developed since their introduction in the 1930s. Existing estimates, such as the oft-cited 70% improvement from the IPCC Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere, ignore the record of the pre-jet era. Based on bottom-up (micro) and top-down (macro) analyses of aircraft fuel efficiency, it can be concluded that the last piston-powered aircraft were as fuel-efficient as the current average jet. This result was obtained by comparing several large piston-engined aircraft with both old and new jet airliners and was confirmed by the macro analysis, which reveals a sharp increase in fuel consumption per seat-kilometre as piston-engined aircraft were replaced by jet-engined. The last piston-powered airliners were at least twice as fuel-efficient as the first jet-powered aircraft.
3
Maybe, but they also didn't go 300 to 600 m.p.h.
Piston powered aircraft require much more maintenance than a jet engine and are slower. Jet engines are safer to. Less could go wrong with them. Turbo prop engines are also more efficient but also slower than jets. As you try to design a propeller for more speed and efficiency there is an increase in noise pollution.
2
Oh, heck. Is this going to mean even less leg room?
4
If we want to reduce the injection of bio carbons into the atmosphere at 35,000' we might have accept sardine conditions for a few hours.
Sulfur free kerosene? What a gas. Next they'll be taking the sulfur out of the bunker fuel on ships. If they can't pollute the sea or Oakland CA what are the Oil PR people going to sell? What are they going to do with their Killer Air Pollution Propaganda (killer App for short).
4
With the growing acceptance of the dangers and expense of global warming by insurance companies and governments around the world we have a moral imperative to reduce green house emissions. I want my kids and grandchildren to be safe. I hope Republicans soon embrace this as a moral issue as serious as abortion and gay marriage. We have a great county and I hope we will be the moral leaders in this battle!
12
It is a ruse. Water vapor is the real killer among greenhouse gases. the irony is that the more efficient the aircraft engine, the more water vapor is produced.
Proof?
3
Water vapor is a positive feedback on global warming. As the air warms from increased CO2, the air can hold more water vapor, which is a powerful greenhouse gas. The increased water vapor in the air causes even more warming, so the warmed air can hold even more water vapor. Water vapor does not stay around in the atmosphere very long (have you heard of rain?), while CO2 has a much longer lifetime, decades to centuries.
1
Many small airplanes use avgas which contains lead. However, they could use lead free gasoline if the ethanol was removed from the fuel.
Thank you, President Obama! I hope that the Republicans -- and Democrats -- will recognize climate change for the threat it poses to health, the economy, ecosystems and much more, and support the President's actions to address it.
4
This is silly.
Ban the use of all gasoline and diesel fuels (including the military) and let us come together and save our Earth once and for all!
Ban the use of all gasoline and diesel fuels (including the military) and let us come together and save our Earth once and for all!
OK, will have that ready tomorrow.
1
Noo Yawka, I suspect if what you are suggesting from anywhere in New York City were to happen instantly you would change your tune within hours of actually doing it. No elevators and 50 floors to climb, no lights or heat after sundown, no heat in the winter, no air conditioning in the summer. No trash sevice, no pest control, no hospital services, no hope much less time to think about the environment you just saved at the expense of the existence of the human race as you know it. The only good thing would be the end of a m right wing talk shows.
On second thought, may be is a good idea.
On second thought, may be is a good idea.
5
We need to stop seeing this as impossible. We know now what these fuels are doing to the world. We can stop. We lived without them not so long ago and has hospital services and pest control. We can figure out what we really need to have good lives and focus our use of alternatives. The stakes are much higher than no more business flights or weekend in Vegas.
Toyota has set its bets on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and I think airlines would do well in looking into the technology for their fleets as well. Electric vehicles are limited by the weight of the batteries, but using hydrogen as a fuel with an electric motor means that the technology can be scaled up to run busses, buildings, trains, cities- and airplanes. Hydrogen as a fuel is similar to electricity since it is only as carbon neutral as the method of its production. As we have more renewable energy online hydrogen fuel will get more carbon neutral. Biofuels can be helpful as a transition fuel, but as airline travel increases the ultimate goal should be for airlines to use technologies that have long-term solutions.
