[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AVIATION AND THE
ENVIRONMENT: EMMISSIONS
=======================================================================
(110-125)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 6, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-305 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
BOB FILNER, California FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi GARY G. MILLER, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Virginia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TED POE, Texas
DORIS O. MATSUI, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
NICK LAMPSON, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii York
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota Louisiana
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
JOHN J. HALL, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
(ii)
Subcommittee on Aviation
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman
BOB FILNER, California THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
RICK LARSEN, Washington JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa SAM GRAVES, Missouri
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
JOHN J. HALL, New York, Vice Chair SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin Virginia
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of TED POE, Texas
Columbia DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
CORRINE BROWN, Florida CONNIE MACK, Florida
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California York
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
DORIS O. MATSUI, California VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JOHN L. MICA, Florida
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California (Ex Officio)
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Altman, Richard, Executive Director, Commercial Aviation
Alternative Fuels Initiative................................... 16
Coyne, Hon. James, President, National Air Transportation
Association, Former Member of Congress......................... 16
Dillingham, Dr. Gerald, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues,
U.S. Government Accountability Office.......................... 5
Elwell, Daniel K., Assistant Administrator, Aviation Policy,
Planning and Environment, Federal Aviation Administration...... 5
Fahey, Dr. David W., Research Physicist, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration..................................... 5
Glover, Bill, Managing Director, Environmental Strategy, the
Boeing Company................................................. 16
Lavin, Douglas, Regional Vice President, North America
International Air Transport Association........................ 16
May, James C., President and CEO, Air Transport Association...... 16
Reis, Mark, Managing Director, Seattle Tacoma International
Airport........................................................ 16
Schaffer, Mary Ann, Air Line Pilots Association.................. 16
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri................................. 28
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 29
Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas............................ 36
Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 42
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 43
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Altman, Richard L................................................ 45
Coyne, James K................................................... 56
Dillingham, Gerald L............................................. 86
Elwell, Daniel K................................................. 119
Fahey, David W................................................... 143
Glover, Bill..................................................... 152
Lavin, Douglas E................................................. 161
May, James C..................................................... 167
Reis, Mark M..................................................... 187
Schaffer, Mary Ann............................................... 198
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Elwell, Daniel K., Assistant Administrator, Aviation Policy,
Planning and Environment, Federal Aviation Administration,
responses to questions from the Subcommittee................... 138
Glover, Bill, Managing Director, Environmental Strategy, the
Boeing Company, responses to questions from the Subcommittee... 157
May, James C., President and CEO, Air Transport Association,
responses to questions from the Subcommittee................... 182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.008
HEARING ON AVIATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT: EMISSIONS
----------
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerry F.
Costello [chairman of the Subcommittee] Presiding.
Mr. Costello. The Subcommittee will come to order.
The Chair will ask all Members and staff and everyone to
turn electronic devices off or on vibrate.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on
aviation and on the environment emissions. Today, after the
first panel, the Aviation Subcommittee will recess while we
hear a briefing from Ambassador John Bruton. The briefing is
open to the public, and Members can ask questions. After the
ambassador's briefing, we will then reconvene the hearing and
will hear from the second panel. I will give a brief opening
statement. Then I will call on the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri,
for any statement that he may have, and then we will recognize
our witnesses.
I welcome everyone to the Subcommittee hearing today on
aviation and the environment, in particular, emissions.
Globally, commercial aviation accounts for about 3 percent of
emissions, and with 1 billion passengers expected to fly in the
United States by 2016, we need to responsibly manage aircraft
emissions. Here at home and across the globe, more is being
done to reduce energy consumption and emissions. Airlines,
airports, manufacturers, and the Air Force are at the forefront
of developing better planes, technology and operating
procedures to conserve fuel and to reduce emissions.
They are an example of how improvements are driven by
necessity as fuel costs are the largest single expenditure for
the airlines, accounting for about 40 percent or more of their
total expenditures. In the last month, fuel has greatly
affected the aviation industry, causing four carriers to file
bankruptcy and other carriers to reduce capacity. Every penny
increase in the price of jet fuel results in an additional $195
million in annual fuel costs for the U.S. airline industry.
To combat this, aircraft fuel efficiency has improved by
almost 31 percent since 1990. On April 22nd, 2008, the ATA
committed to work towards an additional 30 percent fuel
efficiency improvements by the year 2025. Research also
continues in engine efficiency, airframe aerodynamics and in
the use of lighter materials like the composites currently
being used by Boeing on the 787. The implementation of NextGen
will also have a positive impact on the environment, including
fuel-efficient operation procedures, the introduction of new
airframe and engine technologies and in developing alternative
fuels.
This is another reason why we need to move forward on
modernizing our air traffic control system and in continuing to
urge the FAA to produce and meet its timelines for modernizing
our system.
I am pleased to see that Boeing completed its first
biofuels flight with Virgin Atlantic early this year and that
it is working on fuel cells for future aircraft. I am also
interested in hearing more about coal to liquids--CTL--coal to
liquids technology and the benefits that it may bring to this
discussion. I have been a long supporter of clean coal
technologies. The United States has at least a 250-year supply
of coal. Given that CTL fuels can be used in existing planes
and engines and that they can help reduce our reliance on
foreign sources of oil, I believe that CTL production should be
pursued.
Further, airports are facing a significant challenge to
increase capacity while also managing the environmental impacts
on local communities. Many airports are putting resources into
infrastructure for natural gas, solar, electric, biofuels, and
propane refueling stations that benefit the airports and many
public users such as commercial vans, courtesy shuttles and
taxis.
I am interested in hearing more from SeaTac on its
recycling program and on its greenhouse gas emissions
inventory. Under H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of
2007, which passed the House on September 20th of last year, we
provided historic levels of funding to upgrade our air traffic
control system, to improve efficiency and to invest in aviation
research. Other programs to reduce our carbon footprint in H.R.
2881 include the Clean Engine and Airframe Technology
Partnership and the Green Towers Program, which was modeled
after what is currently being done at O'Hare International
Airport in Chicago. We continue to wait on our friends in the
other body, in the Senate, to act on legislation to reauthorize
the FAA so that we can move forward to going into conference
and in producing a bill that can be sent to the White House.
Finally, the European Union has proposed an emissions
trading scheme to reduce emissions. Due to the global nature of
aviation, I strongly believe that any effort to reduce
emissions should be done by consensus through ICAO and must
maintain economic growth while we are reducing emissions.
I, again, welcome all of our witnesses today. I look
forward to hearing your testimony.
Before I recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, for his
opening statement or remarks, I ask unanimous consent to allow
2 weeks for all Members to revise and extend their remarks and
to submit any additional statements and materials for the
record. Without objection, so ordered.
At this time, the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr.
Petri.
Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for calling this timely and important hearing today.
As you pointed out, aviation is essential to the healthy
economy and the free flow of travel and commerce worldwide, but
as we all know, airplanes are currently solely dependent on
petroleum-based fuels that emit greenhouse gasses. According to
the FAA, the transportation sector is responsible for about
one-quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, but to put things into
perspective, aviation is responsible for only 3 percent of U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions.
Historically, the aviation industry has taken a leading
role in the effort to reduce emissions. Emissions are directly
tied to fuel consumption. With the soaring cost of jet fuel,
airlines and operators have a clear incentive to reduce the
fuel burden. Significant and environmental benefits have come
along with the business incentive to conserve fuel.
Multi-billion dollar research and development investments
by industry are yielding more efficient, quieter engines as
well as lighter, more aerodynamic frames.
It is my understanding that for aircraft of the 70- to 150-
passenger size, Pratt and Whitney's newly developed, geared
thermal fan engine will increase aircraft fuel efficiency of
upwards of 12 percent. Boeing's groundbreaking new 787
Dreamliner design will require 20 percent less fuel, will be 60
percent quieter and will produce 28 percent less noxious oxide
emissions than the plane it replaces. I think, on a per-
passenger basis, this is about as fuel efficient as a mini
automobile on a per mile basis.
Realizing that aviation, like all other industries, is a
contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, it is important to
note that in the last 35 years the U.S. air transportation
system has experienced a six-fold increase in mobility.
However, even with that growth in travel, aviation fuel
efficiency has seen a 60 percent improvement.
Aviation emissions have been and remain a controversial
issue. Aviation's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions has
recently received growing attention in our country and even
greater attention overseas.
