Aviation Emissions, Concerning?

The UN recently reached an agreement on aircraft emissions. Please answer the following questions in regards to this topic:

1) Summarize aviation's contribution to overall emissions. Please be specific, using statistics,  etc.. For example, how do aviation emissions compare to emissions from other industries?

Before I can begin explaining how the aviation industry has contributed to the world’s overall emissions, one must first explain which/what type of chemical compounds (i.e. emissions) transpire. Popular to contrary belief, aircraft produce emissions akin to those emitted from an automobile. Specifically, aircraft jet engines emit chemical compounds such as Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Carbon Monoxide (CO), water vapor (H20), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), and Sulfur Oxides (Sox) (AvStop.com 2015). However, it is the unburned or partially combusted Hydrocarbons (HC) amongst other minute compounds that truly harm the environment by worsening the air quality. These unburned hydrocarbons are known as Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs); only a small subset are considered damaging, but the quantity of VOCs emitted into the environment (especially with the increase of air transport) has caused alarm. According to AvStop.com (2015), typical jet aircraft emissions are primarily comprised of three compounds: 70% CO2, 30% H20, and less than 1% of trace compounds such as CO, NOx, SOx, and VOCs. Unbeknownst to many, these compounds are termed differently depending upon where they are emitted: when expelled into the atmosphere at higher altitudes (e.g. during cruise flight) they are deemed ‘greenhouse gases’, but when emitted near the ground (e.g. during takeoff/landing), they are deemed ‘pollutants’.

The clear majority of jet aircraft emissions, specifically 90% of them, are produced at higher altitudes, or during cruise flight (AvStop.com 2015). When these compounds are expelled at the higher (cruise) altitudes, the water vapor in conjunction with other compounds tend to create ‘contrails’. These contrails are what individuals on the ground often see when they look in the sky as they have a ‘trail’ like appearance in the sky depicting the course of an aircraft. These contrails also create a ‘greenhouse’ effect within the atmosphere, thereby damaging the ozone layer in conjunction with the other VOCs emitted at this level of flight. The remaining 10% of aviation emissions occur on the ground during ground operations. These emissions are often generated by aircraft taking-off or landing, taxiing, and ground service equipment (e.g. fuel trucks, GPUs, etc.), and subsequently have the same negative effect on the environment (AvStop.com 2015).

Despite what people may believe based upon their own notions and/or minor research from reading bits and pieces of various articles, aviation does not contribute a large margin to the world’s overall emissions. In fact, aviation only contributes 2% to the world’s (manmade) CO2 emissions and only 12% to the CO2 emissions from all aviation related transport sources (e.g. aircraft, ground equipment, etc.) (Air Transport Action Group [ATAG], 2015). 2% and 12% emissions contribution are relatively minute in comparison to the number of aircraft being utilized for transport and the increase/growth of the industry. Albeit the aviation industry has experienced a notable (approximately 5%) increase in passenger travel each year over the past 10-20 years, air carriers, airports, and their governing bodies have made tremendous strides to mitigate their C02 and other emissions (ATAG 2015). It is because of the strides and joint efforts made by aviation officials and air carriers that the industry has reduced its (aircraft and ground operations) emissions growth to 3%. This emission reduction has primarily been facilitated by the upgrading and implementation of newer technology, policies, and procedures, which lessen the amount of time aircraft are on the ground (with engines running) and how much time they spend in the air during delays (e.g. holding patterns). The most significant improvement will come in the form of NextGen, which utilizes GPS technology to provide aircraft with more direct routes. By instituting more direct routes, aircraft flight time will be reduced, subsequently attenuating aircraft emissions and aviation’s overall emission contribution. According to ATAG (2015), the largest contributors to manmade (or human-induced) CO2 emissions are as follows: Power generation at 24% (which is primarily produced in the forms of coal/gas fire stations), followed by land use change at 18%, proceeded by the agricultural/industrial/transport (includes aviation at 2%) sectors at 14%, and lastly building/infrastructure and other energy related occupations at 8% and 5%, respectively. This means the aviation (or transport) industry is the third most (manmade) CO2 emission efficient industry since it contributes 6% and 9% more CO2 emissions than the building/infrastructure and other energy related industries, respectively. Additionally, this also means the aviation industry generates 12% and 4% less to manmade CO2 emissions (overall) than the power generation and land use industries, respectively, and is thereby more efficient.

