Max Bliss debates chemtrails

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jim, you post a 45 minute inchoate mess in a "chemtrail" forum and specific post, without any explanatory text and expect us to "learn something"?

The fuel consumption by NATO aircraft is dwarfed by civil airliner consumption which do not use JP8. Contrails are seen in many countries where JP8 is not used. You are peculiarly US centric. The VAST majority of aircraft forming contrails do not use JP8. They are regularly filmed by your cohort.

If you really believe that contrails are merely pollution, stop using the word "chemtrails" and stop posting in a "chemtrail" forum using a video with the word "chemtrail" prominent in the title. Otherwise people may suspect your true motive is to conflate the words "contrail" and "chemtrail" for your own purposes.
 
Contrails are not geoengineering, they are the bane of the aviation industry
The 'bane' of the industry? That seems a little hysterical. There are studies to see how much of an issue they really are and how concerned they should be about them, but they are hardly the 'bane'.
 
The bane of the aviation industry is not contrails. It is the lack of peanuts/cookies on short haul flights. And the fact that we have to pay for head sets now to even watch the inflight entertainment. (sorry :D)
 
Jim, you post a 45 minute inchoate mess in a "chemtrail" forum and specific post, without any explanatory text and expect us to "learn something"?

The fuel consumption by NATO aircraft is dwarfed by civil airliner consumption which do not use JP8. Contrails are seen in many countries where JP8 is not used. You are peculiarly US centric. The VAST majority of aircraft forming contrails do not use JP8. They are regularly filmed by your cohort.

If you really believe that contrails are merely pollution, stop using the word "chemtrails" and stop posting in a "chemtrail" forum using a video with the word "chemtrail" prominent in the title. Otherwise people may suspect your true motive is to conflate the words "contrail" and "chemtrail" for your own purposes.

[...]

Both chemtrail and contrail are high level descriptors for "aviation produced clouds" so argue semantics all you like, it's pollution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As Aircraft Emissions Skyrocket, EPA Looks Into Regulation For First Time
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/05/3563670/aircraft-emissions-regulation-epa/


On Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency took a step towards adding aircraft emissions to the list of regulated pollution sources. In a statement the EPA said it will study the issue of greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft, the first step in the regulatory process, and release its findings by next April. If the agency finds airline emissions to be a risk to public health or the environment, it will begin the process of crafting rules. The rules would make airplanes subject to carbon emissions guidelines in a process similar to the one currently underway for vehicles and power plants.

“This rulemaking process shows that the administration is serious about acting on their commitment to limit global warming pollution with executive authority as they have shown time and time again,” Rebecca Lefton, a senior policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, told ThinkProgress.

In August, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Friends of the Earth threatened to sue the EPA for failing to address aircraft emissions. According to the CBD, aviation accounts for about 11 percent of carbon dioxide pollution from the U.S. transportation sector and is one of the fastest-growing sources of carbon pollution, rising 3 to 5 percent each year. Globally, the airline industry could contribute as much as 15 percent of all man-made GHGs by 2050 as demand for air travel continues to rise. The International Civil Aviation Organization projects 4.9 percent annual growth in air passenger traffic and 5.2 percent annual growth in air freight traffic from 2010, more than doubling global air traffic by 2030.
Content from External Source
No mention of contrail regulation despite this:

“Contrails formed by aircraft can evolve into cirrus clouds indistinguishable from those formed naturally. These ‘spreading contrails’ may be causing more climate warming today than all the carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft since the start of aviation.

Atmospheric science: Seeing through contrails by Olivier Boucher, Nature Climate Change 1, 24–25 (2011) doi:10.1038/nclimate1078 Published online 29 March 2011

Bane...
 
Both chemtrail and contrail are high level descriptors for "aviation produced clouds" so argue semantics all you like, it's pollution.

Do you call visible car exhaust "chem-exhaust"? Of course the combustion of jet fuel produces pollutants, so does the combustion of most any other fuel... or any other thing ever, pretty much. Those pollutants are there regardless of whether or not contrails are present. The trail is created by frozen water vapor, it has nothing to do with the level of pollutants or carcinogens present. Chemtrail and Contrail are not interchangeable.
 
you guys really crack me up with your control issues. I am able to use whatever words I like, and the more I look the more I confirm my belief that very little of ANY of this has been tested properly.