The European Commission has proposed to regulate aircraft
emissions in a proposal to add the aviation industry to the
European Union's emissions trading scheme. Some have raised the
concern that the proposal violates several bilateral
agreements, including the recently signed U.S.-EU Open Skies
agreement. There are also concerns that it ignores recognized
international civil aviation laws.
While the second phase of the EU's emission trading scheme
is a vast improvement over the first phase, it is important
that proposals to regulate aircraft emissions not unfairly
burden an industry that has done so much to reduce its impact
on the environment, an industry that we rely on to bring
together the world community.
In the U.S., the FAA and this Committee have undertaken
several initiatives to address the impact aviation has on the
environment. For instance, in this Committee's current FAA
reauthorization proposal that passed the House last September,
we included no less than eleven programs to lower aviation's
impact on the environment.
In coordination with the airline industry's emission
reduction efforts, the voluntary airport low-emission and
continuous low-energy emissions and noise programs have proven
themselves successful. It is reauthorized in the House FAA
reauthorization proposal. We are committed to continue to
advance these programs going forward.
Government has also had a responsibility to continue to
invest in fundamental aviation research and development. In
fact, for budget year 2009, the FAA plans to invest more than
$336 million in research and development.
According to U.S. Government sources, the number of
commercial air carriers has doubled since the late 1970s. The
number of U.S.-scheduled passenger enplanements has jumped by
about 175 percent. Domestic enplanements are projected to grow
to over 1 billion by 2016.
As aviation grows, it is critical that it continues to do
so in an environmentally responsible manner.
The aviation industry has proven that lessening aviation's
impact on the environment can be achieved without strict
government regulations. As scrutiny over the aviation industry
is on the rise around the world, we must be sure not to hamper
productive efforts that have proven effective at reducing
emissions. We must also continue our work on developing
cleaner-burning, alternative jet fuels.
Clearly, aviation emissions is a complicated issue,
requiring a complex and multi-faceted approach, utilizing the
expertise and knowledge of the FAA, NASA and of the aviation
industry.
In conclusion, I would like to thank all of our witnesses
and Ambassador Bruton for coming, and I look forward to your
testimony and to the discussion this afternoon.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member.
Before I recognize Members for statements, opening
statements or for comments, I want to make sure that Members
and everyone are mindful that we are going to have a number of
procedural votes on the floor, and we do have nine witnesses
who will be testifying at this hearing today.
So, with that, the Chair will now recognize the gentlelady
from Texas, Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I will just ask unanimous consent to file my statement to
save some time. Thank you.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now
recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I will follow the gentlelady's
example and ask that my statement be entered in the record.
I yield back.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
Does any other Member wish to make a statement or a
comment?
If not, the Chair at this time will introduce our first
panel of witnesses: Mr. David Fahey, who is a Research
Physicist with NOAA; Mr. Daniel Elwell, who is the Assistant
Administrator over at the FAA for Aviation Policy Planning and
the Environment; and Dr. Gerald Dillingham, who is the Director
of Physical Infrastructure Issues with the U.S. Government
Accountability Office. Mr. Dillingham has testified here many
times before.
So we welcome all of you. The Chair will recognize you, Dr.
Fahey, for your opening comments and for your testimony.
We would remind the witnesses that you will be recognized
for 5 minutes. Your entire statements will be entered into the
record, and then, of course, Members will have questions after
the three of you present your testimony.
With that, Dr. Fahey.
TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID W. FAHEY, RESEARCH PHYSICIST, NATIONAL
OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION; DANIEL K. ELWELL,
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, AVIATION POLICY, PLANNING AND
ENVIRONMENT, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; AND DR. GERALD
DILLINGHAM, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Fahey. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee.
I am Dr. David Fahey, a Research Physicist with NOAA, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Thank you for
inviting me to be a witness at this hearing.
I have spent my career studying the atmosphere, with
particular emphasis on ozone depletion and climate change, and
have been involved with aviation issues in a number of research
studies and policy-relevant scientific assessments.
My written testimony addresses the basic aspects by which
global aviation affects climate and discusses key uncertainties
and knowledge gaps and the understanding of those effects. The
results in my testimony are derived from the scientific
assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
or "IPCC" as it is commonly known. The IPCC completed an
aviation assessment in 1999 and partially updated it in 2007.
Here, I will highlight several key points from my testimony.
First, aviation is one of several human activities that
contribute to climate change by altering the natural amounts of
greenhouse gasses, small particles or cloudiness in the Earth's
atmosphere. These activities create what scientists call
"radiative forces" of climate which can be thought of as
pushing the climate away from its current state. Scientists
know that if it is pushed too hard the climate state will
change, altering basic parameters such as temperature and
precipitation.
My next point is that there are three aspects of aviation
operations which, when taken together, distinguish aviation
from other human activities that contribute to climate change.
The first of these is the aviation burns fossil fuels,
releasing a variety of gases and particles into the atmosphere.
A number of these emissions contribute to climate change.
Secondly, most aviation emissions occur at aircraft cruise
altitudes, well above the Earth's surface, which allows some of
those emissions to have a greater effect in the atmosphere and
on climate than they otherwise would if the emissions occurred
near the Earth's surface.
Thirdly, aviation operations often increase cloudiness
along and near aircraft flight tracks. Aircraft contrails shown
in my Figure 1, here displayed, are the most familiar form.
This is actually a picture over Washington, D.C. This increase
in cloudiness contributes to climate change.
So, to recap, aviation has a unique role in climate change
because it burns fossil fuels high in the atmosphere and
increases cloudiness.
My next point is that the aviation climate impact is a sum
of several component effects. A summary is shown in my Chart 1
where the unit of measure is radiative forcing. Current best
estimate values are shown there as the bars for the emissions
of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, water vapor, sulfate, and
soot particles and for cloudiness from contrails. This list
reflects the complexity of the aviation climate impact. The
total of these terms is positive, the bottom bar there, which
means aviation leads to a warming of climate. For perspective,
the aviation total is about 3 percent of the total climate
forcing from all human activities.
My fourth and final point is that uncertainties and
knowledge gaps are associated with aviation's climate impact.
Computer models of the atmosphere are required to quantify
aviation effects because of the complexity of the processes
involved. Model estimates are associated with varying
uncertainties because our representation of atmospheric
processes and models is incomplete.
Concerning knowledge gaps, two are worth noting here;
namely, the lack of best estimates for the impact of contrails
as they spread out to form more extensive cirrus clouds and the
potential role of aviation particles in modifying cloud
formation.
So, in summary, aviation emits gases and particles high in
the atmosphere and increases cloudiness. The emissions and
cloudiness cause radiative forcings which lead to climate
change. Currently, the overall impact of aviation is a positive
radiative forcing, which leads to a warming of climate.
Uncertainties remain when it comes to quantifying the separate
impact of various aviation emissions, and some gaps exist in
our knowledge of key processes involving those effects.
So thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to
testify. I am happy to answer any questions that you might
have.
Mr. Costello. Dr. Fahey, we thank you, and we will have
some questions for you.
The Chair now recognizes, under the 5-minute rule, Mr.
Elwell.
Mr. Elwell. Chairman Costello, Mr. Petri and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
Given the amount of misinformation circulating today about
aviation emissions and climate change, I thought I might try to
correct some misperceptions.
Myth: Aviation is the fastest-growing source of greenhouse
gas emissions. Fact: Aviation currently represents, as we have
heard several times, less than 3 percent of greenhouse gas
emissions worldwide. While that number may grow to 5 percent by
2050, the largest aviation market in the world--the U.S.--is
burning less fuel today than in 2000.
Myth 2: Aviation emissions have four to five times the
impact on climate change because of the altitude where they
occur. Fact: There is nothing unique about emissions from
aircraft engines. Just like your automobile, aircraft emissions
are about 70 percent C02, 29 percent water and 1 percent other
products, including NOx and particulate matter. It does not
matter where CO2 is emitted. The climate impact of C02 is well-
understood, and it is the same at altitude as it is on the
ground.
As my colleague just said, our knowledge of the impacts
from the other products is not very good, both as to intensity
and, in some cases, even whether there is a net warming or
cooling effect.
Myth 3: Other forms of transport are out-performing
aviation in fuel-efficiency improvement. Fact: the fuel
efficiency of aircraft has improved by 70 percent in the last
40 years. Even over the 20-year period, 1985 to 2005,
improvements in U.S. aviation far outpaced the emission
intensity improvements in other methods of transport, including
automobiles, trains and rail.
