Sunday, May 10, 2020


May 10, 2020
Compiled by Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace, Justice, and Ecology

Increasing Air Travel and CO2
From 2017 to 2019 Google Searches
Pollution Worsening
Population Increasing
Promotion of Air Travel in Arkansas
Opposition to Air Travel CO2
George Monbiot’s “Love Flights”
3rd Heathrow Runway Blocked by Court
Flying Less Polluting Airlines



[These PBS films on flying are all about government planning, funding, and especially the technology of transporting so many people and goods, and nothing about the CO2 produced and its consequences.   –D]
PBS, “City in the Sky: Departure” (Feb. 5, 2017)
Atlanta and Dubai, world hubs, reveal the present and foretell the future of flight.  The Atlanta Thanksgiving 2016 crush will in a decade occur regularly and around the world.   At Dubai, 400 million pieces of luggage passed through in 2016, if stacked would be taller by several times than the tallest Dubai Tower.
“City in the Sky: Airborne” (Feb. 15, 2017).
A million people flying at any moment typically, and not counting planes carrying merchandise (horses!), are controlled safely 5 miles apart horizontally and ?? vertically, thanks to a planet covered with markers keeping the planes in their track.  Plans are under way to fine tune the system in preparation for the steady increase of passenger and materials planes.

From 2017 to 2019 Air Travel Harms Worsening
      I had made a search in 2018, which contained much bad news in articles from 2017 and earlier regarding the harms of air travel.  In 2020 I thought I would contrast those reports with what it was like in the middle of the coronavirus-19 pandemic, with so many planes grounded, but the May 2020 search contained only 2019 and earlier items.  The items dated 2019 declared that the harms of air travel were getting worse without specifically stating why.  But they do report that air travel will double during the next 20 years (increasing from 2.4 billion in 2010 to an estimated 16 billion in 2050).  I am looking forward to google making available the post-pandemic research on air travel.
      I had hoped to find articles on the correlation between the steep increase of population growth and air travel, but that information awaits a wider and deeper search, or an increase in research.  The apparent neglect of study of the correlation between climate change and population growth is a surprising feature of the crisis.  --Dick

Se AIR TRAVEL Google Search, 7-12-18

Air travel and climate change - David Suzuki Foundation 5, 2017 - Aviation has a disproportionately large impact on the climate system. It accounts ... CO2intensity of passenger transport via IPCC. What sorts of ...To fly or not to fly? The environmental cost of air travel | Environment ... 10, 2018 - Though air travel is more popular than ever, the vast majority of ... Many estimates put aviation's share of global CO2 emissions at just above two percent. ... universities and co-editor of the book Climate Change and Aviation: ...
Air Travel's Impact on Climate Change | ETA carbon footprint is the estimated amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) given out as we travel, buy ... To keep the climate safe we need drastic cuts in air travel.
For the love of Earth, stop traveling - The Washington Post 2, 2017 - According to former U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres, we have only ... do pumps carbon dioxide into the atmosphere faster than air travel.
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Airline Pollution Is Soaring and Nobody Knows How to Fix It ... › news › articles › airline-polluti...
Airlines Were Supposed to Fix Their Pollution Problem. It's Just Getting Worse. Hundreds of millions of new passengers are coming, and there's no solution in sight. By. William Wilkes. March 10, 2019, 12:00 AM PST. 7:06 ...
'Worse Than Anyone Expected': Air Travel Emissions Vastly ...
Sep 19, 2019 - aviation body, stood by its emissions projection, which he said was “the most up-to-date” and provided “a clear picture on the future ...
Cutting Aviation Pollution | Initiatives | WWF
In 2010, the aviation industry carried 2.4 billion passengers; in 2050, that number is forecast to rise to 16 billion. Without action, emissions from increased air ...

Jun 20, 2017 - Such a dramatic increase in flight would also be accompanied by a ... The BRIC countries contain 40 percent of the world's population and ...

