Available Balance
no more rain in my area in been raining for all most three month
May 31, 2017

rain rain my area had enough of it
why I am I sick and tired of the rain? one it been raining since the end of march and it all most June . why do I want the rain to stop.so I can make money that why ? how am I going to make money with the rain to stop?
as some of you know you seen my past post with my food cart. this is how I am going to make money with my food cart
by selling all beef hot dogs with natural casing on.but with the rain it rally making it hard to do the business . why did I get in to this kind of business here why one my job that I have does not have full time work, two they are cutting hours now. this is why I did not sell my stand, I need to make money and with this kind of business I know it what to do with this kind of business since I grow around the food business plus work in retail and fast food the past 30years so I am not a new be to the food business, I all so Have the Serf safe manger cerficate. It kind of a back up were it can help me get a job a asst. manger in a fast food place . I think that were the full time work is . but my goal is I want to have fun and make money and if this rain stop I can do it. In my area we got so much rain I think even the fish had enough rain to.creeks that were dry I think are now near flood levels this is nuts the weather is getting stranger every day. what do you think? is the weather strange by you to.
I say more rain in my area for the day time night time like mid night is OK

A Musing Adventure In Not-So-Explored Ilocos
May 29, 2017

My place, Ilocos, particularly Ilocos Sur got a beauty that not yet so explored by many local tourists and adventurers because it’s not a popular destination in the Philippines. It’s okay, anyway, our luxuriant place is not in a race to be offer to the tourists. Let us enjoy the amazing landscape of the hills and mountains, the green and lush of the bush, trees and forest, the unending flowing of the water in the river, and the coldness of the peak which cannot be feel in other places.

skyline in fog photo is mine

skyline in fog
photo is mine

The joy ride in the circumferential road is just so exhilarating. Exploring the beauty of the surrounding and enjoying the pristine nature. The of us that include Jun and his wife, the driver Willy and me, riding the automatic Mitsubishi  that started from 1pm and commenced in 7pm was just so full of adventure and thrill.

First of the destination is the Skyline of the town of Quirino. The peak that you need to drive through and went up that high highway is one of the stopped we made. It’s so happen the fog of the afternoon is covering the whole area and the rain is falling which make the photo session so hard. Still we sneak some good shot of the place in that cloudy moment.

Then we went down the highway to the Poblacion area of the town. It’s unbelievable that this very remote town, two hours of ride from the national road, will be funded of hundreds of millions of pesos for the betterment of more than 5,000 population of the town.

We stopped again, the bridge, which connecting the two villages. I slipped and almost lost my phone. Then we continue and travel in the cemented road stretched at the top of the hills. You can view the beauty of both sides of the mountains.

The last stopped is the legendary Bessang Pass. The temperature is colder compared to Skyline. The coldness is freezing because it’s also raining. But that didn’t stop us to have some photos. Then we did the most important thing in a cold place, drink a very hot coffee.

The coffee might be so comforting because it warms our trembling body but the most important thing that happen is seeing the beauty of the nature. The fog that numbs my arms is just another good experience and the droplets of rain falling from the pine tree.

One of the best joyride of my life.###

Fruiting Season Of Some Plants In Our Yard Now
May 26, 2017

It’s fruiting season now. Many trees in the backyard now are bearing fruits. The green, yellow and green colors of the fruits are hanging its deliciousness. What’s so good in growing your own fruit is it’s freshness that you can get. The fresher the fruit the more wellness it can give to our body.

20170526_153447Though it’s not yet in the category of farm but its good enough to grow some of these fruit bearing years in our backyard. Its enough to cater some of these plants and its good to see them flower and bear fruits.

So what are the fruit bearing plants we grow in the backyard?

  1. The native mango is almost in its last days of its season. The fruiting started last February and had the peak last month. The month of May is where the last of fruits are getting ripe. Lots of mangoes are still hanging in your tree. We have harvested few times and I think the remaining will be harvested this month of June.
  2. Dragon Fruit. Unlike the mango, dragonfruit is still in its starting fruiting. This May the flowers are blooming and after 30 days the red and juicy fruit with a white place can be served in the table. Dragonfruit is one of the wonderfruit because its vitamins and minerals packed in its fruit. The fruiting will last until the month of October.
  3. Another wonder fruit because of the health benefits it can give to our body. Though the banana is a yearlong fruiting but the season of raining is also the time when they grow better. And most of its blossoms come out. In the yard, we have the variety we called ‘tundal’.
  4. Last April we harvested few of the first fruits that ripen. Now, the other batch is getting bigger and by the month of July this can be harvested.

Aside from these plants we also have the yearlong fruiting plants like dwarf banana, makopa, guyabano and guavas.

It’s really wonderful to have this fruit bearing plants in the yard.

What technology startups look for when hiring a UI/UX designer
May 25, 2017

Over the past few years, the UI / UX designers have emerged as some of the most sought after IT professionals by major and minor IT corporations alike. The increasing popularity has led to a number of professionals taking up UI / UX designing as a career alternative, thus increasing the competition in the hiring circuit. To make sure you have an upper hand while appearing for a job interview, you must know what the technology startups look for when hiring a UI / UX designer. So here goes the list ““

Most of the companies look for specific skills

Very few companies, if any, would look to hire generic UI / UX designers who have working knowledge of all designing related aspects. Rather, most companies hire candidates who can fulfill their specific needs. The company’s website, app and the future growth plans determine the kind of designer the company is looking to hire. In most cases, the designer’s alignment with the company’s business ideas and thinking matters much more than his experience and skills.

A person who can take it to the next level

For an online business, UI / UX designers are some of the most critical employees in the company who can take the product to the next level. Since the designer would be at the centre of action at most of the times, the companies make sure that the person is capable enough to handle such pressure and expectations. If an employee shows a previous experience of 5 years, the company assesses the actual quality of the experience gained and the evolution of the product during those five years.

A candidate who is ready to accept his shortcomings

Stubbornness is the last trait any company wants in its employees, and more so for the designers. Half of the designer’s job is about accepting the feedback given and implementing it religiously. But if the designer is too proud of his work to accept any shortcomings, it creates a difficult situation for the company. A number of designers are offended when they are told about the deficiencies in their final outcome which hurts the entire project. The company rather looks for candidates who take this as an opportunity to learn and improve for the upcoming tasks.

“Make good stuff & Make stuff good”

One of the ground rules for hiring top designers is that he or she must “make good stuff and make stuff good”. The designers are essentially responsible for giving a digital form to the users’ words and ideas. Unless the designer has the ability to visualize the outcome based on the client’s inputs, he or she won’t be able to add value to the company. Interpretation of the user’s input, simplifying the entire process and designing the most appropriate solution is the algorithm that every designer has to be well versed in. Making the complex idea look simple and beautiful is what determines the designer’s prowess.

Testing them with a task

It is extremely hard to judge a candidate only on the basis of a conversation during the interview. Resultantly, most of the companies prefer assigning a small task to the candidates during the interview itself. The task is usually related to the eventual work the designer is expected to perform in the company. During such tasks, the companies make note of the thought process of the candidate, as much as they make note of the eventual outcome.

Portfolio mostly triumphs over experience

One of the most common dilemmas before the companies is whether to hire on the basis of the years of experience or the quality of portfolio. Bringing about a change in the previously held perceptions, the companies are now increasingly tilting towards portfolio rather than experience. Being in the industry for 7 to 8 years doesn’t account for much if the candidate doesn’t have the appropriate portfolio to showcase his or her worth and the prior projects undertaken.

Environmental impact of aviation in the United Kingdom
May 25, 2017

The environmental impact of aviation in the United Kingdom is increasing due to the increasing demand for air travel in the country. In the past 25 years the UK air transport industry has seen sustained growth, and the demand for passenger air travel in particular is forecast to increase more than twofold, to 465 million passengers, by 2030. Two airports; London Heathrow Airport and London Gatwick Airport, are amongst the top ten busiest airports in the world for international passenger traffic. Whilst more than half of all passengers travelling by air in the UK currently travel via the five London area airports, regional airports have experienced the most growth in recent years, due to the success of ‘no-frills’ airlines over the last decade.

The ability of the existing airport infrastructure to meet forecast demand is limited, and government policy published in 2003 supports the development of additional airport capacity by 2030 to address this. The strategy is generally based on making the best use of existing facilities, although an additional five new runways nationwide are considered to be necessary, three of them at the London airports of Stansted, Heathrow and, towards the end of the timeframe involved, Gatwick. This policy is designed to be a balanced and measured approach to the future of the air transport industry; one that recognises both an economic advantage in providing for growth in demand for air travel and also the need to address the consequent environmental impacts. The strategy has been criticised by the House of Commons Environmental Audit Select Committee, by environmentalist and campaign groups, and in research papers, for implementing a predict and provide model that overstates the economic advantages whilst paying insufficient heed to the environmental consequences.