Despite aviation emissions not having a large contribution percentage or impact on the overall environment, they still harm the environment and add to aviation’s overall contribution. Most individuals do not consider if there are any additional emission sources aside from the aircraft itself when discussing aviation emissions because they think the aircraft is large so it must produce the most exhaust. This notion however, is incorrect as a large portion of aviation emissions stem from the airport itself, specifically the ground equipment and other moving parts that maintain the airport’s business continuity. These sources include cars (e.g. airport police), catering trucks, shuttle buses and taxis, ground power units (GPUs), and other support vehicles. The primary chemical compounds composing the aviation emissions are CO2, H20 (water vapor), NOx, HC (hydrocarbons), CH4, and CO (Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], 2015). CO2, H20 (water vapor that helps formulate contrails), and NOx adversely affect the global climate change, while the HCs, CH4, and CO adversely affect the local air quality since they are pollutants (composed of unburned components of jet fuel).

When compared to emissions generated by other industries, aviation does not contribute a large margin to the overall emissions generated (both in the U.S. and worldwide) as I have previously mentioned. However, these notions mean nothing unless statistical data is provided to back them. Emissions are often measured in BTUs, or British Thermal Units, which denotes the energy efficiency of a product such as an appliance, a vehicle, or a mode of transportation. For the purposes of this question, each mode of transportation will be measured in BTU per passenger-mile to evaluate efficiency and emission generation. Therefore, the more energy efficient a mode of transportation is, then the lower BTU per passenger-mile and emission generation it will have.

In the U.S., there are five largely used modes of transportation, which are as follows: Automobiles, personal trucks, transit (city) buses, commercial airlines (i.e. aviation), and rail; rail is comprised of three subcategories, namely intercity rail (Amtrak), transit rail (subway) and commuter rail. According to AvStop.com (2015), commercial airlines (aviation) is the third most efficient (or least BTU per passenger-mile generating) mode of transportation generating approximately 3,600 BTU per passenger-mile. The aviation industry’s emission contribution generates only 100 BTU per passenger-miles more than automobiles (which is the second most efficient mode of transportation), and only 850 BTU per passenger-miles more than the most efficient rail mode of transportation. Traveling by rail is the most efficient mode of transportation holistically speaking; as mentioned previously, it is composed of three sub-categories. The most efficient rail method is commuter rail generating 2,750 BTU per passenger-mile, followed by intercity rail (Amtrak) at 2,900 BTU per passenger-mile, and lastly, transit rail (subway) at 3,100 BTU per passenger-mile (AvStop.com 2015).

When comparing aviation to the most efficient mode of transportation (i.e. rail), aviation appears to be extremely efficient in terms of emission generation since it only generates 850 BTU per passenger-mile more than commuter rail, 700 BTU per passenger-mile more than intercity rail, and only 500 BTU per passenger-mile more than transit rail. This is a phenomenal feat and an exemplary demonstration of the aviation industry’s minute emission contribution considering how many aircraft operate each day globally. Additionally, aviation only generates 100 BTU per passenger-mile more than the second most efficient mode (automobile). This 100 BTU per passenger-mile difference truly highlights how efficient and low emission generating aircraft/airport operations are when you consider the amount of and how frequently automobiles are used in the world. Automobiles are one of (if not the) most common means of travel in both short- and long-distances. Thus, for the aviation industry to only produce 100 more BTU per passenger-mile than automobiles (which are in abundance and commonplace in the U.S.) is extraordinary.

Since commercial airlines (aviation) is ranked third in terms of efficiency and emission generation, this means there are two additional modes of transportation under it, which are personal trucks and transit (city) buses. According to AvStop.com (2015), personal trucks generate 4,300 BTU per passenger-mile, while transit buses are the least efficient (i.e. generate the most emissions) as they generate 4,800 BTU per passenger-mile. This means the aviation industry generates 800 and 1,200 BTU per passenger-mile less than personal trucks and transit buses, respectively. Considering the vast amount of personal trucks and city transit vehicles operated within the various cities and states, their large emission generation is no surprise. City transit, especially buses, have implemented upgrades to the engine and exhaust systems to become more fuel, emission, and eco-friendly/efficient. Despite these improvements, transit buses still produce a large amount of emissions and harm the environment, hence the reason why it is (statistically) the most inefficient mode of transport. However, despite these statistics, people still assume that since a commercial (jet) aircraft is larger than an automobile, personal truck, or bus, then it is extremely (emission) inefficient, which is not true at all as denoted by the above statistical breakdowns. Therefore, although aviation is the third most efficient mode of transportation, the industry only generates 3,600 BTU per passenger-mile and contributes only 2% to CO2 emissions overall, which is minute, relatively speaking, when compared to the other, vaster modes of transportation such as rail (average of 2,916 BTU per passenger-mile) or transit buses (4,300 BTU per passenger-mile).

