Global warming and airplanes

Yesterday, my son Luke brought home from his job at the airport a pamphlet by Lufthansa titled, “The climate effects of air transport”. The BBC posted an article on the topic this weekend, too. Both made me wonder, how does flying compare with other forms of transportation in terms of atmospheric impacts, and what can be done to reduce airline emissions?

Lufthansa cites a study purporting to show that airline transportation is responsible for 1.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Electricity/heat generation causes 24.6%, the largest sector, followed by “changes in land use” (whatever that means – construction?) at 18.2%, agriculture with 13.5% and transportation other than flying 11.9%. Lufthansa claims to have increased its Carbon dioxide efficiency by 30% since 1991, with fuel consumption having fallen by almost 2 liters per passenger per 100 kilometers to the current value of 4.4 liters. The company expects that number to fall to 3.4 liters/passenger/100km after the addition to its fleet of 15 Airbus A380s and 20 Boing 747-8s, by 2011. For comparison, the 2008-2009 European Union targets for automobile fuel efficiency are 5 liters per 100 km for gasoline-powered cars and 4.5 liters per 100 km for diesel cars. By this measure, driving in a single occupancy vehicle is less environmentally friendly than flying; pack the whole family into the car, and driving wins, considering only oil consumption.

Earlier this month, the European Union (EU) transportation ministers agreed on a plan for submission to the EU Parliament for approval, that starting in 2011, airlines will either have to reduce the amount of Carbon dioxide they produce, or buy credits from other industries. The airlines are protesting, and so is the United States. The BBC reports, “the ministers were expecting a “heated debate” over their plans, not only from the airlines but also from other nations. The US has already warned that the scheme could be in breach of international aviation rules if it tried to include non-EU airlines.”

Lufthansa is calling for government action of a different nature – overhaul of the air traffic control system in Europe and of flight routes all over the world. “By avoiding holding patterns and shortening approach routes, Lufthansa could conserve [enough] fuel for 11 daily flights between New York and Frankfurt with an Airbus 330-300”, their pamphlet claims. “Without today’s politically motivated “detours” we would… avoid 23 tons of Carbon dioxide emissions on each flight to Beijing and back.”

And it says specifically of Europe:

“The fragmentation of air traffic control over Europe leads to billions of euros in additional costs and about 10 million tons of additional Carbon dioxide emissions each year. In comparison with air traffic control in the U.S., the European system results in 75% higher costs – at 45% lower performance. Experts have concluded that improved regulations and more efficient use of airspace could reduce kerosene consumption by as much as 12%. Optimizing Europe’s air traffic control would be the biggest climate protection project in the history of European aviation. This is the responsibility of politicians. A Single European Sky must be implemented swiftly. The instruments needed to redesign European air space have long since been available. What has been lacking is the political will to realize these improvements speedily for the benefit of the environment and aviation.”

The Single European Sky concept has been around for years. It would effectively unite Europe’s 35 air navigation service providers into one. Six EU states started working on it in 1960. So while one may and perhaps should be skeptical of public relations brochures left out for corporate airline passengers to read over the course of a long flight between Frankfurt and PDX, the frustrations expressed seem on first read to have some merit. Hungary’s Budapest Business Journal reported on June 8, “The International Air Transport Association (IATA), has called on German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, as the host of the G-8 Summit, to save 12 million tons of unnecessary CO2 annually, by making a political commitment to deliver a Single European Sky, within five years.” I looked over the first five pages of a Google search to see if there was a response from the G-8 leaders, and didn’t see one.

Good to see Europeans lauding an energy efficient system in the United States, on this issue at least.