So, word nazi, I will use whatever words I choose.

Godwins law - and yes you can choose whatever words you use - but if you have a message and your words are not getting that message across then it seems a little counter-productive to be abusing everyone else.

Both chemtrail and contrail are high level descriptors for "aviation produced clouds" so argue semantics all you like, it's pollution.

no - that is not true - chemtrail is a myth, and contrail is not a descriptor for pollution - the pollution exists whether there is a contrail or not, and there is more of it around airports where engine contrails never occur (except in Antarctica, Alaska, Siberia, etc) than en-route.

so you can choose to continue to use misleading words in pursuit of some objective that I find opaque....or you could try to be understood.
 
No mention of contrail regulation despite this:

“Contrails formed by aircraft can evolve into cirrus clouds indistinguishable from those formed naturally. These ‘spreading contrails’ may be causing more climate warming today than all the carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft since the start of aviation.

Atmospheric science: Seeing through contrails by Olivier Boucher, Nature Climate Change 1, 24–25 (2011) doi:10.1038/nclimate1078 Published online 29 March 2011

Bane...

but there is investigation into reducing contrails - eg NASA's ACCESS II programme
 
Both chemtrail and contrail are high level descriptors for "aviation produced clouds" so argue semantics all you like, it's pollution.

What a cop out- "chemtrails" has a very specific, purposeful connotation that you use to deliberately conflate the issue.

Cry "semantics" all you want but that is merely deflection from the truth.

BTW- the pollution is there whether there is a visible trail or not.

So...whats your point? plane exhaust is pollution? how enlightening.
 
you guys really crack me up with your control issues. I am able to use whatever words I like, and the more I look the more I confirm my belief that very little of ANY of this has been tested properly.

So, word nazi, I will use whatever words I choose.

Both chemtrail and contrail are high level descriptors for "aviation produced clouds" so argue semantics all you like, it's pollution.

You have a patently open agenda. People such as yourself and Max Bliss can't prove your claims regarding "chemtrails" so you attack that problem by invoking the pollution angle.

So contrails become "the bane" of the aviation world. No they aren't. The science of them is the bane of the chemtrail movement which, semantics aside, you appear to be a fully involved participant.

The one difference between you and most chemtrail adherents is you seem to have read the science, and tacitly at least, realise it just can't be ignored.

But you do ignore the other big questions.
The weight/altitude/performance/logistical questions related to aviation which make a nonsense of the whole theory and which no adherent ever addresses other than simply making things up.

This is why I read that pilots don't know what is happening or do know and are "frightened" or are sociopaths who are happy to spray their own families for money, or have signed confidentiality agreements or any one of a hundred laughable, made up rationalisations, designed to side step massive chasms in the theory.

Conflating contrails with "chemtrails" is naked sophistry which fools no-one, particularly on this forum.
 
[...]

Both chemtrail and contrail are high level descriptors for "aviation produced clouds" so argue semantics all you like, it's pollution.
Whether or not contrails form has no bearing whatsoever on the amount of pollutants emitted. So again, what is your point?
 
The year the conversion was complete, the chemtrail conspiracy began.

False analogy.

I could say that in the year 1996 I bought a new computer, and switched from AOL as an ISP to another provider....and started getting more emails suddenly. "Hence" the new computer was a 'conspiracy' to bombard me with unwanted email.
 
Tune in and learn something.

You didn't answer my question. (It was, "What time references are most notable, and to the point of that 45-minute long video?").

But of course, based on the "gish" so far, I expect that there really isn't anything to "learn" (from THAT particular video) that I don't already know, after over 40 years as a pilot.
 
Last edited:


From the comments section.

upload_2014-12-18_23-38-9.png

Max Bliss. Good grief! I can't believe that you actually praise him in the video and thank him for posting a Rosario Marciano (Tanker Enemy) video. Seriously a Rosario Marciano video has you "looking for answers"? Rosario has already manipulated the video for his own purposes and Max has already fallen for it. Max is notorious for claiming to see low altitude "chemtrails" so it is no wonder he fell for the 6,000 feet claim. Rosario's aircraft recognition skills are deplorable. There is no C-17 Globemaster in the video. The lead aircraft is a KC-135.

