Priligy online now, save money

SEP 22

Recent Comment

"I don't have high hopes for the aviation industry to live up to tramadol websites their ..."

View all Comments

Airlines Pledging to Cut Emissions by 50%

At the UN climate talks today in New York, an agreement between airlines, airports and aircraft companies to slash emissions by 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 will be presented.  If the UN accepts the proposal, it will be added to the best price generic viagra Copenhagen agenda.

This would be significant because not only is the aviation industry responsible for two percent of yearly global emissions, but those emissions weren't part of buy now online levitra the Kyoto Protocol.  Adding a commitment like this to whatever agreement comes out of Copenhagen will mean a substantial improvement over Kyoto.

The International Air Travel Association is also promising that all industry growth will be carbon neutral by 2020.

The one downside of this pledge by the aviation industry is that it will undoubtedly raise fares for travelers, at least initially, while new technologies are being developed.

via AFP

Hits: 14059
Comments (10)Add Comment
Oh really?
written by Robb, September 22, 2009
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
There's another way ...
written by Ed, September 22, 2009
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 tramadol order overnight 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.
written by campbell, September 22, 2009
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 how to order cialis online aviations' many negatives...
written by biteful, September 23, 2009 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".
written by Jacob, September 23, 2009
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 tramadol uk delivery occur, when we could redirect it to algae and get all the planes flying on dead microbes.
This is the PR department
written by jungle, September 23, 2009
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.
Where Have You Gone Joe DiMaggio?
written by Kilroy_60, September 23, 2009
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.

Hope the shipping industry will follow their lead
written by John Rowell, September 24, 2009
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.
written by bill, September 24, 2009
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.
written by Suecae, September 24, 2009
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.

Write comment

security code
Write the displayed characters


Are you an EcoGeek?

We've got to keep 7 billion people happy without destroying our planet. It's the biggest challenge we've ever faced....but we're taking it on. Are you with us?

The Most Popular Articles