Branson plans trials of 'green' fuelled passenger plane

It seems like once again Richard Branson seems to be the only one concerned with the notion of aviation pollution. Over the recent years he has put forward the argument that it is not the just the typical forms of transport as cars, buses and boats that emit these harmful carbon emissions but also air planes too.

Aviation is responsible for 2.6% of carbon emissions in the EU, but the effect of these greenhouse gases on the climate is likely to be much greater, because they are produced high in the atmosphere.

Sir Richard, who has already announced that his Virgin Trains will be switching from diesel power to biodiesel by 2009, said Virgin Atlantic had teamed up with Boeing, the engine maker GE Aviation and his new venture, Virgin Fuels, to work on ways to reduce greenhouse emissions from flights.

A total of 15 new planes going by the name of the Dream Line 787 will be constructed over the battle for the future of air travel as it it is set to double over the next 20 years.

Although Sir Richard has argued that biofuels are a greener alternative to traditional jet fuels because they reduce the overall greenhouse emissions that cause climate change, many environmentalists claim production is energy intensive and that growing the necessary crops could lead to deforestation in some areas.

Even though this may occur, it is still a step to at least cutting the amount of CO2 emissions and controlling the effects of global warming.

Brown and Cameron battle over green air travel

In a bid to get the green vote the two opposition leaders engaged in a battle to over the topic of aviation pollution.
Labour challenged the Tories over their plans to take unilateral UK action on carbon emissions from aviation by introducing a system of personal air mile allowances for travellers.

The Tories said Mr Brown was simply recycling policies he had first announced in a speech in March 1995.”
They also cited a cabinet policy review paper published in January setting out the critical importance of cutting aviation emissions. The paper warned: "On current trends aviation would be equivalent to 26% to 44% of the UK's emission target by 2050. Growth in air travel is greatest amongst the better off - who fly more often," the paper states.

So if this is true, then why isn’t more being done about the situation? Should passengers pay a heavier duty for polluting our skies and contributing greatly to global warming?

Branson urges cooperation on climate change

It seems like Richard Branson seems to be the only fore front figure caring about the problems arising with global warming and aircraft pollution, which is more than I can say for the UK goverment.

In an article written in the Guardian on 27 Septemeber 2006 it states:

Sir Richard Branson today called on the global aviation industry to work together to tackle the growing issue of climate change and outlined plans for a "starting grid" on runways to reduce fuel use.

The billionaire businessman, who last week pledged US$3bn dollars towards renewable energy initiatives, said if airlines, airports, air traffic controllers and governments worked together, up to 25% of the world's aviation carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could be cut.

He has written to other airlines, engine manufacturers and airport operators urging them to support a cross industry forum that will help deliver practical ways of tackling global warming.

Glad to see someone is taking an interest. It's only the world at stake here.

EU Proposes CO2 Emission Quotas For Airlines

In December 2006, The European Commission proposed to set carbon dioxide emission quotas for airlines from 2011, a stance already met with hostility by the aviation industry and environmentalists. The proposal, which still has to be adopted by EU member states and the European Parliament, would see emissions rules imposed from 2011 on intra-European flights and from 2012 for flights originating outside the bloc.

It would cover both EU and foreign aircraft operators and the quotas would be based on emission levels from last year.

The quotas would be part of the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme. That would allow airlines to sell surplus quotas if they cut back emissions far enough or would be forced to buy additional allowances if they produce too many.

EU planes account for about half the industry's carbon dioxide emissions world-wide.

But when will all these proposals take place. It just seems like a whole bunch of hopless promises.

A step closer for biofuels for planes

I came across this website which was explaining that in the US there has been developemnts in using biofuel to operate airplanes.

A new biofuels technology developed by North Carolina State University engineers has the potential to turn virtually any lipidic compound—e.g., vegetable oils, oils from animal fat and oils from algae—into aviation fuel or other high-value fuels.

The technology, called Centia, which is derived from “crudus potentia,” or “green power” in Latin integrates a sequence of three thermocatalytic-reforming processes that are either extensions of current commercial processes or based on recent laboratory breakthroughs. Centia can also be used to make additives for cold-weather biodiesel fuels and holds the potential to fuel automobiles that currently run on gasoline.

So why isn't anyone spreading joy and spreading the knowledge?

News in Brief

February 16 2007: CO2

At a two-day meeting in the US world leaders reached a new agreement on tackling the issues of climate change. Delegates agreed that developing countries will have to face targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions as well as rich countries.

The meeting in Washington of the G8+5 Climate Change Dialogue group -including China and India also agreed that a Global market should be formed to cap and trade carbon emissions.

February 27 2007: Ryanair boss slams flight tax

The Chancellor Gordon Brown’s air passenger duty was simply “a bloody tax grab” and had nothing to do with the environment, an airline boss claimed. Ryanair chief Michael O’Leary told the Parliamentary Monitor everyone has been “sucked in” by the duty because they thought it was an environment issue.