Aug 29, 2019 - Airports around the world are growing rapidly to meet fast-rising demand for air travel. ... That's a bit more than half of the global population.

Noel Oman.  “Airports to Share Millions in Grants: 52 State Projects Receive U.S. Aid.”  NADG (10-19-19).  Arkansas to receive $42 million “to repair runways and taxiways…lighting” and more.  “The largest grant, $6.8 million, went to Texarkana Regional Airport to construct a taxiway to serve a new $13 million terminal under construction….”

Editorials.  “Thursday’s Thumbs.”  NADG (August 29, 2019). 
“It’s good news to hear the leaders of the Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport…plan to pursue something in the range of $200 million in upgrades over the next decade to expand capacity and the overall experience….”  (The rest of the editorial is even more harmful.   Complain about this hugely antisocial expenditure by our ignorant? and irresponsible leaders.)

Melissa Gute.  “Downtown Space Offers Peek Into Aviation Future.”  NADG (7-7-18).  Aviation expanding in many directions in Bentonville.  Several groups have opened a center downtown to “get people thinking about the municipal airport as a community amenity.”   A new two-story 22,000 square foot Thaden Fieldhouse is being built at the airport.  The long article throbs with the excitement of aviation growth.
Ron Wood.  “Parking Deck Set to Open in August.”  NADG (6-14-18).  The new parking deck at the NWA Regional Airport, Highfill.  “The four-level deck with 1,400 parking spaces….cost about $30 million.”   Take that and stuff it George Monbiot, you and your anti-flying “Love Flights.”
A Glance Back at Highfill’s XNA and Region
Dave Hughes.  “FAA Awards $3.12 M Grant to Airport.”  NADG (7-25-17).  For a fire station at the Fort Smith’s airport.
“NW Airport Adds Daily San Francisco Flight.”  NADG (8-18-15).  United Airlines is also adding larger aircraft to its flights, and to Chicago and Denver, and it has nonstop service also to Houston and Newark.
Erin Spandorf.  “NWA Airports Plan Upgrades.”  Springdale Morning News (March 2, 2015).
Robert Smith.  “Airport Wants Area Distinction.”  NADG (10-11-14).  Praise of the $20 million concourse expansion at XNA.
Peter Urban.  “Regional Airport Benefits from Recovery Act Funds.”  Norwest Arkansas Times (9-30-10).  Funds for rebuilding the deteriorating runway.
Brenda Blagg.  “Looking for Transportation Options.”  Northwest Arkansas Times (11-28-10).  Advocates of a light rail system find little support.
Andrew Taylor.  “Flight Subsidies Spike at Rural Airports.”  ADG (8-1-08),
Whether local or global, there’s little to no awareness in NADG reporting of aviation of the climate liabilities of flying.  The future is flying growth and damn the consequences!  Did the newspaper know the consequences?  They could have, they should have, as our newspaper of record, our watchdog.  See Monbiot’s 2007  “Love Flights” below.


Sep 21, 2006 - Our moral dissonance about flying reminds me of something a Buddhist once told me: "It doesn't matter what you do, as long as you do it with love ...
On the flight path to global meltdown
 This article is 14 years old
George Monbiot
There is no technofix to the disastrous impact of air travel on the environment, argues George Monbiot in the final extract from his new book - the only answer is to ground most of the aeroplanes flying today.
Thu 21 Sep 2006 07.17 EDTFirst published on Thu 21 Sep 2006 07.17 EDT
This is an edited extract from Heat, by George Monbiot, published by Allen Lane, 2007; chapter 9, “Love Miles.”
Our moral dissonance about flying reminds me of something a Buddhist once told me: "It doesn't matter what you do, as long as you do it with love." I am sure he knew as well as I do that our state of mind makes no difference to either exploited people or the environment. Thinking like ethical people makes not a damn of difference unless we also behave like ethical people. When it comes to flying, there seems to be no connection between intention and action.
This is partly because the people who are most concerned about the inhabitants of other countries are often those who have travelled widely. Much of the global justice movement consists of people - like me - whose politics were forged by their experiences abroad. While it is easy for us to pour scorn on the drivers of sports utility vehicles, whose politics generally differ from ours, it is rather harder to contemplate a world in which our own freedoms are curtailed, especially the freedoms that shaped us.