3
You do realize how volatile and explosive hydrogen is? Like the Hindenburg? Do you know what a rocket engine looks like when it explodes? I don't want that flying around me.
High speed rail, and soon. No flights under 500 miles originating from U.S. airports, except for those going over water. Electrically powered trains whenever possible; powered by nuclear plants. All intercity freight on containers on rails. No over-the-road heavy trucks. Warehouse just in time freight in rail yards. Hydrogen fuel cells for cars. The technology is here. Tax carbon emissions from all sources to a point where these other travel modalities take over. Mandatory science education for Republicans; if they flunk, they don't vote or run for office.
11
And just what would you do with the nucllear waste? It is perhaps the most deadly polutant of all and we, Japan and Russia have proved we as a species are not up to dealing with it, nor do we seem to want to.
Don't worry, Bruce. It's not going to be a problem. The oil industry has paid Washington politicians enough campaign money to float their own personal Gulf state sultanates.
If the stuff ever did become a problem, no worries there either. Just pay off some greedy, demented despot (there are plenty to chose from) and ship it there.
Having said that, we have two choices -- bad and bad. But, overall, I chose cleaner fuel.
If the stuff ever did become a problem, no worries there either. Just pay off some greedy, demented despot (there are plenty to chose from) and ship it there.
Having said that, we have two choices -- bad and bad. But, overall, I chose cleaner fuel.
2
The silliness of your comment is exceeded only by the four people who recommended it.
1
YES!
Now to the mess about trucks--along with the corruption of the trucking lobby.
(I don't mean to pick on only one lobby: the system is sick!)
Now to the mess about trucks--along with the corruption of the trucking lobby.
(I don't mean to pick on only one lobby: the system is sick!)
4
If the U.S. (and the rest of the world) is genuinely serious about this, special attention must be given to corporate jets, private jets and military jets. They are high in emissions per meaningful "passenger miles."
3
I don't want to fly badly enough to finance a new fleet of planes via airline ticket increases. I guess I won't be taking many trips by air anymore once this is underway.
4
That's a good solution, actually. Raise cost, fly less.
One can fly half way around the world and back for $6-700 each way.
How much do you think it would cost you to drive from NYC to Boston?
One can fly half way around the world and back for $6-700 each way.
How much do you think it would cost you to drive from NYC to Boston?
3
Drive?
What is this 1952?
I can take the train for $50
What is this 1952?
I can take the train for $50
2
You can take a bus for $11.
Acela costs about the same as plane.
How much time on less-expensive train?
Yes, in the US it's 1952, at least regarding public transportation.
Acela costs about the same as plane.
How much time on less-expensive train?
Yes, in the US it's 1952, at least regarding public transportation.
3
"a move that could significantly strengthen President Obama’s environmental legacy" would be to say NO to oil exploration in the Arctic. Also, making sure that Keystone XL stays dead would be a good move in that direction.
Rebuilding passenger rail in the USA would be yet another good move; it doesn't even have to be 'high-speed', just reliable. Can we try those kinds of things too?
Rebuilding passenger rail in the USA would be yet another good move; it doesn't even have to be 'high-speed', just reliable. Can we try those kinds of things too?
8
And how about emissions from military aircraft? The US Air Force is the largest user of jet fuel in the world. No mention of that in this article.
This is like restricting California urban water users when agricultural water there is the vast majority of the problem.
This is like restricting California urban water users when agricultural water there is the vast majority of the problem.
6
Military aircraft should not be touched if this would reduce performance in any way. I don't want to hear about one of our airmen flying a green jet being shot down by another plane made in Russia or China that out performed our plane.
The military is using hydrogen fuel-cell planes and other vehicles. They are venturing out into new technologies.
2
From what I've heard, they are leaders in new technologies.
As the data in this article indicate, EPA rules will have no significant effect on global pollution or the "climate" of the planet. Economic forces have already resulted in about the highest efficiency practical. The only way to significantly reduce pollution from flying would be to drastically reduce passenger miles. That won't happen because the wealthy like to fly for fun, and taxpayer-subsidized business-travel provides a lot of jobs. The NYT should investigate how many miles government bureaucrats put in; perhaps the "rules" are a result of their guilt? Furthermore, any incremental increase in passenger efficiency due to the EPA will be dwarfed by the effects of military flying.
