Not Science. Not Engineering.

John Brignell at Numberwatch is not amused at the effluent from the University of Southampton, pretending to be a scientific/engineering paper in the journal Atmospheric Environment. The article titled “Direct carbon dioxide emissions from civil aircraft” (DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.06.042) by Matt Grote, Ian Williams and John Preston of the Faculty of Engineering and the Environment at the University of Southampton.

The Abstract

Global airlines consume over 5 million barrels of oil per day, and the resulting carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by aircraft engines is of concern. This article provides a contemporary review of the literature associated with the measures available to the civil aviation industry for mitigating CO2 emissions from aircraft. The measures are addressed under two categories – policy and legal-related measures, and technological and operational measures. Results of the review are used to develop several insights into the challenges faced.

The analysis shows that forecasts for strong growth in air-traffic will result in civil aviation becoming an increasingly significant contributor to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Some mitigation-measures can be left to market-forces as the key-driver for implementation because they directly reduce airlines’ fuel consumption, and their impact on reducing fuel-costs will be welcomed by the industry. Other mitigation-measures cannot be left to market-forces. Speed of implementation and stringency of these measures will not be satisfactorily resolved unattended, and the current global regulatory-framework does not provide the necessary strength of stewardship. A global regulator with ‘teeth’ needs to be established, but investing such a body with the appropriate level of authority requires securing an international agreement which history would suggest is going to be very difficult.

If all mitigation-measures are successfully implemented, it is still likely that traffic growth-rates will continue to out-pace emissions reduction-rates. Therefore, to achieve an overall reduction in CO2 emissions, behaviour change will be necessary to reduce demand for air-travel. However, reducing demand will be strongly resisted by all stakeholders in the industry; and the ticket price-increases necessary to induce the required reduction in traffic growth-rates place a monetary-value on CO2 emissions of approximately 7–100 times greater than other common valuations. It is clear that, whilst aviation must remain one piece of the transport-jigsaw, environmentally a global regulator with ‘teeth’ is urgently required.

From the text that I’ve highlighted in bold, it’s clear that the authors aren’t Engineers in the useful sense; but social engineers of the worst kind pushing an ideology and social control mechanisms “justified” by misappropriated, misinterpreted and poor science. It’s shameless, bare-faced politics.

It would be wise for authors to consider that the fires of hell will be fuelled by their dismal papers.

NB: This “scientific” paper also gets a special mention at Bishop Hill and WUWT, amongst others.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Carbon Tax, Energy for Civilisation, Mobility, Science, Travel and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.