Yesterday, an E&E article (subscription required) made reference to a study on greenhouse gas emissions from aviation and marine transportation by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change (full report available here).  Several projections for emissions were made through to 2050.  In particular, they suggest that there will be a 300 percent increase in emissions from global aviation and at least a 50 percent increase in emissions from global marine transportation by 2050.  From a climate perspective, this is certainly a significant problem, and one for which global solutions are required.  The study highlighted that in some places steps are already being taken.  For example, the European Union’s greenhouse gas trading system will include emissions from the aviation sector beginning in 2012, and Australia and New Zealand already have such provisions in place.  Given the global nature of the industry, such programs will obviously have a wider impact (by including international flights with an origin or destination within the country or zone of implementation).

This discussion is important but it can be developed (note: the scope of the Pew Center report is emissions and the points made are highly valued—this entry merely adds an additional viewpoint).  From a national perspective it is about more than just emissions and climate—it is about economics and national security too.  Both aviation and marine transport rely heavily on products derived from crude oil, and of course, today we import much of this.  These emissions are a direct result of burning these oil-based fuels.  Because the United States uses such a large quantity of oil, and because oil trades on a global market, both the oil price and oil price volatility have an economic and national security cost to the nation.  This can come in several forms: wealth transfer, potential GDP loss (due to resource allocation) and macroeconomic adjustment.  In 2009 alone, a year where prices were relatively stable (steady upward trend) and relatively low (they averaged approximately $60 per barrel, down from over $70 in 2007 and $100 in 2008), simply the cost of purchasing the oil exceeded $250 billion.  Domestically, jet fuel consumption is forecast to rise from just over 1.4 million barrels per day in 2009 to almost 2.0 million barrels per day by just 2030 (the Pew Center’s emissions forecasts are to 2050), a rise of over 36 percent.  Even protecting oil supplies around the world are estimated to cost between $67.5 and $83 billion annually.

Aviation and marine transportation are sectors where substantial progress can be made to reduce oil consumption.  The United States does not currently have a cap-and-trade system.  While from an oil use and emissions perspective such a system could be a useful to promote higher efficiency, there are still other options.  Advanced biofuels (already tested by several airlines), other alternative fuels (including natural gas, nuclear and renewable energy), higher efficiency engines, route optimization, operational control (speed, acceleration etc.), and a myriad other potential developments all provide us with avenues to pursue.  Tackling energy use and greenhouse gas emissions are big challenges and something must be done, but decades of debate and discussion suggests there are no simple solutions—we need to recognize the whole problem and approach it from all angles.

Previous Post  

Next Post

Weekly Political Roundup--Why We Blog
March 5, 2010

Cap and trade; bait and switch
March 4, 2010

Oil Companies Offer an Alternative to Cap-and-Trade
March 3, 2010