Despite the huge backlog in new orders, particularly NB’s, could the industry actually be facing a 9/11 style depression caused by Climate Change?

People generally could start to think, do I need to fly as often. It won’t happen everywhere , but I can see signs of a shift in attitude towards the environment.

Are A and B doing enough R&D on a replacement for the turbofan, using clean electric propulsion?

1. Aviation is growing as fast as ever, right now even the take up of electric cars is small and in most cases isn't actually about climate change but other reasons such as the Tesla factor or efficiency. Plus with the majority of our electricity coming from coal anyway its not actually doing much.

2. Until battery technology moves beyond lithium iron batteries Airbus and Boeing won't even look at it, even at 100% efficiency (0 energy loss) lithium iron batteries weight more than 20x that of fuel per energy unit output.

Pax planes will go electric or 'clean' when every car, every train and every ship is electric or not oil/fuel powered because weight is battery techs biggest enemy and its also aviation biggest enemy

In fact i'll go on the record and say that we will have fully autonomous commercial aircraft and direct space flights to the mars before we have electric commercial aircraft.

uta999 wrote:

Are A and B doing enough R&D on a replacement for the turbofan, using clean electric propulsion?

"Clean" electric is a complete myth; that electricity is still generated somewhere via coal, hydro, nuclear, wind power. Just because an electric car/plane puts out no visible exhaust doesn't mean electricity is clean; there is still an environmental impact when the electricity is produced and transported.

As long as we (humans) want to travel without moving, there will be a negative environmental impact.

The industry could be facing a contraction due to climate change, but not due to anybody voluntarily changing their habits - it would be due to climate going off the rails and increasingly challenging operational conditions caused by extreme weather events if anything. This would look like the 'death by a thousand cuts' - that hailstorm at DFW last month that temporarily took 40+ aircraft out of service due to hail damage, and knock-on effects is a prime example.

log0008 wrote:

1. Aviation is growing as fast as ever, right now even the take up of electric cars is small and in most cases isn't actually about climate change but other reasons such as the Tesla factor or efficiency. Plus with the majority of our electricity coming from coal anyway its not actually doing much.

Only 27.4% of the United States total electricity generation is from coal as of 2018, and that number is decreasing at a rapid rate due to coal's high cost versus natural gas.

In fact i'll go on the record and say that we will have fully autonomous commercial aircraft and direct space flights to the mars before we have electric commercial aircraft.

I agree 100% here. We're going to be burning Jet-A as a primary power source for aviation long after we've got reliable scheduled manned flights to Mars... electrically powered aircraft are not feasible without some sort of breakthrough - a quantum leap of some sort, in energy density of batteries... but there's no real drive to move in that direction either. There's no shortage of oil to pull out of the ground, refine and burn. The issue is CO2 emissions - and we've just hit 415 ppm of atmospheric concentration of CO2, a level not reached on this planet in at least 3 million years.

If there is going to be a hit to airlines in the future, it's going to be from the ecological damage brought by actual climactic effects of a rapidly destabilizing climate. Flying and operational conditions will continue to become more challenging, with larger and more frequent storms and consequently more disruptions to operations. This will be the mechanism that hurts aviation - if it hurts it - which I think is rather dubious. If the economy stays strong it can power through this.

uta999 wrote:

Despite the huge backlog in new orders, particularly NB’s, could the industry actually be facing a 9/11 style depression caused by Climate Change?

People generally could start to think, do I need to fly as often. It won’t happen everywhere , but I can see signs of a shift in attitude towards the environment.

I'll start thinking about such things after celebrities decide it's better for the environment to arrange a "carpool" charter on one full-size airliner to head to a major event on the other side of the U.S. (or the globe) rather than taking individual business jets from the same city.

Air Travel is the toughest when it comes to change to environmental friendly technologies, the longer the routing the tougher. But I expect a slump when it comes to shorthaul flights. Businessmen around me more and more take the train. Emergencies aside, you normally don´t need to fly when you´re travelling distances under 500 km.
What I expect pretty soon is a tax on aviation fuel or a mandatory CO2 compensation surcharge for each flight.