Myth 4: European aviation is doing better than U.S.
aviation with respect to emissions performance. Fact: between
1990 and 2005, the greenhouse gas emissions of commercial
aviation in the European Union grew about three times as fast
as those of the U.S. aviation sector. Further, since 2000,
while EU aviation emissions rose over 30 percent, U.S.
commercial aviation actually burned 4 percent less fuel even
though it carried 12 percent more passengers and 22 percent
more cargo.
Myth 5: The U.S. opposes the use of market-based measures
to address aviation emissions. Fact: During last year's ICAO
assembly, the U.S. and most of the world endorsed the utility
of market-based measures in general and emissions trading in
particular, as long as those measures are implemented for
international emissions through mutual consent. Europe
disagreed with the mutual consent part of that resolution.
Finally, myth 6: The U.S. has no plan to address aviation's
greenhouse gas impacts on climate. Fact: We have placed
environmental stewardship at the heart of our efforts to
transform the U.S. aviation system through NextGen. We are
addressing the challenge of aviation emissions via a five-
pillar plan.
Number one: Improve our scientific understanding of the
impacts of aviation emissions. As Patrick Moore, cofounder and
former leader of Greenpeace, recently noted, ``We all have a
responsibility to be environmental stewards, but that
stewardship requires that science, not political agendas, drive
our public policy.''
Two: Accelerate air traffic management improvements and
efficiencies to reduce fuel burn. We are putting about a
billion less tons of CO2 in the atmosphere per year since we
implemented the reduced vertical separation minimum in 2005,
and we are accelerating the use of enhanced navigation
procedures like RNP and CDA to further improve fuel efficiency.
Three: Hasten the development of promising environmental
improvements in aircraft technology. The President's budget
funds, and this Committee's authorization bill authorizes, a
research consortium called CLEEN, which will accelerate the
maturation of technology that will lower energy emissions and
noise.
Four: Explore the potential of alternative fuels for
aviation. The FAA helped form and is an active participant in
the Commercial Aviation Fuels Initiative. You will hear from
Rich Altman later, the CAAFI Director, about progress we are
making in this area. Alternative fuels will be the game-changer
technology that gets us closer to carbon neutrality.
Five: Market-based measures and emissions trading may be
useful to reduce emissions if technological operational and
procedural improvements are not enough.
Aviation succeeded in its first century because it
constantly met the challenge of innovation--flying safer,
faster, quieter, and cleaner. Going forward, climate change
could be the most significant long-term challenge facing
aviation. I am confident NextGen and our five-pillar plan will
provide a science-based, technology-driven approach that
focuses on performance.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Elwell.
The Chair now recognizes Dr. Dillingham.
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Mr. Petri and
Members of the Subcommittee.
In my testimony today, I will address three questions:
First, what is the nature and scope of aviation emissions?
Second, what is the status of key Federal efforts to reduce
emissions? What are some other steps that could be taken to
reduce emissions?
Regarding the nature and scope of emissions: Aviation
emissions can have adverse health and environmental effects.
They contribute to local air pollution on the ground and to
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Over the last 30 years
there has been a steady reduction in aircraft emissions.
However, the increased number of flights, coupled with system
congestion and delays, has partially offset these reductions.
The forecast is for continued growth in air traffic for the
coming decades. Some experts have argued that it will be
difficult for the technology needed to mitigate emissions to
keep up with the forecasted growth in traffic.
Regarding key Federal efforts for reducing emissions: In
the near term, the technologies and procedures that are being
developed as part of the NextGen to improve the efficiency of
flight operations can also reduce aircraft emissions. According
to FAA, implementing NextGen technologies and procedures will
allow for the more direct routing of flights, which will also
improve fuel efficiency and will reduce greenhouse gases
between 10 and 15 percent. In the long term, emissions controls
are going to be derived from research and development that is
focused on increasing fuel efficiency and in mitigating the
effects of emissions and noise.
The national plan for aeronautics R&D supports the
integrated R&D goals for increasing fuel efficiency and for
reducing emissions and noise. One of the goals of this plan is
to better understand the nature and impact of aviation
emissions. The results of this work are expected to support the
development of lower emitting alternative fuels, more efficient
air traffic management technologies and procedures and more
fuel-efficient aircraft engines. Both the FAA and NASA have
developed strategic plans for work that could help to achieve
these national goals.
Turning now to next steps going forward: As mentioned,
NextGen has the potential to help reduce emissions. Therefore,
a first step going forward is that FAA should expedite the
moving of NextGen from planning to implementation. In taking
this step, the FAA might consider establishing a single office
that would have the authority to implement NextGen and that
would be accountable to the FAA Administrator.
Another step for FAA is to deploy and demonstrate as soon
as possible an integrated suite of NextGen technologies and
procedures that are currently available. Such a deployment
could demonstrate the benefits of NextGen, including greater
system efficiency and lower emissions. These benefits could
also incentivize airlines to equip for operating in the NextGen
environment.
A next step for Congress is addressing the decline in
Federal funding for aeronautical research. One way that this
can be accomplished is by reauthorizing FAA. The House FAA
reauthorization bill includes funding for the CLEEN Initiative
that could lead to the early maturation of certain emission-
reduction technologies. Additionally, FAA is requesting a
threefold increase in its budget for R&D, including $688
million for NextGen.
Another step for Congress is to continue considering
proposals to address climate change, including market-based
mechanisms and other incentives for technological change. These
considerations should include the global nature of aviation and
the potential unintended consequences of the various proposals.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, although FAA
and the aviation industry have exceptional environmental
records, the issue is not past performance but future
achievements. Adequately addressing emissions and other
environmental concerns must be an integral part of efforts to
improve the efficiency, safety and capacity of the national
airspace system.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Dr. Dillingham.
Again, we thank all three of our witnesses on the first
panel for your testimony.
Dr. Fahey, talking about research and policy, what
discussions need to take place to improve the scientific
knowledge of aviation's impact on the atmosphere?
Mr. Fahey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think it is very clear that the science is not exactly
where you would want it to be if the objective is to evaluate
the need for regulation and to follow through with some
regulation.
First of all, I think a way to improve the science is to
consider updating the IPCC 1999 assessment of aviation. This
was an international scientific exercise, much like the climate
change assessments that they do, that brought together
scientists along with stakeholders, both the industry and
policymakers, to consider what was the impact of aviation. Back
in 1999, no one really could put a number on it. So a decade
hence we are not where we would like to be in terms of having
updated that assessment because things have changed. Models
have gotten better; the problem has shifted a bit. So that is
one thing that could be done.
The second--and it has come up here just in this
testimony--is that any assessment of aviation's climate impact
and any assessment of whether regulation is appropriate needs
to have a scenario of what the future of aviation is going to
be, meaning I can speak very clearly today as I did about what
aviation has done to date, but I cannot speak nearly as well
about what the future is. That is because no one necessarily
knows the future.
So, again, scientists could come together with
policymakers, aircraft, airline industry representatives, and
their stakeholders to develop those scenarios, and those
scenarios would address not only expected but also desirable
changes in the technology in the operations, in the fuels, and
traffic growth. Again, they are things that have already come
up here this afternoon.
So, from a scientific point of view, scientists need to
know what is most likely going to happen or need to know a
range of things so that they can evaluate those scenarios,
rather than all possible scenarios, for the climate impacts and
then hand those over to the policymakers. Well, first of all,
they must finish an international assessment that says what we
think those scenarios mean, and then that provides the basis
for policymakers.
Then the final thing that could improve the science is
simply to strengthen the commitment of U.S. science and
regulatory agencies to actually spend quality time carrying
through with these things. Again, we have heard that there are
ongoing programs that are trying to address these problems, but
I think, again, we should strengthen that, and we should,
probably more importantly, coordinate that so we do not
reinvent the wheel and that we share resources and efforts to
bring to bear on this.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
Dr. Dillingham, in your testimony, you identify a potential
research gap for emissions reduction technologies. I wonder if
you might talk a little bit about the implications of this gap.
Mr. Dillingham. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
What we are referring to is, prior to, I think, about 2005,
NASA, which conducts a significant part of the aeronautical
research for the U.S., restructured its portfolio in terms of
the kind of research it would do and the level to which it
would develop that research. Prior to that time, NASA was
developing research to, let us say, the technology readiness
level of five or six, which meant that this level was closer to
where the industry would pick it up and move it further into
the potential for something to be used in the development of a
new product design.
