Greenhouse gas emissions from the international aviation industry

From SourceWatch

This article is part of the Climate change portal on SourceWatch.

A protest in the UK against the exclusion of international aviation emissions of greenhouse gases from the Climate bill. Photo:Campaign against Climate Change

Greenhouse gas emissions from aviation currently account for approximately 3.5% of emissions from developed countries. However, in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that "civil aviation is one of the world’s fastest growing transport means."^[1] Between 1990 and 2005 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change reported that international aviation emissions from developed countries rose by 65.8% between 1990 and 2005.^[2]

Despite this rapid growth, greenhouse gas emissions from aviation are currently excluded from any restrictions under the Kyoto Protocol. (Domestic aviation is included in national emissions targets.)

1 Kyoto Protocol Provisions
2 Emissions Taking Off
3 Mitigation Strategies
4 Negotiations on Inclusion of Aviation Emissions Ahead of COP 15
- 4.1 Oxfam proposals for additional funding
5 Articles and resources

[edit]

Kyoto Protocol Provisions

In 1997 the Kyoto Protocol stated in Article 2, section 2 that:

"The Parties included in Annex I shall pursue limitation or reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol from aviation and marine bunker fuels, working through the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Maritime Organization, respectively."^[3]

In a media release International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) boasted that it had been recognized as "the global instrument for developed countries to pursue the limitation or reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation." While stating that it has been taking environmental issues seriously since the late 1960's, it claimed that incorporating aviation's greenhouse emissions into the agreement was too hard. Aviation, it explained, had been excluded "because of the difficulty in allocating them to specific countries. For example, which country should be responsible for emissions involving an airline from the Americas flying over the Middle East, between a country in Europe and another in Asia?"^[4]

[edit]

Emissions Taking Off

The IPCC also reported that data from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) revealed that "aviation scheduled traffic (revenue passenger-km, RPK) has grown at an average annual rate of 3.8% between 2001 and 2005 despite the downturn from the terrorist attacks and SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) during this period, and is currently growing at 5.9% per year."^[1]

The IPCC noted that Airbus and Boeing projected "passenger traffic growth trends of 5.3% and 4.9% respectively, and freight trends at 5.9% and 6.1% respectively over the next 20 or 25 years". It concluded that "these forecasts and others predict a global average annual passenger traffic growth of around 5% – passenger traffic doubling in 15 years – with freight traffic growing at a faster rate that passenger traffic, although from a smaller base."^[1]

Modeling cited by the IPCC estimated that aviation emissions were approximately 492 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and 2.06 million tonnes of nitrogen oxide in 2002 and will increase to 1029 and 3.31 million tonnes respectively by 2025.^[1]

A complicating factor in developing a mitigation strategy is the impact of nitrogen oxides emissions "and the formation of condensation trails and cirrus clouds". An earlier IPCC report estimated to be "about 2 to 4 times greater than those of CO2 alone, even without considering the potential impact of cirrus cloud enhancement."^[5]

[edit]

Mitigation Strategies

The IPCC also noted that "in order to reduce emissions from air and marine transport resulting from the combustion of bunker fuels, new policy frameworks need to be developed. However ICAO endorsed the concept of an open, international emission trading system for the air transport sector, implemented through a voluntary scheme, or incorporation of international aviation into existing emission trading systems."^[6]

The IPCC also noted that ICAO had not "yet been able to devise a suitable framework for implementing effective mitigation policies."^[7]

[edit]

Taxtion

Aviation fuel is kerosene but the IPCC Working Group noted that at the "global level no support exists for the introduction of kerosene taxes." ICAO's policy of opposing the removal of exemption of aviation fuel from taxation has been widely criticised by the European Union and environmental groups.^[8]

In late 2006 the European Union proposed that aviation emissions would be included in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The proposal was for emissions from all domestic and international flights between EU airports to be covered from 2011. The second stage of the proposal was for "all international flights - from or to anywhere in the world - that arrive at or depart from an EU airport" to be covered from 2012.^[9]

In July 2008 the European Parliament voted 640 to 30 to include airlines in the ETS from 2012. The EU required airlines to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 3 percent in 2012 and by 5 percent from 2013 against a base year of 2004-06. Under the rules of the scheme, airlines will be given free permits to cover 85% of their emissions with the remainder auctioned.^[10]

At the Accra Climate Change Talks 2008, the representative of the Pacific islad of Tuvalu, which is threatened by rising sea levels, argued that $20 a tonne levy on emissions of carbon dioxide from all international aviation and maritime transport would generate revenues of about $24 billion a year. "A levy of that level is about 0.6 percent of an airfare price," said Ian Fry of Tuvalu.^[11]

