A big propaganda announcement without much effect

The White House has announced approval of the EPA’s endangerment finding for CO2 emissions from aviation.  Reducing CO2 emissions from aviation are unlikely to have any measurable effect on global warming.  The Hill announcement of OMB’s approval of the EPA’s aviation endangerment finding on GHG emissions from aviation.  So, how much global warming do we get from commercial aviation?  It’s hard to find an answer.  When I search for a number can find a tap dance on particulate from contrails, increased forcing and other nasty things, but not X°C.   I did find a 2009 article in Nature suggesting 8% to surface temperature or 0.03-0.06°C since 1850.    Not much per year,  but then we weren’t doing much flying in 1850.

In 2013, the estimated CO2 from all commercial aviation was 705 million metric tonnes.  At 0.0000000000015°C/tonne that’s 0.001°C.  The EPA estimated 114.4 Tg of CO2 equivalent from commercial aviation.  That’s 114.4 million tonnes, or 0.00017°C contribution to global warming.  Since any rule making will only reduce GHG’s from U. S. aviation by a fraction.  So, the whole thing is all for show, everyone doing his part and the shoulder-to-shoulder push for propaganda.  The regulations will make aviation more expensive.

As a wise man once said, more and more regulations about less and less.

If anyone has a different number for global warming for a tonne of CO2, let me know.  I doubt it will bring this into a measurable change.


8 responses to “A big propaganda announcement without much effect

  1. Robert of Ottawa

    CO2 is cool. The EPA is megalomanic.

  2. The hot air from this announcement probably added more warming than all the airplanes. How do they propose to reduce the CO2? Giant bags behind the engines collecting exhaust for later burial in deep mines?

  3. Back in the ’60s there was an anti-war meme: “What if they held a war and nobody came?” Remembering that meme and ‘bouncing’ it off the title of this post inspired the following concept:
    I wonder what would happen if the entire population of a country decided to simply ignore the people who ‘govern’ them, and their minions. Imagine an asylum for the criminally insane populated solely by people elected for life to their positions by outsiders. 🙂

    • ‘an asylum for the criminally insane populated solely by people elected for life to their positions by outsiders’
      In most ‘democracies’ it is euphemistically called ‘The house’

    • ernestncurtis

      I lived in Berkeley from 1963-69 and toward the end of the decade I saw this beautiful concept briefly come to fruition. At that time dissatisfaction with the Viet Nam war was so profound that throughout the Bay Area people just started ignoring their draft notices. The practice was so widespread that the authorities really couldn’t do much about it and stopped trying. Of course this was kept quiet because those in charge didn’t want their subjects to know how fragile their control of the levers of power really was. However, they learned their lesson and realized that an institution like the draft could spark a general disregard for authority and so the draft was abolished a few years later.

      • Berkeley was different from other parts of the country. In North Carolina the local draft boards and governments weren’t as anti-war as Berkeley, so failure to comply with the draft had seemingly serious legal ramifications. The only person I knew who managed to avoid recall to active duty without penalty was an uncle, a highly decorated WWII naval aviator by 21, who took strong exception to an attempted to recall him in the ’60’s. I got to the point with my draft board of federal marshal threats because I failed to take being drafted AFTER I was commissioned with the proper degree of seriousness.

        The draft went away after Viet Nam and was replaced by the all volunteer military. The overall quality of the soldiers improved because they wanted to be there.

  4. Commercial Aircraft are already highly efficient, because fuel is a major part of the cost of flying people. Airplane manufacturers advertise based on how little fuel is used. 787 A350, were created specifically to be 20 -3 0% more efficient than the previous generation aircraft, and Boeing and Airbus are rapidly adding these technologies to older lines.

    Airlines are rapidly getting rid of old planes because they cost to much to fly. The old planes sit in towns like Mohave, mothballed, and sold for scrap.

    This CO2 reduction regulation, will not cause planes to become more efficient, it is just a way of getting more tax revenue through fines and levies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s