Support for airport expansion is based on an economic case that regards the air transport industry not only as an important industry in its own right, but also as a facilitator of growth for the economy as a whole. One study predicts that the government’s strategy will realise an additional £13 billion per annum in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2030. Another study which is critical of the government approach, and which favours addressing environmental impacts through increased taxation of air transport, indicates a negative economic benefit resulting from airport expansion. In 2006 the industry was responsible for over 6 per cent of all UK carbon emissions, a figure that is set to rise as demand increases. Under current strategies of emissions reduction and growth in air transport, air travel in the UK could account for up to 50 per cent of the UK carbon budget by 2050. Industry attempts to address this issue are longer term efforts based on technological and operational improvements, whilst government policy is based on the inclusion of air transport within emissions trading schemes. Critics advocate a shift in government policy to address environmental impacts by constraining the growth in demand for air travel, primarily through the use of economic instruments to price air travel less attractively. Local environmental issues include noise and air quality, and the impact of these, particularly in the case of the former, is subject to debate. Government policy generally is that these are local issues best addressed locally, and has introduced legislation designed to facilitate this.
Air transport in the United Kingdom is a growth industry. In the period 1981 to 2006 the number of terminal passengers increased by 400 per cent and air transport movements by 250 per cent.[1][2] Although the transport of freight declined slightly year on year between 2004 and 2006, in the decade since 1996 air freight has increased by 31 per cent.[3] During the period in which government policy was being formulated the number of passengers exceeded 200 million, and in 2006 the industry handled over 236 million passengers (up 3 per cent from the previous year), with nearly 2.4 million air transport movements (up 1.8 per cent).[2][4][5]

Infrastructure Edit
Air traffic services for all UK airspace is provided by National Air Traffic Services (NATS), which also provides air traffic control at 15 airports.[6] The largest airport operator is BAA Limited, owner of six UK airports including London Heathrow airport.[7] In some cases airport ownership is in the hands of local government authorities rather than private businesses, and the largest UK owned operator, Manchester Airports Group, operator of Manchester Airport, Bournemouth Airport, East Midlands Airport, and Humberside Airport, is owned by a consortium of 10 Manchester area local authorities.[8] Whilst the number of airports in the UK runs into hundreds, many are smaller aerodromes dealing with general aviation rather than air transport. In terms of the latter, statistics are collected from 59 main airports, and the largest concentration of services is located in the London and South East of England areas.

Largest UK airports 2006
Heathrow is the largest airport in the country, handling over 67 million terminal passengers in 2006, making it the third busiest airport in the world, and the busiest if measured by the number of international passengers.[9][10] Nearly a third of all overseas residents visiting the UK enter the country via this airport, which also handles more than a fifth of all overseas visits by UK residents.[11] Even though there are no dedicated freight services operating out of Heathrow, the practise of transporting cargo in the holds of passenger aircraft means that this airport still accounts for more than half of all freight handled by UK airports.[12] Gatwick airport, with 34 million terminal passengers, is the second largest in the country, eighth busiest in the world for international passenger traffic, and lays claim to the busiest single runway airport in the world.[9][10][13] Between them the five London airports handle nearly 137 million terminal passengers, 59 per cent of the national total.[14] Stansted and East Midlands airports have both experienced large growth in freight handling over the past decade, and these two airports are the major hubs for express freight operations.[15]

Outside of London and the South East, the use of regional airports has increased dramatically in recent years, with the amount of air traffic using these facilities doubling in the period 1995 to 2005.[16] To illustrate this growth, in the five years from 2001 passenger numbers at the regional airports of Exeter International Airport, Bristol International Airport, and Newcastle Airport increased by 191 per cent, 113 per cent, and 60 per cent respectively. In the same period the largest airports experienced some of the slowest growth, with Heathrow passenger numbers increasing by 11 per cent, and those of Gatwick increasing by less than 10 per cent.
The majority of all passengers travelling by air to or from the UK are carried by UK airlines, of which there are around forty, and at the end of 2006 the UK air transport fleet numbered 963 aircraft, flying just under 1.2 million flights and averaging over eight hours of flying daily.[18][19] Together the two largest airlines as measured by passenger numbers; British Airways and easyJet, account for nearly half of the 127 million passengers flown on UK airlines. In terms of capacity, both available and used, British Airways is again the largest airline, whilst easyJet is pushed into third place by Virgin Atlantic Airways. British Airways passenger flights also account for over 50 per cent of all cargo carried by UK airlines, and when combined with its cargo operations the airline carries over 60 per cent of all cargo carried by UK airlines.[20]

The advent in the mid-1990s of ’no-frills’ carriers, such as easyJet, has had a significant impact on air travel in the UK. In 2005 these airlines carried 77.5 million passengers, up from just 4.3 million in 1996.[21] They are responsible for the growth of regional airports, operating from 35 airports in 2006 compared to 10 in 1996, and increasing the choice of international destinations, serving 150 in 2006, compared to 12 a decade earlier.[22][23] The annual rate of growth in the overall demand for air travel has remained stable since 1975, averaging 5.8 per cent annually.[24] Recent growth is being serviced by the no-frills airlines at the expense of traditional carriers which, since 2000, have experienced flat or declining traffic levels.[25][26] In response, traditional carriers have lowered costs to compete more effectively on price, leading to lower prices on the short haul routes serviced by this sector, especially in business fares.[27] They have also limited or reduced capacity and in some cases launched no-frills subsidiaries of their own.[28]

Passenger travel Edit

Passenger numbers 1981–2006
Just over a fifth of all terminal passengers are travelling on domestic routes only, whilst half are travelling between the UK and the rest of the European Union (EU).[29][30] Of the latter, travel between the UK and Spain, France, Germany and Italy account for around half, with Spain almost matching the other three combined in terms of passenger numbers. Outside of the EU, the United States, the Far East, Switzerland and the Middle East together account for just over half of all passengers flying between the UK and the rest of the world, with the USA exceeding the other three combined in terms of passenger numbers.[31] Air travel is the most popular mode of transport for visitors both to and from the UK. In 2005 it was used for 80 per cent of all visits by UK residents travelling overseas and by 74 per cent of all inbound visits.[32] Just over a quarter of all passengers are travelling on business.[33] The advent of no-frills carriers has had a significant effect on passenger travel profiles, with strong growth in business travel from regional airports, and increasing inbound traffic generated for the purposes of non-UK residents visiting friends and relatives based in the UK. Whilst these carriers have been perceived to democratise air travel, providing the opportunity for lower income groups to travel more often, the main result is actually that middle and higher income groups travel more often, and often for shorter trips.[34] Researchers have been raising concern about the globally increasing hypermobility of individuals, involving frequent and often long distance air travel and the resulting environmental and climate impacts.
The availability of airport capacity has been identified as an important constraint on the ability to meet the increasing demand for air travel. In many cases airport capacity is already fully used in meeting current demand. At Heathrow and Gatwick airports the runways are full for “… virtually the whole day”. In 2003 the runway at Birmingham airport was expected to reach full capacity by 2009 at the latest, whilst terminal capacity at Edinburgh airport had reached its limit.[36] Government forecasts that year predicted that by 2030 the number of passengers could rise to between 400 million passengers per annum (mppa) and 600 mppa, representing a two to threefold increase, and a figure of 500 mppa by 2030 was regarded by the government as robust.[4][37] In 2006 the government reported that at 228 mppa the demand for air travel the previous year was in line with the 2003 forecast, but also revised the forecast demand for 2030 downwards to 465 mppa as a result of capacity constraints, even taking into account proposed airport developments.[38]

Government and regulation Edit
The law governing aviation in the UK is defined by the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which is updated periodically with amendments, the latest being the Civil Aviation Act 2006.[39] The government department responsible for legislating changes in national policy and long term strategy relating to aviation is the Department for Transport (DfT). At the operational level the independently run Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) regulates economic, safety, and consumer protection aspects, as well as airspace policy, although these responsibilities are being increasingly ceded to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).[40] International aspects of air transport are regulated by agreements made within the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) as established by the Chicago Convention, whilst most new legislation is now made at the European level through the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC). As a consequence, other than in airport development, there are few aspects of the air transport industry in which the government can act in isolation.
Whilst airport development in the UK is subject to local planning authority processes, the government regards airports as an important part of the national infrastructure and which therefore requires their development to be planned with a strategic approach.[42] To support this, the government began a three-year public consultation process with the publication in December 2000 of The Future of Aviation consultation document. This outlined the issues underpinning air transport and sought views on how they should be addressed in any future policy.[43] One of the main questions asked was whether policy should focus on meeting demand or whether it should focus instead on limiting the negative effects of air transport. Another key issue for which views were sought was how the industry might best meet the environmental costs it incurs.[44] Between July 2002 and February 2003 a further seven regional consultation documents were published. These focussed on the economic, environmental, social and airspace appraisals relating to options for future airport development specific to the regions, and together they generated half a million responses. During the Spring of 2003 workshops based on a consultation document titled Aviation and the Environment – Using Economic Instruments were held to seek stakeholder views on the desirability and effectiveness of various financial measures that might address the environmental impacts of aviation.[45] The consultation process ended in December 2003 with the publication of The Future of Air Transport White Paper which detailed the government’s conclusions.