Since that time, not only has NASA restructured its
research portfolio, but it has seen a significant decline in
the amount of money that is available for aeronautical
research. Part of what was scheduled for that budget was
research that was going to support NextGen technologies and
environmental issues for NextGen. So that all had to be
reevaluated, reshuffled, and so you had a gap between where
NASA was able to take the technology and where industry would
pick it up. So that is the gap we are talking about. The
proposal that you mentioned in your opening statement--the
CLEEN proposal--as well as other provisions within the House
reauthorization bill are efforts to close that gap. FAA is
also, as I said, trying to close the gap. It has the potential
to slow down NextGen if FAA is not able to get that research
done that will allow it to move forward with NextGen and
emission and noise reduction technologies.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Dr. Dillingham.
Mr. Elwell, I think we are all very familiar with the FAA's
view of the EU legislation, which of course would include U.S.
carriers and its emissions trading scheme.
What actions or measures would the FAA or the U.S.
Government be prepared to take if, in fact, the EU adopts and
applies the legislation to U.S. carriers?
Mr. Elwell. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Costello. First, you might, for the record, state the
FAA's view of the EU legislation.
Mr. Elwell. Regarding the EU legislation in its current
state, the Administration is against. I want to highlight,
obviously, the Administration is not against the effort to
reduce emissions. Clearly, we have had pretty good success in
recent years.
Right now, the state of the EU legislation is such that its
unilateral nature is unacceptable to the U.S., and I would say
it is so for quite a number of countries. That is why we have
right now the Group on International Aviation and Climate
Change which came out of the 36th Assembly last year, which is
where this impasse sort of came to a head.
We do not know the final state of the legislation, because
it is still being worked on. In fact, it is probably having a
little more difficulty between the EU Commission and the
Parliament now than it had several months ago. We cannot really
make a statement on the legislation. It has not reached its
final form.
Mr. Costello. But in its current form, clearly the
administration opposes it?
Mr. Elwell. Clearly.
Mr. Costello. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member,
Mr. Petri, for any questions he may have.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
I really wanted to follow up on the questions you were just
asking and maybe lay a little, or help you lay a little
foundation for the briefing we are going to be receiving from
Ambassador Bruton.
I understand you were over in Brussels some time ago and
had considerable discussions. The issue of carbon-based
emissions is not an EU problem or an American problem; it is a
problem that we feel that needs to be addressed by China and
India and Europe and the United States, and so on.
So are there opportunities rather than arguing? What is
someone to do? The Europeans are trying to move forward. There
are a number of issues when you get beyond the borders of
international that are impacting people outside in their own
countries, and aviation clearly raises almost all of those
issues. Is there some way we can switch this into a positive
discussion? Do you have hope that that is going to be possible
or are we here in a sort of tit-for-tat facedown?
Mr. Elwell. Well, certainly, there is hope to come to an
agreement. I agree with you, Mr. Petri. This is a global
problem, for international aviation as well as maritime.
Maritime emissions have unique problems. Because so much of the
emissions are emitted internationally, aviation is in a unique
position in that, unlike ground-based sources of C02, we have
currently--aviation has no alternative propulsion source.
As far as the question of, is there a way to get past this,
I think absolutely. I think, Mr. Chairman--Chairman Costello--
mentioned phase 2 of the US-EU open aviation negotiations. I
think that is an excellent opportunity, and I believe it will
be on the agenda to try to figure out a way. The rest of the
world believes ICAO still has the mandate to lay out a global
framework. To that end, the GIACC, the Group on International
Aviation and Climate Change, will be working hard, very hard,
over the next 18 months or so to come up with that framework in
time to help inform the U.N. process in general.
So, I am a strong proponent, the U.S. is a strong proponent
for allowing individual states--respecting sovereignty, for
allowing individual states to work with a suite of measures.
There are a number of measures that can be used, not just ETS,
to achieve set goals. I do believe that we need to set some
goals going forward and then allow states the discretion to use
this suite of measures necessary to achieve those goals.
Mr. Petri. Are there opportunities--I should know more
about the enforcement mechanism or whatever, but are there
opportunities for sort of a carrot approach as well as for a
stick approach? We have a relatively older air fleet which can
be made much more efficient. I know California, as an example,
some years ago discovered the most efficient thing they could
do to reduce emissions was to have a bounty on old cars. If we
could come up with some system like that as part of this, it
would be a great benefit to a leader in industry that I think
wants to modernize its fleet but that is really behind the
eight ball for a variety of reasons in doing that right now.
Most of the sales of these wonderful new composite planes are
going to airlines around the world rather than to our domestic
fleet because of the financial situation. Are there any ideas
of that sort?
Mr. Elwell. I do not want to answer a sort of ``carrot''
question with a ``stick'' answer. I think right now, clearly,
the biggest carrot out there is getting the most modern fleet
mix. For any user of the aviation system, whether it is a
commercial airline or an individual, private owner, getting the
most fuel-efficient and modern airframe as soon as possible to
reduce this cost of fuel burden is the clearest approach. But I
do think--and I noted--there are a number of States that want
to incorporate, for instance, an affordable loan program for
NextGen equipage. I think that it is innovative, and I think it
is a great idea.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and now
recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kagen.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
important hearing. Thank you to Ranking Member Petri for
leading the way on some of these questions.
Dr. Fahey, am I correct in reading your testimony that
there is no other means of propelling our aircraft today other
than by using fossil fuels from some source?
Mr. Fahey. I did not really address that in my testimony.
In terms of what we have done so far, that is certainly the
case. So I am mostly addressing it in terms of the climate
impact of aviation. Looking backwards in time, what has
aviation done to date? That ties in with my comment about the
need for scenarios where, if you want a scientific assessment
of the future of aviation, we first have to discuss what the
scenario is of that. The scientists do not define that. We
should be handed that, so to speak.
Mr. Kagen. Right. All of the fossil fuels used in
transporting people and goods in aircraft are giving out
emissions, as you have stated. There are nitrogen oxide
components. There are respiratory irritants in sulfates.
So, as far as you are aware, all of the fossil fuels are
not healthy for people, right? You would agree with that?
Mr. Fahey. Well, certainly, as to some of the byproducts of
fossil fuels, that is correct.
Mr. Kagen. Yet, it is a very small component of what might
affect human health?
Mr. Fahey. That I cannot speak to, but I would guess that
is the case.
Mr. Kagen. With regard to the cap and trade that you
mentioned, Mr. Elwell, has there been any consideration on the
part of the administration to include the pollution that comes
our way from China? As you know, China has developed its
economy largely at the expense of the sacrifice of its
environment, and their pollutants do not remain in their
airspace; they travel over to the United States, to the West
Coast. What measures have you taken to include China into any
possible cap and trade that moves forward?
Mr. Elwell. Well, the cap and trade--again, in the aviation
context for the U.S., for U.S. aviation's contribution to
climate change, the U.S. does not believe cap and trade is
appropriate for us. Again, this goes right back to every nation
is in a different place. China is a country that is part of the
Group on International Aviation and Climate Change. They plan
to grow their aviation system 15 percent a year going forward.
They see possibly mitigating that by 5 percent with NextGen-
like technology. Clearly, they are in a completely different,
very robust growth state.
We currently do not have a plan for walling off a cap-and-
trade system for other countries' emissions. Again, that is
what the global framework is designed to address. It is
intended to take into account the different socioeconomic
conditions vis-a-vis aviation that other countries are in but
still getting to an overall global reduction. I think that is
the goal globally, to get a global reduction even while
allowing growth where you can allow growth.
Mr. Kagen. Has the administration at all considered
generating or synthesizing fossil fuels by extracting carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere and then synthesizing jet fuels
much as the Fischer-Tropsch reaction has been shown to do?
Is that beyond your area of expertise?
Mr. Elwell. That would be beyond my area of expertise.
Mr. Kagen. That is the safest answer on that one.
I will not ask Dr. Dillingham.
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you.
Mr. Kagen. Back to you, Dr. Fahey.
Mr. Fahey. I am aware of that process. It is not clear to
me that it is carbon neutral or sufficiently carbon neutral,
and I do not know that it has been discussed for aviation.
Mr. Kagen. Very good.
I yield back my time. Thank you.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
There may be other Members who will have questions to
submit in writing, but at this time, we would recognize Mr.
Ehlers, the gentleman from Michigan. I understand he may have a
few questions.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just one fairly
brief one for Dr. Fahey.
What can you tell me about the emissions problem at the
various altitude levels? Obviously, we have piston aircraft
from 0 to 10, maybe 15, and you have jets at varying altitudes.
What is the interaction of the emissions with the atmosphere at
the different levels? Which are worse and which are better?
