|
Yes, air traffic industry have been monopolizing lately I
think and small companies need advertising but there are
some enviromental/ecological aspects. Just in case to
remind(is there (or could there be) alternative ways to
travel). Some sites and texts I found.
[Excerpted from The Earth Times, May 11 1997]
Measuring airplane pollution levelsby PERNILLE TRANBERG
(c) Earth Times News Service COPENHAGEN--For years international civil aviation has experienced growth higher than that of the world economy, and forecasts indicate continued high growth. Yet, nobody knows the real environmental consequences, and there is no binding international regulation limiting air traffic pollution. International negotiations about regulation have come to a stalemate, and there is no sign of a change in near future. "We won't see any real regulation, before we know the impact of the emissions," said Anthony Rowland from the General Directorate on Environment of the European Commission. "And we won't know the impact before the scientist have collected the data and analyzed them, and they say it will take at least five years before they have anything ready." Air traffic is one of the fastest growing means of transport, especially in Asia and in the United States. In the US, air traffic grows twice as fast as car traffic. During the period of 1960-1990, world civil aviation increased by a mean of 9.9 percent each year according to the UN International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO. During the same period, the world economy grew at a rate of 3.8 percent a year. ICAO expects that civil air transport will continue to grow at an average of 6 percent annually. Carbon dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen, are believed to be the most important emissions from aircrafts. Both emissions have consequences for the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect. How much is uncertain. According to Giovanni Angeletti with the R & D section of the EU environmental directorate, an initial report will be published this summer, but it won't give a complete view of the problem. The lack of documentation does not mean that there is no broad consent among environmental groups that air traffic is one of the most polluting means of traffic. Rule-of-thumb is, the greater the journey distance the more competitive air travel becomes. When the journey is longer than 2,000 kilometers it is worthwhile flying from an environmental perspective. When the journey is 500 kilometers, flying is the most polluting method of transport. "For four years we've been fighting to get an agreement in ICAO of a 16 percent reduction in oxides of nitrogen, but the Americans have blocked it. We are now trying to get the EU Commission to adopt it, and then work on it internationally," said Rowland. The only regulation today is a non-binding guideline from ICAO on how much the engine - not the air traffic as a whole - may pollute. "Consumers want to fly, the constructors want to build, and airlines want to sell tickets, but there is a consequence to the environment, when air traffic is allowed to double in only a decade. Maybe we will come up with a new technology to reduce emissions, but it is not around the corner," said Rowland. Many nongovernmental groups are trying to put the question on the international agenda. Recently, a group of nongovernmental organizations met in Holland to agree on a strategy on how to get attention from the politicians and consumers. "When we gather across borders we find out what different countries are doing about the problem. Sweden, for example, has a environmentat tax on air traffic, and that has forced Sweden's airline Linjeflygg to buy better engines which pollute much less," said Arne Lund who works with the Danish NGO, Noah Trafik. One clear problem according to many NGOs and some European governments such as the Danish and the Dutch, is a EU-directive which blocks governements from collecting tax on fuel used by planes and ships. Trains, busses and cars are paying a lot of taxes but planes and ships, who are strong polluters, do not. The Dutch government recently proposed such a tax at a meeting at the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, but the chance of getting it adopted is vague. "There are so many interests against regulation and taxes. The French are building planes, and British are traditionally very pro air traffic. The industry has a strong lobby," said Rowland who believes a funrealistic. There are many ways to try and slow down the explosive growth of air traffic. The NGOs suggest that planes use more of their capacity. Many air lines often fly half empty, the Scandinavian airline, SAS, for example, only had a capacity of 63.4 percent last year. Approaching politically conscious consumers is another way. When deciding which airline to use, they could chose airlines such as Swiss Air and the German Lufthansa. They both have many new planes which pollute less than older planes of e.g. the Spanish Iberia or the Russian Aeroflot and even SAS. Helping the train industry to build high-speed trains is another way. Generally, trains are the most environmentally correct means of transport when it comes to inter-continental distances. A one percent pollute-to-pay-principle is also being discussed to raise enough money to pay for extensive research on air traffic pollution. New technology may also be a way to limit the air traffic. "Why do so many European politicians have to fly to Brussels four times a month to meet?" asked Niels Zibrandtsen from a Danish NGO fighting against an expansion of Copenhagen Airport who plans to more than double its traffic within a decade. "European politicians could do what many private companies have started doing. Have some more virtual meetings using video and tele conferences. It is cheaper and much more environmentally sound." http://rossby.metr.ou.edu/~spark/AMON/v1_n3/news/Pollution.html RPFAT info Aviation's problem For many years now, environmental and community groups around the world have been actively opposing the construction and expansion of airports. Because the problems caused by air traffic are more far-reaching than noise nuisance and local pollution and because measures need to be taken at the international level in order to affect the growth of air traffic, groups in seventeen European countries have joined forces on the issue of aviation and environment in 'The Right Price for Air Travel' campaign.