The White Paper does not in itself authorise or preclude any development, but seeks instead to define a “national strategic framework for the future development of airport capacity” over the next 30 years.[46] The principal conclusion is that the two extremes of failing to provide additional airport capacity, and encouraging growth without regard for the wider impacts, are equally unacceptable options. Instead a “balanced and measured approach” to the future of air transport in the UK is adopted.[47] This approach is designed to cater for the forecast growth in demand, thus supporting economic prosperity nationally and enabling ordinary people to travel at reasonable cost, whilst at the same time managing and mitigating the environmental impacts of aviation and ensuring that the costs associated with them are reflected in the price of air travel.[48] The strategy seeks to minimise new airport development by making best use of existing facilities, and specific policies.
In December 2006 the government published the Air Transport White Paper Progress Report 2006 to report on progress made in “… delivering a sustainable future for aviation.”[60] The report re-iterates the government’s commitment to the strategy defined in the original White Paper, stating that it “… strikes the right balance between economic, social and environmental goals.”[61] It also reports that; the extra runway at Edinburgh airport is now thought unlikely to be needed before 2020;[62] Bristol airport does not currently see a case to support extending its runway, although the option will be kept under review;[63] the additional runway at Stansted airport is not expected to be operational before 2015;[64] and the runway extension at Liverpool airport is now being proposed for early next decade.[65] Elsewhere, recent forecasts conducted for Birmingham airport indicate that a new runway will not be required there before 2030.[66]

Following the publication of the White Paper, the Project for the Sustainable Development of Heathrow (‘Project Heathrow’ for short) was set up to examine how expansion at Heathrow could best be accomplished within the constraints of the stringent environmental limits the White Paper required.[67] A provisional assessment indicates that increased usage of the existing runways could be realised without increasing the number of people affected by noise if ‘mixed mode’ operations (the simultaneous use of both runways for arrivals and departures) are phased in gradually as noisier aircraft are retired.[68] Indications ahead of the Project Heathrow environmental assessment indicate that increased noise and deterioration in air quality are likely to significantly constrain traffic using a new third runway. These issues are to be addressed as part of a three-month consultation beginning in December 2007, and considerable opposition is being mobilised against the expansion of Heathrow.
The aviation industry and the government have together commissioned two significant studies into the economic impact of air transport, both undertaken by the consultancy Oxford Economic Forecasting (OEF). The first; The Contribution of the Aviation Industry to the UK Economy, was published in 1999 and was used as a source of economic information in The Future of Air Transport White Paper.[71][72] The second study; The Economic Contribution of the Aviation Industry in the UK, co-sponsored by the national tourist agency VisitBritain, was published in October 2006 to extend and update the earlier report, and was used as a source in the Air Transport White Paper Progress Report 2006.[72][73] Both studies concluded that whilst aviation is an important industry in its own right, the most important contribution is as “… a facilitator of growth for the economy as a whole.”[74][75]

Environmental groups dispute the economic benefits that are claimed for air transport, and the OEF reports have been specifically challenged. The Aviation Environment Federation (AEF), publishing the Rebuttal of Oxford Economic Forecasting Report, has labelled the 2006 OEF report “biased and misleading”.[76] AirportWatch, an umbrella movement for national environmental organisations and airport community groups opposed to aviation expansion, has produced a critique of the 2006 OEF report and the DfT’s reliance on economic research that has been “… sponsored by the aviation industry.”[77] In response to government policy supporting further growth in aviation, Friends of the Earth (FoE) published Pie in the Sky in September 2006. This study concludes that the economic benefits of aviation have been exaggerated, and that the costs arising from environmental damage, as well as to other sectors of the economy, are ignored.[78] Also published in 2006, the Environmental Change Institute study Predict and decide – Aviation, climate change and UK policy re-examined the economic arguments made in favour of aviation, concluding that restricting future growth would not necessarily be detrimental to the economy, and could potentially result in some economic benefits.[79]

Direct economic impact Edit
In terms of direct impact on the UK economy, air transport is an £11.4 billion industry, a figure which represents 1.1 per cent of the country’s economy. It employs 186,000 people (full-time equivalents), and indirectly supports an additional 334,000 jobs, although the inclusion of indirect employment as an economic benefit of air transport is disputed.[80][81] In terms of productivity the aviation industry in 2004 was the third most productive, after the oil/gas extraction and utilities sectors, exceeding the national average by a factor of two and a half.[82] The industry is also very capital intensive, accounting for up to 3.5 per cent of total UK business investment in the period 2000 to 2004.[83] Air transport was directly responsible for £3.6 billion in tax and national insurance contributions in 2004/5, which includes £0.9 billion raised in Air Passenger Duty (APD), a figure set to double after APD rates were doubled in February 2007.[84] Because of the global nature of the industry, article 15 of the Chicago Convention effectively prevents the imposition of fuel duty on aviation, and the industry does not pay Value Added Tax (VAT). Environmental groups argue that these, along with duty-free sales, are iniquitous tax concessions valued at £9 billion annually.[85] Despite generating £6.9 billion in exports in 2004, representing 3 per cent of all UK exports and 7 per cent of the total export of services, the patronage in the UK of air transport services provided by overseas airlines resulted in a £3.3 billion balance of payments deficit attributable to the industry.
The government’s response to the challenges of an increasingly global economy is to build a “strong, modern knowledge economy”,[87] and the 2006 OEF study concludes that the UK economy is “…set to become increasingly dependent on aviation as the structure of the economy evolves.”[88] The availability of air transport services is regarded as an important factor in facilitating business activities, with benefits being realised in sales and marketing activities, customer and supplier relationships, the ability to serve a wider market, access to emerging markets, and more efficient production.[89] Within industry sectors that are likely to support the development of a knowledge based economy, such as pharmaceuticals, banking and finance, communication services, computer services etc., there is conflicting evidence about a correlation between growth in a sector and that sector’s use of air travel,[90] although survey results show that knowledge based services and high-tech manufacturing businesses are more dependent on air transport for sales than their more traditional economy counterparts.[91]

The most successful example of the country’s economic evolution is the international financial services industry based in London. Within this sector aviation services are seen as critically important for both businesses and their clients, even in the era of video-conferencing. London’s air transport services are widely regarded within the London business community surveyed by the OEF to provide a competitive advantage over the rest of Europe, and expansion of airport capacity in the South East has significant support.[92] Whilst these economic contributions are not disputed by environmental groups, they are not considered as sufficient justification to support further growth in air transport services which would primarily service increased demand for leisure travel rather than a business travel market which is already well served.[93]

Transport links generally are regarded as an important factor which affects a company’s decision on where to locate, and thus invest, although the latest survey shows quality of telecommunications moving above transport in importance.[94] Survey evidence indicates that a quarter of companies regard access to air services as an important factor in the decision of where in the UK to locate operations, whilst one in ten companies report that the absence of good air transport links has affected their decision to invest in the UK.[95] The survey has been criticised as suffering from a poor response rate and therefore open to bias,[96] though this issue has been recognised and rationalised by the report’s authors
Tourism is an industry where the influence of air transport services is more obvious. In 2005 some 22 million overseas visitors arrived by air, spending around £12 billion (1.1 per cent of GDP) and supporting 170,000 jobs in the tourist industry.[98] In the same year air travel also accounted for 36 million trips abroad by UK tourists, and UK tourists as a whole spend twice as much abroad as overseas visitors spend in the UK.[99] This has led to the assertion that aviation represents a “net negative effect” on the UK tourism industry, and that restraining demand for air travel would encourage more domestic tourism, with the consequent economic benefit of reducing the tourism deficit.[100]

Exports and imports by air in 2005 were estimated at £62.7 billion and £59.6 billion respectively, with a significant majority of air freight operations being conducted with countries outside of the EU,[12] and express freight operations transporting 5 per cent by value of all UK exports in 2004.[101] Whilst export/import facilities provide opportunities for international trade and competition, they are not without negative effect, and British horticulture is one example of domestic industry damaged by cheap imports.[102][103]

