Most of us are smart and rational people, who understand our growing problem with Climate Change and its connection to fossil fuel consumption. Those of us who apply critical thinking, to reason past the propaganda lines spun by the aviation industry cabal (aviation lobbyists, industry players, faux-regulators, etc.), understand this stark fact:
Aviation relies heavily on fossil fuel consumption, and is the fastest way for each of us to further burden our stressed atmosphere with more carbon emissions.
So, what to do about it? It seems to be a no-brainer. The growing number of responsible elected officials who are speaking up to address climate change … they need to join up with elected officials who are fighting to clean up the health and community impacts by excessive scheduling at the most problematic airports. On both counts, this is a fight for a healthy future, and to minimize the life-shortening consequences of too much fossil fuel consumption. Aviation is the perfect place to start.
One Congressional advocate for action on Climate Change is Sheldon Whitehouse, from Rhode Island. Click here to read a copy of a recent email, part of his ongoing campaign. Click here to see his 3/13/2018 news release for a recent speech.
A new brochure has been published by Finance & Trade Watch, an NGO based in Vienna, Austria. Authored by Magdalena Heuwieser, the 24-pages debunk many of the most common forms of aviation greenwashing. The brochure includes lots of interesting insight that will further inform about the state of regulatory capture that applies not just to FAA but also to the international body, ICAO.
Here is a short index:
Pg.4: Headlong growth in a green guise
Pg.7: Fantasy technologies and green kerosene
Pg.9: Offsetting emissions: a licence to pollute
Pg.11: International aviation’s climate plan: CORSIA
Pg.14: Green airports? Offsetting emissions and biodiversity
Pg.17: Flying with a clear conscience? Individual offsetting of air travel
Pg.19: What now? Summing up and looking ahead
Pg.21: On the move: resistance highlights
Click here to view an archived copy of the 2-page Executive Summary; click on the image below to view/download the full brochure.
Click on the image below for a scrollable view; the PDF file may be downloaded.
UPDATE, 11/30/2017: — Excellent overview posted at GAAM (the Global Anti-Aerotropolis Movement); more great work by Rose Bridger.
In a big city, we all expect noise. But, the most responsible among us also expect to do all they can to minimize the impacts and manage how we live with it, so that children can learn, homes can be enjoyed, nature can be heard, and we all can get daily sleep. The importance of sleep to New York City is reflected in the following education module:
(click on image to view source)
BTW, one of the key advocates for ‘noise-management-sanity’ in the NYC area is Dr. Arline Bronzaft. See two of her archived articles, spanning TWO DECADES(!), at these links:
An opinion piece in the Washington Post lays out the simple answers: air travel consumes far too much energy, creates far too much environmental damage, per person. Good points.
The simple solution is for more of us to voluntarily travel, a lot less. The government would help, a lot, if they would impose a very steep aviation carbon tax, with all revenues going to reducing other personal taxes and/or funding far more energy-efficient transportation modes, to replace the energy-efficiency of aviation.
Check out this archived opinion piece, as well as the telling reader comments.
Click on the image below for a scrollable view; the PDF file may be downloaded.
In the blog ‘Flying Less: Reducing Academia’s Carbon Footprint’, Parke Wilde has written a deep analysis of a recent National Geographic ‘article’. The article, by Eric Rosen, generally looks at how commercial passenger aviation is growing in Asia. Mr. Wilde found parts of the article implausible, especially where aviation was presented as an increasingly ‘green’ industry. So, he researched and wrote a blog post. He also asked National Geographic to explain how they appear to be failing their traditional high journalistic standards; the magazine officials did not reply.
The bottom line on air travel is this: there is nothing else you can do that has a higher carbon impact per hour. The industry and the faux-regulators are working hard to propagandize, but they cannot get away from this harsh reality. Carbon offsetting schemes and alternative fuels are NOT a solution; the are illusion.
If you must travel, minimize it. Each mile you fly translates to a substantial consumption of fossil fuels, and thus a substantial creation of more atmospheric CO2. If your credit cards and the airlines and the mainstream media are trying to convince you to fly more, well, that tells you the best strategy is to fly less.
Click here for an archived PDF copy of the analysis. Also, you can read more about FlyingLess at the blog or at twitter.