6
As the article says, in 2012 the USA opposed the EU plan to include aircraft in emissions trading. Now there is a possibility for a truly global agreement. If there is emissions trading for aircraft GHG emissions, and perhaps some shaming for excess usage, some of the wealthy might fly less. If there are truly taxpayer subsidies for air travel, they should be eliminated. Republicans object to subsidies for Amtrak, which can have much lower emissions per passenger-mile.
1
What about helicopters? They've taken over the skies around New York Harbor-- including nonstop, nonessential sightseeing flights. The fumes around the Heliports (public amenities provided for the benefit of tourists and 1% commuters) are out of control (as is the noise pollution, but that's for another day, I guess).
2
Helicopters are about 2 to 3 times "dirtier", environmentally speaking, than diesel cars per vehicle mile. A tourist helicopter operating in NYC with six passengers aboard is therefore about as dirty as 3 single-occupant diesel vehicles on the GW bridge. In other words, a drop in the bucket. More crucially, can you tell us again who in your view of the universe gets to decide that a helicopter tour of NYC is "nonessential" but a meeting that may well have taken place over the internet instead or a trip to orlano is?
We should moving towards a world where aircraft are the sole major (and therefore last) users of hydrocarbons because aviation is the one area where, from an energy density / weight standpoint, there is no alternative. We can't have feasible battery powered or nuclear planes - or rather, the technology needs to be so refined that if such technologies ever do come aviation will be the last to have those safely and efficiently (a few experiments in electric or solar planes does not disprove this).
By far the best realistic thing that the government could do to cut emissions is to limit car size and weight. I'm guessing that most americans don't realize that here in Europe that Pugeot make a number of practical not tiny cars that have MPGs in the 80+ range. Yes, 80, and without being hybrids or electrics.
We should moving towards a world where aircraft are the sole major (and therefore last) users of hydrocarbons because aviation is the one area where, from an energy density / weight standpoint, there is no alternative. We can't have feasible battery powered or nuclear planes - or rather, the technology needs to be so refined that if such technologies ever do come aviation will be the last to have those safely and efficiently (a few experiments in electric or solar planes does not disprove this).
By far the best realistic thing that the government could do to cut emissions is to limit car size and weight. I'm guessing that most americans don't realize that here in Europe that Pugeot make a number of practical not tiny cars that have MPGs in the 80+ range. Yes, 80, and without being hybrids or electrics.
A step in the right direction, but so very long overdue. Stand firm Mr. President, and do not fall prey to the whines of the airline industry. They knew darn well this was coming and could have been proactive.
Industry beware -- you pollute, you will pay. Do the right thing now.
Industry beware -- you pollute, you will pay. Do the right thing now.
3
Why are so many people flying to and everywhere for, in the first place? Is it really the airplanes' fault there are so many of them flying and polluting the skies simply for the sake of polluting the sky.
Even after the pollution that comes out regardless has been (IF it can) whittled down to its minimum, and the climate temperatures still keep rising regardless; will no one ever stop to asking why it is we feel we must continue to live this way, when the result of living these ways becomes plainer and plainer every day?
Technology can't fix a problem that's the people responsible responsible for that technology's ultimate doing. I seems we've convinced ourselves that there's nothing wrong with the manner in which we live, none of that has to change, rather just how we cook the books on it. As if nature cared one whit about our data collection and regulations - the only ones who foolishly think any of that matters are to ones foolish enough to pretend that it can.
Which is why, come to think of it, is why it only feels right to me now that when they appear to be fighting like children with one another in Washington they're really just behaving as what they are normally. So none of this stuff is any act, its just what we've truly become.
Even after the pollution that comes out regardless has been (IF it can) whittled down to its minimum, and the climate temperatures still keep rising regardless; will no one ever stop to asking why it is we feel we must continue to live this way, when the result of living these ways becomes plainer and plainer every day?
Technology can't fix a problem that's the people responsible responsible for that technology's ultimate doing. I seems we've convinced ourselves that there's nothing wrong with the manner in which we live, none of that has to change, rather just how we cook the books on it. As if nature cared one whit about our data collection and regulations - the only ones who foolishly think any of that matters are to ones foolish enough to pretend that it can.
