Considering aviation is 2.5% of global CO2 emissions, you could get rid of all the aviation emissions and still be very far off from saving anything.
And yet they are part of the obvious low hanging fruit for reducing emissions
Are they obvious? If they account for 2.5%, shouldn't the focus be on something that doesn't produce an emotional response (i.e. planes burn so much fuel! They bad for environment!) But is a bigger contributor to polution?
Ships come to mind. Biggest 5 polute as much as all cars on earth. Yet car electrification is brough on constantly in the discourse, when using bunker fuel on ships is met wirh silence
They are obvious because they are rarely irreplaceable. We can live without mass tourism and fast deliveries.
I mean, we can also live with the 2.5% polution they cause
Not really. People in developed countries need to divide their emissions by approximately ten times. Every little bit helps. And we should start with the easy ones.
Oh no, it's such a low reduction! Might as well do nothing then.
I’m not saying “do nothing”. I’m saying efforts are better spent elsewhere as they’ll have much more dramatic effect.
Air travel should be addressed after massive emitters like industrial sources. Otherwise we’re going to greatly disrupt the lives of normal people trying to see their grandma for very little benefit.
They keep drip feeding us those reductions… as if that would change anything. This is just to pretend that they are doing something, in reality they don’t care if the temperature increases 3 degrees Celsius or more
That should do it! Pack it up, boys.
Doubt
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Nov 24 (Reuters) - A meeting of more than 100 countries on Friday agreed to an interim goal for emissions reductions from global aviation by 2030 by using less-polluting fuels, but China, Russia and some others aired concerns about the impact on their economies.
The United States told the closing session of the meeting, which was held ahead of next week's COP28 climate summit, that the goal sent a "clear and positive signal" to the financial community, which must invest in new clean energy projects.
"Now it is up to the finance community and energy sector to support the necessary infrastructure and start delivering SAF in ever increasing quantities,” said Haldane Dodd, executive director of the Air Transport Action Group, which represents airframe and engine makers, among others.
Aviation is not directly covered by the Paris Agreement on combating climate change, but the air transport sector has previously pledged to align itself with global goals by setting an "aspirational" target of net zero emissions by 2050.
China, which has agreed to aim for carbon neutrality by 2060 rather than 2050, said the goal would "enormously increase" airline operating costs and discriminate against developing countries by posing a threat to energy and food security.
Francis Mwangi, senior planning officer at Kenya's Civil Aviation Authority, said his country needs financing to study the economic benefits of domestic SAF production and for using an old Mombasa-based refinery to produce the fuel.
The original article contains 571 words, the summary contains 238 words. Saved 58%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
That’ll definitely save the world.
Considering aviation is 2.5% of global CO2 emissions, you could get rid of all the aviation emissions and still be very far off from saving anything.
And yet they are part of the obvious low hanging fruit for reducing emissions
Are they obvious? If they account for 2.5%, shouldn't the focus be on something that doesn't produce an emotional response (i.e. planes burn so much fuel! They bad for environment!) But is a bigger contributor to polution?
Ships come to mind. Biggest 5 polute as much as all cars on earth. Yet car electrification is brough on constantly in the discourse, when using bunker fuel on ships is met wirh silence
They are obvious because they are rarely irreplaceable. We can live without mass tourism and fast deliveries.
I mean, we can also live with the 2.5% polution they cause
Not really. People in developed countries need to divide their emissions by approximately ten times. Every little bit helps. And we should start with the easy ones.
Oh no, it's such a low reduction! Might as well do nothing then.
I’m not saying “do nothing”. I’m saying efforts are better spent elsewhere as they’ll have much more dramatic effect.
Air travel should be addressed after massive emitters like industrial sources. Otherwise we’re going to greatly disrupt the lives of normal people trying to see their grandma for very little benefit.
They keep drip feeding us those reductions… as if that would change anything. This is just to pretend that they are doing something, in reality they don’t care if the temperature increases 3 degrees Celsius or more
That should do it! Pack it up, boys.
Doubt
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Nov 24 (Reuters) - A meeting of more than 100 countries on Friday agreed to an interim goal for emissions reductions from global aviation by 2030 by using less-polluting fuels, but China, Russia and some others aired concerns about the impact on their economies.
The United States told the closing session of the meeting, which was held ahead of next week's COP28 climate summit, that the goal sent a "clear and positive signal" to the financial community, which must invest in new clean energy projects.
"Now it is up to the finance community and energy sector to support the necessary infrastructure and start delivering SAF in ever increasing quantities,” said Haldane Dodd, executive director of the Air Transport Action Group, which represents airframe and engine makers, among others.
Aviation is not directly covered by the Paris Agreement on combating climate change, but the air transport sector has previously pledged to align itself with global goals by setting an "aspirational" target of net zero emissions by 2050.
China, which has agreed to aim for carbon neutrality by 2060 rather than 2050, said the goal would "enormously increase" airline operating costs and discriminate against developing countries by posing a threat to energy and food security.
Francis Mwangi, senior planning officer at Kenya's Civil Aviation Authority, said his country needs financing to study the economic benefits of domestic SAF production and for using an old Mombasa-based refinery to produce the fuel.
The original article contains 571 words, the summary contains 238 words. Saved 58%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!