Thursday 8 March 2007

Expedia plans carbon move

Expedia unveiled plans for the first global carbon offset programme for corporate travel. The travel website was teamed up with a US company to offer businesses the ability to calculate the amount of CO2 emitted from employee travel and buy the correspondin amount of carbon offsets. Expedia says its own travel programme will be carbon neutral by the end of this year.

FoE

Friends of the Earth today demanded the EU cuts domestic emissions of greenhouse gases by 30 percent by 2020. The EU Spring Council in Brussels is due to set targets for Europe’s energy future at a series of meetings.

'Binding' carbon targets proposed


Tuesday 13 March 2007

Britain could become the first country to set legally binding carbon reduction targets under plans unveiled by Environment Secretary David Miliband.

The draft Climate Change Bill calls for an independent panel to set ministers a "carbon budget" every five years, in a bid to cut emissions by 60% by 2050.

If they miss the figure, future governments could be taken to court.

The Tories and Lib Dems welcomed the proposals, but said carbon budgets should be set annually.
Flights

A full Climate Change Bill is set to be published in the autumn.

At the weekend, the Conservatives unveiled environmental proposals including VAT or fuel duty on domestic flights.

But Mr Miliband said more focus was needed on cutting carbon emissions from homes, citing government plans to make all new houses carbon-neutral by 2016 and encourage the use of energy-efficient light bulbs.

The Liberal Democrats said they broadly supported the aims of the climate change bill but urged closer monitoring of a government's green progress.

The Protocol with the missing element.

The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that ratify this protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.

The Kyoto Protocol now covers more than 160 countries globally and over 55% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The objective is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

Many of the world's biggest economies have are members of this agreement seeing as they are the biggest polluters, and the UK being one of.

However to my dismay I have discovered that carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft on international flights are excluded from the national targets for the kyoto agreement.

When burnt, aircraft fuel is coverted into CO2 and H2O. So isn't this a cause for concern? Why has avaition pollution been pushed aside? I am aware that other forms of transport emitt dangerous emissions and are probably more easy to target as we have sen with introduction of congestion charging. But why has such a major element to the cause of global warming not even addressed. As more and more people are starting to jet around the world isnt it our duty to have some sort of respect to the condition of the Earth, seeing as we are the ones living on it and what about the future generations?!!

A cause for concern: A Greener parliament or not?

I have recently searched the parliament hansard archives on the UK's Government views on the ideas of greener airplanes. To my amazement i only found one report which dated back to to 16 January 2004. A whole 3 years have passed since then. In this report Lord Beaumont of Whitley proposed a bill to reduce emissions of CO, NOx and greenhouse gases due to air traffic.

The government have predicted that air travel will treble during the next 30 years. (shocking, i know)and in the the White Paper published in Decemeber 2003 there were proposed plans to build new runways at Stansted, Heathrow and Birmingham and other airports to meet demands.

The cost of UK avaition's contribution to climate change is estimated at well over £2 Billion a year. By 2050, avaition could be conributing up to 15 percent of overall global warming effctes produced by human activities.

I know that my local MP and the government have strong issues on the topic of current warming, but if aviation pollution is one of the major causes of this disaster, then why aren't they proposing any solutions or at least raising the area more frequently in parliament?

Ambitious targets agreed to reduce global warming

In a bid to avert potential human calamity,carbon emissions are to be slashed by 20% by 2020 as a result of decisions taken at the summit meeting on 8-9 March. This figure could go up to 30% if counties outside the EU agree to match the commitment.

Coming together at the EU’s spring council, heads of state not only agreed on the emissions reduction but also to a 20% increase in energy efficiency, a 10% increase in use of biofuels and a binding 20% target for the use of renewable energy sources.

The topic is "extremely important for the whole of humanity" said Ms Merkel. "To reduce global warming by 2 percent we need to take the necessary measures, avoiding what could well be human calamity", she explained.

read more: http://ec.europa.eu/news/eu_explained/070309_1_en.htm

EU Council Greener Energy meeting

Member states of the EU meet this week to discuss plans for more greener more renewable sources of energy. It is thought the EU could offer to extend its 20% target for emissions cuts to 30% if other heavy polluters like the US, China and India come on board.

There are many numerous ways to cut carbon emissions but why is carbon emmissions in the form of air pollution from airplanes never mentioned?

Here is an article from the BBC website, discussing issues arising at the meeting.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6433503.stm

More controls needed?

