Aviation Fuel

[the Empress]

From what I understand, some small islands have high levels of carbon emissions, and this is because they have airports where planes stop and refuel, and these fuel/emissions are then attributed to the island. But the Kyoto Protocol excludes avaiation and sea freight emissions - so governments don't have any incentive to cut down on them, hence aviation fuel remains untaxed in the UK (although motorist fuels are taxed). But the carbon dioxide emission figures the Kyoto Protocol is based on do include aviation emissions?

So do I have that right, and can anyone explain it to me? Why aren't aviation fuels taxed, and are avaiation emissions included in carbon emission data for each country? How are flight/ship carbon emissions attributed to countries, e.g. is it from the country of origin of the vessel, or its presence in national airspace/water?

Thanks for any help, I'm a bit confused;)

[flarewearer]

Some points and thoughts;

1/ Aviation fuel can be split into Jet fuel, which is Kerosene, and Piston engine fuel, which is high rated OCtane (like the stuff you put in a car, but more refined). Kerosene is a relatively unrefined fuel, and cheap to produce. It is therefore attractively priced and has good operational economics hence the dominance of jet engines.

2/ An aircraft uses most power in landing and taking off, therefore these are emmisions hotspots. However;

3/ High altitude jet airliners, flying at 20 - 30 thousand feet cause most emissions damage, as they exhaust straight into the upper atmosphere.

4/ Jet engines cause large amounts of nitrogenous emmisions due to the mechanics of how they work. Nox emmisions at altitude are just as harmful as carbon emmisions, but not covered.

5/ Aviation fuel isn't taxed, as there is no international agreement as to how to do this. If the UK government taxed aviation fuel, the airlines would simply fill up somewhere else. Airlines of course have the luxury of being able to fly all over the globe.

Therefore, short flights cause proportionately more emmisions as a greater proportion of the flight is landing and takeoff time. However, logn flights produce emmisions higher in the atmosphere, which causes proportionately more damage.

Ship carbon emmisiond are proportionately negligible. Large, slow moving ships are, pound for pound, the most fuel efficient way to transport things around. You can ship stuff in containers across the globe for a few pounds. Ships burn heavy bunker oil, which may cause more sulphur and hydrocarbon emmisions, but these are at a low altitude and the emisions are so proportionately small compared to an aircraft to be negligible.

[hr]

image:www.magnificentoctopus.com/x/elgar.png

[j]

Jet A1 fuel is untaxed, avgas which you've called piston fuel is taxed heavily, the emmisions from a transport or passenger aircraft, per passenger per mile travelled is tiny when compared to a car or a bus. Most of the trail you see from an aircraft is water vapour, The Jet engine is an amazingly efficient piece of engineering and you can hardly compare an aircraft with a ship... what a ridiculous comparison, air craft travel to some places in less than a day which a ship takes severaly weeks, aircraft can get any where in a direct path, air craft are several thousand times safer than ships. Ships can only take goods to the edge of a land mass, then it takes another form of transport to get it to it's destination. People on the sinner really need to learn what a balanced arguement is and that when discussing something you can't ignore huge benefits provided by the opposing side of an arguement

[the Empress]

Thanks for the help - but I wasn't making an argument unreg! I just want to know how aviation emissions are attributed to countries to make sense of some stats I've been looking at! I'm assuming that levels of CO2 are just measured in each country, so include takeoff and landing emissions, explaing the high per capita figures for some islands. Mentioned shipping as I was wondering about that too (I know it's way more efficient, as are cars, than flight though!) And before you argue, I'm intereseted in the efficient transport of food, not people. Your arg that ships are less efficent than planes because goods then need to be distributed by road is irrelevant - goods go by road to central distribution centres regardless of being previousled shipped by sea or plane.


[hr]

Better to win by admitting my sin, then to lose with a halo

[flarewearer]

Quoting j from 18:54, 19th Mar 2006
Most of the trail you see from an aircraft is water vapour,

Water vapour is the greatest component of greenhouse gas emmisions, is it not? Anyway, regardless of how efficient a jet engine is, its still a lot less fuel-efficient than a ship.

The Jet engine is an amazingly efficient piece of engineering and you can hardly compare an aircraft with a ship... what a ridiculous comparison, air craft travel to some places in less than a day which a ship takes severaly weeks, aircraft can get any where in a direct path, air craft are several thousand times safer than ships.

It isn't a ridiculous comparison. Firstly, and most obviously, many goods are just too big and heavy to move by aircraft. Secondly, where goods do not perish, whether they take a day or a week to arrive is immaterial, the economics favour the cheapest way, which is by ship using the conomies of scale. That ships can only unload to a port is obvious, but with the great majority of the "developed" world living in close proximity to the coast this again is not some sort of terrible problem. Also, goods can quickly be moved from container to truck or train or onto another vessel and onwards; goods arriving by aircraft still have to be cleared through customs and onto a truck for distribution.

People on the sinner really need to learn what a balanced arguement is and that when discussing something you can't ignore huge benefits provided by the opposing side of an arguement

There wasn't really an argument in the first place, was there? It was just some thougts in response to a question and as far as I can see there is no fundamental mistake in what I said.


[hr]

image:www.magnificentoctopus.com/x/elgar.png

[dunx]

Quoting j from 18:54, 19th Mar 2006
the emmisions from a transport or passenger aircraft, per passenger per mile travelled is tiny when compared to a car or a bus

Wow, that's surprising. I was always under the impression that air travel was among the highest polluters per passenger mile. Unfortunately I don't have any data to back up this view directly, but I do know that aeroplanes consume a lot more fuel per passenger mile than cars do - see the paper at http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~mu ... avel2.html for fuel consumption comparisons. Maybe our government should read this report and have a good long hard think before they consider raising fuel taxes for motorists again.

[flarewearer]

Quoting dunx from 21:35, 20th Mar 2006

Quoting j from 18:54, 19th Mar 2006
the emmisions from a transport or passenger aircraft, per passenger per mile travelled is tiny when compared to a car or a bus

Wow, that's surprising. I was always under the impression that air travel was among the highest polluters per passenger mile. Unfortunately I don't have any data to back up this view directly,

And neither does the original unreg poster, oddly enough.
To the original poster, compare;

from http://www.chooseclimate.org/climatetrain/ecobal.html

and

[img]http://www.atraircraft.com/pictures/fuel.gif[/img]

from the manufacturers of the ATR high-efficiency aircraft.

For anyone interested, loads of data here;
http://www.anaskyweb.com/us/e/about_ana ... env/g_gas/
and here;
http://www.mst.dk/udgiv/Publications/20 ... 09_eng.htm

My main point is if the original poster wants to question other people's facts, they should at least have some of their own to back themselves up.
[hr]

image:www.magnificentoctopus.com/x/elgar.png

[Gubbins]

Quoting dunx from 21:35, 20th Mar 2006
Wow, that's surprising. I was always under the impression that air travel was among the highest polluters per passenger mile.

Time to get the calculator out and consult Wikipedia...

For a typical Boeing 747-400ER, travelling its maximum range of 14200km on a full tank of 241,140 litres, it comes out at a seemingly fuel inefficient rate of 0.14 miles to the gallon. However, it carries 524 passengers (in a 2-class layout), thus making it about 73 miles per person per gallon - roughly equivalent of a moderately inefficient car with a driver and passenger.