The climate crisis and aviation‘s role 🌏🔥✈️
11 facts that will change your view on air traffic and its climate impact #CommonDestination#ReframeAviation
Before Covid, flying caused around 1 billion tonnes of CO2* per year.
That means if aviation were a country, it would be one of the largest single emitters, just behind Japan and ahead of countries like Germany and South Korea.
*Flights have additional climate impacts.
2/14
Flying regularly is not compatible with a 1.5 degree lifestyle.
Just one long-haul flight can emit more CO2 per passenger than what's feasible for staying below 1.5 degrees of global heating.
3/14
If pre-Covid aviation growth rates resume, air traffic alone would contribute a massive 0.1˚C to global heating by 2050, as a study by @milankloewer and colleagues from 2021 has shown.
4/14
The inequality of aviation is staggering!
The richest 1% of the world's population is responsible for 50% of aviation emissions. In contrast, around 80% of the world's population has never flown.
5/14
Private jets are the peak of obscene pollution!
A flight on a private jet is 5-14(!) times more damaging to the climate than a scheduled flight per passenger. And private jets are extremely unevenly distributed globally.
6/14
Aviation has contributed more to global heating than entire continents!
Including all its climate impacts, the share of aviation is 4%, whereas Africa, South America and India have each contributed only 3% to the climate crisis.
7/14
Flying is the most climate-damaging means of transport per hour!
Due to speed and long distances, as well as the enormous amounts of energy needed to fly, a flight emits many times more CO2 (and other emissions) than alternative modes of transport.
8/14
What if everyone on earth flew once a year?
Our thought experiment shows: that alone would eat up our remaining carbon budget. Frequent flying and a fair distribution of emissions are not compatible.
9/14
Our climate cannot afford billionaires!
With their jet-set lives, the richest annually squander many times the lifetime emissions of average people. In addition, extreme wealth creates a problematic and undemocratic concentration of power.
10/14
What would happen if everyone flew like the richest Europeans?
If everyone in the world flew like the richest 10% of Europe, aviation alone would cause annual climate pollution equal to 2/3 of the total global emissions in 2019!
11/14
Can we believe the aviation industry's climate promises?
Evidence shows: No.
Aviation lobbies like @IATA and airlines regularly set new climate targets - and just as reliably miss them.
Want to learn how to use these facts best and embed them in transformative narratives? #ReframeAviation
Then sign up now for our free storytelling trainings on aviation and climate justice. In English, German, Spanish and French: stay-grounded.org/training/
14/14
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.