Read more
More painfully, in some cases our freedoms have become obligations. When you form relationships with people from other nations, you accumulate what I call "love miles": the distance you must travel to visit friends and partners and relatives on the other side of the planet. If your sister-in-law is getting married in Buenos Aires, it is both immoral to travel there, because of climate change, and immoral not to, because of the offence it causes. In that decision we find two valid moral codes in irreconcilable antagonism. Who could be surprised to discover that "ethical" people are in denial about the impacts of flying?
There are two reasons why flying dwarfs any other environmental impact a single person can exert. The first is the distance it permits us to cover. According to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the carbon emissions per passenger mile "for a fully loaded cruising airliner are comparable to a passenger car carrying three or four people". In other words, they are about half those, per person, of a car containing the average loading of 1.56 people. But while the mean distance travelled by car in the UK is 9,200 miles per year, in a plane we can beat that in one day. On a return flight from London to New York, every passenger produces roughly 1.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide: the very quantity we will each be entitled to emit in a year once the necessary cut in emissions has been made.
The second reason is that the climate impact of aeroplanes is not confined to the carbon they produce. They release several different kinds of gases and particles. Some of them cool the planet, others warm it. In the upper tropo-sphere, where most large planes fly, hot, wet air from the jet engine exhaust mixes with cold air. As the moisture condenses, it can form "contrails", which in turn appear to give rise to cirrus clouds - those high wispy formations of ice crystals sometimes known as "horsetails". While they reflect some of the sun's heat back into the space, they also trap heat in the atmosphere, especially at night; the heat trapping seems to be the stronger effect. The overall impact, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a warming effect 2.7 times that of the carbon dioxide alone.
Aviation has been growing faster than any other source of greenhouse gases. Between 1990 and 2004, the number of people using airports in the UK rose by 120%, and the energy the planes consumed increased by 79%. Their carbon dioxide emissions almost doubled in that period - from 20.1 to 39.5m tonnes, or 5.5% of all the emissions this country produces. Unless something is done to stop this growth, flying will soon overwhelm all the cuts we manage to make elsewhere. But the measures the government proposes are useless. The transport department suggests that the aviation industry should "pay the external costs its activities impose on society at large". This is an interesting proposal, but unfortunately the department does not explain how it could be arranged. Should a steward be sacrificed every time someone in Ethiopia dies of hunger? As Bangladesh goes under water, will the government demand the drowning of a commensurate number of airline executives? The idea is strangely attractive. But the only suggestion it makes is that aviation fuel might be taxed.
Unlike most environmentalists, who have also called for this measure, the government knows perfectly well that fuel tax cannot be imposed on international flights. It is prohibited under international law by article 24 of the 1944 Chicago Convention, which has been set in stone by 4,000 bilateral treaties - making it almost impossible to unpick. Now the government proposes that aviation be incorporated into the European Emissions Trading Scheme. If flights continue to grow, it will break the system.
The one certain means of preventing more flights is the one thing the British government refuses to do: limit the capacity of our airports. It employs the "predict and provide" approach that has proved so disastrous when applied to road transport: as you increase the provision of space in order to meet the predicted demand, the demand rises to fill it, ensuring that you need to create more space in order to accommodate your new projections. The House of Commons environmental audit committee calculates that the extra capacity the government proposes means "the equivalent of another Heathrow every five years".
The Department for Transport, along with the airline industry, claims that expanding airport capacity is "socially inclusive", in that it enables poorer people to fly. But a Mori poll commissioned by the Freedom to Fly Coalition, a lobby group founded by the aviation industry, found that 75% of those who use budget airlines are in social classes A, B and C. The people who are most vulnerable to climate change are the poorest inhabitants of the poorest nations, the great majority of whom will never board an aeroplane.
So what is to be done? There are two means by which the growth in flights could be reconciled to the need to cut carbon emissions. The first is a massive increase in the fuel efficiency of aircraft; the other is a new fuel.
As far as aircraft engines are concerned, major new efficiencies in the next 20 years or so are a pipedream. The Royal Commission reports that "the basic gas turbine design emerged in 1947. It has been the dominant form of aircraft engine for some 50 years and there is no serious suggestion that this will change in the foreseeable future." It is hard to see how it could be made much more efficient than it is already.
The choice of low carbon fuels for aeroplanes is similar to the choice of low carbon fuels for cars. According to a paper by researchers at Imperial College, London, it is technically possible to fly planes whose normal fuel (kerosene) is mixed with about 5% biodiesel. But biodiesel, as I have shown elsewhere, is likely to cause more global warming than it prevents.
