The National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) is pushing back on what it calls an unfair, biased report by The International Council on Clean Transportation. NBAA challenges the data used to “generalize” about emissions, adding that the report ignores key factors in business aviation’s value and its efforts to control business aircraft’s environmental impact.
NBAA wrote: “The report’s conclusions are based on a flawed extrapolation of flight-trajectory data, a methodology that fails to provide a complete analysis of the flights involved. As just one example of the data-sampling’s failings, the report’s authors admit their analysis excludes nearly 12% of flights due to “incomplete departure or arrival information.”
In a letter addressed to the Washington Post and other news outlets, NBAA President and CEO Ed Bolen wrote that the report and coverage of it in the press ignored a number of facts, including that business aviation has improved emissions by 40% in the past 40 years and that today’s new aircraft are 35% more efficient than earlier examples.
Bolen continued: “Equally important, business aviation – which accounts for less than 1% of all transportation emissions – has set a goal of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 with further innovations, including sustainable aviation fuels (which decrease lifecycle emissions by up to 80% over legacy fuels); electric, hybrid and hydrogen propulsion; and other game-changing technologies. Why were readers left in the dark about this information?
“Finally, in offering a distorted picture of business aviation, the article misses the larger point about its value: business aircraft allow companies to optimize efficiency, productivity, and flexibility in an increasingly competitive global marketplace.”
Do not open that can of worms…Some, if not most of those 40 year old aircraft are still flying… And if new engines on $40 million new business aircraft are 35% more fuel efficient, there has been an increase of well over 35% in the number of business aircraft.
Do not see private jet owners, be they personal or corporate, jumping up and down for SAV, or offering to build refineries to turn sunflower oil into jet fuel.
Better to accept the report and figure out a response to limit the tax hit which will follow, proposing rebates for investment in refineries maybe?
CO2 put in the atmosphere causes damage that costs money to repair or adapt to. It may be our kids and grandkids that pay for it but it costs none-the-less. The big bill that just passed should have included a carbon tax. It’s the fairest way to deal with this issue. Absent that, someday, when the other side gets power, we may see our flying arbitrarily and drastically curtailed. That will much worse for us than a tax.
I agree with a prior response. there a fights to win and ones to ignore. IF this is fought it will be seen as rich, spoiled business owners justifying the use of a resource that no one else get to use that inordinately pollutes, etc. NO MATTER WHAT THE TECHNICAL REASONS may be. Let it die. the news cycle will make this boring in 3 days. BTW a "carbon tax already exists it is called a fuel tax. why make a new name for the same thing.
“CO2 put in the atmosphere causes damage”
It also enables all life on Earth to exist.
Both and. Proportions matter.
280 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere give us the plants and climate we are used to. 600 parts per million changes the plants and climate drastically.
0.04% of the atmosphere is co2. People contribute about 2% of the annual co2. Aviation accounts for 2% of that 2%. Business jets account for 4% of the aviation 2% of the people caused 2%.
So 4% of the 2% of the 2% of the overall 0.04% is from business jets.
Excuse me but business jets are not impacting anything.
Yep, all the ‘business’ aircraft at Palm Springs, Naples, Aspen, Sun Valley and the Caribbean, which make up more than 50% of their flights, show the world how vital these flights are.
Private business jets are also essential and vital for the STUDY of climate:
I suspect that - if it were available - it would be very easy for a business aircraft operator to switch to SAF. Airline operating economics are dominated by the price of jet fuel, and the fact that SAF is twice the price of regular jet fuel is a big problem for them. But bizjet economics are usually based on much lower utilisation than an airliner. The proportion of the annual ownership costs accounted for by the fuel price is not so dominant. Telling a corporation - or a rich owner - that they can continue using the jet as much as they like - with a clean conscience - for an extra 20% per annum might not even make them blink. I don’t know what the complainers will move onto next though…