Pollution Flying is more than a fast and cheap way to travel. It threatens both our environment and our health. Present policies towards air transport basically advocate expansion and rapid air traffic growth without setting effective environmental limits. Increased liberalisation of the air traffic market, an air traffic friendly tax system, expansion of existing airports and construction of new airports all over the world are examples of this strategy and the result is a sharp increase in the environmental impact caused by air traffic. A report recently published by the European Commission estimated that aircraft emissions could grow five-fold by 2100 if current trends in air traffic continue. Air traffic is a threat to the environment that should not be ignored like car traffic was in the past. The explosive growth in the number of cars since the nineteen-seventies was severely underestimated by policy-makers and has resulted in an increase in the environmental damage instead of the reduction needed. Now, car traffic is basically out of control. The amount of environmental damage caused by air traffic continues to expand primarily because of the high growth rate of air traffic. Between 1990 and 1995, commercial air traffic grew at a rate of 6.5% a year and this growth trend is expected to continue well into the next century. While technical measures and more efficient operational management (for example fuel efficient engines, fuller airplanes, direct flight paths) may have some effect, this is not enough to counterbalance the environmental impact caused by a continued increase in air traffic. Current systems of taxation and subsidies in the aviation sector have resulted in low prices for air transport that stimulate its growth. Therefore, changing the artificially cheap price of flying is a logical point of action. Flying should be treated like all other forms of transport, and no longer be granted all kinds of tax exemptions. Moreover, air traffic should also pay for the environmental damage it causes. Changing the prices of air traffic affects the environmental impact this mode of transport causes both directly and indirectly. A direct result is a decrease in the demand for air traffic caused by raised prices. Less demand will slow down the huge growth rate of air traffic and lessen its environ- mental impact. An indirect result is that price measures will provide the aviation industry with an incentive to development new (cleaner) technology and more efficient operational manage- ment.
Air traffic's favoured position The aviation industry is one of the few truly international industries in the world as its activities involve all countries and movement of passengers and goods between countries. Countries take pride in their aviation industry and see this sector as an important source of income and employ- ment. These are arguments that are often used to justify the aviation industry's favoured position. However, in view of its potential environmental damage and the huge investments it requires, this position is questionable. Perhaps air traffic costs more than it is worth. Studies show that air traffic is the most energy consuming form of transport, especially for short distances and the most polluting form of transport per travelled kilometre. Nevertheless, there are very few environmental laws to regulate air traffic. While other polluters such as heavy industry and car traffic are being forced to improve their environmental performances and cause less pollution, air traffic is considered something of a sacred cow and knows few environmental limits, especially with regard to global environmental effects. For example, even though air traffic significantly contributes to climate change problems, as of yet no reduction targets have been set for the aviation sector in global negotiations on this issue, like the Climate Treaty. Financially, air traffic is favoured both directly and indirectly. Governments all over the world heavily subsidise air traffic through construction of airports and other infrastructure and are often major shareholders in national airlines. Indirect financial support exists through:
Indirect financial support, or as they are often called, hidden subsidies, are quite substantial. For example, the European Union estimated that its Member States lose a potential income of at least 8 billion ECU annually through the exemption of excise duties alone. The political context Public and political concern about the environmental impact of air traffic is clearly growing. Several countries have already announced that they are in favour of some kind of 'taxation of air traffic' to decrease the environmental impact of aviation.As air traffic is an international issue, measures taken at the global level by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) have the most impact. ICAO is a specialised agency of the United Nations responsible for all aspects of international civil aviation. 183 countries are a member of this forum that works on the basis of global consensus. However, current lack of awareness and commitment to the issue of aviation and environment among a large number of countries mean that pricing measures are not expected to be introduced at this level in the near future. So, introducing measures at the level of the European Union and individual countries is a step in the right direction.