Ethanol, the same paper suggests, would be useless: it is insufficiently dense and, in aeroplanes, extremely dangerous. This appears to leave only hydrogen. Jets could use hydrogen today, if instead of carrying passengers and freight they carried nothing but fuel - it contains four times less energy by volume than kerosene. But if this problem could be overcome, the researchers suggest, the total climate impacts of planes fuelled by the gas "would be much lower than from kerosene".
Unfortunately, when hydrogen burns, it creates water. A hydrogen plane will produce 2.6 times as much water vapour as a plane running on kerosene. This, they admit, would be a major problem if hydrogen planes flew as high as ordinary craft. But if the aircraft flew below 10,000 metres (33,000ft), where contrails are less likely to form, the impact would be negligible. What they have forgotten is that because hydrogen requires a far bigger fuel tank than kerosene, the structure (or "airframe") of the plane would need to be much larger. This means it would be subject to more drag. The Royal Commission points out that "the combination of larger drag and lower weight would require flight at higher altitudes" than planes fuelled by kerosene. In fact, hydrogen planes, if they are ever used, are most likely to be deployed as supersonic jets in the stratosphere. If so, their impact on the climate would be around 13 times that of a normal aircraft running on kerosene.
And that, I'm afraid, is that. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change discovered, "There would not appear to be any practical alternatives to kerosene-based fuels for commercial jet aircraft for the next several decades." There is, in other words, no technofix. The growth in aviation and the need to address climate change cannot be reconciled. In common with all other sectors, aviation's contribution to global warming must be reduced in the UK by some 87% if we are to avoid a 2C rise in global temperatures. Given that the likely possible efficiencies are small and tend to counteract each other, an 87% cut in emissions requires not only that growth stops, but that most of the aeroplanes flying today be grounded. I realise that this is not a popular message, but it is hard to see how a different conclusion could be extracted from the available evidence.
This means the end of distant foreign holidays, unless you are prepared to take a long time getting there. It means that business meetings must take place over the internet or by means of video conferences. It means that transcontinental journeys must be made by train or coach. It means that journeys around the world must be reserved for visiting the people you love, and that they will require both slow travel and the saving up of carbon rations. It means the end of shopping trips to New York, parties in Ibiza, second homes in Tuscany and, most painfully for me, political meetings in Porto Alegre - unless you believe that these activities are worth the sacrifice of the biosphere and the lives of the poor.
But I urge you to remember that these privations affect only a tiny proportion of the world's people. The reason they seem so harsh is that this tiny proportion almost certainly includes you.
· This is an edited extract from Heat, by George Monbiot, published by Allen Lane. To order a copy for £16.99 with free UK p&p (rrp £17.99), go to or call 0870 836 0875. Monbiot has also launched a new website - - exposing the false environmental claims made by corporations and celebrities.
We've got an announcement …(2006)
… on our progress as an organisation. In service of the escalating climate emergency, we have made an important decision – to renounce fossil fuel advertising, becoming the first major global news organisation to institute an outright ban on taking money from companies that extract fossil fuels.
In October we outlined our pledge: that the Guardian will give global heating, wildlife extinction and pollution the urgent attention and prominence they demand. This resonated with so many readers around the world. We promise to update you on the steps we take to hold ourselves accountable at this defining point in our lifetimes. With climate misinformation rife, and never more dangerous than now, the Guardian's accurate, authoritative reporting is vital – and we will not stay quiet.
You've read 18 articles in the last six months. We chose a different approach: to keep Guardian journalism open for all. We don't have a paywall because we believe everyone deserves access to factual information, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay.
Our editorial independence means we are free to investigate and challenge inaction by those in power. We will inform our readers about threats to the environment based on scientific facts, not driven by commercial or political interests. And we have made several important changes to our style guide to ensure the language we use accurately reflects the environmental emergency.
The Guardian believes that the problems we face on the climate crisis are systemic and that fundamental societal change is needed. We will keep reporting on the efforts of individuals and communities around the world who are fearlessly taking a stand for future generations and the preservation of human life on earth. We want their stories to inspire hope.
We hope you will consider supporting us today. We need your support to keep delivering quality journalism that’s open and independent. Every reader contribution, however big or small, is so valuable.
Jul 27, 2018 - Monbiot writes that from sellers of offsets, “you can now buy complacency, political apathy and self-satisfaction”. Worth flying for? EduardSV/ ...