[edit]

Technological innovations

While options exist for increasing the fuel efficiency of aviation -- from more fuel efficient engines, design innovations in the aircraft body -- these changes have long lead times before deployment and affect only a small percentage of the airfleet. The IPCC notes that approximately 60% of aircraft are still in service after 30 years and that this "results in slower change than might be seen in other transport forms."^[12]

However the IPCC's sobering conclusion was that "even the most ambitious scenario [of efficiency gains] suggests that CO2 production will increase by almost 100% from the base year ... The analysis suggests that aviation emissions will continue to grow as a result of continued demand for civil aviation. Assuming the historical fuel efficiency trend produced by industry developments will continue (albeit at a declining level), carbon emissions will also grow, but at a lower rate than traffic. Carbon pricing could effect further emissions reductions if the aviation industry introduces further technology measures in response.."^[13]

[edit]

U.S. GOA Casts Doubt on the technological innovations alone approach

In response to a request from Congress, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed likely greenhouse gas emissions from aviation and possible policy responses to address the problem. The GAO cast doubt on the likelihood that reliance on technological innovation alone would make much difference by 2050. "While airlines currently rely on a range of improvements, such as fuel-efficient engines, to reduce emissions, some of which may have limited potential to generate future reductions, experts we surveyed expect a number of additional technological, operational, and alternative fuel improvements to help reduce aircraft emissions in the future. However, according to experts we interviewed, some technologies, such as advanced airframes, have potential, but may be years away from being available, and developing and adopting them is likely to be costly. In addition, according to some experts we interviewed, incentives for industry to research and adopt low-emissions technologies will be dependent to some extent on the level and stability of fuel prices," they write in a summary of thei report.^[14]

"Finally, given expected growth of commercial aviation as forecasted by IPCC, even if many of these improvements are adopted, it appears unlikely they would greatly reduce emissions by 2050," they bluntly concluded.^[14]

[edit]

Negotiations on Inclusion of Aviation Emissions Ahead of COP 15

On the opening day of the Accra Climate Change Talks 2008, the Earth Negotiations Bulletin noted that "parties have expressed strong differences on inclusion of aviation and maritime emissions under the Protocol, with the EU, Norway and others supporting more discussions on this topic under the UNFCCC process, while others have noted that the issue is also being addressed under the International Civil Aviation Organization and International Maritime Organization."^[15] (See Greenhouse gas emissions from the international maritime industry for more details on maritime emissions.)

Early on at the COP14 conference, the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) noted that the International Civil Aviation Organization had briefed delegates. "Chair Plume will prepare conclusions and said the item would be taken up in more detail at SBSTA 32", it reported. (SBSTA is the acronym for the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice.)^[16]

However, little progress was made with the SBSTA meekly noting only that "the SBSTA invited the secretariats of ICAO and IMO to report, at future sessions of the SBSTA, on the outcomes of their work on this issue."^[17]

[edit]

Oxfam proposals for additional funding

A December 2008 report published by Oxfam International proposed that $12.4 billion in new funding for the Adaptation Fund could be obtained by 2015 (assuming a carbon price of $45 per ton) by establishing an emission target for flights originating in Annex I countries.^[18]

Citing UNCTAD data, Oxfam reported that approximately 65% of global aviation emissions "can be attributed to international flights originating in Annex I countries." It proposed that an emissions trading scheme for the sector could operate on the basis of emissions cap for the sector with emissions allowances auctioned off to generate revenue. "Since aircraft operators register the amount of jet fuel purchased per international flight, it is possible to estimate the level of emissions attributed to international flights originating in Annex 1 countries ... Airlines would have to purchase one emissions allowance for every ton of CO2 emitted," it proposed.^[19]

However, one complication of such a scheme is the potential impact on developing countries that are heavily dependent on tourism, which it noted can account for as much as 40% of some countries Gross Domestic Product. To limit the impact on these countries Oxfam proposed that "a deminimis threshold could be established to exempt flights travelling to non-Annex 1 countries that depend on the tourism industry. For instance, if a threshold of 30 per cent of GDP accounting for air travel and tourism is used, this will primarily exempt small island states, with an impact on emissions coverage at less than one per cent of total emissions.44 Other thresholds could also be negotiated. Most importantly the threshold should recognise that economic activities from developing countries are not unduly burdened, as developing countries are not responsible for causing climate change in the first place.^[19]

Oxfam also flagged that how such as a scheme would be administered was a potential complication as "the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has resisted attempts to regulate emissions or to generate financing through the sector, and hence it seems unlikely that the body would enforce a global market-based system or levy."^[20]

[edit]