Forecast economic impact Edit
Attempts to quantify the economic impact of growth in the air transport sector generate results which depend on assumptions made, and therefore the viewpoint of the organisation making the analysis. The OEF study has produced a figure of £2.5 billion per annum of additional GDP by 2015 for Heathrow, or £7 billion per annum by 2030 if a third runway is built there. Full implementation of the White Paper runway proposals resulted in a forecast yield of an additional £13 billion per annum in GDP by 2030.[104] Calculations done for the AEF, based on a new runway at Stansted, and which assume increased taxation of the industry, result in a negative economic benefit.
External costs, also referred to as hidden costs, are quantifications of the environmental and climate impacts of air transport. Whilst setting a financial value on all such impacts is difficult to do precisely, figures have been produced for the most significant. In 2000 the government valued the annual cost of climate change induced by greenhouse gas emissions from UK air transport at £1.4 billion, rising to £4.8 billion per annum by 2030.[106] The impact of noise was costed at around £25 million per annum in 2000, and for the same year the impact on air quality was costed at between £119 million and £236 million per annum.[107] Based on figures produced by the European Environment Agency the AEF has calculated a much higher total external cost for 2000 of around £6 billion.[108]

Global environmental impact Edit

Contrails over London
Whilst carbon emissions from all UK activities other than aviation had declined by 9 per cent in the 10 years between 1990 and 2000, carbon emissions from aviation activities doubled in the same period.[109] Air transport in the UK accounted for 6.3 per cent of all UK carbon emissions in 2006.[110] When the radiative forcing impact of other emissions are taken into account the total impact of emissions attributable to aviation is estimated to be twice that of its carbon emissions alone.[111] Although the government has committed to reducing total UK carbon emissions by 60 per cent from existing levels by 2050, its policy is based on the use of “… economic instruments to ensure that growing industries are catered for within a reducing total.”[112] Even if this reduction in total carbon emissions is achieved, research published in February 2006 concluded that aviation could account for between 24 per cent and 50 per cent of the UK’s carbon budget by 2050.[113]

The government recognises that there are no viable alternative aviation fuels, and whilst it accepts that the exemption of aviation fuel from fuel tax is anomalous, it sees no scope for a unilateral approach in addressing this.[114] The strategy adopted in the White Paper seeks to mitigate the global impact of air transport primarily through emissions trading schemes. Although the Kyoto Protocol implemented emissions trading as a means to reduce emissions at national levels, the global nature of air transport means that all air travel is excluded from this mechanism. The government is seeking to redress this through the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), which has been working on the environmental issue since 1998, but progress is slow.[115] In the meantime efforts are being made to include aviation in the EU Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) with an original target to implement this by 2008.[116] In 2006 the government re-affirmed this policy as the best approach for addressing the climate change impacts of aviation, and current proposals aim at accomplishing this for all flights within the EU by 2011, with the scheme being extended to include all flights to and from the EU the following year.[
The aviation industry is seeking to reduce its climate change impacts by becoming more fuel efficient, and in the last 40 years fuel efficiency has more than doubled.[120] In June 2005, Sustainable Aviation; a joint initiative involving a number of UK airlines, airports, manufacturers and the air traffic service provider NATS, was launched with a vision statement relating to environmental issues of “…removing or minimising any negative impacts on the local and global environment…”.[121] One of its commitments is to achieve, by means of airframe, engine and air traffic management improvements, a 50% reduction in CO
2 emissions, and an 80% reduction in NOx emissions in new aircraft of 2020 relative to new aircraft in 2000. These are however long term aspirations, and whilst progress is being made in engine development, the more immediate efforts of Sustainable Aviation to address climate change are directed towards supporting research, common reporting of emissions, emissions trading, and personal offsetting.[122][123]

Critics of an expansionist policy consider the EU ETS to be too late and to price carbon too low to adequately mitigate the climate change impact of aviation emissions.[124] Instead they advocate addressing these impacts by constraining demand for air travel. The study Predict and Decide – Aviation, climate change and UK policy, noting that a 10 per cent increase in fares generates a 5 to 15 per cent reduction in demand, recommends that the government should seek an alternative aviation policy based on managing demand rather than providing for it.[125] This would be accomplished via a strategy that presumes “… against the expansion of UK airport capacity” and constrains demand by the use of economic instruments to price air travel less attractively.[126] In another study the levying of £9 billion of taxes is calculated to constrain the forecast growth in demand by 2030 to 315 million passengers, reducing the annual rate of growth to 2 per .

Have you heard about Environmental impact of aviation ???
May 25, 2017

The environmental impact of aviation occurs because aircraft engines emit heat, noise, particulates and gases which contribute to climate change[1][2] and global dimming.[3] Among others airplanes emit particles and gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapor, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, lead and black carbon which interact among themselves and with the atmosphere.[4]

Despite emission reductions from automobiles and more fuel-efficient and less polluting turbofan and turboprop engines, the rapid growth of air travel in recent years contributes to an increase in total pollution attributable to aviation. From 1992 to 2005, passenger kilometers increased 5.2% per year. And in the European Union, greenhouse gas emissions from aviation increased by 87% between 1990 and 2006.[5]

Comprehensive research shows that despite anticipated efficiency innovations to airframes, engines, aerodynamics and flight operations, there is no end in sight – even many decades out – to rapid growth in CO2 emissions from air travel and air freight,[6][7] due to projected continual growth in air travel.[8][9] This is because international aviation emissions have escaped international regulation up to the ICAO triennial conference in October 2016 agreed on the CORSIA offset scheme[citation needed], and because of the lack of taxes on aviation fuel worldwide, lower fares become more frequent than otherwise which gives a competitive advantage over other transportation modes.[citation needed] Unless market constraints are put in place this growth in aviation’s emissions will result in the sector’s emissions amounting to all or nearly all of the annual global CO2 emissions budget by mid-century, if climate change is to be held to a temperature increase of 2 °C or less.[10]

There is an ongoing debate about possible taxation of air travel and the inclusion of aviation in an emissions trading scheme, with a view to ensuring that the total external costs of aviation are taken into account.
Like all human activities involving combustion, most forms of aviation release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases into the Earth’s atmosphere, contributing to the acceleration of global warming[12] and (in the case of CO2) ocean acidification.[13] These concerns are highlighted by the present volume of commercial aviation and its rate of growth. Globally, about 8.3 million people fly daily (3 billion occupied seats per year), twice the total in 1999.[14] U.S. airlines alone burned about 16.2 billion gallons of fuel during the twelve months between October 2013 and September 2014.[15]

In addition to the CO2 released by most aircraft in flight through the burning of fuels such as Jet-A (turbine aircraft) or Avgas (piston aircraft), the aviation industry also contributes greenhouse gas emissions from ground airport vehicles and those used by passengers and staff to access airports, as well as through emissions generated by the production of energy used in airport buildings, the manufacture of aircraft and the construction of airport infrastructure.[16]

While the principal greenhouse gas emission from powered aircraft in flight is CO2, other emissions may include nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide (together termed oxides of nitrogen or NOx), water vapour and particulates (soot and sulfate particles), sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide (which bonds with oxygen to become CO2 immediately upon release), incompletely burned hydrocarbons, tetraethyllead (piston aircraft only), and radicals such as hydroxyl, depending on the type of aircraft in use.[17] Emissions weighting factor (EWFs) i.e., the factor by which aviation CO2 emissions should be multiplied to get the CO2-equivalent emissions for annual fleet average conditions is in the range 1.3–2.9.[18]

Mechanisms and cumulative effects of aviation on climate Edit
In 1999 the contribution of civil aircraft-in-flight to global CO2 emissions was estimated to be around 2%.[17] However, in the case of high-altitude airliners which frequently fly near or in the stratosphere, non-CO2 altitude-sensitive effects may increase the total impact on anthropogenic (human-made) climate change significantly.[17] A 2007 report from Environmental Change Institute / Oxford University posits a range closer to 4 percent cumulative effect.[19] Subsonic aircraft-in-flight contribute to climate change[17] in four ways:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) Edit
CO2 emissions from aircraft-in-flight are the most significant and best understood[20] element of aviation’s total contribution to climate change. The level and effects of CO2 emissions are currently believed to be broadly the same regardless of altitude (i.e. they have the same atmospheric effects as ground based emissions). In 1992, emissions of CO2 from aircraft were estimated at around 2% of all such anthropogenic emissions, and that year the atmospheric concentration of CO2 attributable to aviation was around 1% of the total anthropogenic increase since the industrial revolution, having accumulated primarily over just the last 50 years.
At the high altitudes flown by large jet airliners around the tropopause, emissions of NOx are particularly effective in forming ozone (O3) in the upper troposphere. High altitude (8–13 km) NOx emissions result in greater concentrations of O3 than surface NOx emissions, and these in turn have a greater global warming effect. The effect of O3 concentrations are regional and local (as opposed to CO2 emissions, which are global).[citation needed]

