Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth

Air New Zealand Is First Major Airline To Scrap 2030 Emissions Target (theguardian.com) 87

Air New Zealand has become the first major airline to drop its 2030 goal to cut carbon emissions. From a report: The company has blamed difficulties in procuring new planes and sustainable jet fuel. The airline's CEO, Greg Foran said: "In recent months, and more so in the last few weeks, it has also become apparent that potential delays to our fleet renewal plan pose an additional risk to the target's achievability. It is possible the airline may need to retain its existing fleet for longer than planned due to global manufacturing and supply chain issues that could potentially slow the introduction of newer, more fuel-efficient aircraft into the fleet." The industry as a whole has a goal to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. But in 2022, Air New Zealand set itself the target of cutting its emissions by almost 29% by 2030.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Air New Zealand Is First Major Airline To Scrap 2030 Emissions Target

Comments Filter:
  • by io333 ( 574963 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2024 @12:23PM (#64670068)

    Every solution to the environment requires I pay more tax. To the elite. And pay more for products and pay more for food. To them. I must not eat meat because cows fart. I must not fart myself because that bothers the elite, a lot, and makes everything so hot. And smells bad.

    I am an environmentalist so I am all for it. I am happy to work harder for the elite and give everything I have to the elite and go deeply into debt to the elite and die leaving any meager thing I might have left, when I die, to them. To save the planet.

    Good thing there are ZERO solutions to the environment that are beneficial to me, only to them. Our elite are ordained by God to rule over us from the skies in their jets, from the seas on their yachts.

    I am all for it, because I don't want to be thought of as a bad person. If I don't give everything I have to the elites to save the planet I am a bad person.

    Hey Slashdot censors, just ban me already you fucking shits!

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

      It's great being able to externalise your costs and then blame them on some faceless boogeyman when you get caught out.

      Yeah you should be paying for the damage your activities cause. That's the reality of it. Unfortunately we've set the wrong expectations in the race to the bottom at the expense of literally everything else. Quality? Don't need it. Environment? What's it ever done for you!. Slavery? It's okay, they are Asians, we wouldn't do it to westerners, just as long as you get your product for cheap c

    • You nailed it. Well said. There is a line when it's too much and watching these guys fly to DAVOS to lecture us on climate change is way past old. You first, elites. You give up ALL your mass transportation, give up all your air conditioning, and when you look like the fucking Mother Theresa and your goat smelling ass has walked or swam to DAVOS you can come talk that noise.

      Until then us normal folks will wait for technical solutions that are better than what they replace (and there already are quite a f
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Thursday August 01, 2024 @03:40AM (#64671854) Homepage Journal

      There are loads of solutions that are beneficial to you. Financially beneficial, not just for your health and property.

      You used to have to pay big oil to fuel your car. Now you can make your own energy at home and charge your EV up with it.

      The best you used to be able to do was to buy some shares in a fossil fuel energy company. Now you can buy a share of a solar or wind far, and get a much better return.

    • Hey Slashdot censors, just ban me already you fucking shits!

      Paranoid much?

      Every solution to the environment requires I pay more tax.

      That is because your money is wanted. It has nothing to do with actually solving anything. If they wanted to solve issues, they would work on transportation and power generation, but no, all of that MUST use fossil fuels. Wind and solar is being rolled out, so, hurray I guess...

    • Every solution to the environment requires I pay more tax.

      It might surprise you to learn that building new shit costs money.

  • What does it even mean for a business whose only product is the burning of fossil fuel to overcome inertia and move mass from A to B, to have made a claim they were going to be "net zero"? If a transportation company whose entire existence is burning fossil, has come up with a way to scrub/sequester the exact same amount of AGW chemicals back out of the atmosphere, then it must be a very very easy problem to solve. So let's all just deploy it. Mission accomplished.

    • by kc-guy ( 1108521 )
      It means "climate impact offset fees" were cut from future marketing budgets. It's greenwashing at best, trying to brand normal fleet updates to next generation airplanes with moderately better fuel economy as "environmentally responsible".
    • by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2024 @01:30PM (#64670278)

      It IS easy, but it's significantly more expensive. You can make synthetic fuel from air, water, and 'green' electricity. It just costs more.

      Of course, it's also a bad idea environmentally because the power you used to create your synthetic fuel could have gone elsewhere to stop someone else from burning hydrocarbons in the first place.

      • You can make synthetic fuel from air, water, and 'green' electricity. It just costs more.

