New narratives can contribute to change only if they reach enough people. In the last chapter of #CommonDestination, you will find practical tips and tricks useful for new activists as well as experienced campaigners to improve your communication: reframeaviation.stay-grounded.org/chapter-4/ 5/8
Biofuels are *theoretically* a feasible alternative to fossil jet fuel. But: they have countless negative side effects and their quantity will remain limited. #greenwashing
A thread on their problems and limits. 🔽🧵
Problem 1: biofuel use is severely constrained by the sustainability and availability of biomass
It is often claimed that aviation would use only second generation biofuels derived from 'waste' sources, therefore avoiding any direct or indirect sustainability impacts. Yet the use of first generation biofuels from crops and even entire trees has not been ruled out.
#Hydrogen is touted by some as THE great climate remedy.
Parts of the #aviation industry are also telling us that we will soon be flying on hydrogen.
Why this is not true - a thread. 🔽 🧵
The basics: in order to use hydrogen as a power source for aircraft instead of kerosene it could either be burned in a jet engine or used to feed a fuel cell to generate electricity to power a propeller.
Hydrogen is produced from other energy sources, has a significant energy loss during the process and is usually stored in liquid form at −253 °C.
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:
🧵🔽 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.
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?