2)The article in class confirmed that the UN had reached an agreement for the reduction of aviation emissions. What are the specifics of the proposed reduction plan?

The essential purpose of the UN agreement is to control and reduce the harmful emissions generated by international airline flights in efforts to mitigate the aviation industry’s adverse effect on global warming. The agreement was ratified and accepted by all 191 ICAO member states during a meeting in Montreal. This agreement however, is such a big deal because it is the first climate-change pact to establish worldwide limits on a single industry (Lowy 2016). Presumably, this agreement is based off and/or is thereby akin to that of plans to reduce emissions under the Paris Accord, which was also incepted in 2016, and aims to reduce emissions and control global warming. The proposed plan by the UN is an intrinsic, all-encompassing one that addresses the issue of global warming and aviation’s contributing role in it by setting ‘emission limits’ on international flights and implementing a ‘carbon credit’ concept to air carriers. Each individual country will be responsible for establishing and placing the ‘emission limit’ on their respective air carriers as outlined in the UN agreement (Lowy 2016).

One of the specifics outlined by the proposed plan marks the year 2020, as the upper limit of the amount of emissions air carriers will be allowed to generate. If an air carrier exceeds this set limit, of which is benchmarked from their emission amount in year 2020, then said air carrier(s) must rectify or offset the exceeded amount by means of ‘carbon credit’ (Lowy 2016). This notion of purchasing ‘credit’ entails air carrier(s) (that have exceeded their allotted emission production) buying carbon credits from other industries and companies that fund and/or facilitate projects focused on addressing, mitigating, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

As of right now, the proposed UN agreement appears to be composed of two phases, of which span over 15 years for countries to be within full compliance of the agreement. The beginnings or ‘pre-phase 1’ of the plan is set to begin in year 2020. The amount of emissions an air carrier generates within year 2020, will essentially serve as the upper ‘cap’ limit on the amount of emissions air carriers can produce in future years of operation (Lowy 2016). Phase 1 of the proposed UN airline agreement is set to begin in year 2021, and last until 2027. During this phase air carriers and their respective governing countries will be held responsible for abiding by their allocated emission limit (as benchmarked in year 2020). Albeit phase 1 is completely voluntary, the UN encourages countries to participate sooner rather than later. Phase two, which is set to begin in year 2028, and end in year 2035, requires mandatory participation, involvement, and abidance to the emission restrictions from all 191 ICAO member states (and their air carriers) (Lowy 2016). According to Lowy (2016), the Environmental Defense Fund calculated that full compliance and abidance to the established emission caps would reduce carbon emissions by 2.5 billion tons over the 15-year span of the proposed UN agreement. Reduction of carbon emissions by 2.5 billion tons roughly equates to removing 35 million cars off the road for every year the proposed UN agreement is in place, which in total (over the entire 15-year period), equates to 525 million cars off the road.

One more specific encompassed within proposed UN agreement is that participating governments must present national plans to control and lessen emissions in efforts to limit the global temperature rise less than 2 degrees Celsius (or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) (Lowy 2016). This plan will essentially outline the necessary corrective changes each respective government will institute such as (aircraft and airport) equipment upgrades, and the implementation of new policies and procedures to be utilized within the aviation industry to maintain compliance with their air carrier(s)/county’s emission cap. An additional specific of the agreement is that it currently only applies to international flights since they account for approximately 60% of aviation and industry emission (Lowy 2016). However, the guidelines governing domestic flights, which account for the remaining 40% of aviation emissions, will be outlined within the Paris Accord (agreement), of which was instituted in December 2016. The primary purpose of the Paris Accord is akin to that of the proposed UN agreement. Specifically, the Paris Accord aims to unify rich and poor countries (with air carriers) to commit their involvement and actively participate in combating aviation’s effect on climate change, in addition to lessening the rise in global warming temperatures (Lowy 2016).