Which is why, come to think of it, is why it only feels right to me now that when they appear to be fighting like children with one another in Washington they're really just behaving as what they are normally. So none of this stuff is any act, its just what we've truly become.
3
Exactly! How dare people have the right to travel freely!
Those of us who live under lower, condensed new flight paths, aka NextGen aviation, forced upon us by the FAA — without notice to residents or prior environmental impact studies, which are required by law — are already accustomed to thinking and talking about aircraft emissions, pollution, and our health. Totally safe, says the FAA, a claim that might be believable if the agency weren't known to be corrupt and arrogant. Did I mention the noise pollution? Oh yes, there is noise — a lot. Like a jumbo jet landing in your apartment every minute for hours on end. We're waiting for a story about that in the NY Times.
6
How about tackling airplane noise, which has been concentrated over narrow corridors around airports in new FAA procedures, superhighways of noise. EPA please look at those impacts on residents living below flight paths.
7
This regulation actually makes less sense than appears at first sight.
When we pass laws against smoking in bars, the beneficiaries are other patrons in the bar. When we enact emission standards for cars, the beneficiaries are American pedestrians and other motorists.
In other words, the cost of the regulation is borne by Americans but the benefit also goes to Americans.
But planes are a different matter. If tough standards on US flights are enacted, the costs will be borne by American passengers, but the benefit will be widely distributed, including to other nations which do far too little for air quality.
If Mr. Obama were to push for international standards, over the entire planet, it might make a bit more sense.
When we pass laws against smoking in bars, the beneficiaries are other patrons in the bar. When we enact emission standards for cars, the beneficiaries are American pedestrians and other motorists.
In other words, the cost of the regulation is borne by Americans but the benefit also goes to Americans.
But planes are a different matter. If tough standards on US flights are enacted, the costs will be borne by American passengers, but the benefit will be widely distributed, including to other nations which do far too little for air quality.
If Mr. Obama were to push for international standards, over the entire planet, it might make a bit more sense.
4
Actually, the rules that EPA is thinking about putting in place (and let's be clear, this is only a proposed endangerment finding -- it is NOT a proposed regulation) would simply implement a weak international CO2 standard that is currently being developed by the International Civil Aviation Organization.
Unfortunately, that standard is not likely to reduce emissions at all due to a low level of stringency, assumption that it will reflect current technology levels, and a long lead time for implementation (5-8 years). In other words, by the time it goes into effect, the "standard" will simply ratify existing practices.
Unfortunately, that standard is not likely to reduce emissions at all due to a low level of stringency, assumption that it will reflect current technology levels, and a long lead time for implementation (5-8 years). In other words, by the time it goes into effect, the "standard" will simply ratify existing practices.
Another example of American hypocrisy. If we cared about efficiency and lowering pollution, we'd invest in trains and mass transit. No need to fly from Columbus, OH to Cleveland, Detroit, Indianapolis, Louisville, Pittsburgh, or Chicago, except that there's no train service!
22
Aren't airplanes mass transit? Except for those who can afford private jets?
3
Another example of American hypocrisy. If we cared about efficiency and lowering pollution, we'd invest in trains and mass transit. No need to fly from Columbus, Ohio to Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Detroit, Lousville, or Chicago, except there's no train!
4
"Each 5.5 pounds of weight reduced on an airplane means a one-ton reduction in carbon emissions per year..."
Want to reduce carbon emissions? Make the fare based upon the total weight of the passenger, plus luggage. Weight and carbon emissions will both fall quickly.
Want to reduce carbon emissions? Make the fare based upon the total weight of the passenger, plus luggage. Weight and carbon emissions will both fall quickly.
14
Are you trying to make Chris Christie take the bus?
8
What a great idea! Let's make them all take the bus.
2
"commercial airlines have voluntarily committed to limit the growth of their carbon emissions ..."
We all know how effective these voluntary commitments are. The oil industry is a perfect example.
As for the airlines, who are very profitable, because of their nickel-and-diming passengers while squeezing us in ever more cramped and uncomfortable seats and cutting our frequent flyer benefits - I have zero sympathy for them.
