<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Conservation Law Foundation &#187; aviation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.clf.org/blog/tag/aviation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.clf.org</link>
	<description>For a thriving New England</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2013 01:23:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Thune for Thought: Is Climate Change Really Happening or is it Not?</title>
		<link>http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/thune-for-thought-is-climate-change-really-happening-or-is-it-not/</link>
		<comments>http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/thune-for-thought-is-climate-change-really-happening-or-is-it-not/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 20:09:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tricia Jedele</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Clean Energy & Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aviation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate change; Senate; Congress; ICAO; EU; European Union; regulation; emissions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clf.org/?p=11771</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), if airlines were a country, they would be the world&#8217;s seventh biggest polluter. Aviation carbon emissions are expected to rise to 3.5 billion tons by 2050. The European Union’s requirement that all airplanes landing in the EU reduce the carbon pollution that is causing global warming, would lower carbon dioxide emissions by 70 million tons per year – equivalent to taking 30 million cars off the road. On Saturday, September 22, 2012, a bill to prohibit operators of civil aircraft of the United States from participating in the European Union’s emissions trading scheme to reduce carbon pollution from airplanes passed in the United States Senate by unanimous consent. The Senate bill, S. 1956, co-sponsored by Senator John Thune (R-SD) and Senator Claire<a href="http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/thune-for-thought-is-climate-change-really-happening-or-is-it-not/"> read more...</a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), if airlines were a country, they would be the world&#8217;s seventh biggest polluter. Aviation carbon emissions are expected to rise to 3.5 billion tons by 2050. The European Union’s requirement that all airplanes landing in the EU reduce the carbon pollution that is causing global warming, would lower carbon dioxide emissions by 70 million tons per year – equivalent to taking 30 million cars off the road.</p>
<p>On Saturday, September 22, 2012, a bill to prohibit operators of civil aircraft of the United States from participating in the European Union’s emissions trading scheme to reduce carbon pollution from airplanes passed in the United States Senate by unanimous consent. The Senate <a href="http://legiscan.com/gaits/text/664243">bill, S. 1956,</a> co-sponsored by Senator John Thune (R-SD) and Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), will allow U.S. airlines to ignore the European Union’s requirement that they reduce their carbon pollution that is causing global warming. If the U.S.-based airlines choose to ignore the E.U. law, they could be on the hook to pay huge penalties, which undoubtedly and inevitably will be a cost passed on to consumers.</p>
<p>I am less concerned about the price of my airline ticket than I am about the significant costs that come with our federal government’ and our Congress’ inability to get out of its own way when it comes to responsibly acting to reduce the threat of climate change. I understand that this is election season, and some of the Senate races are tight, and airlines can be powerful lobbyists, but, it is 2012 and an anti-climate emissions control bill is passing via unanimous consent in the United States Senate? Either climate change is really happening or it isn’t.</p>
<p>I expect Fox News, the Tea Party, and even the Wall Street Journal to get its facts wrong about climate change. They have attempted to undermine climate science conclusions by cherry-picking data and attacking individual scientists every chance they get. And, I am not so naïve to think that control of emissions responsible for climate change will ever happen with a Republican majority in Congress (even though the United States Supreme Court said carbon dioxide could be regulated by the federal government nearly 6 years ago). But, I am completely flabbergasted by the fact that the United States Senate unanimously acted to defeat the effectiveness of a good climate reduction law. Not a single Senator stood up in opposition. Not a single Senator even used this as an opportunity to speak publicly about climate change and the implications that passing an anti-emissions control bill via unanimous consent would have on our collective campaign to stop climate change.</p>
<p>For 650,000 years atmospheric carbon dioxide has never been above 300 parts per million. Today, it is screaming toward 400 parts per million. The Fourth Assessment Report of the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm  ">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a>, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world, under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there&#8217;s a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.</p>
<p>And, the rocket scientists agree. That’s right. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s or <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/">NASA’s</a> website states that “the current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.” The scientific evidence for the warming of our climate is unequivocal and the cause of it, which should be obvious at this point, is the uncontrolled global burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas). The effects of a warming climate are only slightly more obvious than the fact that the climate is warming and humans are causing it.</p>
<p>For example, this is the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/ ">second time</a> in less than two years that the Petermann Glacier in Greenland has calved icebergs double and quadruple the size of Manhattan. Global sea level rose almost 7 inches in the last century, but the rate in the last decade is nearly double that of the last century. Arctic sea ice is retreating and thinning at unprecedented rates, West Nile Virus is now something for which people cancel summer events and New Englanders are still recovering from significant storm events that have wiped out whole communities.</p>
