Aviation has – and has had for some time – an emissions problem. That problem was illustrated in dramatic fashion last week when it was announced that the European Union (EU) would freeze until late next year the inclusion of international aviation in the EU’s emissions trading scheme (ETS).
Aviation has been included from the beginning of this year.
The EU scheme attracts non-European airlines flying to and from the EU.
The EU said it would look to the UN body responsible for international aviation, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), to address the problem. ICAO’s General Assembly is in September-October next year. ICAO is charged under the Kyoto Protocol – adopted in 1997 – with dealing with the aviation emissions problem and has yet to find any solution.
In the event that ICAO does not successfully address the emissions problem (howsoever success is defined) at its General Assembly, the EU ETS legislation would apply again to international aviation from 2013 onwards.
Yet, one day after the EU’s announcement, the US House of Representatives passed legislation, which now goes to President Obama for his signature, that prohibits a US aircraft operator from ever participating in the EU’s ETS.
The Chinese government earlier this year barred its airlines from joining the EU ETS.
These are interesting times for international aviation and climate change regulation, and challenging ones for ICAO.
The aviation emissions problem
The aviation emissions problem is a significant one. Aviation is a growing source of emissions, and those emissions are largely unregulated. Emissions from aviation are increasing against a background of decreasing emissions (or, at least, emissions regulation) from many other industry sectors.
Based on IPCC calculations, aviation’s contribution to total emissions, estimated at 3%, could be as low as 2% or as high as 8%. And ICAO forecasts significant further emissions growth: against a 2006 baseline, an increase of 63% to 88% by 2020 and 290% to 667% by 2050 (without accounting for the impact of alternative fuels).
The International Civil Aviation Organisation
The EU’s announcement clearly defuses tension with the US (this week’s passage of legislation notwithstanding) and with major developing states such as China and India. They oppose the EU legislation and would clearly not have complied with it.
The stated basis for the EU’s announcement is threefold:
- the ICAO Council is setting up a high level policy group to deal with the emissions issue
- options for a market-based mechanism must be reduced from three to one
- the Council had explicitly referred to a global market-based mechanism to address the aviation emissions problem.
But these hardly seems the stuff of which a global aviation emissions agreement is made.
And ICAO’S comprehensive failure to address the international aviation emissions problem to date does not augur well for any future solution.
Aviation and trade rules
In some respects this is all slightly curious. Under the main piece of legislation, Directive 2008/101/EC on the inclusion of aviation in the EU’s ETS, all flights (EU and non-EU) landing at or taking off from any airport within an EU member state must surrender emissions allowances equal to the emissions created from the entire flight.
However, most of these allowances – 85% – are allocated to the airlines for free. The remaining compliance costs will be passed on to passengers (many of whom will have little choice to get to the EU other than by air travel).
Yet at the heart of the dispute leading to the EU decision last week is, as two US authors have noted, a matter of some significance. It is “the principle of whether nations may adopt climate change laws that have impacts on foreign companies offering goods or services in their territories”.
Put another way, can aviation and trade rules “seriously undermine efforts to prevent the disastrous consequences of unmanageable climate change”?
Aviation and the climate change problem
The difficulty in addressing the aviation emissions problem reflects in microcosm the difficulty in addressing the global climate change problem. The world just isn’t organised to deal with these kinds of problems. Climate change is a global problem, but there is of course no global government. Rather, there are sovereign states, the interests and concerns of which are very different – as the aviation emissions problem demonstrates.
This difference is recognised in one way, of course, by both the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol. The UNFCCC states that “developed” and “developing” states have “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” in dealing with climate change. Under the UNFCCC it’s clear that developed countries “should take the lead in combating climate change” and its effects.
One alternative way forward would be to break the climate change problem up into different pieces, which could involve sectoral agreements – agreements between industry sectors, for example. In some respects, that’s what ICAO is attempting to do with aviation. It’s also what the EU is attempting to encourage by its announcement last week that it would look to ICAO (but not for long …) to craft an agreement to address emissions from the aviation sector.
