Can Aviation Ever Be Considered "Environmentally Friendly"?
Peter Evans
Experienced Airline Leader. Airline and Aviation Consulting, Advisory Services. Future Thinking. Now Owner of Hospitality Business in UK North.
I have been pondering the growing use of the terms like "most environmentally friendly", "more environmentally friendly" and, even, just plain old "environmentally friendly" by the airline and aerospace industry, primarily aircraft manufacturers. You see, I just cannot reconcile how the term "environmentally friendly" has a place in any current airline or contemporary aircraft marketing or PR.
Surely, by definition, the emission of greenhouses gases and, even worse, health threating lead-emitting AvGas-fuelled engines, can never be considered friendly to the environment regardless of how fuel efficient or new the aircraft platform or fossil-fuelled engine is. For the environment it must be like having a friend who repeatedly hits you on head with a big stick unnecessarily but claims to be your best friend because they hit you a little less often than other 'friends'.
Allowing airlines and manufacturers to use such idiomatic language enables them to deflect attention from the consequential damage of operating aircraft, lack of real commitment and progress addressing sustainability matters today instead of waiting for [someone else to develop] solutions for the future and, with regards to messaging directed at unknowing and ignorant consumers (including airline passengers and the media) it is nothing short of a con. Perhaps the time has come for new language .... but what can we say that properly reflects the truth:
- 'Least environmentally damaging'?
- 'Most environmentally sustainable'?
- 'Least environmentally unfriendly'?
It's a difficult juxtaposition to address if such language is to be used in marketing intended to project a positive image instead of highlighting a degree of negative impact but with growing awareness of climate challenges, understanding of sustainability needs and rapidly developing investor focus on ESG factors (Environmental, Social and Governance) perhaps now is the time to ask, indeed insist, on language that more accurately reflects the reality. It may seem, simply, like a play on words but I believe transparent language and messaging integrity will help focus players on better addressing the issues rather than managing reputations.
I don't see it changing in the near future but I do hope disingenuous misuse of 'environmentally friendly' language abates. What do you think? Will it happen?
All I know is that if the environment is relying on 'friends' like aviation it must dread making enemies.
Although I focus here on aviation, language misuse is not exclusive to it and other sectors have to address their messaging too. However, aviation seems much more prone to misdirecting the message than others industries, which is likely to be a symptom of the propensity for the media to focus on aviation when reporting on broader environmental challenges, especially by the media.
Aviator, entrepreneur and a student for life.
3 年Aviation will not be environmentally-friendly until our way of life has become so. And to achieve that, our way of thinking needs to change: We need to start understanding that everything we do on this planet is taxing its resources. We need to realise the fact that we are using finite resources and need to understand the environmental impact we are making. We need to keep exploring ways to reduce our impact and to create more environmentally-efficient ways to enable human life on the planet. We need to take responsibilty for all the consequences of our actions. Now, the question is how can we induce such large-scale change in attitudes?
Captain, FAA ATP, EASA & UK CAA ATPL, Gulfstream GIV, Learjet 45/75, Phenom, Military & Civilian Flying Instructor, UAS pilot ,Aeronautical Engineer, Future Flight & Green Technology, Photo & Technical Journalism, MRAeS
3 年Define Sustainability &, environmental friendliness. The obsession with Zero this or that usually ignores adverse side effects. Even cycling is 15g/km from the energy consumed by the carbon unit powertrain.
Managing Director at AD Consulting & Engineering Ltd - Energy Security and Storage Training Creator for the Energy Institute, UK. Independent Consultant
3 年Aviation is not green, but can we live without it? Without airplanes, how can we move Covid-19 vaccines to different countries?
Senior Engineering Specialist , Propulsion and Fuel Systems Engineering at Honda Aircraft Inc.
3 年If we were to take the criteria of doing absolutely no harm to the environment in order to qualify as "environmentally friendly" to the extreme, we should all shut off our computers, lights, heat, stop eating meat or plants or water, and stop doing most other human activities. Personally, I can't see how that is useful. Instead, we can measure various modes of accomplishing a given task and decide whether one has less impact on the environment than another. We could say that virtual meetings are more environmentally friendly than travelling to meetings if the activity that we were measuring was meetings. If the activity in question was travelling across town, we could say that travelling across town by bicycle was more environmentally friendly than travelling by electric car which is more environmentally friendly than travelling by LNG bus which is more environmentally friendly than a gas guzzling SUV. In the case of aviation, I think that being clear as to what the activity is that you are making your comparison would be a very helpful first step. If you are assuming that the activity is flying, then you can say that your mode is a more environmentally way to fly than some other mode. If, instead you are assuming that the activity is moving people from point A to point B, things get a little bit fuzzier because now you have to consider driving, or other modes of travel. You would also need to be clear where your points A and B actually were. In a hub and spoke system, you might burn more fuel to get from one spoke city to another than if you flew a more direct route in a less fuel efficient vehicle. Of course, these nuances are nearly impossible to fully characterize. But at least being clear as to what assumptions you have made would allow the careful reader to understand the value being made in the statement as well as the limits of that statement.
Regional and Urban Air Mobility Advocate / Policy Specialist - Vertiports / MSc in Air Transport Operations and Business Management... Views are my own
3 年I love aviation! I love what it was in the past and I'm hopeful for what is being considered for it future. Airlines are under scrutiny, so it's no wonder that their PR departments are attempting to diffuse the negative vibes by announcing the use of SAF or ordering eVTOL aircraft (both of which are positive steps). What I believe needs to happen is for them to embrace the existing #zeroemission technologies, and apply them sooner rather than later. And this goes beyond putting a solar panel plant in a field close to the airport, it means taking all existing fossil fueled vehicles on the ground and swap them for electric powered ones. It's encouraging (and giving incentive to) passengers to leave their petrol powered cars at home and take a "Tesla taxi" or the train. There is plenty that can be done now to allow the airlines to go #greenfromthegroundup, and I think that a PR release about changing something in the next 6 months would outweigh an announcement of what's to occur a few years down the road.