SEP 22

Certainly a step in the right direction, but the resolution isn't exactly binding in any real way, and it doesn't seem realistic regardless. As of yet, commercial planes have not developed much in terms of fuel economy. I need to see some data before I get on board and start cheering.

Robb Hughes
Head of Sales & Marketing
Green Meetup
Find Green Eco-Friendly Products Here

Flight fares these days seem to reduce as the number of changes/stopovers increases, so many passengers fly much further than necessary and thus bigger carbon footprint to reduce airfare. If airlines work out a way of proportioning fares on distance travelled and takeoffs/landings then the cheapest option would be the greenest too. But they will have to completely change the way they do business to make this feasable and affordable for passengers.

quick and easy for airPLANE industry to meet a fifty percent reduction; simply by reducing number of flights by that percentage. High fuel costs will bring that about...

Meanwhile, there IS an alternative: fly on Solar Power; on modern rigid airships. At Turtle Airships, that's our primary goal, which we've been working towards for over 25 years......It's REAL, "do-able", and a cure for much of aviations' many negatives...

...by 2050? does this seem alarming to anyone else?! we need reductions sooner than some 40 years from now. there's hardly an incentive with that sort of "deadline".

biteful, you're so right, 2050 is ludicrous. Is it just me or does it only seem to be climate goals that are set off to 2050? Even cities are looking to 2030. If we can only do 50% by 2050 then we're fucked. What we truly need is some decent investment into algal biofuels. It's absurd the amount of money we spend on stupid things like planes for wars that aren't going to occur, when we could redirect it to algae and get all the planes flying on dead microbes.

This is quite simply a cynical PR exercise; they've figured out that climate targets could take away future business. 2050 is almost a lifetime away, so they couldn't even be criticised for lack of progress for at least 15 years. It's a delaying tactic to head off potential action being taken against them, which would reduce their profits; maybe they hope the UN will factor in this 'efficiency saving' in their calculations. Maybe they hope it'll give some additional ammo to their lobbyists.

Besides, which company would invest first? Collusion to distribute the load of the R&D would be illegal under competition laws, and any company acting first would obviously be less competitive - which would cut their profits 'needlessly', violating their legal obligation to their shareholders.

In fact, since protecting their profits is what they are obliged to do by law, their actual obligation to their shareholders is to claim they are tackling the problem (which maximises profits, by preventing regulation) while not doing so (since to actually cut emissions would cost them dearly). So, this is probably what they are doing.

There is no credible possibility of any meaningful action following this announcement.

Thought it would be a good time to clean people out of my SU friend list who aren't stumbling any more and I noticed you haven't logged in for three months.

Are you active in any other social media networks now?

Let me know if I can give you a hand with anything and if you're willing to throw some juice my way as well, eh.

Cheers

I like that the airline industry is taking a proactive stance to make their operations greener ... now let's see if the shipping industry follows in their lead.

If the airlines do nothing special and present efficiency trends continue it is likely by 2050 that emissions per passenger trip will be cut in half. This must be what they are referring to. There is no possibility total airline emissions will be halved by 2050.

I don't have high hopes for the aviation industry to live up to their words. But I am all for being proven wrong. 50 % is to little though.