s the United States and other wealthy nations refused to make any concessions to further limit carbon emissions or to consider funding poorer nations impacted by current policies, the United Nations Climate Change Conference closed in Doha, Qatar, last Friday amidst news of a devastating typhoon that struck the Philippines.
     Yeb Sana, the Philippines envoy to the Doha conference choked back tears while pleading to other representatives to do more, as climate activists continued to protest inside the conferences, asking conferees to come up with some advancement toward capping carbon emissions.
     Those local and international activists, gathered inside the conference center under a giant statue of a spider, demanded urgent action to address climate change and reach some kind of accord that would help the developing world cover the rising costs of mitigating global warming.

     But in the end it appears that there was no deal in Doha for Climate Change 2012, unless agreeing to an eight-year extension (to 2020) of the Kyoto Protocol, the only legally binding U.N. pact for combating global warming, is considered progress.
     Kyoto (U.S. agreed but never ratified) now obliges about 35 industrialized countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions by an average of at least 5.2 percent below 1990 levels during the period 2008-12.
     Nations will pick their own targets for 2020.
     However as time marches on, backers of Kyoto will dwindle to a group including the European Union, Australia, Ukraine, Switzerland, and Norway—all of which account for less than 15 percent of world greenhouse gas emissions.
     About the best thing that came out of Doha was the admittance of many more women delegates to the next gathering of Climate Change Conference in 2013.
     It is hoped that more women delegates as negotiators will perhaps break the log jam of maintaining the status quo, which appears to be that of dangerous inaction to what some scientists and now even the World Bank has said is looming, critical, climate danger.
     FlyingTypers is based in New York City—on October 29th, Hurricane Sandy shut Gotham down, causing widespread destruction, loss of life, and more than $60 billion in damage. The superstorm left thousands homeless and disrupted life in the greatest city in the world.
     Our series asking air cargo what it is doing about our collective responsibility to the environment concludes here.
     But the effort to address this critical issue continues on.
     We ask you, dear reader, to lend your voice to our effort, and write to geoffrey@aircargonews.com with your thoughts and concerns.
Geoffrey

On Friday November 30, FlyingTypers began an exclusive series that ends today. Leaders of the air cargo business spoke up about what their companies are doing to create a better footprint, as concerns mount about global warming.
FT spoke to a diverse group including Cathay Pacific Cargo, Aeromexico Cargo, Air Canada Cargo, and also seasoned top air cargo executives and industry leaders. Their comments can be accessed here:

Ever since IATA hosted its landmark gathering in Geneva in 2009 under former DG Giovanni Bisignani, pledging to save 500,000 tons of carbon gas emissions per year, the spotlight has been on the industry to move its environmental responsibility further towards a smaller carbon footprint.

We asked IATA to outline its current position in terms of the environment and air cargo as 2012 comes to a close.

Please describe the IATA Cargo commitment to the environment?
IATA Cargo, in partnership with industry stakeholders and governments, is focused on developing sensible environmental policies to enable sustainable and eco-efficient air transport. The industry is committed to the aviation sustainability goals of 1.5 percent fuel efficiency per year to 2020, capping emissions through carbon neutral growth from 2020, and cutting net emissions of 50 percent by 2050 (compared to 2005). The overall IATA position on matters of environmental policy also advocates that global environmental solutions are developed through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

What are the challenges?
Two environmental challenges stand out for Cargo operations: one is the tendency in some countries to introduce tougher night operating restrictions and the other is the growing desire among customers (retailers/consumer associations) for carbon labeling or shippers for the transportation carbon footprint. For the latter, air cargo needs to do more work on the establishment of an industry standard carbon calculator.

What should environmentalists, our colleagues, and people in general know about IATA Cargo's effort toward these issues?