The European Commission proposed in December 2006 to set carbon dioxide emission quotas for airlines from 2011, a stance already met with hostility by the aviation industry and environmentalists. The proposal, which still has to be adopted by EU member states and the European Parliament, would see emissions rules imposed from 2011 on intra-European flights and from 2012 for flights originating outside the bloc. Aircraft carbon dioxide emissions account for only about three percent of the global total but they have increased by 87 percent since 1990, according to the Commission, the EU's executive body.So I ask why isn't more being done about it? It is just as serious andthe same as emissions emmited by other forms of transport, so why aren't there more conrols being enforced?

Green concerns over aviation plan

By Paul Rincon BBC News Online science staff

Stansted expansion could destroy surrounding woodlandEnvironmentalists are disappointed by many proposals in the UK Government's White Paper on Aviation and say other measures do not go far enough.

Tackling pollution and noise while coping with fast rising demand for air travel is a major challenge.

But the construction of new runways, particularly the one proposed for Stansted, would destroy hectares of ancient woodland, say campaigners.
Air passenger growth is expected to continue at levels of 3-5% per year.

Climate warming

Friends of the Earth claims this will push up the aviation contribution to the UK's carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) emissions to 10-12% by 2020 - from the current 5%.
If these figures prove correct, this may make it difficult for Britain to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce the emissions of those gases thought to be warming the planet.


IMPACT OF EXPANSION ON POLLUTANTS

Heathrow: would affect 35,000 people (exceeding EU limit)
Stansted: would affect 20 people
Source: Department of Transport Already, ministers are having to grapple with how the expected growth in road traffic can be accommodated within the demands of the climate pact.

The group claims the boom in air travel is sustained partly because the aviation industry pays no tax on the fuel it uses and argues that this amounts to a subsidy.
In the long term, Friends of the Earth has been urging the UK Government to commit to a tax on fuel for domestic flights.
A "congestion charge" on airlines would give ministers up to £9bn to invest in public transport and safer streets, according to the group.
In the short term, it has been pushing for the government to increase air passenger duty. But ministers reportedly thought the duty did little to persuade airlines to conserve fuel or cut pollution.

IMPACT OF EXPANSION ON NOISE POLLUTION

Heathrow: would affect 333,000 people (up 26,000)
Stansted: would affect 8,000 people (up 2,000)
Source: Department of Transport Friends of the Earth said some of the alternative economic measures proposed in the White Paper, such as greenhouse gas trading schemes and differential landing charges at airports according to noise levels and air quality, had potential.

But it accused the government of abandoning its environmental responsibilities.
In a statement, Sir Tom Blundell, chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, expressed his disappointment with the White Paper.
"Earlier this year, the government published an Energy White Paper setting out its strategy for tackling global climate change, and set challenging but necessary targets for greenhouse gas emissions.

EU tackles aircraft CO2 Emissions

Most of the permits will be issued to airlines for nothing Airlines operating in the EU should pay for any increase in their carbon emissions above current levels, the European Commission has proposed.

Commissioners called on the industry to make a "fair contribution" to the fight against climate change.
But environmentalists said the measures were too weak to make much difference.

Charges are "step forward"The commissioners' idea is to bring internal EU flights inside the bloc's emissions trading scheme from 2011, with other flights following in 2012."

The aviation industry generally welcomed the plan.

"Aviation emissions need to be brought under control, because they are rising very fast," said Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas.
"Since 1990, they have gone up about 90% and, by 2020, they are going to be doubled, if business continues as usual."

SINS OF EMISSION
Aircraft produce about 3% of EU CO2 emissions - more than refineries or steel plants
They also emit nitrogen oxides which lead to the formation of another greenhouse gas, ozone condensation trails, which can develop into cirrus clouds, may also have a warming effect

International experts say aviation will account for 5% of total warming in 2050
The emissions trading scheme only covers CO2


Charges are "step forward"

The commission says 46% of this expected growth in aviation emissions - or 183 million tonnes of CO2 per year - would be saved if its plan was implemented in full.
However, a large part of the saving would be achieved by other participants in the emissions trading scheme (ETS), which would sell emission allowances to the airlines.
The plan would work by issuing airlines with emissions allowances, mostly free of charge, based on their average carbon use between 2004 and 2006.
An airline that cut its emissions would be able to sell its surplus permits, while one that increased emissions would have to buy extra permits from industry or from other airlines.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6195567.stm

Friends of the Earth

Our Climate is changing-and it’s happening faster than we could ever have imagined.


The European heatwave in 2003 caused 26,000 premature deaths. Scientists predict that by 2040 this kind of heatwave will happen every two years.

Floods, hurricanes and droughts have increased threefold since the 1960s. The homes of over 4 million people in England and Wales are at risk from flooding.

The World health Organisation estimates that about 160,000 people die every year because of the effects of global warming.

Sea levels are forecast to rise by 88cm by 2100 sweeping away the homes and livelihoods of around 100 million people globally.

