A cornucopia of news, opinion, views, facts and quirky bits that need to be talked about. Join our community and join in the conversation on all matters aviation. The blog includes our weekly round-up of the bits of European aviation you may otherwise have missed – That Was The Week That Was
Until recently, the aviation industry has been able to remain largely exempt from climate change targets. This is despite it accounting for around 3% of CO2 emissions. That does not sound like much; the industry spokespeople certainly want you to think it is not much, but it actually means that the aviation industry emits about the same amount of emissions as the UK. Anyone want to argue that the UK should not be subject to climate change mitigation targets?
Despite its best efforts to downplay its role, the industry is under fire to reduce its environmental impact, especially given that airline traffic (measured in RPK) is expected to increase by just under 5% per annum over the next 20 years.
Without some form of mitigation, at that rate of growth the aviation industry will look like much of Europe by 2035 from an emission perspective.
Faced with the threat of compulsory environmental targets, the industry is taking voluntary measures. A recent open letter signed by the CEOs of Airbus, Boeing, IATA, CANSO and EBAA amongst others has re-pledged to halve the industries net CO2 emissions by 2050, compared with a 2005 baseline. Given the expected growth in aviation travel, this will be a challenging target.
It is unclear whether this offer is having the desired effect. One minute aviation is off the agenda of the Paris climate meeting, COP21, coming up in December. The next, it is back on. Don’t be surprised if industry lobbyists manage to get if off again.
Reading between the lines, it is clear that the message from the aviation industry is that it deserves special treatment when it comes to climate targets.
The economic theory is that a harsher target would require the industry to adopt more expensive measures to tackle climate change, thereby increasing airfares. Higher fares means less people can afford to fly and as demand for air travel drops, so do the profits of the whole industry. Meanwhile connectivity decreases, economic growth slows and the end of the world is nigh. It’s no coincidence that the open letter was published on the website aviationbenefits.org.
Some of the environment movement would certainly support the theory that strict climate targets will reduce the number of flights taken. They would settle for, say, 10% less flying, equivalent to a reduction in emissions of Scotland perhaps.
But sometimes economic theory alone is not enough. The industry, and the environmentalists for that matter, need to be more persuasive. Where’s the analysis to show how much it would cost to meet different environmental targets, and therefore how much prices would increase? Where’s the empirical analysis to show how responsive demand would be to this increase in prices?
The aviation industry is guilty of relying on rhetoric and anecdotes in championing its cause. Whatever your argument, there’s an anecdote somewhere to support it. Start showing us the data and let’s have proper evidence-based discussions. We for one are open to being convinced.