[I didn’t find much resistance, and what I found was feckless, effete, impotent, sickly, meager, paltry, choose your word—woozy?   The following are here only to illustrate, so you might stop here.  Covid19 gave us and the atmosphere a chance: the planes were grounded and our nation had not foundered.  But Pres. Trump wants to give the airline industry $50 billion in secured loans.   As Monbiot wrote:  Sorry, but you cannot build new runways and prevent climate breakdown.”  Published in the Guardian 19th October 2016.  –D] 

AN INSTANCE OF CURBING EXPANSION OF AIR TRAVEL IN UK:  “Citing climate worries, court blocks 3rd Heathrow runway”   by DANICA KIRKA THE ASSOCIATED PRESS | February 28, 2020 at 1:56 a.m.
Campaigners protest outside the Royal Courts of Justice where a Court of Appeal ruling is taking place on the Heathrow expansion row, in London, Thursday, Feb. 27, 2020. Britain's Court of Appeal is preparing to publish its decision in a case that could stall the 14 billion pound ($18 billion) plan to expand Heathrow Airport amid concerns about climate change, pollution and noise. (Stefan Rousseau/PA via AP)
LONDON -- Heathrow Airport's plans to increase capacity of Europe's biggest travel hub by more than 50% were stalled Thursday when a British court said the government failed to consider its commitment to combat climate change when it approved the project.
The ruling throws in doubt the future of the $18 billion plan to build a third runway at Heathrow, the west London hub that already handles more than 1,300 flights a day.
Business Newsletter Updates
Stay ahead of the competition. Get daily updates with our business newsletter.
While Heathrow officials said they planned to appeal, Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government indicated that it wouldn't challenge the ruling by the Court of Appeal.
"We won!" said London Mayor Sadiq Khan, a longtime opponent of the project who joined other officials and environmental groups in challenging the national government's approval of Heathrow's expansion plans.
At stake is a project that business groups and Heathrow officials argue is crucial for the British economy as the U.K. looks to increase links with countries from China to the United States after leaving the European Union. Heathrow already has reached the capacity of its current facilities, and a third runway is needed to serve the growing demands of travelers and international trade, they say.
Environmental campaigners, however, challenged the project because of concerns that a third runway would encourage increased air travel and the carbon emissions blamed for global warming. The British government has committed to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions as a signatory to the 2016 Paris climate agreement, which seeks to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century compared with pre-industrial levels.
The court upheld the appeal, saying the government had failed to consider its commitments under the Paris agreement when it approved a national policy on airport capacity in southeastern England that paved the way for a third runway at Heathrow. That policy statement backed the Heathrow project over a competing plan from Gatwick Airport, 30 miles south of central London, and a proposal to build an airport in the Thames estuary east of London.
In a narrowly written opinion, the three-judge panel stressed that it wasn't ruling on the merits of the Heathrow project. Instead, the court said the national policy statement would be suspended until the government has reviewed the findings in accordance with Britain's obligations under the Paris agreement.
"We have not found that a national policy statement supporting this project is necessarily incompatible with the United Kingdom's commitment to reducing carbon emissions and mitigating climate change under the Paris Agreement, or with any other policy the Government may adopt or international obligation it may undertake," the court said.
"The consequence of our decision is that the Government will now have the opportunity to reconsider the (national policy statement) in accordance with the clear statutory requirements that Parliament has imposed."
The Department for Transportation said the government wouldn't challenge the ruling.
"We take seriously our commitments on the environment, clean air and reducing carbon emissions," the department said in a statement. "We will carefully consider this complex judgment and set out our next steps in due course."
Heathrow said the issue raised by the court's ruling is "eminently fixable," and it will work with the government to resolve the problem. The airport also said it planned to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
"Expanding Heathrow, Britain's biggest port and only hub, is essential to achieving the Prime Minister's vision of global Britain," the airport said in a statement. "We will get it done the right way, without jeopardizing the planet's future."   MORE

