Aviation’s contribution to the overall emissions that
are harming our globe, is relatively small in comparison to the large scope of
the industries burning fossil fuels. After researching briefly what the
aviation industry’s contribution is to the overall emissions in our atmosphere,
I was fairly surprised by how minute the amount is. It is stated by the Air
Transport Action Group that, “Aviation is responsible for 12% of CO2 emissions
from all transports sources, compared to 74% from road transport.” (“Facts
& Figures” n.d.) This shows that the public perception of the pollution
caused by aviation is drastically overestimated. With the number of passengers
carried on average by aircraft, the fuel spent is much more efficient, since
the average occupancy is 80 percent larger than any other transportation. If we
want to view the greenhouse gas emissions on a much larger scale than just
transportation emissions, we can see that transportation only makes up 26% of
the overall gasses released. (Aviation making up 12% of that 26%) The remainder
of the gasses are caused by other human activities. The EPA states that, “The
largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities in the United
States is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation.”
(“Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions” n.d.) Electricity holds the highest
percentage of overall emissions, at 30%.
The UN has recently come to an agreement regarding
aviation emissions. The agreement focuses specifically on international airline
industry. The idea is that the emissions from airlines in the year 2020 will
become the upper limit of what carriers would be allowed to release. Any airline
that exceeds their number in years following must offset their emissions by purchasing
credits from other industries who are more reserved with their emissions. The
agreement will have two portions involved with the adoption and implementation
of this plan. From the year 2021 to 2027, countries will have the option to
comply with the set forth guidelines, and from 2028 through 2035, every
involved country will be required to be compliant. 65 countries have stated
they will participate in the first option portion; this includes the United
States, China, and the EU’s 44 nation aviation conference. As of right now,
Russia and India have showed a lack of interest in participation. The idea of
the agreement is to limit carbon emissions by capping it, while continuing to reduce
the emission we produce. The goal is to keep global warming below a 2-degree
rise.
The emission reductions included in the Paris
Agreement do not appear to be in good standing with our recently elected president
of the United States. “Mr. Trump has already vowed to “cancel” last year’s
Paris climate agreement, which commits more than 190 countries to reduce their
emissions of planet-warming carbon dioxide pollution, and to dismantle the
Clean Power Plan, Mr. Obama’s domestic climate change regulations.” (Davenport,
2016) Whether Trump is able to, or really wants to withdraw the United States
from this environment change agreement has yet to really been seen yet. I think
that if there is actual concern for the future of our planet, we will stay
compliant with rules set with the environment in mind.
I believe that some sort of environmental protection
laws is definitely necessary. I like the idea of capping the emissions in order
to ensure that is the highest peak in pollution. We can see that our human
activities have had a negative impact on the planet. All we need to do is look
at the research done, and the observations made by great scientists (Such as
Bill Nye who has put a lot of time and effort into the subject of global warming)
to see that something needs to be done. Aviation may be at the rear end of
industry emissions, but every little bit counts, and it is not a bad idea to
lead by example.
References
Davenport,
C. (2016, November 10). Donald trump could put climate change on course for ‘danger
zone’. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/politics/donald-trump-climate-change.html?_r=0
Facts
& Figures. (n.d). Facts & figures. Retrieved from http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html
EPA.
(n.d.) Sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Interesting post. I discovered similar figures with regards to aviation’s contribution to harmful emissions. I didn’t really find it all that surprising that aviation is on the lower end of the spectrum in terms of their overall emissions contribution. When considering the advancements in aircraft engine engineering that has improved the performance and reduced emissions of much of today’s new aircraft, the figures start to make sense.
ReplyDeleteWhile I appreciate the activism of our nation (and others) in reducing harmful emissions, I would like to see our representatives look at regulating other transportation industries other than aviation. When you consider the small number of emissions that aviation contributes, it may be inferred that better progress might be had in reducing harmful emission by targeting another, larger, transportation industry.
Great post. I found similar information in my search as well. I agree with your point that some laws are necessary to minimize emissions but to extent. You can only minimize emissions so much. I feel that it is more necessary to put effort into reducing emissions on the automotive end of pollution because the percentage is so much higher than aviation.
ReplyDeleteGood post dan. I agree that there has to be some, but not full regulation for aviation emissions. There seems to be more issues with road transportation and the road industry. I would like to see focus changed to his over aviation because it is a much bigger issue at hand
ReplyDeleteDan I enjoyed reading your blog this week. I agree with the facts that you started out with aviation's contribution to harmful emissions. Also how aviation is lower on the emissions contribution is lower compared to other industries. like Road transportation is 74%.
ReplyDelete