What you see in the video is an E-3 Sentry decoupling from a real or practice air-to-air refuelling. The receiver will
retard throttles to idle and establish a positive rate of descent in order to distance itself from the tanker. The pilot will then throttle up. What is so hard to understand that the contrails will stop and restart during this procedure?



The following video shows the separation manoeuvre at the end.



I do hope that during your long conversation with Max that he didn't get you interested in chembusters? He thinks that the French authorities are interested in his chembusters and especially when he boosts them with vinegar. He thinks that he is getting visits from black helos and Mirage jets due to the power of his chembusters. :rolleyes: Is this really a man that you should be quoting and befriending in your search for answers?

https://www.facebook.com/ChemtrailAwareness/posts/10151647947070396

The videos went when his YT Channel was taken down. Video description from Max.

24 May 2013, France, Mr Max Bliss....I was inside and heard the sudden fly by of this helicopter....I rushed outside with my camcorder to get a glimpse as it turned and came back over a second time. This is our 3rd black helicopter fly over that I am aware off....the first the following day after setting up our first chembuster.... another visit months later when I made more chembusters... This time may have been because I have started to add a glass jar of white vinegar inbetween the pipes on top of the base ( it may boost the effects), also in London on the Chemtrails Protest day, whilst being interviewed outside DEFRA, I got a chembuster out to discuss and talked about a black helicopter visiting me before... and amazingly right on cue (and filmed for the documentary) a Black helicopter appeared just above us... disappeared over the high buildings and then reappeared over us before flying away. I look forward to that clip in the upcoming documentary of the Chugaboom Tour. I could not see any markings or registration number on this helicopter and I got very close as it was approximately 100m above...there appeared a couple of flashes...that may have been navigation lights but I only saw the 2...which seemed odd. One thing is for certain....people are waking up and information being shared....only by reaching critical mass and the reality of the mass deception exposed will we the people STOP the insane agenda of world tyranny. Take responsibility back, realise we are all free and equal living in a system of slavery by consent because we do nothing, mostly because the majority are conditioned and do not realise....that is changing and will speed up with participation. Put the unity back into our community...PEACE 4 ALL
Content from External Source
 
I cite those explosive incidences as they were quotes from the Colonel who proposed the switch to JP-8 during the NATO single fuel concept conversion between 1988-1996. The year the conversion was complete, the chemtrail conspiracy began.

These are not coincidences.

ps. I spoke with Mick West on the phone for 45 minutes prior to releasing all of this. He knew nothing of the NATO Pipeline Committee, the Single Fuel Concept, or any of this, so quit acting like none of this is a surprise to you. K?
Yes, they are coincidences and nonsense.

Maybe it was the title of this paper which inspired the fantasy and nonsense of chemtrails.

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf
 
Maybe it was the title of this paper which inspired the fantasy and nonsense of chemtrails.
Yes...and again...(I try, I try)....

Let's use my very basic math to understand (hopefully) the "nonsense" that IS the myth of "chem"trails.

Please envision just ONE singular contrail....that is only 50-feet diameter, and ONE mile in length.

This is a total volume (per this Online Calculator of nearly 12 MILLION cubic feet! (Please use a 'radius' of 25 feet, and a "height" of 5,280 feet = one mile)...OK????

Now....such a "volume" is hard to imagine....unless you think of it as a CUBE....about 228 feet per side (228 x 228 x 228 = 11,852,352).

This can be "calculated" easily, online.

A 'cube' of the size mentioned above could ALSO be "envisioned" as a 20-story building, with a base of 228 by 228 feet.

(Interesting to note that the former WTC Towers 1 & 2 were only 208 feet wide!!)

Over and over again, this aspect of science is presented to "chem"trail 'believers'.

There DOES NOT EXIST an airplane capable of carrying that much "material" to "spray"!!!

Just NOT possible!!
 
Yes, they are coincidences and nonsense.

Maybe it was the title of this paper which inspired the fantasy and nonsense of chemtrails.

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf
I think that preserving the fun of the myth is probably why CTs seem to always skip the prominent disclaimer:

"This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only."
 