But even here, efforts to deal with the aviation sector by way of addressing the climate change problem are themselves problematic. In terms of aviation, the Deputy Director of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University said this:
countries are retrenching to protectionism when faced with the EU’s attempt to seriously address one major emitting source in an equitable manner, [which] suggests little hope that these same countries might soon take bold stances in committing to the long-term, deep emissions reductions necessary to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
The EU Commissioner for Climate Action said last week that, finally, there is “a chance to get an international regulation on emissions from aviation.”
All the evidence suggests that it’s a slim chance and a forlorn hope.
Gerard Dean
Managing Director
Professor Hodgekinson,
You conclude, 'All the evidence suggests that it’s a slim chance and a forlorn hope.' that an international regulation on aviation emissions will come into force.
You appear to lay the blame on a lack of will by government and regulators. I beg to differ. It is our addiction to flying that over-rides any pretense we have to save the planet - a sentiment that is then carried over to our elected representatives and regulators. The comments you will see later will prove…
Read moreMichael Pulsford
Lecturer, RMIT School Of Art
Hi Gerard,
I agree with you that we should all fly less. But I don't quite get the line you're drawing between personal actions and policy arguments. All the peak medical bodies tell me I shouldn't smoke, and that no-one should. If I smoke, even though I know it's bad for me, should I tell my kids there's no risk from smoking? How does what I do personally change how I should answer evidence-based questions?
I don't see how climate arguments are that different. Flying more than one should is a personal failing; the 'H word' I'd use is 'human'. Most of us fall short of doing everything we should. (I should exercise more, drink less and call my mother more often.) But that doesn't absolve anyone from making evidence-based arguments in discussions about public policy.
Mark Harrigan
Dr
Thank you Michael for posting and in one fell swoop politely but firmly demonstrating the intellectual vacuity of Gerard Dean's unrelenting campaign of denialism polluting every article on the climate with his "JetA1 Fuel" blather.
John Nicol
logged in via email @bigpond.com
I think the "problem" with China and America is that they are actually more interested in addressing real economic problems than tilting at windmills - although there is an unintended pun here in which both activities are being addressed!
In other words, the "climate change" bogey man has fallen off the radar of their aircraft and they are not about to spend money to improve that "radar".
I agree with Gerard. Everyone - no, not everyone, but quite a few - says he/she wants to save the planet…
Read moreNeil Gibson
Retired Electronics Engineer
All a tax on aircraft will achieve is to make it more difficult for poor people to fly. The rich and government fat-cats will still fly when they want and the bureaucrats pushing this tax will still fly to exotic locations for "conferences".
Michael Shaw
Designer
Many taxes make it harder for poor people to engage in activities. The GST, toll roads, fines and many other charges are not levied according to wealth or income. Are you against these?
Alice Kelly
sole parent
Thank-you David, It's disappointing consensus and action comes second best to argument, but where do you see airlines like virgin fitting into this. They will be entering the market with technology developed by a N.Z. company. I think Boing is also involved, and they will be entering into the eu em. tr. scheme. I don't feel bleak, and hope to fly with them in a couple of years. To Turkey. Despite the annoying white teeth, surely Richard Branson is creating an example of possibility. Nuclear Aeroplanes, some ideas should be "shot down"
Michael Lenehan
retired
The extremist solution is to ban all air travel - and there is, perhaps, just a slim possibility that the world might be a better place for all if we do. But while my wife remains so keen on retirement travel I've, bizarrely, got to stop reading the conversation immediately and dash for the airport
Michael Lenehan
retired
Dear mark Harrigan
Sadly I'm not very good at irony. I am an extremist in most things and am actually opposed to all plane travel.I'm actually also opposed to travel per se. The words travail and travel are from the same etymological root and were once synonymous in English. There is a good reason for this - and if aeroplanes had been invented back then sensible people would not have used them. They are both morally and environmentally unjustifiable. However, as I've got to fly back from Melbourne in a few days I' hoping the airforce's motto "per ardua ad astra" is still applicable. I would translate this (roughly - as I was away the day they did Latin at my local state high school) ) as something approximating "Don't crash the plane!"
