Blue sky talking

CO2 emissions from the aviation sector are on the up while political efforts to regulate emissions have stalled. We look at the likely outcome of negotiations.

After the Winter rains clear and the flood waters drain away, you may have opportunity to glance upwards and see an aircraft as it streaks across the blue sky, vapour trail in its wake. 

What you won’t see is the CO₂ the aircraft is silently dumping into the atmosphere.

The amount of CO₂ aviation is responsible for is considerable. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the scientific body set up by the United Nations to investigate climate change, estimates aviation accounts for around 3.5% of all human-induced carbon emissions. More worryingly, carbon emissions from the aviation sector keep increasing by between 3% and 4% per year. 

There are three ways to solve the problem. Aircraft makers, aeroengine manufacturers and the industry’s supply chain, must develop and introduce cleaner, more efficient aircraft and alternative fuels. Aircraft operators and air traffic control must introduce measures to save fuel and improve the efficiency of aircraft movements. Finally regulations have to be developed to ensure the aviation sector pursues emissions reducing technologies and operational measures in a suitable time frame.

Academic research strongly suggests regulation, has to be developed in order for emissions reductions to be made in time to help mitigate climate change. The Centre for Aviation, Transport and the Environment (CATE) at Manchester Metropolitan University’s in the UK conducts research for the IPCC, and has produced several studies using mathematical modelling that indicate market based measures (MBMs) are needed to reduce aviation emissions. Examples of MBMs include the emissions trading programme used in the EU to regulate emissions from industry and power generation activities. 

Professor David Lee, director of CATE, says that trading schemes, have an immediate effect and cut gas emissions faster because less carbon-intensive biofuels and new technologies take time to develop. He says: "The problem with conventional technology development and fleet uptake of improved technology for reducing emissions is that it takes time, and time is what we don't have if we are to avoid exceeding an increase of 2°C by 2100 over preindustrial temperatures.

"The sector needs to pursue innovation, but also needs to be flexible in its approach and appreciate that early reductions in CO₂ also need to be pursued vigorously.”

Aofie O'Leary is policy officer of Aviation and Shipping at environmental think tank Transport and Environment. She says that even the best estimates for the introduction of technology and operational improvements leave a “gap to fill”. 

“We need a some kind of market-based incentive to reduce emissions,” says O'Leary. “If aviation were a country, the amount of carbon the sector emitted in 2012 would make it Germany or Korea. You would never say to Germany or Korea – don't worry about doing anything about your CO2 emissions.”

CO₂ emissions are increasing because the number of airline passengers is rapidly increasing. Yet global policy on aviation emissions is developing slowly. China has a pilot emissions trading scheme in Shanghai. The US has its Clean Air Act, a mechanism through which it could regulate CO₂ emissions. The furthest forward with policy to reduce  CO₂ emissions in the aviation sector is Europe, where unfortunately O’Leary describes the state of proposals to introduce an emissions trading scheme as a “mess”.

The European Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) for the aviation sector was agreed in 2008 and started in 2012. The EU’s scheme is similar to those in place for the energy sector. The scheme aims to reduce carbon emissions by placing a commodity price on them. Airlines then have to buy carbon credits in order to cover the carbon they emit, which is calculated from the amount of fuel the aircraft use. 

The EU’s aviation ETS has been controversial because not only does it cover the carbon emissions for all flights within the EU, it initially also wanted to cover the total carbon emitted for flights that originate outside of the EU and finish within it. 

In 2012, after strong resistance to the scheme, the aviation ETS was introduced for flights within the EU only. But the body that governs global aviation, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) failed to reach an agreement that covers international flights. So, to accommodate the stalemate, the EU postponed the introduction of the ETS for flights that start outside of the EU for a year, a political manoeuvre called “stopping the clock”.  

The argument against a global EU aviation ETS is clear - India, the US and China all claimed the EU was trying to impinge on their sovereignty. There is substance behind this argument, and the EU probably “overreached” admits O'Leary, but she adds “none of them are doing a lot about aviation carbon and there is also EU sovereignty to consider”.

The ace up the sleeve turned out to be commercial pressure. China had a lot of aircraft on order from Airbus. A letter from the president of Airbus, Fabrice Bergier, to the Chinese minister in charge of civil aviation, Li Jiaxian, was leaked to Reuters in May 2013. The letter, seen by PE, reveals the extent of the lobbying pressure Airbus exerted to postpone the decision on international aviation emissions. It says that Airbus “fully supported” the Chinese government’s position and that “through our joint efforts, we have managed to ensure that Chinese airlines are not unfairly impacted by the  scheme as previously planned”.  

“The Airbus lobby has so much power,” says O'Leary. “They walk into a room and say there are jobs at risk.”

The Airbus lobby gives some indication of the commercial and political pressures swirling around in the aviation sector. Little surprise then, that action on global policy to reduce CO₂ is developing slowly. O’Leary say:  “They're dodging their responsibility. They mounted huge opposition to the ETS and played it well, delaying its introduction for a global deal. But their actions behind the scene have been to destroy the ETS. What they really want is a scheme to offset carbon emissions and a commitment to carbon neutral growth until 2020.”

One of the main lobby groups for the aviation sector is trade association International Air Travel Association (IATA), which represents the interests of airlines around the world. A spokesperson for IATA said: “It’s not true that we are dodging our responsibility, its taken very seriously. In 2009 we set stringent targets for our emissions. We see emissions trading as integral and fundamental to our strategy.

IATA’s emissions’ targets are a commitment to halve CO₂ emissions by 2050, to increase fuel efficiency by 1.5% every year until 2020 and a promise to only pursue “carbon neutral growth” after 2020. 

“We accept the EU has a right to introduce an intra-EU scheme. But our energy and action has to go to a global scheme, not regional schemes that could overlap and cause problems in the future. A global scheme is technically and politically difficult to achieve. It does not happen overnight. Until 2020 we will invest in clean aircraft and reducing our emissions per passenger,” said IATA.

Today, most carriers are meeting the ETS requirements inside Europe. The aircraft industry wants any regional measures to wait until they have had multilateral and bilateral discussions. ICAO’s next vote on the issue will take place in 2015 and will be on the introduction of market-based measures in 2020.  “We still don't have agreement an agreement on the cap, offsets and if you can do emissions trading. But the bigger issue is what to do about developing countries,” says O'Leary. 

The sticking point revolves around countries such as India and China, which believe that Europe, the US and Russia have profited at the expense of the environment for decades in many areas and that climate change agreements should be more lenient towards developing economies so that they can build their industries and economies. Whether or not this argument applies with aviation is contentious, because the commercial aviation sector is relatively young compared to other sectors.

Nevertheless, the one year “stop the clock” suspension on ETS for international flights has expired and EU politicians are debating what to do. The likeliest action Brussels will take within the next few months is to extend the current suspension until 2016, when the full ETS would come into action. This gives ICAO the time it says it needs to reach a global agreement while keeping the pressure on from the EU. 

Meanwhile, IATA is keen stress that the aviation sector is fully behind efforts to reduce carbon emissions, despite letters from major aircraft manufacturers that suggest otherwise. IATA says: “There isn’t another global industry that has committed to such a target. We have been unfairly targeted, out of proportion to the emissions we produce. Some parts of our industry are very visible, such as big airports, that are often flashpoints. But governments are recognising the good work we are doing and the level of criticism is getting less.

“Sustainability is our licence to grow. If we didn’t show we are committed to improving our global CO2 footprint, governments would restrict our activities and growth.”