Talk:Aviation and climate change

Opening text
I have created this new article. I am aware it is vey far from complete or comprehensive, and that numerous citations are required.

I would value help on this article, particularly with categories. tks Normalmouth 09:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

28 August
I hve made a number of improvements to the text, included citations where appropriate and have added some categories. Input on this page is much appreciated. Normalmouth 09:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Climate change discussion request
I have amended the text and submitted it for comment to WikiProject Climate Change.Normalmouth 22:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to say that having read the page, it seems pretty good. Good work William M. Connolley 21:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Nighttime vs. daytime aviation effects on climate?
I remember reading of a study that claims that the effects of daytime aviation vs. nighttime aviation vary greatly. This would be because of sun's heat being reflected back into space by the emissions themselves during daytime aviation whereas in the night they would keep heat from escaping into space. Zinjixmaggir 08:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Water vapor
According to the wiki article on contrails are described as increasing the earth's albedo, which would make sense. This article states however that this is a "warming effect." Now I can see how an airplane might warm the air by its flight, I don't understand, and the article does not explain how increasing the amount of water in the upper atmosphere might contribute to global warming, rather it would seem to be more likely to lead to cooling. 02:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * WV is a greenhouse gas. Normally emitting it doesn't matter, cos its in natural balance, but high up the atmos can be very dry and so airplane WV can be important William M. Connolley 09:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Persistence?
Surely CO2 emissions are much more problematic, because CO2 is persistent in the atmosphere, and the effect is integrated over tens of years. In contrast, I'd have thought that excess water vapour would be quickly removed as rain, or stirred into the lower-atmosphere where it can form clouds; likewise, the O3 would get 'stirred' back to the ozone layer. To me, it doesn't make intuitive sense that the other gases can have a significant long term effect. However, I don't understand this properly, and I'd like to see an explanation from an expert as to why my "common sense" interpretation is wrong. . --RichardNeill 13:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternatives
Worth mentioning that the efficiency of a 747 aircraft is (approx) 100 passenger-miles per gallon. (ref somewhere on Boeing's website). This is equivalent to a fully-loaded family car. Thus, if the alternative to flying is "not to travel at all", then it's sensible. However, the alternative of "travel by car/boat instead" is probably no better for the environment, and may well be worse. Obviously, this argument depends hugely on the factors involved, but the topic probably merits discussion. --RichardNeill 13:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's also perhaps worth discussing that there are as yet no viable alternatives to kerosene for flying. For example, switching from coal to nuclear power is a practical step, which would have huge impact on CO2, yet not require radical changes to people's lives. In contrast, there is no easy solution (such as electric passenger aircraft) to making aviation greener [although, consider bio-kerosene?]; therefore a sensible policy would seek the "low-hanging fruit" first.

POV-check
On reading this page I felt that the arguments were very one sided supporting aviation contributing significantly to climate change. I believe there are counter arguments to this (also to the entire issue of 'climate change' itself - although maybe that should not be up for debate here). Also in order to ensure NPOV it may be worth including some of the arguments listed in the 'alternatives' post above, particularly ith reference to the alternatives (shipping/road transport) probably not being any better for the climate.

I feel it's also worth mentioning that the public seems to see aviation in a very bad light at the moment, and to me this article seems to propagte that view. There are far worse things for the evironment out there.

I'm sorry that I can't give you any references to back up my assertions at this point. I will see what I can find in the near future.


 * Well, I wrote it and I'm certainly not anti-aviation so I'd be grateful to knwo which sections you are unhappy with. To my mind, it represents a balanced account of aviation's contribution to man-made climate change. Normalmouth 12:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Aviation's Contribution to Climate Change Emissions

I think it’s worth mentioning the contribution of aviation to climate change emissions in G8 or other developed countries rather than just the global 2% figure commonly used. In the UK the contribution is upwards of 13%, based on aviation movements in 2005 (used by government ministers and confirmed in parliament in May 2007 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070502/text/70502w0005.htm ). This figure only includes outbound flights from the UK and the real figure has been estimated to be closer to 20%, given the high proportions of UK passengers on these flights.

Jenny Stafford, 18th August 2007

Proposed Merger with Aviation and the environment
Uncle G has tagged this article and also Aviation and the environment with a proposal to merge the two articles. I thought I would kick of the debate here and ask other editors to jump in with their thoughts.

I have read through both articles and it seems clear that they are almost 100% overlapped at this point. Furthermore Aviation and the environment is an unreferenced stub.

I am in favour of merging the two articles, by incorporating the relevant text from Aviation and the environment into this article and making that page a redirect to this one. - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am in favour, although there is not much in the Aviation and the environment that is not covered in this page. Therefore agree that the redirect should be to here.Normalmouth (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that would make it an easy move! - Ahunt (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Although climate change is just one aspect of the environmental impact of aviation, which latter also includes air quality and noise, therefore oppose. --FactotEm (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * FactotEm - I think you make a very good point there. I still think the articles should be merged, but the title needs to be changed to be more all encompassing. Perhaps this article should be merged under the title Aviation and the environment instead of the other way around? - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Factotem makes a good point, but the Aviation and the environment page does not contain information about air quality or noise. I'd suggest new pages on these topics and they are quite lengthy in and of themselves. Noise, for example, could easily fill a page on its own.


 * So suggest we keep one entitled Aviation and climate change and look to create new ones on noise and AQ.Normalmouth (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure that it's entirely relevant whether the environment article has any content yet - just tag it with an expansion request. When it's expanded enough with AQ and noise info that these warrant their own pages, then perhaps that's the time to calve them off into their own articles. Otherwise we end up with 2 more stubs in addition to the environment article. Technically Aviation and the environment does seem to me to be the most accurate title for this subject, and merging the climate change article into that one seems to me to be the most obvious move if a merge is found to be necessary. --FactotEm (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the consensus here so far is that the contents of this page should be merged onto the Aviation and the environment page and then this page turned into a redirect there. Also "if and when" that article becomes too big it could then be split off into other articles, dealing with such issues as air quality or noise. Any other input on this then? If not perhaps this can be carried out, since the debate has been going on for a week now and I expect most editors who are interested will have responded. - Ahunt (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * agree -- I also agree with the change. David (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks David! I have moved this text to Aviation and the environment and basically used that stub text as an introduction to the balance of the text. It still needs some work! I have also turned this page into a redirect as we discussed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Low-emission aircrafts being constructed
It should be noted in the article that projects as the CleanEra-project by the University of Delft, Virgin Fuels, and the hydrogen-plane project by Boeing and the EU are trying to create (near-zero) emission aircraft. In the future, perhaps airplanes will be build that are thus zero-emitting (when alternative energy is used to generate the fuel (e.g. hydrogen)).

Links:

 * TU Delft CleanEra-project
 * Virgin Fuels
 * Fuel cell plane by Boeing
 * Hydrogen plane by EU