PETITION: Fly Less – an aiREFORM Post about Parke Wilde’s petition, calling for universities and professional associations to reduce flying, since flying contributes significantly to global climate change. (11/2/2015)
Aviation is heavily subsidized when Congress approves taxes on passenger tickets and air cargo, then uses those taxes to expand airports beyond what serves the local community. Congress can do better. They need to implement fees and taxes that disincentivize the excessive carbon consumption by commercial operators. Here are some of the many benefits:
fewer hub flights (and thus more direct flights)
reduced noise and air pollutant impacts, along with more sleep and preserved quality of life, in communities currently being destroyed by NextGen
less aviation CO2 pollution per passenger (due to shorter/direct trips replacing indirect flights via hubs)
Just days after Trump dumped the climate agreement, U.S. airlines and their lobby, Airlines for America (A4A), are telling us that they really care about CO2, climate change, and the impacts of their industry. We are to believe that a business model that sells time-savings by massively consuming fossil fuels can be environmentally responsible. The centerpiece of their ICAO-sourced plan is not to reduce consumption but to have passengers and shippers pay a fee that offsets aviation impacts with small environmental investments. Kinda like this: imagine that you and I have a company and we’ll be allowed to infinitely pollute the ocean, so long as we build a nice filtration system to clean a pond in West Podunk. If eyes were pointed at that pond, we’d look like heroes; but, when people see the full picture, we look like worthless scoundrels.
Oh, and this is an industry (and lobbyist) that crows everyday about one statistic or another showing continued market growth. So, really, how are they going to see any meaningful reduction in fossil fuel consumption, going forward? Also, this ‘we care about the environment’ spin was announced from Cancun, where industry officials had gathered from around the world. Let that sink in.
UPDATE, 6/8/2017: — To discourage excessive fossil fuel consumption for air cargo, business travel, and aviation tourism, the logical next step is to simply impose a steep carbon tax on all aviation fuels (and arguably, on the marine sector, too, thus covering ship tourism and marine cargo). Here’s a good analysis about the value of an aviation carbon tax, by two law professors in Western Australia: Airline emissions and the case for a carbon tax on flight tickets. Read the interesting reader comments, too.
It was not surprising to see President Trump pull out of the Paris Agreement last week. Nor was it surprising to see how he bumbled his way through the process. This is the stuff that inspires confidence in U.S. leadership (NOT!!).
The analysis done by John Oliver is brilliant. Here is an embed of the video. He does quite a bit to explain the carbon dioxide issue, the Paris Agreement, and what is so boneheaded about what our president just did. Check it out.
Now, that was last week. What’s in store for this week? Though Comey is set to testify later in the week, we are all supposed to be watching Trump and airline CEOs ‘trumpet’ the virtues of privatizing ATC. Great idea, no? I mean, just go ahead and let the airlines dominate ATC and what could possibly go wrong?
Would we do better to ensure airport hub expansions are balanced with residential quality of life and health concerns?NO
Will local communities become more empowered to ensure their local airport best serves the needs of their local residents?NO
Will the airlines allow an aviation carbon-tax to follow, so that aviation’s growing contribution to the climate change problem becomes moderated?NO
Will airline industry CEOs take advantage of their increased power to rent-seek, sucking more money out of passengers to spend on their pet projects?YES
Nothing will happen that diminishes industry profits. Oligarchy/Corporatocracy is our stark reality today. Trump and his buddies have money to make; to hell with the future planet our grandchildren inherit.
(click on image to view source article at Reuters)
We’ve seen so much propaganda, manipulation and false news, especially that generated by the political parties and the mainstream media, that it is easy to hope this is just another false report. After all, with all the data indicating we are setting records for average high temperature, lowest polar sea ice extent, record high atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and more, it sure seems like a bad time to start a war against science and facts. And, cabinet picks aligned with BigOil and BigBanks do not bode well, especially when so many selectees are so staunchly anti-environment.
It’s just our planet, right? Yeah. Right.
Let’s hope President Trump will surprise us. He needs to get serious about the prospective collapse that anthropogenic climate change will deliver, because he’ll earn the blame when his bad decisions tip the balance.
On the chance that the Reuters story is true, all the Climate Change Indicator documents have been copied, and are archived at this aiREFORM webpage. Study them at your leisure, while also distilling the pattern of low Arctic sea ice extent annual records in the table below. Click here to view screencaps of the EPA ‘Climate Change’ webpage, as it appeared prior to Presidential censorship.
A table showing year of minimum arctic sea ice extent for each day of the year. The smaller table at the bottom lists number of record days each calendar year, and number of spans (consecutive days the same year). Spans range from 4 days (2007) to 94 days (since 10/22/2016).
UPDATE, 1/26/2016: — as of 1:00PM PST, still no noticeable changes to the EPA webpages being tracked. Perhaps Mr. Trump is backing down, or perhaps Reuters overstated the threat in their original news story?
UPDATE, 2/5/2016: — as of 8:45AM PST, still no noticeable changes to the EPA webpages being tracked. The reports and materials remain viewable and downloadable. It would appear that, despite the horrific cabinet choices from BigOil and wealth-elite elements of the oligarchy, President Trump’s ‘threat’ to hide climate science information was overstated by Reuters in their original news story. The key lesson to learn from this is that we all must be awake and leery, not just of the White House occupant and other elected officials, but also of the mainstream media (MSM), with its long track record of distortion to feed a specific political agenda.