Transportation of people and goods is just too important of an economic factor for extensive measures against air travel.

What we might see in the future is a crackdown on very short air travel of about an hour of flight time or less, since trains can pretty much match the overall time needed to get from A to B. There might also be hinderances on cargo that is not time sensitive.

Overall there are other areas like heating and cooling of homes, transportation by car and generation of electricity where measures concerning the reduction of CO2 emissions make more sense

No, because climate change is an externality.

The benefit (to themselves) of travel greatly exceed the negative impacts they (personally) will experience from climate change. And even so, how much does one plane ticket really contribute (by itself) to climate change? Not very much. So there's no real benefit unless everyone gives up travel. And since we live in a world where people like to show off their travel on social media, the reality is that there's a positional/status aspect to travel that adds game theory into the equation; you give up travel and you lose status, but by giving up travel you allow others to take advantage of the reduction in demand (and they gain the status).

If you really want to massively cut CO2 emissions, the only viable strategy is nuclear power. Because people aren't going to sacrifice their quality of life.

dik909 wrote:

uta999 wrote:

Are A and B doing enough R&D on a replacement for the turbofan, using clean electric propulsion?

"Clean" electric is a complete myth; that electricity is still generated somewhere via coal, hydro, nuclear, wind power. Just because an electric car/plane puts out no visible exhaust doesn't mean electricity is clean; there is still an environmental impact when the electricity is produced and transported.

As long as we (humans) want to travel without moving, there will be a negative environmental impact.

Not all of the world generates their electricity with fossil fuels. The good thing about switching to electric cars is that it saves the hydrocarbons for aviation. As others have said, electric commercial aircraft are a very long way away, however the aviation industry overall is very focused on reducing fuel usage (and thus CO2 emissions).

KFLLCFII wrote:

uta999 wrote:

Despite the huge backlog in new orders, particularly NB’s, could the industry actually be facing a 9/11 style depression caused by Climate Change?

People generally could start to think, do I need to fly as often. It won’t happen everywhere , but I can see signs of a shift in attitude towards the environment.

I'll start thinking about such things after celebrities decide it's better for the environment to arrange a "carpool" charter on one full-size airliner to head to a major event on the other side of the U.S. (or the globe) rather than taking individual business jets from the same city.

What do celebrities have to do with this?

Lilienthal wrote:

Overall there are other areas like heating and cooling of homes, transportation by car and generation of electricity where measures concerning the reduction of CO2 emissions make more sense

Agreed. Overall there are many lower hanging fruit than aviation when it comes to reducing emissions. Replacing coal powerplants with renewable energy sources, decent home insulation/double glazing, better regulating shipping fuels (IE encouraging LNG over shitty bunker fuel for example) would all have a more substantial effect on reducing greenhouse gases.

Dutchy wrote:

It isn't, this post is about one of the, if not the most important drivers for our future, becoming clean. Aviation is, of course, a hard nut to crack for all sorts of reason.

Unfortunately every thread on this issue is hijacked by people trying to pretend it isn't an issue.

zkojq wrote:

however the aviation industry overall is very focused on reducing fuel usage (and thus CO2 emissions).

Yes, for an individual flight, but not overall, overall the pollution is raising because of all the added aircraft.

Growing population and increased overall worldwide prosperity are what drives climate change. And air travel growth at the same time. That genie is out of the bottle. We need to go back to a world where only the rich and businessmen can fly, and the peasants stay home and FaceTime. Or we can let the government decide who is flight-worthy. For the good of the planet, of course.

Only an insignificantly small number of people care enough not to take a flight. If it became super-expensive that would change behavior. Millions of jobs would be lost directly and indirectly though. Icelandic fishermen, as an example.

IOW, any aviation slump will not be related to climate change.

Bricktop wrote:

Growing population and increased overall worldwide prosperity are what drives climate change. And air travel growth at the same time. That genie is out of the bottle. We need to go back to a world where only the rich and businessmen can fly, and the peasants stay home and FaceTime. Or we can let the government decide who is flight-worthy. For the good of the planet, of course.

Only an insignificantly small number of people care enough not to take a flight. If it became super-expensive that would change behavior. Millions of jobs would be lost directly and indirectly though. Icelandic fishermen, as an example.