I agree that air traffic impact on the environment has to be focused on, given the growth rate we are seeing.
It will indeed become a huge problem for airlines.

However, it's obvious from the papers you quoted that there are two separate aspects to the exhaust of jet planes and its impact.
  • There is CO2 which acts directly by changing the properties of the atmosphere.
  • There is water which can have a trigger effect, causing induced cloud cover which in turn impacts the infrared 'budget' of the Earth surface.
Note that if we get rid of the CO2 by using hydrogen as energy source, there would still be water in the exhaust, no matter if direct combustion or fuel cells are used.

Now, do I understand you correctly in that you are trying to mix those two aspects of air traffic emissions in one word and give it an entirely different meaning than it has in the global usage?

Of course you are free to do so but if you don't explain your individual definition on every occasion you're using the word, you are deliberately misleading people.
 
I spoke with Mick West on the phone for 45 minutes prior to releasing all of this. He knew nothing of the NATO Pipeline Committee, the Single Fuel Concept, or any of this

I think "any of this" is perhaps rather too broad a description of my ignorance. I'd not heard of the NATO Pipeline Committee or the Single Fuel Concept, but they are hardly earth-shattering knowledge. Refueling logistics, that's all.


I cite those explosive incidences as they were quotes from the Colonel who proposed the switch to JP-8 during the NATO single fuel concept conversion between 1988-1996. The year the conversion was complete, the chemtrail conspiracy began.

These are not coincidences.

Not entirely no, but not perhaps in the way you suggest. The chemtrail conspiracy theory started as a conspiracy theory about JP-8 being a bit toxic. The "contrails don't persist" meme grew from that.
 
The chemtrail conspiracy theory started as a conspiracy theory about JP-8 being a bit toxic. The "contrails don't persist" meme grew from that.

Exactly. Back in the day when that happened, and you can read about it right here, usenet was the place to go for discussion about things. If you want to confirm things, do a usenet search for contrails(the [low -brow] descriptor "chemtrails" hadn't been coined yet) and you will see that the inception of the idea came about immediately after Richard Finke's email of 17 Sep. 1997, preceded by some talk radio rumors spread by Finke's cohort Larry Wayne Harris.

Jim's entrance into the field, which can be seen in his earliest posts here, came along when he was still enthralled with many ideas which got corrected through our help. At the present, he is still trying to salvage hiw Climateviewer site which it's clar he worked very hard to develop, and he feels he has a middle ground position where both chemtrail believers and Metabunk participants are extremists.

Though he says he doesn't argue semantics it's clear enough that his conflation amounts to exactly that, yet he soldiers on desperately hoping to set both parties straight.

He's tenacious and slightly stubborn, and perhaps there are unknown influences pushing him. In my opinion, most of his mistakes stem from technical mis-readings, exaggeration, and general CT thinking.
I hope he has a good year and continues the progress he has made over the past two seasons.
 
Max's mate Harry Rhodes has some exciting news! Apparently the 17th January 2015 is one for your diaries! Also "legal notices of observations" will be issued before the 2015 Paris Climate Action! Well Max likes it!:)

upload_2014-12-29_18-52-5.png

https://www.facebook.com/mrmaxbliss/posts/10152924421610396

https://www.facebook.com/harry.rhodes.750/posts/1517909895157544

Max has been busy taking some images of "Scala Waves" and Harry has been doing the "analysis". You couldn't make it up but guess what Harry has!



https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIS7ej_kkga78aciuDD1Jsg/videos
 
Harry bumbling about on the web! Barium and Aluminium results on DEFRA website and he comes up with the following!


Published on 29 Dec 2014
Well here are the test results from DEFRA`s own website and the Dept. of the Environment. WOW ! Speaks for itself. Seems like Easyjet, Ryan Air flying out of Ireland and a host of others have pummeled Wales !
Content from External Source
http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/non...data&network=rm&year=2013&pollutant=1146#view




Harry filming in Wolverhampton, UK.


Published on 19 Dec 2014
FOUR Chemtrail Weather Modification jets in action all together over my head in Wolverhampton. NO transponders ! This is very rare footage. Thursday 11th Dec 2014. 2.33pm. This is one for the FOIR
Content from External Source


Harry claims no transponders!

