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
In this, our second article on the role of aviation in climate change, we look at the expected growth in aviation emissions and how the industry plans to limit the impact of these increases.
While the estimates of GHG emissions from aviation discussed in our previous article are being widely used in current discussion on climate change, many of these estimates are already 10-15 years out of date. Given that the aviation industry is regarded as one of the fastest-growing polluters, its share of global emissions is now likely even higher. Consider also that since 2000 global GHG emissions have increased by an average of 2.5% per year. Even if aviation’s share has remained constant, the actual volume will have increased.
It is also worth noting that all the figures discussed so far are global totals, and that aircraft emissions contribute significantly more to climate change in the more mature aviation markets. In the US, currently the largest aviation market and also one of the world’s highest polluters, aviation accounts for 2.2% of GHG emissions while in Europe the figure is higher at around 3% – more than twice the global rate – and the UK is estimated to derive 6% of its total GHG emissions from aviation. This is particularly relevant given demand for air travel is expected to increase significantly over the next 20 years as new markets mature.
As the negotiations in Paris get underway, it is also worth noting that if GHG emissions from aviation are omitted from global discussions on climate change, any resulting country-specific targets will be skewed in favour of those countries with already mature aviation markets.
It is estimated that by 2050, albeit in the worst case, CO2 emissions from aviation could account for over 20% of the global total. This is not surprising given historic evidence. Between 1990 and 2012, revenue passenger kilometres (a measure of demand for air travel) increased from around two billion to over five billion and, as a result, CO2 emissions from aviation increased by an estimated 80%. Demand for air travel is expected to more than double again by as early as 2034.
In September, the Air Transport Action Group (ATAG), on behalf of the aviation industry re-pledged to cap net CO2 emissions from 2020, and to reduce net CO2 emissions to half of the 2005 levels by 2050. No mention was made of the other GHGs or pollutants from aviation. Nevertheless, it is clear that they will face an immense challenge if they are to meet this target and given historic evidence, it would not be unreasonable to question how feasible it is. Given that this target is not legally binding, environmentalists are especially worried.
There is no guarantee that this voluntary target is challenging enough to enable the industry to escape more binding requirements in Paris. The industry’s representatives will be doing their best to show that they take climate change seriously and the latest version of the draft agreement suggests that they are achieving this.
Airlines hope to meet their targets partly through a combination of improved fuel efficiency, improvements in operational efficiency, more efficient aircraft, and greater use of sustainable fuels. However, ICAO estimates that even with these improvements, CO2 emissions are expected to continue to increase beyond 2020, albeit at a slower rate than demand growth.
It is inevitable that, if demand for air travel grows as expected, the only way the aviation industry will meet its CO2 target is through market-based tools. These are intended to internalise the cost of the external pollution created by economic activity. A market-based solution is the industry’s least-preferred – and most expensive – option. However, ICAO has pledged to implement some sort of global market-based mechanism for the aviation industry by 2020.
ATAG’s proposal is to make up any shortfall in reduction in the industry’s CO2 emissions through carbon offsets. This market-based tool will allow airlines to reduce the net impact of their emissions by financing projects that reduce carbon emissions from other sources. This may include reforestation projects or investments to increase the energy efficiency of building.
However, international aviation is currently not subject to the Kyoto Protocol, and the industry is therefore outside the gold standard offsetting process established there: the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). There is no guarantee the industry’s own mechanism will have the checks and balances present in the CDM.
Another option is an emissions trading scheme (ETS), similar to that which currently operates in Europe. This option was ruled out by ATAG on the basis that it would be relatively complex to establish. An ETS would establish an overall cap on total emissions, with each country or industry awarded an emissions credit allowance. These credits can be then traded between those that are able to reduce their emissions below their individual allowance, and those that cannot.
Both of these options would enable the aviation industry to continuing expanding. The impact of any market mechanism on prices, and therefore demand and profits, is what weighs most on the aviation industry’s mind. It is vehemently opposed to the alternative and frequently touted market solution of an explicit environmental tax on air travel, in the belief that this would increase the price of airfares substantially.
The moral question remains, however, as to whether a mechanism that facilities growth in polluting air travel is the right outcome.
Whatever the outcome from COP21, the emissions produced by the aviation industry will be increasingly scrutinised in the future and the industry held to greater accountability. However, based on the current draft agreement, aviation will continue to evade international agreements on climate change and mitigation will be very much on its own terms. Will this be enough?