<p>At 2 a.m. on September 22, 2012, the United States Senate voted by unanimous consent that U.S. airlines could choose to ignore the European Union’s requirement that all airplanes landing in the EU reduce their carbon pollution that is causing global warming. Either climate change is happening or it isn’t. But, once you look at the data, once you subscribe to the opinion that it is happening, you have an affirmative obligation to take all reasonable steps to responsibly address the problem. If the Senate believes the evidence of 1300 scientists, NASA, and their own eyes, they should vote accordingly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/thune-for-thought-is-climate-change-really-happening-or-is-it-not/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Building a major new Boston area airport would have been a mistake &#8211; not flying off the handle was right, let&#039;s focus on our strengths</title>
		<link>http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/building-a-major-new-boston-area-airport-would-have-been-a-mistake-not-flying-off-the-handle-was-right-lets-focus-on-our-strengths/</link>
		<comments>http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/building-a-major-new-boston-area-airport-would-have-been-a-mistake-not-flying-off-the-handle-was-right-lets-focus-on-our-strengths/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:15:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth Kaplan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Clean Energy & Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthy Communities & Environmental Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[airport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aviation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dulles airport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high speed rail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[smart growth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sprawl]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clf.org/?p=2059</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From November 15, 2010 Boston Globe: There are reasons aerotropolis didn’t get off the ground REGARDING PETER Canellos’s recent essay about the decision not to build another major regional airport: While looking back at such decisions is a worthy exercise, Canellos draws the wrong conclusion (“Aerotropolis,’’ Ideas, Oct. 31). He argues that we would have been better off if with a so-called aerotropolis — modeled on the edge city that has sprung up around Dulles Airport — near the former Fort Devens. The immediate and obvious cost of building such an airport-centric edge city would have been rapid consumption of the apple orchards, farmland, rural towns, and open space of Worcester County and western Middlesex County by low-rise (and low-value) industrial and commercial development. Siphoning off development and energy from<a href="http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/building-a-major-new-boston-area-airport-would-have-been-a-mistake-not-flying-off-the-handle-was-right-lets-focus-on-our-strengths/"> read more...</a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.clf.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/rsz_1030604.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-2068" title="rsz_1030604" src="http://www.clf.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/rsz_1030604.jpg" alt="" width="434" height="282" /></a></p>
<p>From November 15, 2010 Boston Globe:</p>
<h3 style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2010/11/15/there_are_reasons_aerotropolis_didnt_get_off_the_ground/" target="_blank">There are reasons aerotropolis didn’t get off the ground</a></h3>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<div>
<div>
<p>REGARDING PETER Canellos’s  recent essay about the decision not to build another major regional  airport: While looking back at such decisions is a worthy exercise,  Canellos draws the wrong conclusion (“<a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/10/31/aerotropolis/" target="_blank">Aerotropolis</a>,’’  Ideas, Oct. 31). He argues that we would have been better off if with a  so-called aerotropolis — modeled on the edge city that has sprung up  around Dulles Airport — near the former Fort Devens.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>The immediate and obvious cost of building  such an airport-centric edge city would have been rapid consumption of  the apple orchards, farmland, rural towns, and open space of Worcester  County and western Middlesex County by low-rise (and low-value)  industrial and commercial development. Siphoning off development and  energy from the historic city centers of Massachusetts to fuel the  growth of a new edge city would have had an even larger and systemic  effect.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>As we move forward  into a world defined by our response to global warming and the  exhaustion of fossil fuels, it would be foolish and short-sighted to  channel our growth into  sprawl fueled by car and airplane travel.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Boston  and New England need to play to our strengths — building smart, livable  cities and towns connected by high-speed rail and existing highways  while preserving the countryside and farms that we inherited. Let’s get  on with the task of building a healthy, prosperous New England, not fly  off on a misguided mission of imitation.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><em>Seth Kaplan </em><br />
<em>Vice President for Policy and Climate Advocacy<br />
Conservation Law Foundation<br />
Boston </em><img src="http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif" border="0" alt="" width="6" height="8" /></p>
</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">© Copyright 2010 Globe Newspaper Company.</div>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/building-a-major-new-boston-area-airport-would-have-been-a-mistake-not-flying-off-the-handle-was-right-lets-focus-on-our-strengths/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>