Jump to content

Qantas pledges to slash emissions as number of environmentally conscious travelers grows


webfact

Recommended Posts

Qantas pledges to slash emissions as number of environmentally conscious travelers grows

 

2019-11-10T221153Z_1_LYNXMPEFA90MV_RTROPTP_4_AIRLINES-ENVIRONMENT-QANTAS.JPG

FILE PHOTO: Qantas aircraft are seen on the tarmac at Melbourne International Airport in Melbourne, Australia, November 6, 2018. REUTERS/Phil Noble/File Photo

 

(Reuters) - Qantas Airways <QAN.AX> pledged on Monday to slash its carbon emissions to net zero by 2050, which it said would make it only the second airline to do so, as a global push to combat climate change gathered momentum.

 

"We're doing this because it's the responsible thing to do," Qantas' Chief Executive Alan Joyce said in a statement, calling climate change concerns "real".

Australia's national carrier said it was looking to cap net emissions at 2020 levels and will invest A$50 million ($34.3 million) over 10 years to develop sustainable fuel.

 

This can lower carbon emissions by 80% compared with traditional jet fuel, it said.

 

"We're effectively doubling our carbon offsetting program from today and we're capping our net emissions across Qantas and Jetstar from 2020 so that all new flying will be carbon neutral," Joyce said.

 

"It's ambitious, but achievable."

 

The aviation industry has come under increasing pressure this year from a movement led by activists such as teenager Greta Thunberg which has called for greater action against climate change, including ditching air travel.

 

Companies are finding it harder to ignore growing scrutiny of their climate change policies by investors.

 

Fund managers, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds and others are showing greater care when investing in companies, and have started limiting exposure to oil, gas and coal stocks.

 

In coordination with global lobby the International Air Transport Association, which represents nearly 300 airlines, the aviation industry is launching a campaign it hopes will counter a 'flight shaming' movement.

 

That movement has gained momentum as travelers become increasingly concerned about their environmental impact.

 

The aviation industry has already cut carbon emissions from each plane traveler in half since 1990, largely thanks to more fuel-efficient aircraft.

 

(Reporting by Nikhil Kurian Nainan in Bengaluru; Editing by Jan Harvey)

 

reuters_logo.jpg

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-11-11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mass delusion on a scale never before seen.  How will this drama ultimately play out?  I predict this delusion, and so many others currently being played out, become so grotesque that they can no longer be ignored for what they are.  And people will then begin to question and discover the true nature of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Mass delusion on a scale never before seen.  How will this drama ultimately play out?  I predict this delusion, and so many others currently being played out, become so grotesque that they can no longer be ignored for what they are.  And people will then begin to question and discover the true nature of reality.

Yes, imagine if all this is a giant hoax and we try to make the world a cleaner better place for no good reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Managed money and bank finance is moving away from carbon intensive industries. Coal fired power for instance.


The old men yelling at the sky we see on threads like this may think this is pure virtue signalling, and while it may be decent PR, it’s no doubt good business, first and foremost. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

Charging more for carbon offset isnt slashing emissions, its just charging more. Planes dont magically create less emissions, they just charge more to plant a tree somewhere.

Actually, they've gotten heaps lighter and more fuel efficient. And will continue to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the advances made so far have been extensive turbine development & ability to use only 2 engines due to reliability issues. The advent of non fossil fuels have not helped a lot as they still produce carbon.

Electric planes are more than a dream now, but the origin of the power source to recharge the batteries is the big question 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, sillyfool said:

i bet that public air travel as we know it today won't even exist 30 years from now.

 

greta what do you think ? 

 

nice shiny report though. 

Nothing will exist as we know it today in 30 years regardless of if action is taken or if it is not. Business as usual cannot continue so what you say is a truism. We either adjust or the planet will adjust us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

Charging more for carbon offset isn't slashing emissions, its just charging more. Planes dont magically create less emissions, they just charge more to plant a tree somewhere.

And what is wrong with that? People like me who fly less than we would because of our impact on CO2 welcome a well thought out and large scale adjustment of the aviation industry so each time we fly we are part of the solution and not the pollution. Flying is cheap when you compare it with historical prices so if say 20% extra was charged and as a result ideally speaking we read about restoration of rainforests instead of destruction, I'd happily fly. Instead of seeing billowing smoke from fires, we saw regreening by airline passenger tickets of Borneo or the Amazon out of the aircraft windows would add an extra satisfaction to flying. I'm sure it is not that simple and a lot of the carbon offsetting is by reducing other industries emissions which are easier to reduce than a plane's. Strictly speaking this type of offsetting is not solving anything but it is preventing it from getting worse. Also some carbon offsetting can be done by using fuels which are carbon neutral.

 

I understand there is an emotional response to this type of thing from many forum members who are uncomfortable with the environment taking centre stage but I welcome it. There are great deal of experts in earth science, chemical science and engineering, economics and policy planning whose lives are devoted to finding solutions to the greatest issue of our time. Knee jerk reactions by people who are uninformed or not up to speed seems to be the norm but making a virtue out of ignorance is not really the way to go. Better to read up on the science and see how people are finding solutions and embrace them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, natway09 said:

Most of the advances made so far have been extensive turbine development & ability to use only 2 engines due to reliability issues. The advent of non fossil fuels have not helped a lot as they still produce carbon.