Jan. 17, 2018 08:20AM EST
Aviation Emissions Rising Steeply, With 'Colossal Gap' Between Carriers
Hainan Airlines and All Nippon Airways ranked first in fuel efficiency among transpacific carriers in 2016, according to a report released Tuesday by the International Council on Clean Transportation.
The new report analyzed 20 airlines operating nonstop flights between the mainland U.S. and East Asia and Oceania. The difference in efficiency performance between the most and least fuel-efficient carriers was 64 percent.
"The colossal gap between the most and least fuel-efficient airlines shows that dramatic pollution reductions are easily within reach using existing technologies," said Vera Pardee, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute. "By flying less-polluting carriers like Hainan and All Nippon, we can all reduce our carbon footprint while giving delinquent airlines an incentive to adopt their competitors' more climate-friendly practices."  [See Monbiot’s rejection of baby steps approach.]
Airlines analyzed in the study cut fuel use and carbon pollution through a number of strategies, including buying new aircraft, increasing passenger density and optimizing freight load.
Aviation already accounts for at least 2.5 percent of global greenhouse gas pollution, and the industry's emissions are rising steeply. If commercial aviation were considered a country, it would rank seventh after Germany in terms of carbon emissions. Airplanes could generate 43 metric gigatons of planet-warming pollution through 2050, consuming more than 4 percent of the world's remaining carbon budget, according to a Center for Biological Diversity report.
The first international standards for carbon pollution from airplanes were adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization in early 2017. But these standards will reduce emissions from new planes less than "business as usual" and do not apply to any in-service aircraft.
"Aviation emissions continue to skyrocket, yet international fuel-efficiency standards are disturbingly weak," Pardee said. "We need to push for stronger policies to reduce the climate harms of airline travel. But in the meantime, consumer demand is a powerful tool to pressure the industry to curb its dangerous pollution."
Aug 31, 2016 - Government negotiators met in Montreal last week to seek agreement on a global cap on carbon pollution from international aviation. Bilateral ...

Aug 26, 2016 - Leading industry, policy, and legal experts are calling for a cap on carbon pollution from international aviation ahead of a key meeting of the ...
Cutting Aviation Pollution | Initiatives | WWF
Unregulated carbon pollution from aviation is the fastest-growing source of the ... these goals, the aviation industry must do its part to reduce emissions. ... United Nations' civil aviation body agreed last week to put a cap on the emissions for an ...