We all know how effective these voluntary commitments are. The oil industry is a perfect example.
As for the airlines, who are very profitable, because of their nickel-and-diming passengers while squeezing us in ever more cramped and uncomfortable seats and cutting our frequent flyer benefits - I have zero sympathy for them.
12
In this particular case, the airlines are actually doing the right thing, albeit not necessarily for the right reasons or in the most effective way. The most straightforward way to reduce emissions is to consume less fuel, and it saves money and increases profit. Of course, the other way to reduce fuel usage is to reduce the number of flights. You could do your part here--if you think flying is so horrible, then either pick another way to travel or stay home.
7
Problem is that there is no alternative to reach ones destination. I just came back from a 10 day trip to Germany. I have door to door service anywhere in that country or all of Europe for that matter using rail.
I currently live in ABE area of Pa. (Allentown,Bethlehem,Easton) bout 300k in population. I have absolutely no choice but to get on a highway if I want to go to some of the bigger cities in the Northeast be it NYC,Philly,Scranton Harrisburg,Pittsburgh etc,etc
We an put a man on the moon but we cant get from city to city without getting in a car
I currently live in ABE area of Pa. (Allentown,Bethlehem,Easton) bout 300k in population. I have absolutely no choice but to get on a highway if I want to go to some of the bigger cities in the Northeast be it NYC,Philly,Scranton Harrisburg,Pittsburgh etc,etc
We an put a man on the moon but we cant get from city to city without getting in a car
1
Very good. Biofuels, and artificial fuels made from atmospheric CO2 and non-fossil energy sources, do not cause a net increase of atmospheric CO2 and so do not contribute to global warming. Aircraft makers and airlines should be developing these with all deliberate speed. If we ignore the problem, many of the places we now fly from and to will eventually become... I'll call it "uninteresting".
5
Can you prove that? I would assume biofuel are, like fossil fuels, hydrocarbons and would release CO2 in fairly similar ways. And what is an "artificial fuel"?
2
Biofuels are made from plants, which get their carbon from the air in the form of CO2. When you burn the fuels the carbon goes back into the air, giving no net increase. Some biofuels are made from animal fats; animals get their carbon from plants, which get it from the air. Non-biological artificial fuels can be made in several ways. One carbon-neutral method condenses CO2 from the air, electrolyzes it into CO and oxygen, electrolyzes water into hydrogen (H2) and oxygen, then uses the Fischer-Tropsch process or some variation of that to turn the CO & H2 into various hydrocarbons. From these gasoline and aircraft kerosene can be made. To be carbon neutral the non-biological methods must use non-fossil energy: Solar, wind, nuclear, etc. These fuels are not cheap, but doing nothing would eventually be a lot more expensive.
1
But biofuels divert water and land from needed food production. Water and land are limited resources. On Fresh Air yesterday, the agronomist/author said that 40 percent of corn now goes to biofuels. Let's use food to fuel people not planes.
More massive stupidity based on junk science from the government. Latest satellite data again show no warming in 17 data, including the atmosphere over the ocean. Why must we endure this fraud?
5
We should all listen more to Mr. James from Houston, a famous and learned atmospheric scientist from the highly regarded Texan school of climate cognoscenti. Thank you, Mr.James, for your insightful remarks.
24
If you really want to present an argument that goes against the findings of tens of thousands of scientists, most of them not funded by the US government, why not try citing your source(s)? Unless, of course, you made the conclusion, completely by yourself, that climate destabilization is "junk science".
Here, I'll cite one of my sources:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n6/full/nclimate2617.html
Here, I'll cite one of my sources:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n6/full/nclimate2617.html
34
Warming is happening. Airliners account for 2% of the warming. However, the US Dept of Transportation reports a little over 182 million international air departures from the US in 2013. Any changes (I won't call them improvements) will eliminate less than 2% of warming.
How much lighter can we make airframes before we are taking 182 million chances on people's lives? And this for less than 2% of warming! How about going after the big emitters instead?
How much lighter can we make airframes before we are taking 182 million chances on people's lives? And this for less than 2% of warming! How about going after the big emitters instead?
3