Just when U.S. airlines emerged as among the earliest and hardest hit industries of the coronavirus outbreak, and with Congress negotiating economic relief, Nancy Pelosi came forward with a Democratic wish list (nothing to do with coronavirus) to tack onto the relief package.
High on her list was a “Green New Deal” mandate for airlines to offset their “carbon emissions” and publish carbon dioxide emissions for each flight. Airlines would have had to start offsetting carbon emissions by 2025 and reduce their overall emissions by 50% by 2050. Her insert also would have required the Environmental Protection Agency to finalize emission standards of greenhouse gasses for both new and in-service aircraft, obligated carriers to abide by greenhouse gas emissions targets, and disclose to passengers greenhouse gas emissions from their flights. It was a blatant attempt by environmental activists in her party to manipulate current events, knowing such legislation stood little chance of passing in normal times.
Like any human activity, flying comes with environmental costs, but it must be squared with a cost-benefit analysis and common sense. It will be advances in technology and aeronautical engineering, balanced with other equally important considerations, which will determine if airplanes fly more efficiently and emit less — not unwarranted and opportunistic government regulation somehow connected to a pandemic.
Airlines are, paradoxically, a textbook example of how such government action is an overreach. Airlines already strive, based on their own interests, to limit and reduce fuel consumption (and thus exhaust emissions) irrespective of any government intervention. Fuel vies with labor as airlines’ biggest expense, and companies work overtime finding ways to reduce consumption and improve fuel efficiency. Airlines make an exacting science of conserving fuel and burning as little as possible for each and every flight. Yet, it is their livelihood, and in the nation’s interest, to accommodate and move all the passengers who need and want to travel by air.
Further, aircraft exhaust emissions and fuel efficiency can only be two of many vital considerations. A modern airliner must also operate safely, make less noise, withstand tremendous weather and aerodynamic forces, have sufficient size to carry many passengers over long distances at high speeds, and fly dependably and regularly with reasonable operating costs. Within these parameters, U.S. airlines carry nearly 925 million passengers annually, generate revenues approaching $240 billion per year, employ some 750,000 people worldwide and contribute some 5% of annual U.S. gross domestic product.
According to the trade organization, Airlines for America, fuel efficiency has improved more than 130% since 1978. That amounts to 5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide eliminated — equivalent to about 26 million cars taken off the road every year for the past 40 years. And this has occurred even as more people choose to fly. In 2009, airlines, working with the U.S. government and global partners, already agreed to the aspirational goal of achieving a 50% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from 2005 levels by 2050.
The world’s airlines have put into service more fuel-efficient planes (e.g., Boeing’s 787s and Airbus’ 350 models) designed for long-haul international routes capable of fuel efficiencies rivaling a compact car for moving each passenger a comparable distance. Engine manufacturers, in turn, solved reliability issues so airliners can safely fly long oceanic routes with two engines versus previous standards for three or four. Fuel-efficient “high bypass turbofan” engines are now standard, superseding earlier, less fuel-efficient “turbojet” engines.
Other initiatives to halt emissions growth include: developing alternative fuels; refining both airport ground and flight operations; better managing air traffic; and grounding and retiring older, less fuel-efficient aircraft. Pilots are trained and directed to fly flight profiles that maximize fuel efficiency. Fuel loads for each route are precisely calculated because of costs to carry unneeded fuel, while airlines monitor seat utilization to optimize transporting passengers on fewer flights.
These airline operational realities and conservation efforts should be compelling to a mobile population patronizing an industry with a proven record of acting responsibly without unwarranted intervention. Misguided regulatory overreach, such as the recent Democratic attempt to exploit the nation’s health crisis to sneak airline carbon emissions standards through Congress, should never be allowed to get off the ground in Washington.
Retired Col. Chris J. Krisinger flew as an Air Force transport pilot and has family members working in the airline industry.