Dear Dick,

Thank you for taking action to reduce airline emissions!

If global emissions from airplanes remains unchecked, the industry’s CO2 emissions are expected to triple by 2050.

Fighting for a global cap on international aviation emissions would show the world that the US is serious about meeting its commitments to the Paris climate agreement.

Tell others about this important action!   Thank you for your continued support.

Sara Thomas
Manager, Online Advocacy
World Wildlife Fund 

© World Wildlife Fund, Inc.
1250 24th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037

Take Action: Stand up against aviation pollution, EDF
Shelby, EDF, Demand Airlines Cut Their Air Pollution (2 messages)

Heather Shelby, Environmental Defense Fund via
Jul 30, 2012 to jbennet
Dear Dick,
 Take Action: Stand Up Against Aviation Pollution.

Aviation is one of the fastest-growing sources of global warming pollution on the planet.

But it doesn’t have to be. This year, the European Union passed a law requiring airlines flying in and out of Europe to cut their climate pollution — and imposing tough penalties if they don’t.

But U.S. airlines are making every effort to resist compliance. They’re even lobbying Congress to pass a law that would make their compliance illegal — and Senator John Thune has proposed a bill that would do just that.

More Information

Emissions of flights in and out of Europe have doubled since 1990 and are growing fast. But the EU law offers hope — by 2020 the law will cut carbon pollution by an amount equivalent to taking 30 million cars off the road.

In addition, it will drive new technology innovation, and even spur demand for more fuel efficient airplanes that can be built right here in the U.S.

But our airlines want nothing to do with it. Instead, they are actively working against progress and climate action.

That’s not leadership. And it’s not a way to solve differences between countries about pollution.

Please take action: Ask your Senators to support cleaner aviation, U.S. jobs, and the environment.

Thank you for your activism and support,

Heather Shelby
Action Network Coordinator, EDF

What's the REAL cost of holiday travel?

Heather Shelby, Environmental Defense Fund via 
7:00 AM (4 hours ago)

to James

k Sec. Kerry to Lead on Curbing Aviation Climate Pollution Dick—
It's that time of year again! Across the country, Americans are planning trips and booking flights to visit far away loved ones—but what's the real cost of that cross-country flight? 

If it were a country, the aviation industry would rank in the world's top 10 largest emitters, and aviation is one of the fastest-growing sources of global pollution. 

But it doesn't have to be. The technology to fly smarter and more efficiently is already available—now we just have to implement it. 

Take Action: Ask Secretary Kerry to ensure that the U.S. steps up its leadership role in curbing aviation pollution.

The international community—through the
International Civil Aviation Organization—has agreed to work towards a roadmap to place a global limit on carbon pollution from aviation, but the real work is just beginning. 

America needs to step up its leadership role in ICAO to ensure real results for climate action. A firm cap on aviation emissions is urgently needed if we are going to avert the kind of catastrophic climate shifts that will prove so damaging to our communities in the coming years. 

The President has already laid out a compelling vision for America to take a leading international role on climate action. 

Ask Secretary Kerry to ensure that American leadership continues in our efforts to limit aviation emissions.

Heather ShelbyThank you for your activism and support,
Heather Shelby
Action Network Coordinator

FacebookTwitterYouTubeRSS Environmental Defense Fund
1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 600,
Washington, DC 20009

(800) 684-3322

[WHY ask State Department?  --Dick]

I suggest you read Monbiot’s final, full essay entitled “Love Flights” in his book Heat.

1 comment:

Crystal Arc said...

Very interesting, good job and thanks for sharing such a good Blog.

Corporate wooden awards in Dubai

Dick's Wars and Warming KPSQ Radio Editorials (#1-48)

Dick's Wars and Warming KPSQ Radio Editorials (#1-48)