IOW, any aviation slump will not be related to climate change.

You are right.

Given controlling population growth is probably a step too far at this point, financial disincentives to fly are on future agendas.

JV's increase load factors and fares, and help to cap demand. CORSIA seminars have highlighted the need to liberalise anti-competitive legislation.

Dutchy wrote:

zkojq wrote:

however the aviation industry overall is very focused on reducing fuel usage (and thus CO2 emissions).

Yes, for an individual flight, but not overall, overall the pollution is raising because of all the added aircraft.

Exactly. Its not really about the specific consumption per plane/car/ship that really matters, its about what all together are consuming. Worst are cargo ships anyway.
An example: I have two cars, one a Diesel which eats 6,5 l/100 km, the other a highend luxury car with a 6,75l V8 which takes 17 l. Still the latter is the cleaner car simply because I use it much less. The 500 747s flying in 1980 were ecologically seen better for our planet than the 1400 active 777s of today.
Therefore, the main driver behind pollution is the sheer number of people able to pollute. Ecologists and green party voters won´t save the planet, only a shrinking number of people living on its limited space and resources will do in the long term!

First step will be an alternative (CO2 neutral) source for fuel

This isn't a climate change debate, it's a discussion on whether possible climate change may impact aviation. If this turns into a non aviation debate over the existence of climate change, the thread will be locked, and users may be warned or banned for not staying on topic. Let's not forget that this is an aviation forum.

✈️ atcsundevil

The biggest risk to the sector is people being priced out of flying, all it takes are governments to start adding "green taxes" etc to airfares in an attempt to assuage the green groups. Not that this does much good either as green taxes have been wasted before...

But I'll be damned if some environmentalist is going to tell me I can't go on a deserved holiday...

Phil
FlyingColours

uta999 wrote:

...
People generally could start to think, do I need to fly as often. It won’t happen everywhere , but I can see signs of a shift in attitude towards the environment.

Have you seen any signs of a shift in attitude?
Before people stop flying (which on average a person does not do daily or even weekly), they should rather help the environment in other easier ways , like taking public transport or using more efficient lights/appliances.

I’d argue there is still so much “low hanging fruit” out there for municipalities and countries to convert to renewable, clean energy before focusing on commercial aviation. The starting point should be getting station infrastructure off fossil fuel energy sources first. I’d also argue there needs to be a radical shift in urban planning, especially in the United States. I can only imagine that single occupant motor vehicles communiting into and out of major metro areas to sprawling suburbs contributes more to climate change than commercial aviation, especially when idling in traffic is factored in. The densification of cities and reducing the reliance on the automobile should be the second focal point. After all, if one factors in the number of people a single commercial plane carries over longer distances, it’s alewady one of the most efficient forms of travel.

Upgrading ATC technology is arguably another lower hanging solution to help decrease emissions. Newer technology can reduce ground stops, flow control/holding stacks and allow for more efficient departure and arrival procedures that can cut down the industry’s emissions footprint.

77H

log0008 wrote:

1. Aviation is growing as fast as ever, right now even the take up of electric cars is small and in most cases isn't actually about climate change but other reasons such as the Tesla factor or efficiency. Plus with the majority of our electricity coming from coal anyway its not actually doing much.

2. Until battery technology moves beyond lithium iron batteries Airbus and Boeing won't even look at it, even at 100% efficiency (0 energy loss) lithium iron batteries weight more than 20x that of fuel per energy unit output.

Pax planes will go electric or 'clean' when every car, every train and every ship is electric or not oil/fuel powered because weight is battery techs biggest enemy and its also aviation biggest enemy

In fact i'll go on the record and say that we will have fully autonomous commercial aircraft and direct space flights to the mars before we have electric commercial aircraft.

All of these points are hopelessly outdated. Electric propulsion and generation is moving very fast, legislation around it is as well. EV take-up is not small at all (heading for 5-10% in most markets this year) and is set to dominate within a couple of years (Europe is mandating that manufacturers produce a substantial fraction of their vehicles as EVs from 2020, most capital cities are banning internal combustion engines). Most efficient energy production is wind and solar. Hands down. "Majority of our electricity coming from coal" is simply not true, not even in the US or Australia where the lobby is strongest. Battery technology is advancing very fast indeed. Charging rates and capacity are increasing exponentially, battery life has far exceeded expectations, announced technologies will allow limitless recharges.

