After a couple of weeks discussing the impact of sea transportation, it's time to turn our attention to air travel, its impact on environmental change and public opinions surrounding its impacts.
Based in New Zealand, articles by Becken et. al (2003) and Becken (2002) have illustrated the energy usage of different forms of transport and the damage that the proposed increase in air travel could cause.
Increasing at an average rate of 9% per annum since 1960, air travel has been growing rapidly, and as the average trip length has increased by 43% in the last 2 decades, emissions produced are only becoming greater and more concerning. Becken adds to this by converting energy usage into mega joules per passenger per kilometre (MJ/PKM), and clearly shows the relatively high value of air travel (2.75 MJ/PKM) in comparison to other models of transport such as the train (1.44MJ/PKM) and the bus (0.75 MJ/PKM).
Despite this and a growing awareness of climate change among the public, there are still beliefs that air travel only accounts for marginal CO2 emissions, fuel use is always minimised and air travel is treated unfairly in comparison to other modes of transport according to Gossling and Peeters (2007).While this is done though clever advertising by the aviation industry, enthusiasm about technical progress and 'scientific' language that present 'undisputable' facts, it does raise some interesting questions.
These articles seem to fit together nicely as while one highlights the past and future impacts of air travel, the other illustrates public disillusionment. They also go together as they share a similar downfall; the discussion of their results and conclusions. While both clearly highlight hugely damaging environmental problems and thinking, there are limited solutions put forward, especially from Gossling and Peeters, who simply state their finding and the reasons for them. Although in Becken's articles there is an attempt to supply some strategies that could help mediate issues, they are specifically based around New Zealand that includes promoting alternate transport across the Cook strait. While commendable, the problem of air travel emissions is global and therefore an upscalling of solutions is vital.
hey,
ReplyDeleteyou mentioned the damage that air travel could cause. I was wondering what the proposed solutions to this problem might be other than promoting alternative forms of travel? Is it possible that planes could run on alternative fuel sources? whilst air travel causes some damage, is this unavoidable due to technological constrainst and societal needs?
cheers
I would argue that alternative forms of travel, particularly with regards to the movement of people transport may be difficult to promote, especially if moving internationally (you mentioned the societal needs yourself). While perhaps coach or train travel could be promoted if only moving internally, the level of CO2 produced and energy used is high.
ReplyDeleteFor me alternative fuel sources seem to be the way forward, although in a later blog I do mention carbon offsetting as well. Below I have posted a link to a page on the airbus website that discusses their biofuel plans. You will notice that it is all part of the Flightpath 2050 vision, in which carbon neutral growth is planned for 2020 and a 75% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. Clearly if these targets are met the move to biofuel will be viewed as a great success, so my advice would be to watch this space... but don't hold your breath.
websitehttp://www.airbus.com/innovation/eco-efficiency/operations/alternative-fuels/