Eco Store
 
SEARCH   

A View From 30,000 Feet

Posted May 21, 2008 14:54 by Steven DavisMendelow in Aerospace, Climate Change

There is a lot of myth, controversy and confusion about the role of aviation in today’s global environment and the industry’s commitment to environmental sustainability. On both sides of the fence you can find ‘scare-mongering’, and ‘green washing’.

 

Part of what I hope to do during this blog is address many of the issues, controversial and non-controversial, that surround aviation and the environment. The industry itself, to me, is much like Canadians in general; they rarely claim the bragging rights they are due, rather they just keep pushing forward doing their job, assuming that most of us ‘will get it’, or appreciate it.  In terms of the environment, however, it is clear that we ALL need to be better informed on the issues, the accomplishments, the risks of the status-quo.

 

Before I start, you need to know that my bias is that I work for a large Canadian aerospace manufacturing firm. My overall job is macro-economic analysis and strategy relating to the aerospace;  and one component of that job is environmental sustainability and aviation.

 

So here’s a view of the industry from 30,000 feet:

 

The air transport industry generates a total of 32 million jobs globally:

            5.5 million direct jobs in airlines and airport industry

            780,000 jobs in civil aerospace; airplane and engine manufactures, etc.

8.3 million indirect jobs through purchases of goods and services from companies in its supply chain

            2.0 million jobs through spending by industry employees

            17.1 million jobs through air transport’s catalytic impact on tourism.

 

Translating that, this means that the air transport industry alone is bigger than most developing nations and countries in economic terms. It generates some 8% of worldwide gross domestic product or some $3,560 billion US. (Aviation manufacturing impact in Ontario, Canada amounts to some $7 Billion (CAD) annually and more than 25,000 jobs). Globally, the aviation industry transports 2.2 billion people annually AND represents 35% of all freight transported worldwide.

 

These are not insignificant numbers and are used to provide you, the reader, with a sense of the scope and importance of aviation in a global community. Clearly, the industry is not going to disappear. Rather it needs to address environmental issues in a means that is sustainable, in terms of economics and society. 

 

Here’s the current aviation environment environment”

 

            The research from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that air transportations’ contribution to climate change represents some 2% of the man-made CO2 emissions worldwide and is expected to grow to 3% by 2050.

 

The amount of passenger traffic in the next 20 years is expected to double and then likely to double again by 2050. The difference between the expected CO2 .growth rate and traffic growth suggests that the industry has already begun addressing aviation environment concerns. For example:

  • aircraft entering today’s fleet are 70% more fuel-efficient ago and;
  • 20 decibels quieter (i.e. 75% quieter) than 40 years

 

The international aviation community, in the form of IATA (International Air Transportation Association) has committed itself to “working towards” carbon-neutral growth and to no overall increase in carbon emissions in spite of traffic growth, as a first step towards a carbon-free future. Lofty goals, the next few years will demonstrate the nature and extent of the international communities’ commitment in the form of giving form and developing action plans to meet these goals.

 

That’s the big picture, there are more details, and more to talk about moving forward!

 

Please post comments and questions. If you want detailed citations, contact me directly.

 

 

Currently rated 4.5 by 4 people

  • Currently 4.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

May 27. 2008 21:01

Sammy

Can you give some examples of what the industry has done to provide this 70%
improvement in fuel-efficiency, and what it plans to do in the future to maintain,
if not decrease, this level of consumption/emission? Or will this be discussed
in future blogs?

Also, do your statistics refer simply to the operation of aircraft or to the manufacture
of them as well? Do you include consumption/emission related to the corporate
part of the industry (head offices, the consumption related to jobs such as your own)?
My simple question is, how far back do these numbers go? Do they refer also to the
practices of mining steel (for example) for the aircraft?

Thank you for all this wonderful information. It's good to have someone pointing out
the benefits of aircraft over other modes of transportation, when usually they hold such
a stigma of pollution.

Comment by: Sammy

May 27. 2008 22:50

Karen

My organization is a national organization. We have frequent meetings with 20 or more people from across Canada gathering in one city... the location rotates among the provinces.

We are moving to video conferencing (VC) in the next few months with a VC node in each head office. I suspect that other organizations and businesses will be headed in this direction.

Has this impact been worked into the air traffic predictions as companies attempt to green themselves and cut costs?

Comment by: Karen

June 2. 2008 15:44

Victoria Serda

I was at a climate change symposium at the University of Toronto where the speaking addressing airplanes said that basically there is not much they can do to help make airplanes more efficient because it would cost too much money to achieve the efficiencies.

What can be done?

Comment by: Victoria Serda

June 6. 2008 05:16

Steven DavisMendelow

Victoria,

Thanks for the comment. I'm sorry that I missed the UofT climate change conference, I'd be interested in any details you might have of it, esp. regarding aviation comments.