TLDR. everything in the quote is wrong.

StudiodeKadent wrote:

No, because climate change is an externality.

The benefit (to themselves) of travel greatly exceed the negative impacts they (personally) will experience from climate change. And even so, how much does one plane ticket really contribute (by itself) to climate change? Not very much. So there's no real benefit unless everyone gives up travel. And since we live in a world where people like to show off their travel on social media, the reality is that there's a positional/status aspect to travel that adds game theory into the equation; you give up travel and you lose status, but by giving up travel you allow others to take advantage of the reduction in demand (and they gain the status).

If you really want to massively cut CO2 emissions, the only viable strategy is nuclear power. Because people aren't going to sacrifice their quality of life.

The economic benefits of using renewables is far greater than all the old technologies. WIND AND SOLAR ARE ALREADY CHEAPEST! Nuclear is by far the MOST EXPENSIVE way to generate electricity.

Two big risks:

First is a regulated change to the business model. Something like a carbon tax will obviously impact carbon-intensive industries like aviation, but that would probably be felt more like a large spike in oil prices. Aviation certainly wouldn't go away, but it would become more expensive, and lots of less efficient flights would probably disappear - particularly when there are other less carbon-intensive options out there.

Over the longer run, these higher costs would drive innovation in new technologies, but the timeframe for adoption would be uncertain.

Second is the flip side, where society makes no progress in regulating carbon. In that case, the external costs of climate change continue unabated, imposing huge costs on various sectors of the global economy (reducing demand) as well as physical costs on aviation systems (e.g. flooded airports).

What's hard to predict is the overall geopolitical risk. There's lots of analysis to suggest that climate change is a contributing factor in conflicts around the world, like the Syrian civil war, where drought exacerbates the conflict. To the extent that those kinds of risks increase, so does the risk of a broader conflict that could depress demand for air travel, but these are obviously highly uncertain and impossible to predict. Nevertheless, the risks are real.

na wrote:

Worst are cargo ships anyway.

Electric ships are arriving as well... again, because it is becoming cheaper than fossil fuels for the operators...

I agree with posters say there are better and lower hanging fruit. I do expect some but moderate tax eventually on aviation petroleum products. The monies will likely be used to subsidize clean energy in other sectors. In an ideal rational culture (fat chance, I know), aviation will expand a whole lot because it is good for people to by able to travel fairly cheaply. The compensation is a move to more clean electrification of the rest of the economy.

Cars last upwards of 20 years. If an electric car today relies on coal produced electricity today, as we move to renewable energy the car just becomes greener as the years go by. Bio-diesel, kerosene, alcohol and other fuels hold significant promise.

uta999 wrote:

Despite the huge backlog in new orders, particularly NB’s, could the industry actually be facing a 9/11 style depression caused by Climate Change?

People generally could start to think, do I need to fly as often. It won’t happen everywhere , but I can see signs of a shift in attitude towards the environment.

Are A and B doing enough R&D on a replacement for the turbofan, using clean electric propulsion?

The answer to your question, no. I go in the past, at the dawn of the internet and find the same sweeping thoughts about aviation, and now we have manufacturers with backlogs no thought possible because of "growth" in the aviation sector.

You cannot get the market to fly on turboprops now, and you expect people to fly on Electric jets. It will have to start in the cargo area first to prove its reliability before moving over to pax service. Even then, it depends if the market will accept it.

Until a viable alternative exist (at least in the U.S.) aviation will always be the top choice for medium to long distance travel. I've been on some focus groups for autonomous vehicles and maybe in 15 years it might make a dent in air travel as people will be able to "set it and forget it" from origination to destination.

Maybe the demand for air travel will decline in Europe during as cities and countries are better connected by train, but there is still a strong demand there for flying out of the continent.

uta999 wrote:

Despite the huge backlog in new orders, particularly NB’s, could the industry actually be facing a 9/11 style depression caused by Climate Change?