Measures at the European level are a first step towards global action. Until now, European policy- makers have done little to limit the environmental impact of air traffic. While the European Union supports basic principles such as internalising the environmental costs into the price of flying and fair prices between modes of transport, as of yet there is little evidence of concrete policy in this area. On the contrary, liberalisation of the air traffic market, the lack of strong environmental regulation in this field and decisions to subsidize the aviation industry have all stimulated the rapid growth of air traffic. Nevertheless, the European Union has the power to do the following related to the introduction of pricing measures:
Decision-making within in the European Union is a complex process. The European Council of Ministers is the most important decision-making body and is made up of national ministers. Financial issues like the introduction of VAT or excise duties, must be adopted on the basis of consensus by the finance ministers from all Member States. Consequently, individual countries have a substantial influence on European policy. The European Union can only introduce pricing measures if all Member States are in favour of these measures. A number of countries, such as Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Great Britain and Switzerland have already indicated that they support European measures like excise duties on kerosene. In 1997 the European Union started a study on the possibilities and problems related to the introduction of pricing measures in the field of aviation. Individual countries and local
(airport)authorities Because both the European Union and ICAO take decisions based on consensus, it is likely to take a long time to convince all participating nations of the need to decrease the environmental impact of aviation. However, the increasing urgency of the problems requires measures to be taken as soon as possible. Also, it would be a shame if the international context restricts countries that already acknowledge the problems at hand from taking action. For example, a Swedish initiative to introduce a NOx emission-related charge was forbidden by the European Union on the grounds of unfair competition. Still, there are enough possibilities for individual countries or groups of countries to take action. Since 1995 a green tax has been imposed in Norway on all flights, domestic as well as international. One of the purposes of this measure was to achieve a modal shift from air traffic to trains. Recently the Swedish civil aviation administration announced new plans to introduce environmental charges starting January 1, 1998. The German government called for investigation into a system of variable landing charges at German airports according to aircraft emission levels. Forerunners like these are needed to illustrate the feasibility and support measures have. Ideally countries or airports should take action in groups to minimise the disadvantages in competition that could occur. Leading groups could also put pressure on international fora to realise changes in policy. National governments have the authority to take the following steps:
Airport authorities also have the power to take measures to reduce the environmental impact of air traffic. Many airports restrict night flights to reduce the amount of noise nuisance for people living in the area. Zurich airport recently introduced an aircraft emissions charge that requires planes that pollute more to pay a higher landing charge. The measure was prompted by environmental limits set by local government authorities to reduce NOx emissions caused by the airport.
Environmental effects Like most modes of transport air traffic causes damage to the natural environment. Air traffic affects both the local environment near airports and the global environment. Moreover, it causes health problems for people living in the vicinity of airports.
Global impact Burning kerosene in airplane engines produces pollutants such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), water vapour (H2O) and sulphates. Airplanes fly through both the troposphe- re and the stratosphere layers of the atmosphere. At these altitudes pollutants have a greater effect than at lower altitudes. CO2, NOx and water vapour all contribute to the greenhouse effect, a major threat to the global environment. CO2 is the greenhouse gas that is responsible for 60% of the total greenhouse effect. Ozone produced by NOx in the troposphere and lower stratosphere contributes to the problem as well. The effects of this substance are multiplied because it remains in the atmosphere much longer at these altitudes than closer to the ground. Water vapour at high altitudes freezes instantly into crystals that can form cirrus clouds. These clouds strengthen the greenhouse effect by reflecting the suns rays back to earth. Ozone layer destruction is another important effect caused by air traffic. NOx emitted by airplanes in the upper stratosphere attacks the ozone layer that protects the earth from the sun's rays. Although the contribution of air traffic to these global
problems may not yet be of great significan- ce (3-5% contribution to the
greenhouse effect and 1-2% of the depletion of the ozone layer in the
stratosphere), current growth rates in the aviation sector indicate that air
traffic will soon become a factor that cannot be ignored. According to recent
data, aircraft will be responsible for 8% of all global warming effects by the
year 2025. The introduction of supersonic aircraft like the Concorde would mean
that air traffic will become responsible for 6-45% of the annual destruction of
the ozone layer.
Local and regional impact Air transport causes air pollution, habitat destruction, water pollution, acidification, land use planning problems, stench, noise and health problems. These problems are usually concentrated around airports and are caused by landing and departing aircraft, aviation services (such as de-icing of airplanes, engine maintenance) and surface transport to and from airports. Noise hindrance, air pollution and sleep disorders all influence human health. Near Schiphol airport in the Netherlands, health authorities detected increased incidences of bronchial disorders and an increased risk for heart and vascular diseases. People living near airports are also more likely to experience an airplane crash because of the concentration of flight paths near an airport. http://www.milieudefensie.nl/airtravel/info.htm
Hopefully this message doesn't miss the area of USA's hegemon. Some other WSN'ers may explain why enviromental issues (natural resources?!) could have something to do with the WS.
Regard s Asko
PS. If there were attachments, they got in accidentally. If you open, check the viruses. |