NOx emissions also reduce ambient levels of methane, another greenhouse gas, resulting in a climate cooling effect. But this effect does not offset the O3 forming effect of NOx emissions. It is now believed that aircraft sulfur and water emissions in the stratosphere tend to deplete O3, partially offsetting the NOx-induced O3 increases. These effects have not been quantified.[21] This problem does not apply to aircraft that fly lower in the troposphere, such as light aircraft or many commuter aircraft.
One of the products of burning hydrocarbons in oxygen is water vapour, a greenhouse gas. Water vapour produced by aircraft engines at high altitude, under certain atmospheric conditions, condenses into droplets to form Condensation trails, or contrails. Contrails are visible line clouds that form in cold, humid atmospheres and are thought to have a global warming effect (though one less significant than either CO2 emissions or NOx induced effects).[22] Contrails are extremely rare from lower-altitude aircraft, or from propeller-driven aircraft or rotorcraft.

Cirrus clouds have been observed to develop after the persistent formation of contrails and have been found to have a global warming effect over-and-above that of contrail formation alone. There is a degree of scientific uncertainty about the contribution of contrail and cirrus cloud formation to global warming and attempts to estimate aviation’s overall climate change contribution do not tend to include its effects on cirrus cloud enhancement.[20] However, a 2015 study found that artificial cloudiness caused by contrail “outbreaks” reduce the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures. The former are decreased and the latter are increased, in comparison to temperatures the day before and the day after such outbreaks.[23] On days with outbreaks the day/night temperature difference was diminished by about 6F° in the U.S. South and 5F° in the Midwest.[24]

Particulates Edit
Least significant is the release of soot and sulfate particles. Soot absorbs heat and has a warming effect; sulfate particles reflect radiation and have a small cooling effect. In addition, they can influence the formation and properties of clouds.[25] All aircraft powered by combustion will release some amount of soot.

Greenhouse gas emissions per passenger kilometre Edit
Averaged emissions Edit
Emissions of passenger aircraft per passenger kilometre vary extensively because of differing factors such as the size and type aircraft, the altitude and the percentage of passenger or freight capacity of a particular flight, and the distance of the journey and number of stops en route. Also, the effect of a given amount of emissions on climate (radiative forcing) is greater at higher altitudes: see below. Some representative figures for CO2 emissions are provided by LIPASTO’s survey of average direct emissions (not accounting for high-altitude radiative effects) of airliners expressed as CO2 and CO2 equivalent per passenger kilometre:[26]

Domestic, short distance, less than 463 km (288 mi): 257 g/km CO2 or 259 g/km (14.7 oz/mile) CO2e
Domestic, long distance, greater than 463 km (288 mi): 177 g/km CO2 or 178 g/km (10.1 oz/mile) CO2e
Long distance flights: 113 g/km CO2 or 114 g/km (6.5 oz/mile) CO2e
These emissions are similar to a four-seat car with one person on board;[27] however, flying trips often cover longer distances than would be undertaken by car, so the total emissions are much higher. For perspective, per passenger a typical economy-class New York to Los Angeles round trip produces about 715 kg (1574 lb) of CO2 (but is equivalent to 1,917 kg (4,230 lb) of CO2 when the high altitude “climatic forcing” effect is taken into account).[28] Within the categories of flights above, emissions from scheduled jet flights are substantially higher than turboprop or chartered jet flights. About 60% of aviation emissions arise from international flights, and these flights are not covered by the Kyoto Protocol and its emissions reduction targets.[29]

Figures from British Airways suggest carbon dioxide emissions of 100g per passenger kilometre for large jet airliners (a figure which does not account for the production of other pollutants or condensation trails).[30]

Emissions by passenger class, and effects of seating configuration Edit
In 2013 the World Bank published a study of the effect on CO2 emissions of its staff’s travel in business class or first class, versus using economy class.[31]
A related article by the International Council on Clean Transport notes further regarding the effect of seating configurations on carbon emissions that:[33]

The A380 is marketed as a “green giant” and one of the most environmentally advanced aircraft out there. But that spin is based on a maximum-capacity aircraft configuration, or about 850 economy passengers. In reality, a typical A380 aircraft has 525 seats. Its fuel performance is comparable to that of a B747-400 ER and even about 15% worse than a B777-300ER on a passenger-mile basis (calculated using Piano-5 on a flight from AUH to LHR, assuming an 80% passenger load factor, and in-service fleet average seat counts).
In attempting to aggregate and quantify the total climate impact of aircraft emissions the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that aviation’s total climate impact is some 2-4 times that of its direct CO2 emissions alone (excluding the potential impact of cirrus cloud enhancement).[17] This is measured as radiative forcing. While there is uncertainty about the exact level of impact of NOx and water vapour, governments have accepted the broad scientific view that they do have an effect. Globally in 2005, aviation contributed “possibly as much as 4.9% of radiative forcing.”[29] UK government policy statements have stressed the need for aviation to address its total climate change impacts and not simply the impact of CO2.[34]

The IPCC has estimated that aviation is responsible for around 3.5% of anthropogenic climate change, a figure which includes both CO2 and non-CO2 induced effects. The IPCC has produced scenarios estimating what this figure could be in 2050. The central case estimate is that aviation’s contribution could grow to 5% of the total contribution by 2050 if action is not taken to tackle these emissions, though the highest scenario is 15%.[17] Moreover, if other industries achieve significant cuts in their own greenhouse gas emissions, aviation’s share as a proportion of the remaining emissions could also rise.

Future emission levels Edit
Even though there have been significant improvements in fuel efficiency through aircraft technology and operational management as described here, these improvements are being continually eclipsed by the increase in air traffic volume.

A December 2015 report finds that aircraft could generate 43 Gt of carbon pollution through to 2050, consuming almost 5% of the remaining global climate budget. Without regulation, global aviation emissions may triple by mid-century and could emit more than 3 Gt of carbon annually under a high-growth, business-as-usual scenario. Efforts to bring aviation emissions under an effective global accord have so far largely failed, despite there being a number of technological and operational improvements on offer.[35][36]

Continual increases in travel and freight Edit
From 1992 to 2005, passenger kilometers increased 5.2% per year, even with the disruptions of 9/11 and two significant wars. Since the onset of the current recession:

During the first three quarters of 2010, air travel markets expanded at an annualized rate approaching 10%. This is similar to the rate seen in the rapid expansion prior to the recession. November’s results mean the annualized rate of growth so far in Q4 drops back to around 6%. But this is still in line with long run rates of traffic growth seen historically. The level of international air travel is now 4% above the pre-recession peak of early 2008 and the current expansion looks to have further to run.[37]

Air freight reached a new high point in May (2010) but, following the end of inventory restocking activity, volumes have slipped back to settle at a similar level seen just before the onset of recession. Even so, that means an expansion of air freight during 2010 of 5-6% on an annualized basis – close to historical trend. With the stimulus of inventory restocking activity removed, further growth in air freight demand will be driven by end consumer demand for goods which utilize the air transport supply chain. … The end of the inventory cycle does not mean the end of volume expansion but markets are entering a slower growth phase.
In a 2008 presentation[12] and paper [38] Professor Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research showed how continued aviation growth in the UK threatens the ability of that nation to meet CO2 emission reduction goals necessary to contain the century-end temperature increase to even 4 or 6C°. (See also: the 4 Degrees and Beyond International Climate Conference (2009)[39] and its proceedings.)[40] His charts show the projected domestic aviation carbon emission increase for the UK as growing from 11 MT in 2006 to 17 MT in 2012, at the UK’s historic annual emission growth rate of 7%. Beyond 2012 if the growth rate were reduced to 3% yearly, carbon emissions in 2030 would be 28 MT, which is 70% of the UK’s entire carbon emissions budget that year for all sectors of society. This work also suggests the foreseeable future which confronts many other nations that have high dependency on aviation. “Hypermobile Travelers”,[41] an academic study by Stefan Gössling et al. (2009) in the book “Climate Change and Aviation”,[42] also points to the dilemma caused by the increasing hypermobility of air travelers both in particular nations and globally.[43]

Scope for improvement Edit
Aircraft efficiency Edit
While it is true that late model jet aircraft are significantly more fuel efficient (and thus emit less CO2 in particular) than the earliest jet airliners,[44][45] new airliner models in the first decade of the 21st Century were barely more efficient on a seat-mile basis than the latest piston-powered airliners of the late 1950s (e.g. Constellation L-1649-A and DC-7C).[45] Claims for a high gain in efficiency for airliners over recent decades (while true in part) has been biased high in most studies, by using the early inefficient models of jet airliners as a baseline. Those aircraft were optimized for increased revenue, including increased speed and cruising altitude, and were quite fuel inefficient in comparison to their piston-powered forerunners.[45]

Today, turboprop aircraft – probably in part because of their lower cruising speeds and altitudes (similar to the earlier piston-powered airliners) compared to jet airliners – play an obvious role in the overall fuel efficiency of major airlines that have regional carrier subsidiaries.[46] For example, although Alaska Airlines scored at the top of a 2011-2012 fuel efficiency ranking, if its large regional carrier – turbo-prop equipped Horizon Air – were dropped from the lumped-in consideration, the airline’s ranking would be somewhat lower, as noted in the ranking study.

