🧵🔽 A thread about the top 5 false promises and the limits of 'green technologies' for '#SustainableAviation'.
#1 Efficiency. The #aviation industry tells us that it emits less and less CO2 per kilometre. What it doesn't tell us is that air traffic is growing much faster than efficiency is improving - resulting in higher climate pollution. #ReboundEffect
#2 Electric Flight. The aviation industry tells us the contribution of electric aircraft to reduce emissions will be significant. That's not true: the only aircraft likely to be certified this decade will be very small, we won’t see larger ones before 2050. Too late for #1point5.
The main reason why electric aircraft will not be able to reduce a large proportion of aviation emissions for the time being: current batteries and electrical systems are far too heavy to displace most jet fuel and combustion engines.
#3 Hydrogen Flight. The idea of #hydrogen aircraft has been around for decades - and they are still not here. We will be waiting many more years for them - and when they come, they will probably be limited in range and emissions reduction.
#4 Biofuels. Even though airlines say they will fly on fuels made from waste and other 'sustainable sources', they do not rule out the use of first generation #biofuels from crops - which cause serious impacts such as #biodiversity loss, rising food prices and water scarcity.
#5 E-fuels/Power-to-Liquid. At first sight, e-fuels seem to be the ultimate weapon for decarbonising #aviation. But: producing them requires huge amounts of energy and they have other disadvantages, e.g. they do not reduce non-CO2 effects of flights.
What the aviation industry tells you: electric planes will play a big role in decarbonisation.
What they don't tell you: due to heavy batteries, electric planes are viable only for short distances - which won't change for decades to come.
Learn more: stay-grounded.org/wp-content/upl…
🧵🔽
Efficiency has a problem - it's called #ReboundEffect. History shows us that "efficiency improvements" have always been accompanied by increased emissions! This is because efficiency also reduces the cost of flying and contributes to air traffic growth = emissions growth.
Emissions reductions through efficiency gains can also be cancelled out by airlines upgrading the class of seats, and by flying further or faster.
"Small cuts in air traffic would level off global heating caused by flying"
Good article by @katerav about an important paper by @milankloewer et al. - but with a few blind spots.
First of all: the article talks about a 2.5% reduction in air traffic each year. That is not a small change! Because until now, air traffic has grown at >5% per year. And it wants to continue to do so after Covid - despite rising emissions and climate emergency.
What is important is that aviation cannot become climate-neutral through technology. All "alternatives" deliver too little and have disadvantages. See our new factsheets:
1. Waiting for such technologies prevents climate mitigation today.
Disruptive technologies have been announced in various sectors for decades, and the world is still waiting for the vast majority of them. In the meantime, emissions continue to rise.
2. The aviation industry is lobbying against real climate action, promising technological shifts.
E. g.: The industry has not been meeting its own (low) targets for (harmful) biofuels for years. Why should the target for hydrogen in particular be reached?
We can keep flying if we just offset the emissions, right? 💸➡️🌳
No, because so-called carbon offsets pose many problems and in most cases do not compensate emissions - on the contrary. #CarbonOffset#ClimateJustice
Let us explain. Thread. ⬇️
What are offsets? #Offsets are projects meant to reduce emissions that occur elsewhere. #Offsetting projects are mostly located in countries of the Global South. Many of them are hydroelectric projects, claiming to prevent production of energy from fossil fuels.
1/2
Also forest conservation projects, operators of tree plantations, or organisations that distribute climate-friendly cooking stoves to women in rural parts can sell offset credits.
2/2
To keep the global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees, emissions must be reduced to 2.5 tonnes CO2eq per person per year by 2030.
One long-haul flight alone can exceed this budget – per person!
Air traffic is a major obstacle to climate justice. While it may seem normal for Western Europeans or Americans to fly, this "normality" has only existed for the last few decades and is still rare worldwide. Only about 10% to 20% of the global population have ever taken a flight.
But everyone suffers from the consequences of flying and the climate crisis, especially those in countries of the global south.
And not all flights are equally necessary. Particularly, privileged people should question their choices take sustainable ones and call for change.
The concept of the carbon footprint is the invention of a communication campaign paid for by BP, one of the world's biggest oil producer. Its aim was to shift the responsibility for the climate crisis from fossil fuel companies to the individual. And it was successful.
Nevertheless, we use the term frequently in our communication, even though we are aware of the problems and contradictions. After all, the concept also has positive sides. It makes climate injustices and privileges visible, for example between countries and groups of the society.