How sustainability in aviation becomes unsustainable when what it imposes leads to disaster
 It now appears that there is no other way to achieve carbon neutrality than to reduce the number of people whose existence produces the CO2 that inevitably causes global warming.
Such are consequences outlined in Florence Jones's research published in London's Power Technology magazine, which concludes that the aviation industry is making promises it cannot keep - at least not in any meaningful way.
So yes, electric planes are a real possibility. But once in the sky they will have a total capacity of nine passengers and can only fly short distances because of the size and weight of the battery a plane must carry to keep it flying.
Perhaps it is time to question basic premises. How sustainable is sustainability? While questioning such mendacious terminology, we might also ask what is so gay about homosexuality. But more to the point, what is the likely social and material damage of taking a laissez-faire attitude towards CO2 emissions - and host of other environmental terrors - versus the current course of bureaucratic activism.
Today, airlines, airports and planemakers have all set unattainable carbon targets with the International Air Transport Association (IATA), which aims to be carbon zero by 2050.
But Britain's Royal Society says huge challenges remain for net-zero aviation to become a reality, as they depend on the development of technologies that do not exist.
True, “sustainable aviation fuels” (SAFs) have generated interest. They can be divided into two categories: those produced from biomass and those from entirely synthetic fuels. Typically, SAFs are mixed with fossil fuels to offer lower emissions. They can reduce CO2 emissions by 80 per cent, but currently they are only used a fraction of the time.
A number of major oil companies have expanded their portfolio to include SAFs as interest grows. These fuels can be implemented into pre-existing infrastructure, including planes, and can be stored and transported much like traditional fuels.
But environmentalists say that SAFs are merely a means for the industry to continue its polluting practices under the guise of sustainability. They also warn against the use of first-generation biofuels, where crops are grown specifically for fuel production rather than using pre-existing waste. First generation biofuels require land and energy for crop cultivation, adding to their environmental impact, while also competing with the food market for these resources.
Said decarbonisation campaigner Stay Grounded: “Aviation biofuel has been promised by the industry for more than a decade but second-generation biofuels are likely to only replace a small percentage of fossil fuel use in the future.”
On their own, SAFs are not the only route to eco-aviation, as electric or green hydrogen-powered aircraft could alternatively present an entirely carbon free flight. However, prototypes of entirely carbon neutral planes remain in the early stages of development.
“These aircraft can carry nowhere near the number of passengers that we’re carrying at the moment,” said a British pilot from an international budget airline. “The way that it works at the moment is that it’s a very fine line between passenger capacity, ticket prices and cost.
“But with the huge cost of fuel, it’s a large proportion of the operating costs. If you were to go electric or use hydrogen or any alternative source of fuel you remove that cost, but the main challenge the industry would face with smaller planes is capacity. Major airports around the world are already struggling to handle aircraft four or five times the size of green prototypes, because everyone wants to travel”.
Gurjit Wood, aviation specialist with a green global engineering consultancy Arup, points out that the aviation industry’s complexity means that many different sectors must decarbonise in harmony to facilitate zero-carbon flight.
“Aviation has been a very difficult industry to decarbonise because predominantly the emissions come from flight, other emissions come from surface access, which is easier to decarbonise. Then we have the buildings and the infrastructure, which the airports control,” she said.
According to Ms Wood, “because the industry is constantly investing and constantly upgrading, we may be coming to some sort of other solution – as well as the SAFs, the electrification and the hydrogen fuel – that we don’t know of yet, and we are all committed to achieve net zero by 2050”.
An anonymous pilot said that while sustainability is talked about on an ideas level, “in terms of new technologies it’s not really there in practice”.
“The industry is very highly regulated to the point where any new technologies have to be tested rigorously before they’re allowed anywhere near the industry and any sort of change can trigger a huge upset,” he said.
Maja Rosen, from the campaign group, We Stay on the Ground, gave up flying in 2008 to reduce her emissions. While she says that she would consider flying again if net-zero flight became a reality, she believes that there is “no way we can fly sustainably for decades”.
Said the unnamed pilot: “To be bluntly honest with you, it’s always price. As soon as a cheap flight comes up, everyone’s quick to jump on it and everyone forgets about sustainability with the cost-of-living crisis currently going on around the world, that’s the main driver for people.”
While the aviation industry represents 2.5 per cent of emissions globally, which may initially appear small, this is not evenly split among the global population.
Said Ms Rosen: “It’s only around two to four per cent of the world’s population who fly abroad [regularly] in a given year, and around 11 per cent fly at all in a given year. Estimates say that 80 per cent of the world’s population has never ever been on a plane.”
Then comes a highly questionable author's assertion: "A decarbonised aviation sector is a necessity if we wish to preserve our current level of international mobility in line with decarbonisation targets."
From the evidence, it would appear that that statement makes no sense. On the contrary to "preserve our current level of international mobility" it would appear it would be necessary to abandon "decarbonisation targets".
But Ms Wood says: “It is not a choice, and the aviation industry is committed to better outcomes for our planet."
But should it remain committed? That is the question. |