David Elson
logged in via Facebook
Typical environmentalist; all words and no deeds.
Lennert Veerman
Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland
Thank you for a frustrating article, David. "The world just isn’t organised to deal with these kinds of problems." So can we re-organise it?
The EU should push its point. By clever diplomacy and trying to find allies but if need be, by fighting it out over international courts.
If trade rules stand in the way of protecting the global environment (or public health, for that matter), those rules must be changed.
The principle is well worth a trade war. If we continue with business as usual, disastrous climate change is a certainty. The system must be challenged.
Alan John Emmerson
Former chief engineer , Civil Aviation Authority
Please consider:
The Australian economy and the life styles of Australians are highly reliant on aviation.More so than almost any European country. This has been so since 1918 or there abouts. Civil aviation is not just about your travel as a tourist passenger. Think of the way the offshore oil r igs are manned and serviced, how race horses are moved around, how spare parts and mechanics are supplied to remote industries, and so on, including the inbound tourist trade..
Natiions are…
Read moreAlan John Emmerson
Former chief engineer , Civil Aviation Authority
.
Notice that the IPCC prepared reports at the request of ICAO. in 1999 and 2007
I do not understand the percentages in this article
The IPCC1999 finding was that the total CO2 emission from aviation was approximately 3.5% of the total of the radiative forcing by all human activities..
The 2007 finding reduced that proportion to 3.0%, withh an expected growth in the proportion of 3 to 4% per year.
David Elson
logged in via Facebook
Based on the following article (http://chinadailymail.com/2012/06/12/china-could-impound-european-planes/) it seems very unlikely that China will ever comply with a EU scheme for long haul flights to pay carbon taxes to the EU.
The state the EU economies are in, it seems strange they would wise to deter people from travelling to their social democratic paradises, and the potential investment these people could bring.
Tim Scanlon
Debunker
Given the global requirement of travel we really need an alternative fuel source or new engine technology. This isn't just a need for transport of goods but also for agriculture machinery. I agree with Alan's comments here that something like hydrogen that is not emitting GHGs is needed, because we are intrinsically reliant upon aviation. I would argue, though, that Europe isn't as reliant on aviation, given that it is one big continent.
I'm also of the opinion that since we live in a technological age we should start living like it. We shouldn't have FIFO workers, we should need to commute across country weekly, we shouldn't need to fly half the places that we do. What really amazes me is the amount of recreational flying that is done. When I was young the family holiday was down south to the beach, now families seem to fly overseas for a holiday, I know which one has the larger carbon footprint.
John Nicol
logged in via email @bigpond.com
Tim,
There is a problem with the use of hydrogen which is often over looked. The energy you obtain from burning it or froma fuel cell, has first to be provided by some other source -, solar, wind, coal, nuclear etc in order to separate the hydrogen from its bond to oxygen in water or methane gas or what ever. The over all process is subject to the inefficiencies demanded by the basic laws of thermodynamics so one has to use more energy producing the hydrogen than is recouped in flying the planes.
No doubt there could be a convenience in this but there would be no "gain" from the point of view of emissions technology, unless the hydrogen could all be produced by clean energy.
Mark Harrigan
Dr
John - the energy costs of making hdrogen could be addressed by using nuclear power plant excess capacity. But there is another very serious problem with Hydrogen - and that is storage.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/storage/current_technology.html
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/storage/storage_challenges.html
Existing commercial storage technologies are impractical for any feasible transport application. They leak large quantities (which in itself may…
Read moreTim Scanlon
Debunker
John, I should clarify, I wasn't suggesting outright that hydrogen was the fuel source to use, but rather just an example of an alternative that might be used that we already are aware of.