Incredibly, the aviation industry is actually making great strides to reduce their footprint, both in the air and on the ground. (see some of my comments to Karen above) and I'll work to write details in forthcoming blogs. However, the industry is very self-motivated to make changes, and is in fact investing both time and money to find and create efficiencies. That is, if we don't improve our fuel burn no one will buy new aircraft, or new engines.

From an outsiders perspective it may be difficult to see the changes because; manufacturers of both engines and aircraft are competitive and so don't share any detailed competitive information about their new designs. However, as an example, the next generation of airplanes (787, CSeries) will have at least a 15-20% better fuel burn than equivalent-sized aircraft currently in the market today. Further, the current generation of turboprops (70 seat regional aircraft, Q400, and ATR72) already burn 30% less fuel on appropriate routes than regional jets.

Improvements are also happening in terms of routing, where the air traffic management systems (ATMs) around the world are working to make flights more direct and reduce congestion. In a perfect world (yet to come) an airplane would not push back from the gate until it is cleared all the way to it's destination (ie avoiding delays, holding patterns, etc). Of course about 80% of all delays are caused by weather. Airlines and airports are also experimenting and infact adopting 'green' practices. Single-engine taxiing cuts fuel (and emissions) on the ground in half (or more). Some airlines are experimenting with having the aircraft towed away from the gate so they can turn their engines on later, etc. It's incredible how creative an industry gets when their business relies on a fossil fuel that has jumped, an order of magnitude in the last few years!

Soon to be blogged: alternative fuels and aviation.

Steven.

Comment by: Steven DavisMendelow

June 6. 2008 05:33

Steven DavisMendelow

Sammy,

Good questions. Let me answer first by saying details can and will follow in later blogs.

As soon as I can figure out how to attach graphics to this blog I'll put up some charts that will clarify time lines and reductions. However, for now let me say that the fuel reductions I mentioned are primarily related to improvements in technology around engine design that have optimized (or greatly improved) fuel burn and engine efficiency. We're well into 5th and 6th generation engine design for commercial aircraft, and each new design has improved efficiencies. As well, aircraft design and materials have taken a substantial leap forward in the last couple of decade. The wing tips you see on most new generation aircraft (and retrofitted on many older generation aircraft) reduce drag enough to provide a significant improvement in efficiency. From a 2002 article:
"...through the use of raked wing tips, the 777-300ER airplane is expected to achieve a 2 percent fuel efficiency improvement, saving as much as $140,000 on fuel costs per year per airplane.

This equates to a savings of 1.3 million pounds of fuel per year per airplane, and 3.9 million less pounds of global warming carbon dioxide (CO2) being emitted into the environment. For every pound of fuel conserved, three fewer pounds of carbon dioxide are generated. The bottom line: the new raked wing tips help provide a more economical, cleaner and quieter airplane for the future."

In terms of the broader question, we, as an industry, are just beginning to address what I refer to as cradle-to-cradle issues. Others' refer to this as life-cycle costs, or well-to-wheel costs (i.e. taking material from the ground and putting it onto a finished product- the airplane; Our Aviation and Environment Committee at the Transportation Research Board is putting an article together on this topic.

I've been presenting on cradle-to-cradle issues for almost a decade now. I believe that we have a responsibility to 'green' the whole process, from the ground up and to understand the true costs involved in manufacturing an aircraft, not just the direct operating costs. I'm working (through my job!) with the members of the Ontario Aerospace Council (ie suppliers and manufactures of aviation parts) to green the whole of the Ontario Aerospace industry collectively.

I'll talk about the OAC project and cradle-to-cradle in more detail in future blogs!

Thanks for your thoughts.

Steven.

Comment by: Steven DavisMendelow

November 2. 2008 14:18

David Hinton

This is fascinating information on a subject that is often discussed around our house.
My 18 year old daughter is a pilot and about start a University course in Geography and Aviation, possibly with a minor in International Development. This mix should give some indication of the quandries she has with regard to the aviation business. She and I are both seriously concerned with minimising our impact on the environment and we have many discussions about the impact of our flying. My own position with regard to her career choice is that she should follow her heart, enter a career doing something she loves and become a force for change within the business.
That a UofT symposium should suggest that nothing could be done seems, on the surface at least, to be somewhat absurd. We make progress with each new generation of airframes and power sources and with a finite supply of fossil fuels on the planet this surely will not slow down.
Steven, a recent show on Radio 1 had a segment about the potential for using 'Bucky Paper' to build not only aircraft, but, vehicles of all kinds (I really want a Bucky Paper bicycle!) and the indication was that this could be a reasonable proposition in the fairly near future. The concept is beyond my ability to describe, could you give a brief description that will give Victoria an example of the type of work and potential progress being made in the industry.
David.

Comment by: David Hinton

Must be logged in to comment.