An additional specific pertinent to the proposed UN agreement, with respects to monetary funding, is the agreement is being funded (primarily) by participating air carriers within the industry. The estimated cost to implement and maintain the proposed UN agreement is $5.3 billion to $23.9 billion per year by year 2035 (Lowy 2016). This may seem like a substantial amount of money for air carriers to pay to fund a worldwide agreement, but in comparison to the $181 billion in fuel cost said carriers paid the following year, it is relatively minute. Therefore, as I mentioned earlier, the overall goal of this proposed UN agreement is to reduce emissions generated by the global aviation industry and limit the global temperature rise less than 2 degrees Celsius (or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) through a joint-effort of all 191 ICAO member states.

3) It also appears that emission reductions are under the Paris Agreement. How might this play out under the newly elected administration?

The Paris Agreement (Accord) was adopted in December 2015, by 195 countries. This agreement is notable and making headlines because it is the first-ever universal, legally binding global climate deal to be in existence (European Commission 2017). The goal of the Paris Agreement is akin to that of the proposed UN agreement, but the Paris Agreement contains more stringent regulations to ensure they achieve their climate reduction goal. Specifically, the goal of the Paris Agreement is to implement an action plan (through the joint-efforts of 195 European countries) that will address, combat, and lessen the global climate change below 2 degrees Celsius. Essentially, the Paris Agreement serves as a bridge between the European policies and the attainment of climate-neutrality, with the end goal being emission and global warming and reduction (European Commission 2017).

The Paris Agreement, at its essence, is comprised of five major components or sections, which are as follows: Mitigation (reducing emissions), transparency and global stock-take, adaptation, loss and damage, and the role of cities/regions/and local authorities. Under the mitigation component, the participating governments agreed to set the long-term goal of keeping the increase in global average temperature below 2 degrees Celsius. Additionally, said governments agreed to focus on limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius because doing so would notably reduce the risks and adverse impacts of climate change (European Commission 2017). In regards to the Transparency and global stock-take section, the participating governments agreed to convene every five years to set more ambitiously specific reduction goals in accordance with improvement data. Said governments also agreed to report to each other and their respective civilian bodies on the status and/or updates of the implemented plan in addition to tracking their progress towards the long-term goal via transparency and accountability system (European Commission 2017). With respects to the Adaptation section, the participating governments agreed to strengthen the societal ability and cognizance of the importance of climate change by means of educating their (respective) societies on how to deal with its adverse impacts. According to the European Commission (2017), the governments agreed to provide continued and enhance international (adaptation) support for developing (i.e. economically-disadvantaged) countries so that they too can abide by the stipulations set forth by the Paris Agreement. Under the Loss and Damage section, the agreement not only recognizes the importance of averting loss and damage related to the negative effect of climate change, but to also address and minimize any instances of it in a holistic manner. Furthermore, the agreement acknowledges the need to and importance of cooperating and enhancing the comprehension, action, and support of various facets (pertinent to the aviation industry) such as early warning systems, emergency preparedness, and risk insurance (European Commission 2017). Lastly, the agreement recognizes the role the cities, regions, and other local authorities can play in reducing emissions, and expounds upon it. Said parties are invited to increase their efforts to reduce emission, decrease susceptibility to the negative effects of climate change, and maintain and promote both regional and international cooperation (European Commission 2017).