People generally could start to think, do I need to fly as often. It won’t happen everywhere , but I can see signs of a shift in attitude towards the environment.

Are A and B doing enough R&D on a replacement for the turbofan, using clean electric propulsion?

If travel preferences change, it won't be the consumer making the decision, it'll be at the bayonet point of our <sarcasm>benevolent</'casm> regulatory bodies and governments.

https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/co ... urces.html

It’s already happening, efficiently changing over to bio fuel, that will be the co2 neutral option. Carbon sequestration and bio fuel will be the major change we need. Carbon sequestration is easy... plant some trees. I mean like millions of them.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

The economic benefits of using renewables is far greater than all the old technologies. WIND AND SOLAR ARE ALREADY CHEAPEST! Nuclear is by far the MOST EXPENSIVE way to generate electricity.

Show me an economic cost-benefit analysis proving this, please.

If wind and solar were the cheapest they'd out-compete everything on the market we have. So either nuclear power has absurdly huge external costs (which it doesn't, if you presume modern nuclear technology) or you're presuming renewables have external benefits that probably don't exist.

Not to mention, if renewables had huge benefits, why do all those rich Greenpeace-loving types always act like NIMBYs over solar plants or wind farms close to where they live?

One of the reason why JR Central at Japan is building the maglev is that they argue the energy consumption of it is going to be half of what air travel would be.

StudiodeKadent wrote:

If you really want to massively cut CO2 emissions, the only viable strategy is nuclear power. Because people aren't going to sacrifice their quality of life.

Agree 100%. It's ironic that countries are running away from nuclear power when it is the most viable solution in terms of climate.

dik909 wrote:

"Clean" electric is a complete myth; that electricity is still generated somewhere via coal, hydro, nuclear, wind power.

The environmental impacts of wind power are totally ignored. It's already proven that it affects wind patterns, is bad for birds, and creates a lot of noise. It also requires a staggering amount of human maintenance. The only reason people are able to ignore all these problems is because wind is producing such a tiny % of our electricity needs. If it was providing even 30% of our power needs these would become grave problems.

No. There will be a carbon tax levied upon airlines, who will then pass such taxes on to the consumer in the way everything gets passed on to the consumer.

enilria wrote:

StudiodeKadent wrote:

If you really want to massively cut CO2 emissions, the only viable strategy is nuclear power. Because people aren't going to sacrifice their quality of life.

Agree 100%. It's ironic that countries are running away from nuclear power when it is the most viable solution in terms of climate.

dik909 wrote:

"Clean" electric is a complete myth; that electricity is still generated somewhere via coal, hydro, nuclear, wind power.

The environmental impacts of wind power are totally ignored. It's already proven that it affects wind patterns, is bad for birds, and creates a lot of noise. It also requires a staggering amount of human maintenance. The only reason people are able to ignore all these problems is because wind is producing such a tiny % of our electricity needs. If it was providing even 30% of our power needs these would become grave problems.

Those are all big debates for society as a whole, but not particularly germane to aviation. It also doesn't make sense to say that 'clean' electricity is a myth. Obviously some forms are much cleaner than others.

There's a big push to electrify all sorts of transportation, but the energy density required for flight makes any of the existing electricity storage options infeasible. That means zero-carbon aviation will depend on either some fantastic breakthrough in batteries/capacitors for energy storage; a similar breakthrough in biofuels; or the realization that you cannot stop emitting carbon in this sector - meaning the research must focus on some method of negative carbon emissions via carbon capture.

The good news is that carbon capture obviously has a much broader application than just aviation.

catiii wrote:

No. There will be a carbon tax levied upon airlines, who will then pass such taxes on to the consumer in the way everything gets passed on to the consumer.

Which is why such taxes are stupid. The money just goes to balance the deficit or other social programs or pet projects of the politicians instead of addressing climate change like they say it’s for.

airportugal310 wrote:

Business people will always need to travel, particularly when large sums of money are on the proverbial "table". Climate change is not going to be something that gets in their way.