Very strange that aviation enthusiasts can monitor these aircraft and Harry can't!

They are four Royal Air Force Eurofighter Typhoons from RAF Coningsby, Lincolnshire.



http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=107777

Some of the Typhoons were detected on SBS


'14:11:38 HAVOC023 43C49A BS011/067 ZJ920-QO-A 1753 Eurofighter Typhoon FGR4 Royal Air Force/11 Squadron

14:11:41 HAVOC024 43C49F BS016/080 ZJ925-QO-R 6402 Eurofighter Typhoon FGR.4 Royal Air Force/11 Squadron'

Content from External Source
http://forum.scramble.nl/viewtopic.php?p=752708&sid=05d2de411d44f4231fac3d3f374e8520

Comment from Max! :rolleyes:

upload_2014-12-30_16-41-55.png
 
I think that preserving the fun of the myth is probably why CTs seem to always skip the prominent disclaimer:

"This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only."

Right... because think tank papers never make it to the real world right? Wrong. Owning the Weather in 2025 was presented at the US Army Test Technology Symposium in 1997, one year after the completion of AF2025. Judging by the slide notes, this was not just a thought experiment:

US military discusses future of Weather Warfare despite ENMOD ban
http://climateviewer.com/2013/11/16...-future-of-weather-warfare-despite-enmod-ban/


US. Army Developemental Test Command: http://web.archive.org/web/20070525030820/http://www.dtc.army.mil/tts/1997/proceed/abarnes/

Following the 1995 USAF brainstorming session, “Owning the Weather in 2025“, dreams of weather warfare become reality. In this document, Dr. Barnes explains the US militaries’ current weather modification capabilities and future intentions. This presentation was removed from the internet and recovered from archive.org by Jim Lee of ClimateViewer.com
TEST TECHNOLOGY SYMPOSIUM ’97
“THE ARMY AFTER NEXT, HOW WILL WE TEST?”

WEATHER MODIFICATION

Dr. Arnold Barnes
Phillips Lab/GPO
Hanscom Air Force Base, MA

AbstractCompressed Power Point File (729 Kb)
source: www.dtc.army.mil/tts/1997/proceed/abarnes/
View these documents on Scribd:

USAF Phillips Laboratory (AFMC) Geophysics Directorate on Scribd


Weather Modification Test Technology Symposium 1997 USAF Dr Arnold A Barnes Jr on Scribd

Content from External Source
 
You are not the bane of aviation, flight pollution is:

Hate Chemtrails? ACT NOW! Earthjustice sues EPA!
http://climateviewer.com/2014/12/30/hate-chemtrails-act-now-earthjustice-sues-epa/

EARTHJUSTICE WILL SUE EPA TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING POLLUTION FROM SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT
http://earthjustice.org/news/press/...bal-warming-pollution-from-ships-and-aircraft


Pushing EPA to regulate aviation greenhouse gas emissions
Posted on August 8, 2014 by Rick Piltz


On August 5, two environmental groups sent notice of intent to sue the Environmental Protection Agency for failure to comply with a court order that would lead toward regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. aviation. EPA has long delayed taking any steps to apply its Endangerment Finding to aircraft emissions. The groups first petitioned EPA to take action in 2007, the same year our report on the federal NextGen aviation planning program charged that the Bush administration was making a deliberate effort to disconnect aviation planning from the global warming problem. It seems that, as far as taking meaningful action is concerned, the Obama administration has continued to kick this can down the road.

Greenwire reported on August 5 (by subscription):

The Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth, which is represented byEarthjustice, filed a motion of intent to sue today to push EPA to promulgate rules for the aviation sector, citing a March 2012 order by a federal court directing the agency to consider whether aviation emissions contribute to climate change and should be regulated. The agency said at the time that it would take it 22 months to make that determination, and the groups note that it has exceeded that. …

The green groups argue that EPA should promulgate a rule for aviation emissions because they constitute 11 percent of the transportation sector’s carbon and are growing, and because it has already found that heat-trapping emissions are a danger to public health and well-being. [that’s right, contrails]

Full text of the letter is here. The letter includes this:

Section 231(a)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act … requires the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine whether emissions of greenhouse gases from aircraft engines cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. … If EPA determines that these emissions do contribute to such endangerment, it must propose and adopt standards to limit those emissions. … This mandatory duty was brought to EPA’s attention in 2007, when Earthjustice, on behalf of Friends of the Earth, the Center for Biological Diversity, Oceana, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, petitioned EPA to take this action. In July of 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia confirmed the mandate, holding that EPA’s duty to make an endangerment finding is compulsory. … Because, more than six and a half years after it received petitions to do so, EPA has still not made the mandatory endangerment finding or promulgated regulations to address greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft under section 231, the Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth intend to file suit for unreasonable delay. …

[In June 2012,] EPA acknowledged its obligation to conduct an endangerment finding for greenhouse gases from aircraft engines … Two years later, EPA has not yet taken even the preliminary step of issuing a draft endangerment finding for aircraft emissions (or of reaffirming that another endangerment finding for greenhouse gases is unnecessary, as EPA has repeatedly done in connection with regulating greenhouse gases from other sources2). …

By 2008, aviation was viewed as the fastest growing source of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide, increasing at a rate of nearly 5 percent per year.6 The International Civil Aviation Organization expects the trend to continue, projecting 4.9% annual growth in air passenger traffic7 and 5.2% annual growth in air freight traffic from 2010,8 more than doubling global air traffic by 2030.9 …

Because of the significant role that aircraft play in global climate change, and in light of the exponential growth projected in air travel, the United States must lead the way in regulating global warming pollutants from these sources. …

Based on this unreasonable and unjustifiable delay, the Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth intend to file suit against EPA 180 days from the date of this notice.

We first got interested in the U.S. government’s evasiveness on the problem of aviation and global warming in 2007, when an inside source called our attention to how the Bush administration was suppressing consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in connection with NextGen, a long-term, multiagency planning effort initiated that year and aimed at enabling the tripling of U.S. aviation traffic. The Bush administration tasked the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with implementing this Next Generation Air Transportation System. The FAA failed to consider climate change in any of its NextGen planning processes.

A report by Climate Science Watch released in July 2007 first publicized this failure by the FAA. The report concluded that the NextGen planning process involved a “deliberate effort to disconnect aviation planning from the global warming problem.” It highlighted the administration’s inattention to quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft in strategic planning for the development of the industry, and cautioned that continuing this omission could contribute to harmful effects on the environment and on the future of U.S. aviation. We called for aviation emissions to be addressed in U.S. climate change policy and regulation, and argued that federal aviation planning should focus on systematically reducing greenhouse gas emissions in order to position U.S aviation to meet future requirements. (Full text of the report: NextGen Air Transportation System Progress Reports Ignore Climate Change).

Five months later, in December 2007, a coalition of environmental groups including Earthjustice, Friends of the Earth, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a formal petition calling on EPA to exercise its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from domestic and foreign aircraft departing or landing at American airports. We called this action a significant step forward in advancing the issue of aviation and climate change, which had already been neglected for too long in the debate on climate policy. (Our report was cited as a source in the section of the petition on “Improved Aviation Operations and Procedures Can Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significantly.”)

EPA subsequently dragged its feet on responding to the petition. On July 5, 2011, a federal court ruled that EPA is required to make an Endangerment Finding for aircraft, i.e., that the agency must formally determine whether GHG emissions from aviation endanger public health and welfare. The agency did not act on this requirement, so the environmental groups took the agency back to court in March 2012.

Although the EPA determined that emissions from motor vehicles endanger public health and welfare, the EPA asserted that it would need to do a new Endangerment Finding specifically for aircraft, which would be time-consuming. They claimed the agency would have to start from scratch, make all the scientific findings all over again, respond to comments, and it would take them a couple of years. In the appeal, Earthjustice attorney Sarah Burt likened this process to re-proving the existence of the atom over and over again, while the knowledge is already at your disposal. Burt told us, “In the power plants rule EPA says, ‘if we have to do a CO2 Endangerment Finding for power plants we can just rely directly on the one we already did for Section 202 sources.’ This statement directly contradicted what EPA said in our case.”