Aircraft manufacturers are striving for reductions in both CO2 and NOx emissions with each new generation of design of aircraft and engine.[47] While the introduction of more modern aircraft represents an opportunity to reduce emissions per passenger kilometre flown, aircraft are major investments that endure for many decades, and replacement of the international fleet is therefore a long-term proposition which will greatly delay realizing the climate benefits of many kinds of improvements. Engines can be changed at some point, but nevertheless airframes have a long life.[citation needed] Moreover, rather than being linear from one year to the next the improvements to efficiency tend to diminish over time, as reflected in the histories of both piston and jet powered aircraft.[45]

A 2014 life-cycle assessment of the cradle-to-grave reduction in CO2 by a carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) airliner such as a Boeing 787 – including its manufacture, operations and eventual disposal – has shown that by 2050 such aircraft could reduce the airline industry’s CO2 emissions by 14-15%, compared use of conventional airliners.[48] The benefit of CFRP technology is not higher than that amount of reduction, despite the lighter weight and substantially lower fuel consumption of such aircraft, “because of the limited fleet penetration by 2050 and the increased demand for air travel due to lower operating costs.”
Research projects such as Boeing’s ecoDemonstrator program have sought to identify ways of improving the efficiency of commercial aircraft operations. The U.S. government has encouraged such research through grant programs, including the FAA’s Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) program, and NASA’s Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) Project.

Adding an electric drive to the airplane’s nose wheel may improve fuel efficiency during ground handling. This addition would allow taxiing without use of the main engines.[33][34][35] [49][50][51]

Another proposed change is the integrating of an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System to the airstrips of airports. Some companies such as Airbus are currently researching this possibility. The adding of EMALS would allow the civilian aircraft to use considerably less fuel (as a lot of fuel is spend during take off, and in comparison, less during flight – when calculated per km flown). The idea is to have the aircraft take off at regular aircraft speed, and only use the catapult for take-off, not for landing.[52][53]

Other opportunities arise from the optimisation of airline timetables, route networks and flight frequencies to increase load factors (minimise the number of empty seats flown),[54] together with the optimisation of airspace. However, these are each one-time gains, and as these opportunities are successively fulfilled, diminishing returns can be expected from the remaining opportunities.

Another possible reduction of the climate-change impact is the limitation of cruise altitude of aircraft. This would lead to a significant reduction in high-altitude contrails for a marginal trade-off of increased flight time and an estimated 4% increase in CO2 emissions. Drawbacks of this solution include very limited airspace capacity to do this, especially in Europe and North America and increased fuel burn because jet aircraft are less efficient at lower cruise altitudes.[55]

While they are not suitable for long-haul or transoceanic flights, turboprop aircraft used for commuter flights bring two significant benefits: they often burn considerably less fuel per passenger mile, and they typically fly at lower altitudes, well inside the tropopause, where there are no concerns about ozone or contrail production.
Some scientists and companies such as GE Aviation and Virgin Fuels are researching biofuel technology for use in jet aircraft.[56] Some aircraft engines, like the Wilksch WAM120 can (being a 2-stroke Diesel engine) run on straight vegetable oil. Also, a number of Lycoming engines run well on ethanol.

In addition, there are also several tests done combining regular petrofuels with a biofuel. For example, as part of this test Virgin Atlantic Airways flew a Boeing 747 from London Heathrow Airport to Amsterdam Schiphol Airport on 24 February 2008, with one engine burning a combination of coconut oil and babassu oil.[56] Greenpeace’s chief scientist Doug Parr said that the flight was “high-altitude greenwash” and that producing organic oils to make biofuel could lead to deforestation and a large increase in greenhouse gas emissions.[56] Also, the majority of the world’s aircraft are not large jetliners but smaller piston aircraft, and with major modifications many are capable of using ethanol as a fuel.[57] Another consideration is the vast amount of land that would be necessary to provide the biomass feedstock needed to support the needs of aviation, both civil and military.[58]

In December 2008, an Air New Zealand jet completed the world’s first commercial aviation test flight partially using jatropha-based fuel. Jatropha, used for biodiesel, can thrive on marginal agricultural land where many trees and crops won’t grow, or would produce only slow growth yields.[59][60] Air New Zealand set several general sustainability criteria for its Jatropha, saying that such biofuels must not compete with food resources, that they must be as good as traditional jet fuels, and that they should be cost competitive with existing fuels.[61]

In January 2009, Continental Airlines used a sustainable biofuel to power a commercial aircraft for the first time in North America. This marks the first sustainable biofuel demonstration flight by a commercial carrier using a twin-engined aircraft, a Boeing 737-800, powered by CFM International CFM56-7B engines. The biofuel blend included components derived from algae and jatropha plants.[62]

One fuel biofuel alternative to avgas that is under development is Swift Fuel. Swift fuel was approved as a test fuel by ASTM International in December 2009, allowing the company to continue their research and to pursue certification testing. Mary Rusek, president and co-owner of Swift Enterprises predicted at that time that “100SF will be comparably priced, environmentally friendlier and more fuel-efficient than other general aviation fuels on the market”.[63][64]

As of June 2011, revised international aviation fuel standards officially allow commercial airlines to blend conventional jet fuel with up to 50 percent biofuels. The renewable fuels “can be blended with conventional commercial and military jet fuel through requirements in the newly issued edition of ASTM D7566, Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuel Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons”.[65]

In December 2011, the FAA announced it is awarding $7.7 million to eight companies to advance the development of drop-in commercial aviation biofuels, with a special focus on ATJ (alcohol to jet) fuel. As part of its CAAFI (Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuel Initiative) and CLEEN (Continuous Lower Emissions, Energy and Noise) programs, the FAA plans to assist in the development of a sustainable fuel (from alcohols, sugars, biomass, and organic matter such as pyrolysis oils) that can be “dropped in” to aircraft without changing current infrastructure. The grant will also be used to research how the fuels affect engine durability and quality control standards.[66]

Finally, liquified natural gas is another fuel that is used in some airplanes. Besides the lower GHG emissions (depending from where the natural gas was obtained from), another major benefit to airplane operators is the price, which is far lower than the price for jet fuel.
The German video short The Bill[67] explores how travel and its impacts are commonly viewed in everyday developed-world life, and the social pressures that are at play. British writer George Marshall has investigated common rationalizations that act as barriers to making personal choices to travel less, or to justify recent trips. In an informal research project, “one you are welcome to join”, he says, he deliberately steered conversations with people who are attuned to climate change problems to questions about recent long-distance flights and why the travel was justified. Reflecting on actions contrary to their beliefs, he noted, “(i)ntriguing as their dissonance may be, what is especially revealing is that every one of these people has a career that is predicated on the assumption that information is sufficient to generate change – an assumption that a moment’s introspection would show them was deeply flawed.”[68]

Business and professional choices Edit
With most international conferences having hundreds if not thousands of participants, and the bulk of these usually traveling by plane, conference travel is an area where significant reductions in air-travel-related GHG emissions could be made. … This does not mean non-attendance. (Reay 2004)
For example, by 2003 Access Grid technology has already been successfully used to host several international conferences,[69] and technology has likely progressed substantially since then. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research has been systematically studying means to change common institutional and professional practices that have led to large carbon footprints of travel by research scientists, and issued a report. (Le Quéré et al. 2015).[70][71][72]

Ending incentives to fly—frequent flyer programs Edit
Over 130 airlines have “frequent flyer programs” based at least in part on miles, kilometers, points or segments for flights taken. Globally, such programs included about 163 million people as reported in 2006.[73] These programs benefit airlines by habituating people to air travel and, through the mechanics of partnerships with credit card companies and other businesses, in which high profit margin revenue streams can amount to selling free seats for a high price.