The warmer climate is killing wildlife and the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world, threatening already endangered species like polar bears.

We have to stop it-and we can

Scientists overwhelmingly agree that these changes are mainly due to human activities. They are caused by factories, power stations, transport systems and homes pumping quantities of carbon dioxide and other climate change gases into the atmosphere. But the situation is not yet hopeless, because if people are causing the problem, then people can solve it.

We can make the government act

All the UK parties are committed to cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent by 2050-but emissions have been rising. There is a danger that every government will put off necessary action until it is too late, unless they are legally obliged to take action now. That’s why we are campaigning for parliament to pass a climate change law requiring cuts of three per cent every year. The law would provide an impetus for new investment in clean energy such as solar and wind power; clean up inefficient, polluting technologies; and bring major gains in energy efficiency.

New aircraft fuel could be pie in the sky

Richard Branson has pledged to fund research into alternative fuel for aircraft, but what lies behind the announcement?


September 25, 2006 11:12 AM

So now we know: Richard Branson doesn't read the Guardian. On Thursday, it published an extract from my book showing that there are no foreseeable substitutes for aviation fuel (kerosene) that don't currently cause more harm than good. A few hours later, Branson announced that he would be investing £1.6bn in technologies intended to reduce climate change. First among them would be alternative fuels for aircraft.

He singled out biofuels as a promising opportunity. While pure biodiesel can be used to run a car engine, it cannot be used in jet planes at a higher concentration than roughly 10%. This is because its "cloud point" is much higher than kerosene's. At low temperatures, oils go cloudy, and at a couple of degrees beyond that point, they form a gel that would block the engine. As the plane rises through the troposphere, and the temperature cools, its engines would clog and stall. Even a 10% mixture is likely to be fatal, as it raises the cloud point from -51C to -29C.
This can be partly countered by repeatedly cooling the fuel and filtering out the ice crystals, but that requires a great deal of energy. Far worse, biofuels are currently causing far more climate change than they prevent. Rainforests are being cleared to plant palm oil and sugar cane. Other forms of agriculture are being driven onto virgin land as the global demand for grain rises. Rising grain prices, blamed by the UN food and agriculture organisation primarily on the demand for biofuels, already threaten the food security of the world's poor - and it is likely to get a lot worse.

So is Branson going to do something about it? You've got to be kidding. Virgin Atlantic's three-year growth plan is "aimed at capturing greater business market share, with products tailored towards premium passengers at the heart of the strategy. The airline is targeting an increase of at least 10% in the number of business travellers over the next year."
Branson's announcement was a marvellous publicity coup, as so many of his initiatives are. But is there anything behind it?

We have the options available to us, but why aren't they at our disposal? Surely if its a way to save the Earth's every increasing crisis then it should be in use now?

Introduction: GO FLY GREEN

As each day passes the Earth's condition is slowly deteriorating and this is partly our fault. From the developments of industrialisation to Globalisation we are living in a more polluted environment and I feel it should be our duty to slow the effects or at least control it. So why are we not taking up more of the eco-friendly resources which are available to us, especially in the developments of air transport. There have already been progress in introducing carbon emmision free airplanes which have already been designed and constructed, but why aren't they at our use already. Flying is a particularly contentious environmental issue. Although it only accounts for 7% of global carbon emissions, these are released high in the atmosphere where they can do the most damage. The purpose of this blog is to illustrate that the concept of global warming is a serious threat and that air craft pollution is a contributing factor. There are new improved forms of aviation out there and I want to demonstrate the developments of this.


The story so far: Air Traffic Trends and Forecasts

In 1994, the world’s commercial airline industry
comprised about 15,000 aircraft serving nearly 10,000
airports. Globally, total scheduled air traffic between
airlines registered in countries belonging to the
International Civil Aviation Organisation (excluding
former USSR) increased by 74 per cent between 1985
and 1995. Total passenger kilometres flown (scheduled
and non-scheduled) increased by 67 per cent in the same
period and total freight tonne-kilometres flown by
scheduled services more than doubled.

The number of aircraft using British airports rose by 55
per cent between 1986 and 1996. During the same
period, the number of people who flew into or out of
British airports increased by 82 per cent and the cargo
handled by British airports by 105 per cent.
Unsurprisingly, some British airports are amongst the
busiest in the world.

The Department of Transport expects the number of
passengers passing through UK airports to rise by 73-
163 per cent between 1992 and 2010, with the
proportion using regional airports increasing.
Meanwhile the International Air Transport Association
(IATA) expects the number of passengers using UK
airports to more than treble by 2025. At the
international level, British Airways told the Royal
Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) that it
expected passenger travel worldwide to grow at five to
six per cent a year between 1994 and 2010, which means
it would more than double. RCEP considered this
reflected a general view in the airline industry.


http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/air_transport_key_facts.pdf