Firstly, air carriers have improved their fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions by 16 percent over the past 10 years. An additional efficiency gain of 17 percent is expected between 2010 and 2020, mainly through huge investment in new aircraft.
     Secondly, night operating restrictions should only be considered as part of the ICAO Balanced Approach process. This means that authorities should only consider such restrictions after a thorough evaluation has been carried of all available noise mitigation measures to see how the maximum environmental benefit can be achieved most cost effectively. Night operating restrictions can have a serious impact on the economy, next-day delivery services, freight services, home-based charters, and intercontinental flights. They can also increase daytime congestion. Needless to say, these measures should not be used lightly.
     Lastly, IATA Cargo is working with concerned stakeholders to find ways to properly determine the carbon footprint of cargo shipments and to communicate this information in a fair and transparent manner. However, the complexity of the exercise and the large number of stakeholders involved mean that progress in this area has perhaps been slower than expected.

What initiatives and programs are in place or planned toward lowering carbon emissions?

IATA Cargo is working with the whole industry, including shippers, forwarders, manufacturers, airports, air navigation, and others to reduce carbon emissions where possible, following our four-pillar strategy: Investing in technology; Improving operational efficiency; Building and using efficient infrastructure; and using Positive economic instrument to provide incentives where necessary. Specific Cargo initiatives and programs include the following:
     The industry-led eCargo initiatives, initially encompassing eAWB and eFreight, are designed to reduce the amount of paper involved in the air cargo transportation process. By moving to electronic data we can reduce the weight of paper transported, thus lowering fuel burn and carbon output as well as avoiding unnecessary paper production in the first place.
     A further benefit of data delivery prior to shipment delivery at airport of origin is reduced waiting times for unloading vehicles, and thus reduced fuel burn and carbon emissions associated with the freight departure process.
     IATA also seeks to work with industry suppliers to produce lighter weight ULDs and other transportation containers and packaging materials.