how to have a real star trek at home
May 24, 2017

If you like Star Trek you know the main mission
is to explore. not to fight battles. How do we at home on earth do our own star trek? This how we can do it one there a lot of place on earth to learn about like our oceans man kind know more about space then earth it self. For the people on a budget .channels like or shows like river monsters, the discovery channel
even history. Now if you have the time start with your home town every town has some kind of spiecal area that people can explore,hiking, when I go hiking some times we run in to what use to be old stone homes form very long time ago .did they burn down no they just roted away from no one taken care of them because no one know they existed in the woods. Other place to explore if you like scuba diving is the area lake now you are getting closer to star trek How. one when you are under water you need oxygen. two the wait under water the gravity is a lot lighter. Plus some things in that live in the water do look like aliens from other planet. and they are just from our planet earth. when you get time go to you tube and look up strange fish of the ocean it very interesting to see what rally there that not fake, I not sure if lB let us post you tube links but here I am not going to do it. my other writing site I have no problem with posting you tube link as long as that what I am talking about.If I could this on Lb site then I would have more post on here by now,OK that it for this one,

What do you understand by Emergency sanitation ????
May 21, 2017

Emergency sanitation is the management and technical processes required to provide access to sanitation in emergency situations such as after natural disasters and during relief operations for refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). There are three phases: Immediate, short term and long term. In the immediate phase, the focus is on managing open defecation, and toilet technologies might include very basic latrines, pit latrines, bucket toilets, container-based toilets, chemical toilets.

Providing handwashing facilities and management of fecal sludge are also part of emergency sanitation.
The term “Emergency” is perceived differently by different people and organisations. In a general sense, an emergency may be considered to be a phenomenon originating from a man-made and/or natural disaster which posess a serious, usually sudden threat to the health or welbeing of the affected community which relies on external assistance to easily cope up with the situation.[1]

There are different categories of emergency depending on its time frame, whether it lasts for few weeks, several months or years.[1]

The number of people who are and will be affected by catastrophes (human crisis and natural disasters), which are increasing in magnitude and frequency, is rapidly increasing. The affected people are subjected to such dangers as temporary homelessness and risks to life and health.[2]
To address the problem of public health and the spread of dangerous diseases that come as a result of lack of sanitation and open defecation, humanitarian actors focus on the construction of, for example, pit latrines and the implementation of hygiene promotion programmes.[3]

The supply of drinking water in an urban-setting emergency has been improved by the introduction of standardised, rapid deployment kits.

In the immediate emergency phase, the focus is on managing open defecation, and toilet technologies might include very basic latrines, pit latrines, bucket toilets, container-based toilets, chemical toilets. The short term phase might also involve technologies such as urine-diverting dry toilets, septic tanks, decentralized wastewater systems.
The provision of sanitation programmes is usually more challenging than water supply as it provides a limited choice of technologies.[3][4] This is exacerbated by the overwhelming and diverse needs of WASH.[4]

Challenges with excreta disposal in emergencies include:

Building Latrines in areas where pits cannot be dug, desludging latrines, no-toilet options and the final treatment or disposal of the fecal sludge.[5]
Weak community participation and finding hygiene promotion designs that are suitable for a given context to make the WASH interventions sustainable.
Newly arriving IDP or refugee populations can usually only be settled in less than ideal ares, such as land that is prone to regular flooding or which is very dry and with rocky ground.[citation needed] This makes the provision of safe sanitation facilities and other infrastructure very difficult.
In long running emergencies, the safe decommissioning or desludging of previously quickly built sanitation facilities can also become a serious challenge.[citation needed]
Humanitarian actors need to understand the importance of better preparation and resilience and the need for exit strategies and have consideration on the environment.
Civil defense, civil defence (see spelling differences) or civil protection is an effort to protect the citizens of a state (generally non-combatants) from military attacks and natural disasters. It uses the principles of emergency operations: prevention, mitigation, preparation, response, or emergency evacuation and recovery. Programs of this sort were initially discussed at least as early as the 1920s and were implemented in some countries during the 1930s as the threat of war and aerial bombardment grew. It became widespread after the threat of nuclear weapons was realized.

Since the end of the Cold War, the focus of civil defense has largely shifted from military attack to emergencies and disasters in general. The new concept is described by a number of terms, each of which has its own specific shade of meaning, such as crisis management, emergency management, emergency preparedness, contingency planning, emergency services, and civil protection.

In some countries, civil defense is seen as a key part of “total defense”. For example, in Sweden, the Swedish word totalförsvar refers to the commitment of a wide range of resources of the nation to its defense – including to civil protection. Respectively, some countries (notably the Soviet Union) may have or have had military-organized civil defense units (Civil Defense Troops) as part of their armed forces or as a paramilitary service.

Some Natural Disasters people experienced
May 21, 2017

A natural disaster is a major adverse event resulting from natural processes of the Earth; examples include floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, and other geologic processes. A natural disaster can cause loss of life or property damage,[1] and typically leaves some economic damage in its wake, the severity of which depends on the affected population’s resilience, or ability to recover and also on the infrastructure available.[2]

An adverse event will not rise to the level of a disaster if it occurs in an area without vulnerable population.[3][4] In a vulnerable area, however, such as Nepal during the 2015 earthquake, an earthquake can have disastrous consequences and leave lasting damage, requiring years to repair.
A landslide is described as an outward and downward slope movement of an abundance of slope-forming materials including rock, soil, artificial, or even a combination of these things.[5]

During World War I, an estimated 40,000 to 80,000 soldiers died as a result of avalanches during the mountain campaign in the Alps at the Austrian-Italian front. Many of the avalanches were caused by artillery fire.[6][7]

Earthquakes Edit
See also: Lists of earthquakes
An earthquake is the result of a sudden release of energy in the Earth’s crust that creates seismic waves. At the Earth’s surface earthquakes manifest themselves by vibration, shaking and sometimes displacement of the ground. Earthquakes are caused by slippage within geological faults. The underground point of origin of the earthquake is called the seismic focus. The point directly above the focus on the surface is called the epicenter. Earthquakes by themselves rarely kill people or wildlife. It is usually the secondary events that they trigger such as building collapse, fires, tsunamis (seismic sea waves) and volcanoes. Many of these could possibly be avoided by better construction, safety systems, early warning and planning.
When natural erosion or human mining makes the ground too weak to support the structures built on it, the ground can collapse and produce a sinkhole. For example, the 2010 Guatemala City sinkhole which killed fifteen people was caused when heavy rain from Tropical Storm Agatha, diverted by leaking pipes into a pumice bedrock, led to the sudden collapse of the ground beneath a factory building.
Volcanoes can cause widespread destruction and consequent disaster in several ways. The effects include the volcanic eruption itself that may cause harm following the explosion of the volcano or falling rocks. Second, lava may be produced during the eruption of a volcano, and so as it leaves the volcano the lava destroys many buildings, plants and animals due to its extreme heat . Third, volcanic ash generally meaning the cooled ash – may form a cloud, and settle thickly in nearby locations. When mixed with water this forms a concrete-like material. In sufficient quantity ash may cause roofs to collapse under its weight but even small quantities will harm humans if inhaled. Since the ash has the consistency of ground glass it causes abrasion damage to moving parts such as engines. The main killer of humans in the immediate surroundings of a volcanic eruption is the pyroclastic flows, which consist of a cloud of hot volcanic ash which builds up in the air above the volcano and rushes down the slopes when the eruption no longer supports the lifting of the gases. It is believed that Pompeii was destroyed by a pyroclastic flow. A lahar is a volcanic mudflow or landslide. The 1953 Tangiwai disaster was caused by a lahar, as was the 1985 Armero tragedy in which the town of Armero was buried and an estimated 23,000 people were killed.

A specific type of volcano is the supervolcano. According to the Toba catastrophe theory, 75,000 to 80,000 years ago a supervolcanic event at Lake Toba reduced the human population to 10,000 or even 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a bottleneck in human evolution.[8] It also killed three-quarters of all plant life in the northern hemisphere. The main danger from a supervolcano is the immense cloud of ash, which has a disastrous global effect on climate and temperature for many years.
It is a violent, sudden and destructive change either in quality of earth’s water or in distribution or movement of water on land below the surface or in atmosphere.

Floods Edit
See also: List of floods
A flood is an overflow of water that ‘submerges’ land.[9] The EU Floods Directive defines a flood as a temporary covering by water of land which is usually not covered by water.[10] In the sense of ‘flowing water’, the word may also be applied to the inflow of the tides. Flooding may result from the volume of water within a body of water, such as a river or lake, which overflows causing the result that some of the water escapes its usual boundaries.[11] While the size of a lake or other body of water will vary with seasonal changes in precipitation and snow melt, it is not a significant flood unless the water covers land used by man like a village, city or other inhabited area, roads, expanses of farmland, etc.