Now that I have explained the pertinent essentials of the Paris Agreement and its relative similarity to that of the proposed UN agreement, I believe this may play out in favor of the newly elected administration. What I mean by this is that the Paris Agreement and the UN agreement have one common goal: reduce aviation emission to control global warming (i.e. climate change. The primary difference between the two is that the Paris Agreement is a tad more stringent than that of the UN because it regulates domestic flights as well. With that said, the primary purpose of privatizing ATC and implementing NextGen technology is to significantly enhance aircraft/airport operations. This enhancement will be accomplished with the utilization of GPS technology, thereby allowing aircraft to fly more direct routes, reduce flight and taxi times, and ultimately reduce aviation emissions from aircraft and airport ground equipment. President Trump has already expressed his sentiments and support for the privatization of ATC as he believes it will enhance the safety of the industry, improve airspace utilization, reduce costs and increase revenues, allow for more efficient air transportation, and reduce aviation-related emissions. Therefore, with the UN emission reduction agreement in conjunction with the Paris Agreement coming into play, President Trump and his newly elected administration may be more inclined to push (the bill) for the privatization of ATC as a façade to gather support for said bill. Thus, the newly elected administration may utilize the two agreements as a basis/motive to expedite their own agenda/plan of privatizing ATC as a means to bypass the support and lobby groups (e.g. EAA, Delta Air Lines, etc.) who are against ATC privatization.

4) What is your opinion about the validity of these upcoming aviation emissions reduction laws? Are they a necessity or overreaction? Why?

After conducting some extensive research and cross-referencing the credibility of the sources I accessed, I believe these upcoming aviation emissions reduction laws are valid and necessary. From what I have read, the Paris Accord appears to be more stringent in terms of emission regulation, control, reduction as opposed to the proposed UN agreement, but despite this, I still feel the Paris Accord is not an overreaction, but a necessary implementation. I think it is absolutely phenomenal that both of the emission agreements have essentially unified the vast majority, if not all, of the involved/affected countries in the fight to combat and reduce aviation emissions and the subsequent climate change (i.e. global warming). Furthermore, I am impressed by how the agreements have empowered the participating governments to work together in efforts to address a common cause.

With the climate change (increase) and emissions, specifically CO2 and hazardous pollutants, growing each year, an aggressively diligent effort needs to be made by those in power, and both the UN emissions agreement and the Paris Accord accomplish this rather well. I believe both agreements are valid because of their unique plan/strategy to control and reduce emissions from air carriers (and their governing countries). I say this because the agreements, specifically the UN agreement, has elected to make year 2020, the ‘benchmark’ year for air carriers; this year will serve as the ‘emission cap’ denoting the highest amount of emissions air carriers can generate before having to buy ‘credit’. I feel three years is a valid time frame for air carriers to adjust to the new plan, plus participation is voluntary until 2021. Additionally, if the air carriers and their governing countries abide by the established requirements of the proposed plan, then CO2 emissions will be reduced by approximately 2.5 billion tons. This equates to the removal of 35 million cars from the road for every year the proposed UN agreement is in place, totaling (over the entire 15-year period) to 525 million cars off the road. The fact the ‘credits’ air carriers will have to purchase if they exceed their emission cap goes towards funding emission control projects and related companies is a phenomenal and proactive concept. Therefore, I feel the ends of these proposed plans indefinitely justify their means. If implementing ‘emission caps’ and attacking this issue in a collaboratively, aggressive manner is what it will take to reduce the global temperature rise by 2 degrees Celsius (or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) and preserve the Earth (and environment) within 15 years, then so be it. Thus, it is because of these previously mentioned reasons in addition to the long-term benefit that will stem from compliance of the agreements are why I feel they are both valid and necessary.

References

Air Transport Action Group (ATAG). (2017). Facts & figures. Air Transport Action Group Facts & Figures. Retrieved from http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html

Air Transport Action Group (ATAG). (2016). Like virtually every area of human activity, air transport has an impact on the environment. Aviation and climate change. Retrieved from http://aviationbenefits.org/environmental-efficiency/aviation-and-climate-change/

AvStop.com. (2015). How do aviation’s Greenhouse gas emissions compare to other transportation sources?. Aviation Online Magazine. Retrieved from http://avstop.com/aviation_emissions/How_do_aviations_greenhouse_gas_emissions.htm

AvStop.Com. (2015). What emissions come from aviation. Aviation Online Magazine. Retrieved from http://avstop.com/aviation_emissions/What_emissions_come_from_aviation.htm

European Commission. (2017). Paris Agreement. Climate Action. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/paris_en

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2015). Aviation emissions, impacts, & mitigation: a primer. FAA Office of Environment and Energy. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/Primer_Jan2015.pdf

Lowy, J. (2016). UN agreement reached on aircraft climate-change emissions. AP News. Retrieved from http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6be5cb930f7b4ecbb24ec79219a74225/un-agreement-reached-aircraft-climate-change-emissions#