I've actually seen some futurists' work on creating hydrogen in the home to power cars. Essentially you have a small unit that is either a solar cell or wind turbine that is generating gas. I was under the impression that the setup was too expensive currently, but is the sort of thing that would become very cheap with a move toward renewables.
The main reason I would be wary of hydrogen, as Mark points out, is storage. I've watched Quantum of Solace, I don't think we need to encourage James Bond to run around blowing everything up.
David Elson
logged in via Facebook
Seems there is already a hydrogen car ready for mass production (not sure how they envisage dealing with the fuel storage problem);
Hyundai first with hydrogen:
http://canberratimes.drive.com.au/motor-news/hyundai-first-with-hydrogen-20120928-26pgy.html
Peter Sommerville
Scientist & Technologist
Hydrogen is great as rocket fuel and for balloons. But its use in air travel requires very substantial technological developments. Also it's calorific value needs to be considered.
Hydrogen will require very different engine designs as well.
The obvious solution is to keep burning hydrocarbons - but from a carbon neutral source. Existing infrastructure will require no alteration.
Biofuel production is already a proven technology. Sometimes simplest is best.
Doug Hutcheson
Poet
Peter, biofuel production shows some promise, but the area/volume of productive capacity required to replace fossil oil is currently beyond our ability to provide. This is exemplified by the corn-to-ethanol pathway in the USA, in which huge areas of food-producing land are given over to production of corn for biofuel. With the global population set to hit around 9 billion by 2050 (according to the latest figures I have seen), we may need every productive acre to be used just for food. Quite a nasty quandary.
David Elson
logged in via Facebook
What if there was a green revolution in the production in biofuels? It's hard to predict these things.
Any guesses on how long regular crude could hold out for?
John McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
Given that there is no evidence that human activity causes significant and dangerous warming the postponing of the legislation, hopefullly as a face-saving prelude to dicthing it comepletely, seems completely sensible.
Yes, that's right. No evidence. I see you are from UWA and some staff members there don't seem to think that evidence is important, but believe me it is.
Michael Gioiello
High school music teacher/ freelance Opera singer
It is because of ignorant people like you, John that public discourse is bias concerning climate change. You are obviously not a scientists, John, so keep your ignorant opinion to yourself
Alice Kelly
sole parent
John where the ---- have you been for the last ? years, I watch nature all the time, and being a horticulturalist, plants, soil and water. The climate, and seasons have changed. Any good farmer will tell you this. I don't need the opinion of scientists to tell me it's changed. Or the opinion of one with no real interest in the science of climate change, to tell me my observations, have no relevance in thinking about any future which could involve run-away climate change.
David Elson
logged in via Facebook
Isn't the methane from farmers cattle a greater risk to climate than aviation emissions?
David Hamer
student
Hi Michael,
It is precisely these sorts of comments that give people who believe in global warming a bad name. Whilst I personally believe that climate change is happening I am not qualified to say how or why, much less to force my opinions down other people’s throats and call them ignorant if they disagree.
Having observed many arguments in this debate, I have noticed that a unifying factor is commonly overlooked. Regardless of whether climate change is occurring or not placing pressure on society to become cleaner and greener will lead to technological advancements and this will benefit society. The only catch is if global warming isn’t man-made then we will potentially pay too much for these advancements. However in my humble opinion (far from expert) paying too much is well worth the risk of having our planet fundamentally altered.
Geoff Taylor
Consultant
Wasn't there also some years ago concern not just about carbon dioxide, but about possible effects of water vapour from jet engines being emitted in the stratosphere?
Peter Sommerville
Scientist & Technologist
Whilst air transport is a significant emitter of carbon dioxide, the elephant in the room is international shipping. Of course if a viable biofuels industry can develop the argument is moot. A lot less talking by the EU in terms of enforcing penalties and a lot more action to develop realistic alternatives is more likely to generate real outcomes. So far the regulated market approach is foundering, in part driven by the steady economic disintegration of the EU, in part by a narrowness of vision.
Meanwhile I am watching my shares in biofuels with increasing interest.