he introduction of reliable, rechargeable, portable power has probably changed our daily lives as much as the invention of electricity itself. The Lithium Ion battery (LIB) is now the standard power source for Laptop computers and tablets, cell phones, GPS units, hand-tools, yard tools, and even small appliances.
     Lithium Ion batteries are small and lightweight, with energy density twice that of Nickel Metal Hydride and six times that of Lead Acid. Although Lithium Ion battery technology was first proposed in the 1970s, it took until 1991 for the first, mass-produced batteries to be introduced commercially.
     One of the reasons that it took so long to develop a commercial Lithium Ion battery was the inherent safety issues surrounding this technology. The same energy density that makes this technology so effective can also concentrate a lot of heat in a very small space—think of how hot your cellphone gets when you’ve been on it for a long time. Numerous combinations of electrode materials and organic electrolyte compounds were tested in an attempt to achieve the balance of higher performance and improved safety. Additionally, today’s Lithium Ion batteries are actually small computers themselves. This explains why an unused battery will lose approximately 5 percent of its charge per month—the battery powers itself. The control functions of the battery’s computer are responsible for such things as temperature monitoring, voltage control, and charge state. The temperature control acts like a thermostat and will shut the battery down if the temperature gets too high. An additional safety feature includes pressure vents to prevent the explosion of an over-heated cell. It is here where we find the potential for danger: Overheating in a pressurized cell, plus electrically energized materials, all contained in a combustible liquid electrolyte.
     Inside a Lithium Ion battery cell, positive and negative electrodes are separated by a very thin piece of material that allows the ions to pass through in one direction during charging, and the other direction during use or discharge. These electrodes are contained within a metal case filled with the liquid electrolyte. If the electrodes come in contact with each other, a short circuit occurs and the cell will heat up very rapidly, causing thermal run-away. When this happens, the cell can rupture and ignite, sending a stream of flaming electrolyte onto adjacent materials. The heat from one cell can also provide an ignition source for other cells, creating a chain reaction. Possible causes of a short circuit can include physical damage, possibly from dropping a device, improper installation of a battery, and in rare cases, a manufacturing defect. By the end of 2011, there had been 17 reported fire incidents involving Lithium or Lithium Ion batteries onboard passenger planes according to the FAA. The FAA also reported numerous cargo fire events involving Lithium Ion batteries in ground sort facilities, and ULDs—both in the air and on the ground. Improper packaging has been the likely cause in most of these fires, which have involved both known and unknown shippers. Some in the Airline, Battery Manufacturing, and Electronics industry want stricter enforcement of existing UN guidelines on safe manufacturing and testing of batteries, according to a Bloomberg article. (Battery-Fire Crashes Seen Every Other Year as U.S. Rules Fought, Dec 21, 2011). Another possible solution adopted by some cargo carriers is an increased level of fire suppression onboard the aircraft.
     For many years, the mainstay of aircraft fire suppression has been Halon 1301 and Halon 1211. Both of these agents are very effective at suppressing a fire, and very efficient in the use of weight and space on aircraft. However, both are Ozone Depleting Substances, (ODS), and the production of these agents was halted at the end of 1993. While a reasonable supply of reclaimed agent is still available, it has been nearly 20 years and a “Pound-for-Pound, Drop-In” replacement has yet to be developed.
     A cargo fire on an aircraft presents its own set of unique characteristics. The fire can be obstructed and deep-seated, smoldering or flaming, and it can also be of a Class A, B, C or D type of fire. While an electronic device containing a Lithium Ion battery may be the source of ignition, it can also ignite anything in proximity, creating a very difficult suppression challenge.
     Extensive, full-scale fire testing has shown the fine Water Mist System technology used by Firetrace to be very effective at maintaining control of a fire for up to 4 hours inside a ULD. It accomplishes this by providing multiple discharge capabilities at specific temperature set points. Since it is pneumatic, there is no power required for actuation. The water mist is able to penetrate obstructed areas, and acts to prevent ignition of surrounding material, while suppressing the initial source of the fire. It also maintains temperature control, providing further assurance that the fire will not spread to adjacent containers. The system itself takes very little space inside a ULD, (3 cu ft.), and weighs less than 50 lbs. Additionally, since this system is installed inside the ULD, the container is protected whether on the ground, in transit, or in the air.
     Another approach uses a proprietary system installed on the aircraft itself. This system uses a fire fighting foam that is automatically delivered to a specific ULD identified as having a fire within it. Both systems are quite effective, and are an addition to current requirements for fire protection on aircraft.
     Aerosol Generators have been successfully tested and shown to maintain control of a fire inside a ULD for up to 4 hours as well. They do this by inhibiting combustion at the molecular level and creating a relatively inert atmosphere within the container, but do not offer the cooling effect of either water mist or foam.
     Regardless of increased enforcement efforts, enhanced fire suppression systems, or some combination of the two, Lithium Ion battery production will continue to increase, as will their shipment by air. According to the Bloomberg article mentioned previously, over 4 Billion units were produced in 2010 and production could approach 8 Billion units by 2020. Whether these batteries are properly packed and labeled by their manufacturer, or packed, shipped, or checked by individuals, the possibility of another serious incident also continues to increase.

David Hoffman
Firetrace International

Sources:
US DOT, FAA - SAFO 10017, 10/8/2012 “Risks in Transporting Lithium Batteries in Cargo by Aircraft”
Bloomberg, Alan Levin – Dec 21, 2011 “Battery-Fire Crashes Seen Every Other Year as U.S. Rules Fought, Dec 21, 2011”
www.howstuffworks.com “How Lithium Ion Batteries Work”
DOT/FAA/AR-10/31 “Fire Protection for the Shipment of Lithium Batteries in Aircraft cargo Compartments”

Larry Coyne
Chief Executive Officer
Coyne Airways

Nancy Childers
Starlight Airlines

Get On Board Air Cargo News FlyingTypers
For A Free Subscription
Click Here To Subscribe

If You Missed Any Of The Previous 3 Issues Of FlyingTypers
Click On Image Below To Access

FT113012