The EPA argued that the agency has other regulatory priorities that take precedence over addressing aircraft emissions, and that the agency is focusing on the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, including motor vehicles and power plants. Thus, under both Bush and Obama, EPA has delayed for the past seven years on dealing with regulation of emissions of greenhouse gases from aviation — a delay that has now gotten to the point of violating its statutory responsibility under a court order.

In fact, the Obama administration doesn’t want to regulate emissions from U.S. aviation. Greenwire noted on August 5:

The Obama administration frequently has been at odds with its environmental allies over how to curb aviation emissions linked to climate change. The administration has opposed the European Union’s bid to unilaterally limit emissions from flights that pass through Europe under its Emissions Trading System, while greens support it. Instead, the administration has pushed for an international market-based measure under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organization. The international body last year did agree to craft such a mechanism by 2016 that would take force by 2020.

But advocates note that national action has spurred or strengthened international programs in the past, and CBD and FOE are urging EPA to promulgate rules in the meantime. They say they are skeptical that the ICAO process will yield meaningful reductions given the amount of influence that industry has over the body.

Reuters reported on July 25:

The newly appointed U.S. representative to the United Nations’ International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is optimistic that member states will agree to measures that will curb airplanes’ carbon emissions. …

[U.S. ICAO rep Michael] Lawson said that the efforts to regulate airline emissions globally were a part of the Obama administration’s Climate Action Plan.

We note that the very last sentence of the Climate Action Plan, on p. 21, concludes with this single clause:

; and at the International Civil Aviation Organization, we have ambitious aspirational emissions and energy efficiency targets and are working towards agreement to develop a comprehensive global approach.

Well, “working towards agreement to develop a comprehensive global approach” doesn’t sound like something that is likely to produce substantial emissions reductions any time soon, does it? Sounds like another diplomatic process almost guaranteed to tie things up for a number of years without anyone having to implement serious commitments.

It must be noted that, clearly, EPA is constantly under political siege by anti-regulatory interests, and has to battle for every step forward the agency is able to take. They have been one of the bright lights in an administration that can’t point to very many of those. Still, the environmentalist litigation is in the public interest.

Sure, it would be politically inconvenient for the White House political controllers to ease up on the brake pedal and let EPA do its job on this one. But it’s evident from years of experience that, in order to get it to do the right thing, this White House needs continual pressure from the progressive side. If they think they deserve to be regarded as strong on climate policy, they need to stop copping out on the aviation sector.

Earlier posts:

Climate Science Watch report: Federal NextGen aviation planning is ignoring global warming (July 18, 2007)

States and enviro groups petition EPA to regulate aviation greenhouse emissions (December 5, 2007)

Aviation and climate change: flying blind (November 13, 2012)

SEE ALSO
Publication Title Federal Register Volume 73, Issue 147 (July 30, 2008)
Category Regulatory Information
Collection Federal Register
SuDoc Class Number AE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
Publisher Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section Proposed Rules
Action Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Dates Comments must be received on or before November 28, 2008.
Contact Joe Dougherty, Office of Air and Radiation, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;


Telephone number: (202) 564–1659;
Fax number: (202) 564–1543;
E-mail address:
Dougherty.Joseph-J@epa.gov
Summary This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) presents information relevant to, and solicits public comment on, how to respond to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) authorizes regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they meet the definition of air pollutant under the Act. In view of the potential ramifications of a decision to regulate GHGs under the Act, the notice reviews the various CAA provisions that may be applicable to regulate GHGs, examines the issues that regulating GHGs under those provisions may raise, provides information regarding potential regulatory approaches and technologies for reducing GHG emissions, and raises issues relevant to possible legislation and the potential for overlap between legislation and CAA regulation. In addition, the notice describes and solicits comment on petitions the Agency has received to regulate GHG emissions from ships, aircraft and nonroad vehicles such as farm and construction equipment. Finally, the notice discusses several other actions concerning stationary sources for which EPA has received comment regarding the regulation of GHG emissions. The implications of a decision to regulate GHGs under the Act are so far-reaching that a number of other federal agencies have offered critical comments and raised serious questions during interagency review of EPA’s ANPR. Rather than attempt to forge a consensus on matters of great complexity, controversy, and active legislative debate, the Administrator has decided to publish the views of other agencies and to seek comment on the full range of issues that they raise. These comments appear in the Supplemental Information, below, followed by the June 17 draft of the ANPR preamble prepared by EPA, to which the comments apply. None of these documents represents a policy decision by the EPA, but all are intended to advance the public debate and to help inform the federal government’s decisions regarding climate change.
Agency Name ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Page Number Range 44354-44520
Federal Register Citation 73 FR 44354
RIN Number 2060-AP12
CFR Citation 40
Title 40 CFR Chapter 1
Docket Numbers EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318, FRL-8694-2
FR Doc Number E8-16432
Content from External Source
 
I agree that air traffic impact on the environment has to be focused on, given the growth rate we are seeing.
It will indeed become a huge problem for airlines.