Mr. Fahey. Which altitudes are better?
Mr. Ehlers. Well, I am just wondering what is the byproduct
of the emissions. Does it depend on the altitude? Does the
interaction of the emissions with the atmosphere vary with
altitude? Which is the problem area? Which is less important?
Mr. Fahey. Well, the short answer is, yes, the effect of
emissions is certainly a function of altitude. That is part of
its complexity.
As I mentioned in my oral testimony, one of the key
distinguishing factors for aviation is the fact that it is up
in the atmosphere, well above the Earth's surface. What I did
not say is why. The reason why is that the emissions' lifetime
or the time before they are actually removed from the
atmosphere--as to some of the emissions--increases the higher
you put them in the atmosphere. So, if an emission is going to
have a deleterious effect, you enhance it by emitting it high
in the atmosphere.
This is not true for C02, as you probably well know,
because its lifetime exceeds any other one that we are
considering, so that is not the issue. The nitrogen oxide is
probably one of the more interesting ones. Nitrogen oxides are
emitted at the Earth's surface, also in fossil fuel burning,
but at altitude nitrogen oxides linger around, so to speak.
They interfere or they contribute to ozone production in a way
that they do not on the surface of the Earth, meaning they are
producing that ozone at the same altitude, and they have an
effect on methane, which you may know is a principal greenhouse
gas. So that aspect of aviation is one that stands out, for
example, that no other sector really is noted for having this
dependency. Again, it depends on altitude. So if all aviation--
I will conjecture--you know, never flew above 3,000 feet, we
probably would not have the NOx--or the nitrogen oxide--ozone
methane problem, but the fact that they are more at 30,000
feet, 40,000 feet now, you do.
Then there is another example. A small component is water
vapor, that fossil fuel burning releases water vapor. At the
Earth's surface that is completely inconsequential, but if you
are at the high altitudes and in the troposphere and into the
lower stratosphere, now that water is consequential because
nature removes most of the water from air as it moves. It
circulates in the atmosphere, so the stratosphere is
significantly drier by orders of magnitude than the Earth's
surface. So if you put in water, even if it looks like it is a
small amount, it can have a disproportionate effect. Water
vapor, in the case of aviation, is not the largest impact, as
you can see from my charts, but it is there; it is measurable;
it is quantifiable.
Then of course there are sensitivities, that if you
increase the altitude of all aviation you would increase that
term where you may reduce other terms.
Then another important example is contrails. As you may
know, contrails require cooperation from the atmosphere, that
the atmosphere has to be cold enough for a contrail to form and
it has to have high enough relative humidity, and that does not
happen in the lower regions of the atmosphere. It is too warm.
And so you need to go up into the colder troposphere, the lower
region of the atmosphere before a contrail is likely to form
given current aviation technology. And so if you were to fly
all aircraft, I will conjecture, below 3,000 feet you would not
have contrails. So, if you look at the chart, contrails are a
significant component of the overall contribution to aviation.
So, you see those kinds of trade-offs. It really does
matter. For example, the over-the-pole routes that have become
popular as a way of shaving distance off of aviation, those
flights operate a greater fraction of the time in the
stratosphere because the stratosphere is lower in the polar
regions. And so an aircraft flying at a constant altitude,
which they tend to do, will spend more of its time in the
stratosphere as it goes over the poles than it would if it went
across the continental U.S. or across the equator. So you can
even bring it down to not only does it depend on altitude--
well, it does depend on altitude, but it also depends where you
are in the latitude-longitude space when you make those
emissions.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you very much. That is very interesting.
I apologize. I was detained and could not be here, but I will
have to peruse your written statement because I find this very
intriguing. Thank you very much.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Michigan
and thanks our first panel of witnesses for being here and for
your valuable testimony. You are dismissed.
I might ask Ambassador Bruton his time schedule. We have
just been called to the floor for votes, and timing is
everything around here. There are 10 votes that have been
called for, which means that we will recess, and it will be
about an hour and 20 minutes. You have one or two options, Mr.
Ambassador, depending on your schedule. We could take your
briefing, your 5-minute briefing, and if you cannot remain
here, we will submit questions to you in writing. We are
respectful of your time. In an hour and 20 minutes, we will
come back and get to our next panel of witnesses.
So I am giving you the option depending on your time. Do
you want to go forward with your briefing? Yes.
The Chair thanks our first panel and will call Ambassador
Bruton to the witness table, please.
Now that we have concluded the first panel of the
Subcommittee hearing, we will recess the hearing and will
proceed to an open briefing by the head of the delegation of
the European Commission to the United States, Ambassador John
Bruton. During this time, the official reporter will take a
break and will rejoin us when we reconvene with the second
panel of the hearing.
I welcome Ambassador Bruton. Ambassador, I thank you for
being here today, and the Subcommittee appreciates your
participation and recognizes that neither this Subcommittee nor
the House has jurisdiction over the ambassador.
Ambassador Bruton was the Prime Minister of Ireland from
1993 to 1997. He also had a leading role in the Constitutional
Convention of the European Union. He was appointed as a
commission head of the delegation in the United States in
November of 2004. I have worked, through the Friends of
Ireland, with the ambassador in his years as the Prime Minister
of Ireland.
Ambassador, we welcome you. We thank you for being here,
and we look forward to your briefing.
[Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was recessed, to
reconvene at approximately 4:45 p.m., this same day.]
Mr. Costello. The Subcommittee will come to order. The
Chair will announce that we hope that we are finished voting
for an hour, but we had 10 or more votes but we are hoping that
we have a little bit of time we can go to your testimony
immediately. And we appreciate your patience.
The second panel, let me introduce quickly Mr. Bill Glover
who is the managing director, Environmental Strategy for the
Boeing Company. Mr. James C. May, president and CEO of the Air
Transport Association. Mr. Douglas Lavin, the regional vice
president for North America, International Air Transport
Association. Mr. Richard Altman, the executive director,
Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative. Mr. Mark Reis
who is the managing director of the Seattle Tacoma
International Airport. Captain Mary Ann Schaffer, the Air Line
Pilots Association. And the Honorable James Coyne, the
president of the National Air Transportation Association and a
former Member of this body.
TESTIMONIES OF BILL GLOVER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
STRATEGY, THE BOEING COMPANY; JAMES C. MAY, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION; DOUGLAS LAVIN, REGIONAL VICE
PRESIDENT, NORTH AMERICA INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT
ASSOCIATION; RICHARD ALTMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL
AVIATION ALTERNATIVE FUELS INITIATIVE; MARK REIS, MANAGING
DIRECTOR, SEATTLE TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT; MARY ANN
SCHAFFER, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION; HON. JAMES COYNE,
PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION, FORMER
MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Mr. Costello. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Glover under the
5-minute rule.
Mr. Glover. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Petri.
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify. In view of the hour, I will keep my remarks very
short. Recently, the environment has been page 1 news all over
the world. At Boeing, we have spent 50 years making
environmental performance of our products a cornerstone of our
business.
Today, the Boeing Company produces a family of 18 different
aircraft, all quieter and more fuel efficient than earlier
generations of aircraft. Through ICAO, the industry has reduced
the noise footprint around airports and driven down aircraft-
specific emissions, carbon monoxide, soot and nitrogen oxides
on a world-wide basis. As aircraft are a uniquely mobile asset,
designed to fly and be acceptable anywhere in the world, ICAO
feels a key role in developing clear global standards. This is
critical for Boeing, as 80 percent of our commercial airplanes
are delivered outside the United States. We urge Congress to
allow ICAO to continue its historic role of regulating aircraft
emissions.
Improving aircraft is, of course, only part of the
problem--part of the solution I should say. In order to reduce
CO2, air traffic management, biofuels and other types of new
solutions are equally important. Sustainable alternative fuels
can also help reduce aviation environmental footprint. We are
focused on second-generation biofuels that do not compete with
food sources or require large quantities of land or water. For
example, we completed the first-ever biofuel trial with Virgin
Atlantic and G.E. earlier this year on a Boeing 747. We are
planning a similar demonstration with Continental Airlines in
2009.
Boeing recognizes we must do our part to improve the
footprint of aviation. Government must also do its part.
Specifically, we urge Congress to foster policies that will
enable NextGen to become a reality. We also need to accelerate
air traffic management practices and projects that can provide
improvements to capacity and reduce emissions. And finally,
ICAO should be allowed to fulfill its well-established role of
regulating aircraft noise and emissions. Mr. Chairman, thank
you for the opportunity to testify.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Glover.
