The airline blamed difficulties securing more efficient aircraft and sustainable jet fuel.

Air New Zealand has abandoned a 2030 goal to cut its carbon emissions, blaming difficulties securing more efficient planes and sustainable jet fuel.

The move makes it the first major carrier to back away from such a climate target.

The airline added it is working on a new short-term target and it remains committed to an industry-wide goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

The aviation industry is estimated to produce around 2% of global carbon dioxide emissions, which airlines have been trying to reduce with measures including replacing older aircraft and using fuel from renewable sources.

  • deranger@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    414·
    3 months ago

    I stand by my point; even if you eliminated all air traffic tomorrow it would barely make an impact. Efforts are best focused elsewhere that would have more of an impact on climate and less of a negative impact on people’s lives.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      234·
      3 months ago

      With this logic there’s no sector that would have an impact significant enough that we should worry about it.

      • deranger@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        76·
        3 months ago

        I disagree. Electricity generation and industrial processes are emitting many times more greenhouse gases than air travel. If you eliminated all emissions from electricity generation tomorrow it would make a massive difference, far exceeding the 2% of air traffic. Looking at an EPA source electricity generation is 25%, industry is 23%, and transportation less air transport is 26%.

        https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          91·
          3 months ago

          transportation less air transport is 26%

          Then the trucking industry will say “But just our sector isn’t that bad, why not concentrate on ships?” and then the shipping industry will say “But just our sector isn’t as bad as electricity production!” and so on.

          What you’re doing is exactly the same thing most people are doing to justify not making any effort “I won’t make a difference by myself, why should I do anything?”

          • deranger@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            25·
            3 months ago

            I just don’t see people taking vacations or seeing relatives across the country as being the problem at this point in time. I think the limited resources we have to pursue environmental changes could be spent significantly better elsewhere.

            If you came up with a revolutionary technology that saved an astounding 50% of the air transport emissions, you’ve eliminated 1% of total global emissions.

            If you come up with a much more mundane technology that saves only 10% of electricity generation emissions, you’ve eliminated >2% of total global emission, more than twice the impact.

            Limited resources would be much more effectively applied starting with the largest polluters.

            I don’t think kneecapping air travel, pissing off many normal people, for little environmental benefit, is the way to get people to start seriously caring about emissions. It’s just going to fuel more reactionary bullshit and people completely missing the point, IMO.

            As a side note, ships are way more efficient than trucking. Despite the scary numbers they put out, they also haul an insane amount of cargo.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              5·
              3 months ago

              It doesn’t require any resources for people to stop traveling thousands of km for leisure. It doesn’t require any resources for people to stop buying crap and expecting it at their door the next morning. In fact, it frees resources to stop doing both these things.

              I know that ships are more efficient, read what I said again with your reading comprehension turned on so you understand my point.

            • AA5B@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              3 months ago

              Trains, for the win!

              • There’s no reason trains can’t replace half of air travel, while leaving actual flying to longer routes and ocean crossings.
              • Trains can give people better choices for short to medium distances, no need for suffering

              Edit: ok, NZ is a tough situation

        • AA5B@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          3 months ago

          But personal transportation and power are two places we Are making some progress, while emissions from flight keep growing. Current trends will make it a much bigger slice of the pie in a few years, but reducing emissions will take years of effort. It’s critical to start now