Electric planes are more than a dream now, but the origin of the power source to recharge the batteries is the big question 

check this out! It doesn't need to be electric to be carbon neutral

https://www.marketplace.org/2019/10/10/a-new-jet-fuel-offers-the-prospect-of-no-carbon-guilt-free-flying/ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, samran said:

Actually, they've gotten heaps lighter and more fuel efficient. And will continue to do so.

But thats not Qantas slashing emissions, thats Boeing or Airbus slashing emissions. Any airline that updates their fleet will be by default cutting emissions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, tyga said:

Nothing will exist as we know it today in 30 years regardless of if action is taken or if it is not. Business as usual cannot continue so what you say is a truism. We either adjust or the planet will adjust us!

I'm guessing the planet will adjust us before we give up all the goodies.

I'm not giving up roast lamb for soy fake meat, or buying an overpriced electric car that takes too long to charge it's short lived batteries which then cause pollution when disposed of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

But thats not Qantas slashing emissions, thats Boeing or Airbus slashing emissions. Any airline that updates their fleet will be by default cutting emissions

True but irrelevant. Every government wants to increase aircraft numbers which will cancel out any pollution savings they make on individual engines.

If they really want less aircraft pollution they have to cut flights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tyga said:

Knee jerk reactions by people who are uninformed or not up to speed seems to be the norm but making a virtue out of ignorance is not really the way to go. 

This sub forum would be dead if it wasn’t for knee jerk reactions.

 

 

6F0594F4-B9D9-4977-8DA0-87846E564137.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tyga said:

And what is wrong with that? People like me who fly less than we would because of our impact on CO2 welcome a well thought out and large scale adjustment of the aviation industry so each time we fly we are part of the solution and not the pollution. Flying is cheap when you compare it with historical prices so if say 20% extra was charged and as a result ideally speaking we read about restoration of rainforests instead of destruction, I'd happily fly. Instead of seeing billowing smoke from fires, we saw regreening by airline passenger tickets of Borneo or the Amazon out of the aircraft windows would add an extra satisfaction to flying. I'm sure it is not that simple and a lot of the carbon offsetting is by reducing other industries emissions which are easier to reduce than a plane's. Strictly speaking this type of offsetting is not solving anything but it is preventing it from getting worse. Also some carbon offsetting can be done by using fuels which are carbon neutral.

 

I understand there is an emotional response to this type of thing from many forum members who are uncomfortable with the environment taking centre stage but I welcome it. There are great deal of experts in earth science, chemical science and engineering, economics and policy planning whose lives are devoted to finding solutions to the greatest issue of our time. Knee jerk reactions by people who are uninformed or not up to speed seems to be the norm but making a virtue out of ignorance is not really the way to go. Better to read up on the science and see how people are finding solutions and embrace them!

The greatest issue of our time is overpopulation. Who is working on that? Billions get spent trying to extend the human lifespan. We really need a pandemic plague to make any real difference. Maybe climate change is that plague.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, samran said:
8 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

Charging more for carbon offset isnt slashing emissions, its just charging more. Planes dont magically create less emissions, they just charge more to plant a tree somewhere.

 

3 hours ago, samran said:

Actually, they've gotten heaps lighter and more fuel efficient. And will continue to do so.

Flying between the UK and Singapore back in the '60s, as I used to do, involved four fuel gobbling engines and 3 refueling stops. Now it's none stop on 2 fuel efficient engines. And a much larger aircraft as carrying twice as many passengers.

 

So the notion that it 'can't be done' is just that. A notion.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, natway09 said:

Most of the advances made so far have been extensive turbine development & ability to use only 2 engines due to reliability issues. The advent of non fossil fuels have not helped a lot as they still produce carbon.

Electric planes are more than a dream now, but the origin of the power source to recharge the batteries is the big question 

15000km long power lead is out of the question then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

Charging more for carbon offset isnt slashing emissions, its just charging more. Planes dont magically create less emissions, they just charge more to plant a tree somewhere.

Which then gets burned down in a great fire, creating more carbon, which disrupts the climate even more, so plant another tree........................   LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

The greatest issue of our time is overpopulation. Who is working on that? Billions get spent trying to extend the human lifespan. We really need a pandemic plague to make any real difference. Maybe climate change is that plague.

Euthanasia at three score and ten, then Soylent Green?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tyga said:

true but demand is influenced by government policy unless you don't believe in a country guiding the development path and rely  on free enterprise and the market

 

Never said I didn’t. But as a Australian owned airline under a current conservative government which is led by a PM who waved a lump of coal around in parliament, for the moment markets are leading this more than the government in Australia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonlover said:

 

Flying between the UK and Singapore back in the '60s, as I used to do, involved four fuel gobbling engines and 3 refueling stops. Now it's none stop on 2 fuel efficient engines. And a much larger aircraft as carrying twice as many passengers.

 

So the notion that it 'can't be done' is just that. A notion.

 

 

Ah yes, Sydney, Singapore, Bahrain and then London! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...