And we now recognize Mr. May.
Mr. May. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will also be brief. I
would like to emphasize three key points. First, that
commercial airlines are extremely greenhouse gas efficient;
secondly, that we are proactively committed to further limiting
our emissions footprint and are aggressively pursuing a plan to
achieve that outcome; and third, there is a critical role for
the Federal Government to play. Commercial aviation in the
United States has a decidedly strong track record that is often
overlooked, or, in fact, even misstated. We contribute just 2
percent of domestic greenhouse gas emissions compared to 25
percent for the balance of the transportation industry. This is
no small achievement considering the commercial aviation is
essential to our economy and supports nearly 9 percent of U.S.
employment. Today's airplanes, thanks to Billy and the folks at
Boeing and Airbus, are not just smarter. They are quieter,
cleaner, use less fuel than ever before, and we fly them
smarter. U.S. airlines have been able to deliver more value by
constantly improving fuel efficiency. We have improved 110
percent since 1978, resulting in 2.5 billion metric tons of
carbon dioxide savings which is roughly equivalent to taking
more than 18.7 million cars off the road in each of those
years. What is even more amazing is that we burn 4 percent less
fuel in 2006 than 2000 yet carried 12 percent more passengers,
22 percent more cargo. So we are delivering the payloads with
less fuel and more carbon efficiently.
Today our planes are as fuel efficient as compact cars,
carry more goods and people more than six times faster, and our
jets are five or six times more fuel efficient than corporate
aviation.
U.S. airlines are highly motivated to continue this trend.
And this may be one of the most important points I can make.
Fuel is our largest cost center, averaging 30 to 50 percent of
operating expenses. 2007 the bill was $41.7 billion. Projected
2008 $60 billion and climbing. The market is sending commercial
airlines an overwhelming price signal. As demand for air
services grows, some growth in aviation services are predicted
but that is not a bad thing because we drive more
environmentally efficient economy optimizing global value
change, creating greater social and economic opportunities.
IPCC has estimated that by 2050, we will grow a whopping 1
percent in terms of total greenhouse gas emissions. That is,
worldwide we will go from 2 percent to 3 percent.
Now we have got a commitment, ATA carriers, to improve fuel
efficiency an additional 30 percent by 2025. That means another
13 million cars coming off the road each of those years. But we
are going to have to invest over $730 million in new equipment
and airplanes. We have got $20 to $30 billion--and I said
million. I meant billion. $730 billion in aircraft. We have a
big bill for Next Generation coming up and that recognizing
carbon's fuel supply--carbon-based fuel supply can only take us
so far, you are going to hear from our friends at CAAFI who are
talking about all the great things they are doing for
alternative fuels. So Congress can make all the difference.
Four areas I would like to suggest, first, update our
outdated air traffic control system, something that you have
been leaders on and we have talked about many times. It shows
us that we can add 10 to 15 percent on top of the already 30
percent goal that we have got. That is a big, big number. We
urge Congress to reinvigorate NASA and FAA environmental
aeronautics R&D programs, ask you to spur further commercial
development of alternative fuels, and most importantly, we ask
Congress to forbear from imposing climate change-related
legislation that would work against our efforts.
If we continue our fuel efficiency and other advances, we
have got to have the capital to invest. Punitive economic
measures that siphon funds out of our industry would severely
threaten that progress. If you enact a Lieberman-Warner kind of
legislation with cap and trade, it is going to cost us $100
billion over the foreseeable near-term future. And that is
money we could use to spend on air traffic control, new planes,
avionics, all sorts of things to remain green and as green as
any industry in the world. We ask for your help and we
appreciate your time.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
And now recognizes Mr. Lavin.
Mr. Lavin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to brief you
on the steps the commercial aviation industry is taking to
reduce our environmental footprint. IATA is made up of 235
carriers from some 140 countries that together represent
approximately 94 percent of scheduled international traffic.
My colleague, Jim May, has provided you an excellent
summary of commercial aviation's impressive environmental
record to date and our industry's commitment to further reduce
our carbon footprint. For IATA's part, our members have
committed to improve our fuel efficiency by 25 percent by 2020.
As part of that effort, this year IATA is developing an
industry-wide passenger carbon offset program. In the medium
term, we will implement a strategy to reach carbon-neutral
growth. And over the longer term, IATA has a vision of a zero
emissions commercial aviation industry. Significant reductions
in carbon emissions will require strong cooperation among air
carriers, air frame and engine manufacturers and alternative
fuel suppliers. However, the aviation industry cannot achieve
these critical targets on our own. We must rely on the support
of governments around the world if we are going to reach carbon
neutrality. First, as Jim May already stated, we need this
Congress to put the right economic incentives in place for the
development of radically new green technologies. Second, we
need you to take the steps necessary to address the global
infrastructure shortage. We need accelerated funding for
NextGen and to encourage Europe to deliver on their long-
promised Single Sky project. In operations, we need the
Congress to promote the optimization of U.S. and global air
routes and the FAA's deployment of key capabilities like RNP,
RNF, and ADS-B. Third, we need this Congress to set an example
for the world by refusing to implement barriers to the airline
industry's effort to reduce its carbon footprint. We are
strongly opposed to negative economic measures that do nothing
to support the environment. Some examples of these negative
measures may be useful.
As the Chairman noted previously, the U.K. recently
announced its intention to require aviation to pay more of its
environmental cost by replacing an already onerous air
passenger duty tax with a duty payable based on the size of the
aircraft and the distance it is travelling. This
extraterritorial scheme violates international law and is
simply using the environment as a cover for an effort to
address a budgetary shortfall. Likewise, we cannot tolerate
including aviation in flawed emissions trading schemes. IATA
believes that a properly designed global ETS may help close the
gap between growth in aviation and emissions as long as it is
accompanied with investments in technology, improved operations
and better infrastructure. Unfortunately Europe is proposing to
include aviation in an ETS that is anything but properly
designed. It is a unilateral regional measure when our mobile
industry needs global solutions.
It is extraterritorial to the point that it proposes to
control emissions by U.S. carriers while operating in U.S.
airspace and over international waters. It would require
airlines to buy permits for all of our emissions by 2020,
thereby ignoring the progress we have made and our aggressive
carbon reduction targets. It is also important to note that the
European Commission is now studying how to impose controls on
NOx emissions despite existing IKO global controls of these
emissions.
Here in the United States, we share Mr. May's concern about
the structure of the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill. It
proposes to control aviation emissions by requiring fuel
producers to acquire allowances to cover the greenhouse gas
content of the fuel they sell to the transportation sector. The
cost of these allowances would be passed on directly to
airlines, thereby serving as a tax on airline operations and
ultimately our passengers. To make matters worse, unlike other
dirtier and less progressive industries, the producers would
not be granted any allowances for the progress we have made to
date on fuel efficiency.
We urge the House to oppose the Senate climate tax that
only hinders industry's efforts to address this global problem.
In closing, IATA and its member airlines are proud of their
environmental record and are committed to further aggressively
reduce our carbon footprint. We look forward to working with
this Subcommittee to promote solutions that allow us to reach
our shared green goals. Thank you.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Lavin and now
recognizes Mr. Altman.
Mr. Altman. Mr. Chairman, in your April 8 op-ed for The
Hill you stated that aviation is leading the way in research in
alternative fuels. In testifying today as a representative of
that effort, my goal is to provide new information and overall
progress on alternative fuel efforts since we last spoke. For
those not familiar with CAAFI, the Commercial Aviation
Alternative Fuels Initiative is a data gathering communications
collaboration that seeks to increase both the quantity and the
quality of dialogue amongst airline, airport, manufacturer and
FAA sponsors. CAAFI engages multiple government, industry and
university stakeholders. Over 20 energy suppliers are now
stakeholders in CAAFI. We are global in reach with stakeholders
on four continents. CAAFI now sees our catalyst for informed
and expedited solutions that serve all components of the supply
chain. The goal is to make our relatively small sector of
transportation a customer of choice for introducing alternative
fuels.
I will focus on three specific areas. First is to make sure
that alternative fuels are certified. Second are the
environmental considerations for both greenhouse gases and
local air quality. Third is establishing an opportunity for
buyer-supplier dialogue that can result in aviation being an
early buyer for alternative supplies.
The first 4 months of 2008 have seen unprecedented level of
activity in all these areas. Regarding certification, on April
11 the Air Force Certification Office approved the new JP8 Mil
Spec embracing 50/50 blends of Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene.