Limnic eruptions Edit
Main article: Limnic eruption
A limnic eruption occurs when a gas, usually CO2, suddenly erupts from deep lake water, posing the threat of suffocating wildlife, livestock and humans. Such an eruption may also cause tsunamis in the lake as the rising gas displaces water. Scientists believe landslides, volcanic activity, or explosions can trigger such an eruption. To date, only two limnic eruptions have been observed and recorded. In 1984, in Cameroon, a limnic eruption in Lake Monoun caused the deaths of 37 nearby residents, and at nearby Lake Nyos in 1986 a much larger eruption killed between 1,700 and 1,800 people by asphyxiation.

Tsunami Edit
Main article: Tsunami
A tsunami (plural: tsunamis or tsunami; from Japanese: 津波, lit. “harbour wave”; English pronunciation: /tsuːˈnɑːmi/), also known as a seismic sea wave or as a tidal wave, is a series of waves in a water body caused by the displacement of a large volume of water, generally in an ocean or a large lake. Tsunamis can be caused by undersea earthquakes such as the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami, or by landslides such as the one in 1958 at Lituya Bay, Alaska, or by volcanic eruptions such as the ancient eruption of Santorini. On March 11, 2011, a tsunami occurred near Fukushima, Japan and spread through the Pacific.
Blizzards are severe winter storms characterized by heavy snow and strong winds. When high winds stir up snow that has already fallen, it is known as a ground blizzard. Blizzards can impact local economic activities, especially in regions where snowfall is rare. The Great Blizzard of 1888 affected the United States, when many tons of wheat crops were destroyed, and in Asia, 2008 Afghanistan blizzard and the 1972 Iran blizzard were also significant events. The 1993 Superstorm originated in the Gulf of Mexico and traveled north, causing damage in 26 states as well as Canada and leading to more than 300 deaths.[12]

Cyclonic storms Edit
Cyclone, tropical cyclone, hurricane, and typhoon are different names for the same phenomenon, which is a cyclonic storm system that forms over the oceans. The determining factor on which term is used is based on where they originate. In the Atlantic and Northeast Pacific, the term “hurricane” is used; in the Northwest Pacific it is referred to as a “typhoon” and “cyclones” occur in the South Pacific and Indian Ocean.

The deadliest hurricane ever was the 1970 Bhola cyclone; the deadliest Atlantic hurricane was the Great Hurricane of 1780 which devastated Martinique, St. Eustatius and Barbados. Another notable hurricane is Hurricane Katrina, which devastated the Gulf Coast of the United States in 2005.

Droughts Edit
Main article: Drought
Drought is the unusual dryness of soil, resulting in crop failure and shortage of water and for other uses which is caused by significant low rainfall than average over a prolonged period. Hot dry winds, shortage of water, high temperatures and consequent evaporation of moisture from the ground can contribute to conditions of drought.

Well-known historical droughts include the 1997–2009 Millennium Drought in Australia led to a water supply crisis across much of the country. As a result, many desalination plants were built for the first time (see list). In 2011, the State of Texas lived under a drought emergency declaration for the entire calendar year and severe economic losses.[13] The drought caused the Bastrop fires.

Thunderstorms Edit
Main article: Thunderstorm
Severe storms, dust clouds, and volcanic eruptions can generate lightning. Apart from the damage typically associated with storms, such as winds, hail, and flooding, the lightning itself can damage buildings, ignite fires and kill by direct contact. Especially deadly lightning incidents include a 2007 strike in Ushari Dara, a remote mountain village in northwestern Pakistan, that killed 30 people,[14] the crash of LANSA Flight 508 which killed 91, and a fuel explosion in Dronka, Egypt caused by lightning in 1994 which killed 469.[15] Most lightning deaths occur in the poor countries of America and Asia, where lightning is common and adobe mud brick housing provides little protection.[16]
Hailstorms are rain drops that fall as ice, rather than melting before they hit the ground. A particularly damaging hailstorm hit Munich, Germany, on July 12, 1984, causing about $2 billion in insurance claims.

Heat waves Edit
Main article: Heat wave
A heat wave is a period of unusually and excessively hot weather. The worst heat wave in recent history was the European Heat Wave of 2003. A summer heat wave in Victoria, Australia, created conditions which fuelled the massive bushfires in 2009. Melbourne experienced three days in a row of temperatures exceeding 40 °C (104 °F) with some regional areas sweltering through much higher temperatures. The bushfires, collectively known as “Black Saturday”, were partly the act of arsonists. The 2010 Northern Hemisphere summer resulted in severe heat waves, which killed over 2,000 people. It resulted in hundreds of wildfires which causing widespread air pollution, and burned thousands of square miles of forest.
A tornado is a violent and dangerous rotating column of air that is in contact with both the surface of the earth and a cumulonimbus cloud, or the base of a cumulus cloud in rare cases. It is also referred to as a twister or a cyclone,[17] although the word cyclone is used in meteorology in a wider sense, to refer to any closed low pressure circulation. Tornadoes come in many shapes and sizes, but are typically in the form of a visible condensation funnel, whose narrow end touches the earth and is often encircled by a cloud of debris and dust. Most tornadoes have wind speeds less than 110 miles per hour (177 km/h), are approximately 250 feet (80 m) across, and travel a few miles (several kilometers) before dissipating. The most extreme tornadoes can attain wind speeds of more than 300 mph (480 km/h), stretch more than two miles (3 km) across, and stay on the ground for dozens of miles (perhaps more than 100 km).
Wildfires are large fires which often start in wildland areas. Common causes include lightning and drought but wildfires may also be started by human negligence or arson. They can spread to populated areas and can thus be a threat to humans and property, as well as wildlife. Notable cases of wildfires were the 1871 Peshtigo Fire in the United States, which killed at least 1700 people, and the 2009 Victorian bushfires in Australia.

Today Is Worldwide Endangered Species Day
May 19, 2017

This is the third Friday of May and has been designated as Endangered Species Day.

1. Vaquita– Only 30 individuals of this rarest of marine mammal still survive. They live off the northern Gulf of California and are sometimes drowned or caught in nets by illegal fishing operations. The Mexican government is implementing a captive breeding program and have spent $100 million on their conservation.

2. Amur Leopard– Lives in northeast China and southeast Russia. Their fur grows to 3 inches. There are only about 60 of these cats left. In the leopards still existing researches have found very low genetic diversity which means this indicates inbreeding. This may have been going on for several generations and can happen even without human influence.

3. Sumatran Elephant– Nearly 70 percent of this elephant’s natural habitat has been destroyed in only one generation. They eat a wide variety of plants and deposit seed around their range which makes them play a vital role in the area’s ecosystem. Their population has dropped 80 percent in the past 25 years. The World Wildlife Fund is working with local groups to cut down on poaching and to create protected areas.

4. Hawksbill Turtle– These live in the world’s tropical oceans spending most of their time around coral reefs. They are often killed for their colorful shells and meat. Their eggs are also eaten around the world. They live for up to 50 years and weight up to 150 pounds.

5. Javan Rhino– Only 63 of these most endangered rhinoceros survive in a national park in Indonesia. Living in extremely dense jungle very little is known about their way of life. The adults only come together occasionally to mate.

6. Malayan Tiger– This beautiful tiger lives in the southern tip of Thailand and on the Malay Peninsula. Human kill the tigers because they prey on livestock and this could be one reason their population is in decline. They are also poached for a medicine made from their bones and for their meat.

7. Mountain Gorilla– Even though Dian Fossy’s research brought them international attention their are only two populations of them left. They remain in four national parks in Uganda, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. They live in mountain regions of 8-13,000 feet and thier long fur allows them to live in freezing temperatures. They can stand up to four feet tall and the adults weigh up to 440 pounds.

8. Saola (or Asian unicorn)– These animals are found only in the Annamite Mountains of Laos and Vietnam. Their were dubbed the unicorn nickname due to the two sharp horns that can reach 20 inches. They are cousins to antelope, goats and cattle. They were first discovered in May of 1992.

9. Cross River Gorilla– One of the world’s rarest great ape it lives in the mountains and forested hills of the Cross River on the Cameroon and Nigeria border. There is said to be only 200 to 300 of these alive. They have been displaced in large areas that was their traditional range. They seem to be fighting back by throwing branches, soil and grass at any humans that approach them.

10. Bornean Orangutan– This largest tree dwelling animal is native to the island of Borneo that is in the South Pacific. These are the slowest to breed of all mammals.