Vacationers worldwide will always want to visit places they've always wanted to go: holidays, Golden Weeks, Memorial Days, Hajj, Hawaii...you name it.

Don't see it happening. Personal 'want' will overtake/trump climate change (e.g. something that likely won't cause them a headache within their own lifetime)

My $.02

You may be right, but then that is a sad commentary on the human race. We would rather destroy all life on our planet than miss our Golden Week or in any way consider the consequences of our actions. Climate disaster and nine-tenths of life including human beings one century from now is my prediction.

Lilienthal wrote:

Transportation of people and goods is just too important of an economic factor for extensive measures against air travel.

Globally, it isn't. Most flying is for fun.

How important of an economic factor is that scientists gather together to discuss science?

Is there anything more important?

We just need to stop NOW! No more flying, no more cars, everybody on bicycles.

Electricity from just solar panels and windmills, when there is 2 feet of snow on the panels and the air is still, we will just huddle in our dark caves until the wind blows again.

blockski wrote:

enilria wrote:

StudiodeKadent wrote:

If you really want to massively cut CO2 emissions, the only viable strategy is nuclear power. Because people aren't going to sacrifice their quality of life.

Agree 100%. It's ironic that countries are running away from nuclear power when it is the most viable solution in terms of climate.

dik909 wrote:

"Clean" electric is a complete myth; that electricity is still generated somewhere via coal, hydro, nuclear, wind power.

The environmental impacts of wind power are totally ignored. It's already proven that it affects wind patterns, is bad for birds, and creates a lot of noise. It also requires a staggering amount of human maintenance. The only reason people are able to ignore all these problems is because wind is producing such a tiny % of our electricity needs. If it was providing even 30% of our power needs these would become grave problems.

Those are all big debates for society as a whole, but not particularly germane to aviation. It also doesn't make sense to say that 'clean' electricity is a myth. Obviously some forms are much cleaner than others.

There's a big push to electrify all sorts of transportation, but the energy density required for flight makes any of the existing electricity storage options infeasible. That means zero-carbon aviation will depend on either some fantastic breakthrough in batteries/capacitors for energy storage; a similar breakthrough in biofuels; or the realization that you cannot stop emitting carbon in this sector - meaning the research must focus on some method of negative carbon emissions via carbon capture.

The good news is that carbon capture obviously has a much broader application than just aviation.

I agree 100%. The only way electric powered flight works is on something like Hawaii with very short flights, a plane that has few passengers and a lot of battery weight, and government subsidies to make it even remotely close to cost competitive. As a stand alone cost competitive solution it is not presently feasible and won't be for probably 100 years.

Just want to post a thank you to this thread. Even though we all have different opinions, it is great to see a level-headed discourse on this topic!

atcsundevil wrote:

This isn't a climate change debate, it's a discussion on whether possible climate change may impact aviation. If this turns into a non aviation debate over the existence of climate change, the thread will be locked, and users may be warned or banned for not staying on topic. Let's not forget that this is an aviation forum.

✈️ atcsundevil

Sticking to that question, and the OP's line of inquiry...

It depends on how CO2 pricing is implemented in aviation. It's too big a sector to be ignored forever. If CO2 taxes increase fares by more than 10%, yes, there will be a demand inflection. One ton of jet fuel = 3.15 tons of CO2. Look at a prospective Canadian tax of CDN$ 32/ton of CO2 for 2022.

Will our children and grandchildren want to travel when all those beautiful places will have been ravaged by pollution and climate change, animals extinct, etc. ? There will be much less incentive to travel. And video "presence" will get better and better, for business people.

WeatherPilot wrote:

catiii wrote:

No. There will be a carbon tax levied upon airlines, who will then pass such taxes on to the consumer in the way everything gets passed on to the consumer.

Which is why such taxes are stupid. The money just goes to balance the deficit or other social programs or pet projects of the politicians instead of addressing climate change like they say it’s for.

The money gets used the way people want. If people want it to go for climate change mitigation, it will go there. Regardless, the tax is still useful, because it pushes people to change their habits.

WeatherPilot wrote:

catiii wrote:

No. There will be a carbon tax levied upon airlines, who will then pass such taxes on to the consumer in the way everything gets passed on to the consumer.