These include coal, gas and biomass. This quantification is the
first critical break from the long-term certification approach
which qualified fuels on an individual producer/individual
plant basis. In February, the CAAFI certification team provided
a similar proposal for commercial approvals. Taken together,
these investments form critical signposts to investors that
aviation fuel plan investment is viable. These include plants
in Illinois and Ohio with candidates from Rentech, American
Clean Coal Fuels and Baard Energy. If initial approvals for
these projects are granted this year, initial production will
occur as early as 2012.
Promising developments do not stop there. CAAFI's R&D and
certification teams are working together to achieve long-term
goals of approving sustainable biofuels. Such progress involves
fuels from hydrogenated plant oils. Recognizing that just CAAFI
having a goal of 2013 for sustainable aviation biofuel is
inadequate, we have a roadmap that our R&D team lead and our
certification team lead in concert with what the Air Force has
put together.
Ultimately, fuel from algae may have the greatest yield of
all energy crops, as much as 100 times the yield of current
biofuel crops. Commercial aviation's effort and the environment
have taken a similar large stride.
The MIT-led PARTNER Center of Excellence's precedent
setting Well to Wake environmental life cycle models co-2
outputs for over a dozen candidates fuel types. The first phase
of the FAA-funded project is complete. The second iteration is
planned.
Work to date on these models suggests that there are a wide
range of options that have the potential to outperform current
oil refineries in greenhouse gas production. The key
characteristics of alternative fuels is that they are extremely
low in sulfur and result in small soot parcels, now identified
in EPA-issued standards. With over half the airports in the
U.S. identified nonattainment areas under the standard use of
emerging alternative fuels may be one of the best tools to
control growth in PM2.5 exposure that could ultimately limit
the growth of commercial aviation.
To ease new fuels introduction to airport markets, CAAFI
recommended a project to combine these tools via development of
an airport handbook calculation procedure. The TRB Airport
Cooperative Research Program initiated that program last year.
The last piece of the puzzle is to have buyers for these
new fuels. And I would like to thank Jim for his action on
Earth Day to put together a policy on which we can base that
dialogue.
Now to ensure that this process is substantive the ATA
Energy Council and the CAAFI business and economic team will
bring suppliers and airline users together in the September and
October time period here in Washington to initiate dialogue.
In closing, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
your support of CAAFI and I would like to thank publicly the
approximately 150 largely volunteer members of the CAAFI
coalition for their contributions to these efforts. For most
including our team leaders, this is not their day job.
So thank you also to FAA and Dan Elwell for supporting the
effort and for recognizing immediately that was a very
important part of the puzzle.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Altman.
And the Chair, now recognizes Mr. Reis.
Mr. Reis. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today about airport efforts to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. While I serve as the managing director of SeaTac
Airport, I am also on the board of directors of Airports
Council International North America. So, while my testimony
today will focus on the progress we have made at SeaTac, but I
also represent the broader airport community here today.
Environmental protection has for decades been an integral
part of airports' responsibilities. As the public face of the
aviation industry in our communities, airports play a
leadership role in demonstrating environmental stewardship to
the local and global communities we serve. Airports'
contribution to aviation's global greenhouse gas emissions is
relatively small. And airports have little or no control over
some of the larger contributors such as aircraft and private
vehicles. But in spite of that limited role, we recognize that
everyone has a responsibility to reduce their contribution to
climate change, and airports are committed to doing everything
appropriate.
Last year, SeaTac Airport prepared a greenhouse gas
emissions inventory. Not surprisingly, aircraft were found to
be the largest contributor to the 4.7 million tons of CO2 at
SeaTac, about 90 percent of the total. Public movement to and
from the airport accounted for about 8 percent of that number.
And airport-controlled emissions were only 1.4 percent.
The value of the inventory of course is that it allows us
to identify opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and measure our progress. However, we did not wait for the
inventory to initiate our focus on emission reductions. For the
past several years, we have purchased green power to serve 25
percent of our electric load. We have initiated energy
conservation investments that have reduced our electrical
energy consumption by 25 percent despite expanding our terminal
facilities by 20 percent and have transitioned to many CNG
vehicles.
Price signals are a key component to reducing our
footprint. Like every other airport, we used to mask the real
cost of some of the utilities_power, water, sewer_by including
those costs in the airline landing fees.
In 2001, however, we established a utility system using the
same rate-making methodology that regulated utility would use
to charge airlines, concessionaires and other customers for
their actual utility usage. Instantly, these clearer price
signals allowed us to demonstrate to our customers the cost
effectiveness of conservation measures. We have recently used a
similar system to change the economics of waste hauling at
SeaTac as well.
Mr. Chairman, we have also found that we can cut greenhouse
gases even as we pursue operational and customer service
enhancements. For example, our parking pay on foot system and
space count systems, our underground fuel hydrant system and
the future consolidated hotel shuttle system will all enhance
customer service, decrease operating costs for us and our
customers, improve local air quality and cut greenhouse gas
emissions.
We are working closely with our airline partners in a
variety of initiatives to reduce fuel burn and emissions on the
ground. In 2006, we opened a ramp tower that has significantly
improved the efficiency and safety of ramp operations, saving
the airlines 800,000 gallons of fuel each year and reducing
emissions by 8,500 tons per year. We also provide airlines the
option to power aircraft electrical needs with gate-side
electricity, which reduces the need to run auxiliary power
units and will soon be providing chargers so the airlines can
transition to electric ground service equipment fleets.
We are now designing a centralized preconditioned air
system that will save approximately 5 million gallons of
aircraft fuel each year, and we are working very closely with
Alaska Airlines and the FAA to explore accelerated
implementation of an offset RNP approach that could further
reduce fuel burn and greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr. Chairman, while airports are quite focused on reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, some irports, especially smaller
airports with fewer financial resources, could do more. My
written testimony includes some suggestions for changes in AIP
provisions, over and above those the Committee has already
included in the reauthorization bill, that could help airports
pursue additional initiatives.
In closing, let me reiterate the greenhouse gas emissions
are just one of many important environmental challenges that
airports and aviation face each day. We must carefully balance
the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with a need to
reduce impacts from noise and local air quality. In doing so,
airports must continue to, and pledge that we will continue to,
lead the environmental stewardship role within our communities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Reis, and now
recognizes Captain Schaffer.
Ms. Schaffer. Good afternoon Chairman Costello, Ranking
Member Petri. I am Captain Mary Ann Schaffer, chairperson of
the Air Line Pilots Association's Task Force on Aviation
Sustainability and the Environment. I have been an airline
pilot for a major network carrier for more than 19 years and
certainly serve as an A320 captain. Thank you for the
opportunity to represent ALPA's 56,000 pilot members and to
present an airline perspective on aviation and the environment.
Airline pilots work at the nexus of air traffic technology,
aircraft capability and operational limitation. We bear the
ultimate responsibility for the safety of our passengers, cargo
and crew.
In our view, any change to regulations, laws or operational
initiatives must be based on maintaining or improving aviation
safety. To be more direct, pilots must be fully engaged to
ensure that ALPA's top priority, safety, remains paramount.
That said, pilots fly airplanes powered by engines that burn
fuel.
Members of this Committee may remember the thundering noise
and plumes of exhaust of a first-generation jet laboring down a
runway for takeoff. Thankfully, the noise of today's jets are
mere whispers in comparison. In fact, today's aircraft carries
6 times more payload and use 60 percent less fuel.
ALPA pilots' jobs and careers rely on a financially strong
and stable airline industry. The current challenges we face are
unprecedented. Record high fuel prices, industry consolidation
and an aging airspace system that requires complete overhaul.
On environmental policy, we also have the added challenge of a
patchwork of local, State, national and international
environmental regulations or proposed initiatives that add
taxes and charges.
So challenges certainly exist but real solutions do too.
ALPA is now fully engaged in many initiatives to further
decrease greenhouse gas emissions and reduce fuel burn. Let me
give you an example. RNP and RNF procedures use satellite-based
technology. We can track a shorter lateral path with a more
efficient descent profile to a runway. The same techniques are
applied to departure paths, allowing for precise ground tracks
to minimize noise and provide more efficient climbs to higher
fuel-saving altitudes. These procedures have already proven
increased efficiency, reduced noise and emissions and lowered
pilot and controller workload. Last week, a controller had to
issue 10 different heading and speed changes to me as I
approached San Francisco. The controller, clearly skilled,
timed our arrival onto the landing runway while clearing
crossing runway traffic for takeoff between each landing. The
skill of the controller maximized runway use, but our approach
was far from fuel efficient.