        It's also the only way my gas powered car, and those long range jetliners, have any possibility of ever being green. Or you can let the perfect be the enemy of the good, that's OK too.

        • I'm all for it, but it only makes sense once we have an excess of green power to make the synthetic fuel. Before that it is economically nonviable and ecologically damaging.

          • We should not use green power to displace hydrocarbons because that green power could otherwise be used to displace hydrocarbons? If it is using grid power, then I agree you can argue about the most efficient use of a limited resource, but if the people buying the gas and jet fuel pay for their own green production infrastructure, it is infrastructure you would never have to use for anything else otherwise anyway.
            • >We should not use green power to displace hydrocarbons because that green power could otherwise be used to displace hydrocarbons?

              Yes.

              Every time you move energy, there are inefficiencies. The universe won't let you create or destroy, but you don't get the same thing at the end of a process that you had at the start. Some of it gets lost in other forms.

              So if you burn gas, let's say you get 100% of the energy out of it (you don't, but we're just going with it for the sake of ease of explanation). Now i

              • instead of using electricity in that device, you use the power to make gas for it.

                The only way my car can use electricity instead is via efuels. No matter how often I plug it in it is just never going to fill the tank. This true for all the existing ICE vehicles in the world, and millions more continuing to be sold today and for years to come. And no people will not be converting existing ICE to BEVs more than a small token number.

                You basically ignored the second part of my comment. If you build a plant dedicated to efuels with its own green power (as Porsche has done with their d

                • "Build a plant dedicated to e-fuels" is the same as "don't build a plant putting electricity into the grid".

                  There is conflict, energy is fungible.

                  • "Build a plant dedicated to e-fuels" is the same as "don't build a plant putting electricity into the grid".

                    No, it is not. I can just buy gas instead of spending more for efuels so they can build a plant to make them. If we just buy gas instead, no plant gets built, and hey that looks like exactly what I and millions of others are indeed going to do for many years to come. The grid does not notice either way, my entirely discretionary spending was never going there in any case.

                    • You're just so dedicated to your point you can't understand why it's wrong.

                    • No, I think you believe that any electrical generation not connected to the grid has no use. Fortunately no serious people believe that.
  • Apparently, there were not enough mice in NZ available to run on the treadmills that would power the airplanes.

    • are the mice supposed to be on the airplanes or running on the treadmills on the ground and the power beamed to the airplanes via microwave or LASER or some such? Shouldn't people in NZ use sheep on the treadmills? They have so many of them... and of course, capture the sheep farts for use to also heat and power their buildings?
    • Then don't power the dirty aircraft. Switch to something cleaner, like the Airlander 10 [hybridairvehicles.com]. Not fully electric yet, but still a lot cleaner than jet aircraft.

      You need 75% less mice for that.

      • Then don't power the dirty aircraft. Switch to something cleaner, like the Airlander 10 [hybridairvehicles.com]. Not fully electric yet, but still a lot cleaner than jet aircraft.

        You need 75% less mice for that.

        It only does 130 km/h. Marginally faster than driving (over land), but that is almost 2 days New York to London. You could give people staterooms like on a cruise ship I suppose, but that would limit the passenger count a lot.

  • cut the number of flights over air in NZ, raise ticket price for available seats.

    • They've been doing that since Covid.

      Currently flights are lower frequency but higher cost to anywhere within NZ or internationally from NZ than they were before Covid. My flight back to the UK next week currently costs me around 60% more than it did before Covid and with fewer flights happening.

  • Face it, they are all liars and "pledges" and the like are entirely worthless.

  • The simple reality is that there is no such thing as "net zero emissions" air travel and is unlikely to exist in the future. We will likely need to simply ban air travel entirely. We should start by banning private jets.
  • “We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn’t save itself because it wasn’t cost-effective.”
    Kurt Vonnegut

    Except that those left afterwards won't care about history that much, only survival.

  • by NoWayNoShapeNoForm ( 7060585 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2024 @06:30PM (#64671006)
    Big airlines find out that asking customers to strap on a set of wings and flap their own way to and from NZ just isn't going to work. /sarcasm
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The technology is there, they just don't want to pay for it. They blame supply issues, what they are really saying is that the cost is too high.

      The pandemic screwed things up for airlines. Not just the shutdown of their businesses for months, but the used aircraft market got flooded too. Airlines like this one would normally replace their fleets and sell the old aircraft on.

      Russia screwed things up by invading Ukraine too. Russia used to be a major customer for used aircraft.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (7) Well, it's an excellent idea, but it would make the compilers too hard to write.

Working...