Which is why such taxes are stupid. The money just goes to balance the deficit or other social programs or pet projects of the politicians instead of addressing climate change like they say it’s for.

That's not the point of the taxes, though. The point is to dis-incentivize environmentally harmful activities by making them more expensive. The disincentive is the same regardless of what the tax $$ are then spent on.

The question is how to balance dis-incentivization of harmful activities with basic needs. For example, heating your home is a basic necessity in many climates. For many people, getting to work using some kind of transportation is too. While it makes sense to dis-incentivize environmentally harmful sources of energy, a nudge toward sustainable alternatives is more appropriate in these cases than a sledge hammer. By contrast, air travel is far less 'necessary'--quite a bit of business travel could be replaced by improving teleconferencing technology, and recreational travel is a luxury. In other words, it's not just about nudging things toward more sustainable options; it's a case where the entire sector is a comparatively 'unnecessary' consumer of energy, regardless of the source. In that respect, I think it's defensible to tax air travel more heavily as there are suitable alternatives for most people. Not that governments have a strong track record of making logical choices, but I think that rising air travel costs, and associated downticks in passenger miles if not in revenue generated, would be a reasonable expectation over the coming decades.

I'll remind users that this is an AVIATION discussion. If your comment doesn't relate to aviation, then please take your comments to the Non Aviation Forum.

✈️ atcsundevil

MIflyer12 wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

This isn't a climate change debate, it's a discussion on whether possible climate change may impact aviation. If this turns into a non aviation debate over the existence of climate change, the thread will be locked, and users may be warned or banned for not staying on topic. Let's not forget that this is an aviation forum.

✈️ atcsundevil

Sticking to that question, and the OP's line of inquiry...

It depends on how CO2 pricing is implemented in aviation. It's too big a sector to be ignored forever. If CO2 taxes increase fares by more than 10%, yes, there will be a demand inflection. One ton of jet fuel = 3.15 tons of CO2. Look at a prospective Canadian tax of CDN$ 32/ton of CO2 for 2022.

Doing some back-of-the-napkin math for a 10-hour A330 flight, that pencils out to $20/pax one-way with that number. As a rough-cut, you could say price per tonne is slightly higher than the additional price per pax on a 10-hour flight, so if the CO2 price goes up to $100/t, we'd be looking at a $75 surcharge based on the assumptions I listed. Adding this to a $1000 ticket will make a bit of a dent in the demand curve, which should help spur investment in CO2-neutral fuels, which currently suffer from a lack of scale when competing with fossil fuels.

Climate change is already impacting aviation in the forms of increased turbulence, heatwaves causing hot/high payload restrictions (or even the >48* C CRJ stop in PHX a few years ago), so it's in the best long-term interests of the industry to invest in fixing its contribution to the problem.


10 hrs
6 t/h
60 t
3.15 CO2/t fuel
$25 USD/t CO2
$4,725 Externality
250 pax
$18.90 Ext/pax

na wrote:

Air Travel is the toughest when it comes to change to environmental friendly technologies, the longer the routing the tougher. But I expect a slump when it comes to shorthaul flights. Businessmen around me more and more take the train. Emergencies aside, you normally don´t need to fly when you´re travelling distances under 500 km.
What I expect pretty soon is a tax on aviation fuel or a mandatory CO2 compensation surcharge for each flight.

I fly under 500Km for work multiple times a month, and for fun too. The slump in short flights was impacted by the post 9/11 world and TSA. This is such a slippery slope with the taxes and surcharges, air travel is a cornerstone of the economy, it is not going anywhere. Airlines are selling more premium seats than ever, there is the demand for it.

Wouldn't a better near term technology be using Renewables to make Liquid Hydrogen and use that to fuel planes?

Wouldn't that be a better (lighter) energy storage solution?

It would require totally new designs - but it could work for the short range at least.

Aviation is still a smaller contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change than meat and dairy production. Perhaps better to tackle that area first.

DolphinAir747 wrote:

Aviation is still a smaller contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change than meat and dairy production. Perhaps better to tackle that area first.

We need to tackle everything if we want to meet our goals.