However, it's obvious from the papers you quoted that there are two separate aspects to the exhaust of jet planes and its impact.
  • There is CO2 which acts directly by changing the properties of the atmosphere.
  • There is water which can have a trigger effect, causing induced cloud cover which in turn impacts the infrared 'budget' of the Earth surface.
Note that if we get rid of the CO2 by using hydrogen as energy source, there would still be water in the exhaust, no matter if direct combustion or fuel cells are used.

Now, do I understand you correctly in that you are trying to mix those two aspects of air traffic emissions in one word and give it an entirely different meaning than it has in the global usage?

Of course you are free to do so but if you don't explain your individual definition on every occasion you're using the word, you are deliberately misleading people.

I understand your point and respect your opinion. However, I see more than two issues:

  • Toxic chemicals, like the SARA313 chemicals in Stadis 450 and SPEC-Aid 8Q462, bio-accumulation issues may be present since Stadis 450 has been in use since 1962... not to mention the nanoparticle aspects...
  • Cloud creation - EPA will likely regulate ship track and contrail production as both are clearly pollution and affecting climate in multiple harmful ways
  • Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and yes the cryo-plane would just exacerbate that problem. They are planning a fusion powered plane in 10 years...
  • Biofuels: which ACCESS II is counting on as a cure-all for the BANE of aviation. Biofuels may reduce sulfur and knock down carbon black emissions, but in the end they will lead to more climate change as many studies are pointing out that ethanol production from corn husks are causing the current dust bowl conditions in California and the rest of the west coast.
  • Sulfuric Acid levels in the atmosphere are SKYROCKETING. Look up acid rain and remember planes are still making it despite the medias ban on the term.
  • and CO2 is last on my list
Now, I'm wondering when the Metabunk clan will stop seeing contrails through rose colored glasses and at least call it what it is while debunking: pollution.
 
Last edited:
Now, I'm wondering when the Metabunk clan will stop seeing contrails through rose colored glasses and at least call it what it is while debunking: pollution, not normal.

Do you mean not NATURAL? Certainly contrails are not NATURAL, but it is certainly NORMAL for aircraft to produce contrails when conditions are right.
 
Last edited:
Now, I'm wondering when the Metabunk clan will stop seeing contrails through rose colored glasses and at least call it what it is while debunking: pollution.

Jet airliners produce only a fraction of all air pollution that is emitted by the billions of other machines that burn petrochemical fuels.
 
Now, I'm wondering when the Metabunk clan will stop seeing contrails through rose colored glasses and at least call it what it is while debunking: pollution.
why would you claim that when Metabunk members repeatedly say to YOU it is pollution?
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/max-bliss-debates-chemtrails.1648/page-12#post-138123

even I know its pollution and i dont need to "feel it" to know it.
the pollution is there regardless. passengers are never going to go for that. I know I'm not paying a "humidity fee" for xtra gas cause some yokel doesn't want to move from under a flight path. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/help-me-to-understand-photos-and-videos-with-very-large-numbers-of-contrails.3509/page-2#post-135007
Content from External Source
do a site search for "pollution" and you will see dozens upon dozens of posts admitting planes cause pollution (ALL combustion produces pollutants). here's just a few examples.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/deadly-emissions-1-contribution-of-aviation-emissions-to-harmful-air-pollution.4561/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/bbc-longer-flights-to-curb-vapour-trails.3849/page-3#post-111698
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/14-years-of-chemtrails-comments-and-suggestions.100/page-6#post-137445
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-chemtrail-plane-and-other-unlabeled-photos-from-facebook-etc.1318/page-3#post-1076
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top