So what can industry and government do to make rapid
progress to cut emissions, save fuel and reduce noise?
First, we need a national energy policy that promotes
innovation and provides robust funding for energy research and
development to find a reasonable alternative to jet fuel.
Second, we need to support modernization of the air traffic
control system in every way possible, including accelerating
NextGen. As an example of inefficiencies in the current ATC
system, last month in San Juan, I delayed starting the second
engine on my airliner to save fuel on taxi out. Based on my
experience operating in and out of San Juan, I elected to start
the second engine with three aircraft in front of me for
takeoff.
My judgment proved incomplete. We sat for an additional 45
minutes waiting for a significant number of inbound aircraft to
land. If I had had all the traffic information available, I
would have made a different decision. Current NextGen plans
will provide such information sharing.
We also need to back infrastructure improvements like new
runways and taxiways such as at O'Hare, Atlanta and Washington
Dulles. All of these critical improvements can and must be
implemented without imposing new economic burdens on the
struggling airline industry. The U.S. airline industry has
already made enormous strides in improving its environmental
impact without instituting market-based measures. ALPA is
committed to helping establish international emissions
standards and standard operating procedures to protect the
environment, promote the economic health of our industry, and
maintain safety. After all, with oil hitting $121 a barrel, our
industry already has the economic incentive to save fuel and
reduce emissions.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present our view
from the cockpit.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Captain Schaffer and
now recognizes our former colleague, Mr. Coyne.
Mr. Coyne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Mr.
Ranking Member Petri. As you know, NATA represents some nearly
2,000 aviation businesses at airports across the country from
Cahokia, Illinois, to Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and everywhere in
between. And at each of those airports there are aviation
businesses that are just as committed as some of our larger
colleagues in the industry to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. Fundamentally, of course, greenhouse gas emission
reduction is a function of aircraft size, engine efficiency and
the operational route and procedures that aircraft follows.
Small airplanes have the same opportunity to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions as larger airplanes.
In fact, as you may know, both of you may know, some of the
most efficient aircraft in the world are some of our smallest
aircraft. And I am pleased to report that in the last 10 or 15
years, there has been tremendous research advances in both the
engine efficiency of small aircraft and the efficiency of the
aircraft themselves as the aircraft become lighter, able to
make a more efficient use of their time and the engine activity
that they have.
We strongly encourage all of the other things that have
been said here, especially with regard to airspace redesign and
NextGen development. NextGen is going to be one of the most
important elements of reducing our greenhouse gases because the
tremendous waste that we have already heard from my colleagues
at ALPA and IATA and ATA.
But I might point out that smaller aircraft, especially
private aircraft and charter aircraft, are uniquely victimized
by air traffic control rules that oftentimes lead these
aircraft to operate at a much, much lower altitude than is
operationally efficient. They are also subject to far more
involved routing departures, arrivals many times. Many of the
small aircraft pay what amounts to a 50 percent premium in
inefficient fuel and waste for a typical flight.
So we strongly support the development of NextGen and hope
that we can see Congress in the new FAA reauthorization
accelerate the NextGen implementation.
I remember testifying before this Committee in 1994 when
the first proposals were advanced from the FAA for NextGen.
That was 14 years ago. At that time somebody asked--one of the
Members of the Committee asked the FAA experts how long would
it take to implement advances in ADS-B and satellite
navigation, all of the things that are now part of NextGen. And
back in 1994 the answer was: it would take 20 years. Everyone
in the room at that time almost laughed, thinking, how could it
take 20 years to implement something like that? Well, here we
are 14 years later and many would say that we are really not
that much closer to implementing the NextGen advances that we
need to move forward.
It is up to this Committee to set the timetable I think for
NextGen development and I hope that you will take very
seriously the opportunity that is now provided by the added
fuel cost to make it even more imperative that we bring NextGen
to a reality.
NATA and our member firms very much want to be a part of
that development, that research. And you will have an
opportunity on Monday to see two of the more innovative
companies in our industry out at Dulles Airport. We are going
to be bringing the Eclipse aircraft and DayJet, and an
operational firm down in Florida will be there as well, along
with several other small charter operators to demonstrate how
small aircraft can be especially efficient in these high fuel
cost days.
One of the things to be mindful of is that the entire
carbon footprint of a traveller is the sum of all of his travel
to the airport, then in the aircraft and then back once he
lands. And so for you to get from eastern Illinois up to
Oshkosh, Wisconsin, to meet your Ranking Member on an occasion,
I submit that taking a private plane may be the most efficient
way with the least carbon footprint to get from that point A to
point B rather than trying to get to an airline and get on an
airplane and then onto a car and so on and so forth.
So please bear in mind that small aircraft are a very
important part of the solution, a very important part of
working together with government and industry to make this
happen. And we hope that some of you can come out to Dulles
Airport and see some of these new aircraft next Monday.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Coyne.
You can hear the bells. We are being called for additional
votes. I have one quick question. I am going to yield to the
Ranking Member to ask a question, and then he and I have agreed
that we will submit written questions to you. I have some for
Mr. Glover, Mr. Lavin and Mr. Altman.
Let me ask you, Mr. Altman, your organization and the Air
Force, you have been working on a joint roadmap to achieve full
certification of sustainable aviation biofuels. Where are you
in the process?
Mr. Altman. Where we are in that process. DARPA, in
particular, has completed early research on three different
hydrogenated plant oils. In addition, they have programs
Centrolium and Tyson Food on a separate item from animal oil.
There may be some additional fuels that Boeing will supply
to that process. So we will have about a half dozen different
samples by the end of the year that we can put through the
certification protocols for what they call fit-for-purpose
testing. With that in mind, we have the opportunity then to
certify--from what the experts have told me, it will take quite
some time to do that. But it would appear with all the engine
tests and the component tests that need to be done that this
could be accomplished on a generic basis with pure sustainable
biojet fuel by 2013.
It will require--the big linchpin in this is, can we get
adequate investment to produce 250,000 to 500,000 gallons of
biofuel for those tests? That is what the energy companies have
told us they need. To do that would require a good $100 million
in investment. The way we have approached that is to start a
dialogue to incorporate EER&E, the renewable side of DOE and
USDA in our dialogue. Perhaps they can be helpful within the
environment to get some sustainable biofuel production going
along to match up with our efforts in the certification area.
Mr. Costello. I thank you, Mr. Altman. As I said, I have
some other questions that I will submit in writing. And the
Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri.
Mr. Petri. Well, I would just like to thank you all for
your indulgence. Our schedule, as you know, some of you have
been here many times before know that we just can't control it.
We are doing the best we can under the circumstances. We
appreciate your rolling with the punches, so to speak. I just
will submit additional questions. But Mr. Coyne, I think in
your written testimony, you referred to a kind of a rule of
thumb that air transport flights have three times the
greenhouse gas effect of surface transportation flights. Is
that sustainable? Is that in dispute? That would make quite a
difference in all of these discussions.
Mr. Coyne. Well, at altitudes, the consumption of fuel is
much, much lower than it is at sea level for the same engine.
And because the air--you have a couple of combined effects. The
air is, of course, less dense, so you don't need as much force
to get through the air. And the efficiency of the engines
increases as well. So we--all of us, whether we are flying an
Airbus or a Cherokee prefer to be flying as high as we can most
of the time. And this is one of the reasons that the continuous
ascent approach, the RNP approaches that the NextGen is talking
about and especially the ability to get up to altitude as
quickly as you can and to stay there as long as you can. And
there is a lot of research that needs to be done.
There is mid-level altitudes at the 20,000-foot level we
don't know as much about. Because the troposphere there doesn't
lead--we don't have the contrails typically developing around
20,000 feet. So we have some of the newer jets which--
especially the smaller jets, the DayJet-type aircraft that can
operate efficiently at 26,000, 27,000, 28,000 feet may find
that it is more from a footprint issue better to operate at
that level without the contrails being developed even though
the engines aren't quite as efficient as they might be up at
41,000. But we need research because we don't have easy
answers. And one of the things we are doing with DayJet and
others is get aircraft involved in testing these different
issues of altitudes height and, of course, improved approaches
into and from airports.
Mr. Costello. The Chair, again, thanks all of you not only
for your testimony, but your patience. I know some of you have
been here 4 hours. So we do appreciate your testimony and your
patience. And we look forward to continuing to work with you
and this important issue. With that, the Chair now adjourns. I
am so used to recessing today. The Chair now adjourns the
Subcommittee.
[Whereupon, at 6:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2305.184