On October 6, 2016, the first climate-change pact to set global limits on a specific industry—the aviation industry—was signed in Montreal. This pact was initiated to control future global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from international flights to those levels that will be reached in the period from 2019–2020. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) facilitated the historic agreement, called Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), to implement a market-based measure to stabilize emissions with carbon neutral growth. According to the ICAO’s website, 66 countries had signed on as of October 13th.
CORSIA will start with a voluntary period (from 2021-2026). Beginning in 2027, adopting the policy will become mandatory for all ICAO member countries whose airlines fly international flights. The mandatory policy will exclude some less developed countries, small island states and any country with a small amount of international air traffic (currently proposed at less than 0.5 percent of global traffic).
This pact is an important development that complements the recent Paris Accord. The Paris Accord did not include international flights, which account for about 60 percent of aviation, in part due to complexities related to allocating and accounting for emissions from flights that are “shared” between different countries.
CORSIA will be implemented by countries (States) through the development of States Action Plans that include planned actions as well as progress monitoring and reporting to address carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from international civil aviation to ICAO. CORSIA addresses the need to allocate the total amount of CO2 emissions to be offset in a given year among individual aircraft operators participating in the scheme. If the total emissions of flights rise, airlines that fail to meet GHG reduction goals will have to “offset” the emissions above their goal by purchasing carbon-reduction credits (also referred to as carbon offsets), such as those from renewable energy projects, to offset their emissions.
While the aviation industry considers the agreement “historic,” others criticize the aviation industry for a lack of efforts to date and for the delayed mandatory phase of CORSIA. Critics also raise concerns that CORSIA would allow the sector to increase its emissions by allowing airlines to purchase carbon offsets if they fail to achieve the required reductions in emissions in their operations.
Carbon offsets have been criticized for a variety of issues, including a lack of additionality--the amount of carbon dioxide captured, stored or prevented from reaching the atmosphere compared to what would have happened without the project.
In addition, analysis done by the International Council for Clean Transportation shows that the terms of CORSIA will offset only about three-quarters of the growth in emissions from international aviation above 2020 levels.[1] However, no practical, zero-carbon alternatives to conventional airplanes that can be produced at scale exist. Airlines may require carbon offsets to help them achieve overall reduction in GHG emissions.
A little background on my experiences in the industry
I have been a sustainability advisor to Virgin America since their inception. My work for Virgin has included reporting on GHG emissions via The Climate Registry, researching opportunities related to biofuels and producing their most recent Sustainability Report. My experience with the airline industry has given me some insights that I’d like to share to balance out some of the criticism that this agreement is receiving.
Airlines have it tough. The industry is a poster child for climate change woes, even though they account for just two percent of all GHG emissions. Airlines will need to rely on liquid fuel for the foreseeable future, as next generation (GHG beneficial) biofuels struggle to become commercially viable (see my February 2, 2016 blog). Efficiencies are difficult to obtain without replacing entire fleets with new (and highly capital intensive) airplanes. Use of navigational technology requires overhauls of national navigation infrastructure systems to operate. In addition, safety is paramount and cannot be compromised when pursuing new technologies and materials.
The aviation industry is primed for an industry-level approach to controlling emissions because the players rely largely on the same equipment providers (such as airplane and engine manufactures), infrastructure (air traffic control and navigation systems, for example), and service providers (including airports and catering). They also face a common challenge of bringing low carbon, next generation biofuels to commercial viability.
I believe that the industry can address these challenges to reduce their GHG emissions and contribute to additional reductions in some of the following ways:
More efficient planes—Since airplanes will continue to require liquid fuel, airlines must reduce fuel consumption to decrease GHG emissions. Any solution to greater efficiency in aircraft will likely include lighter materials, more efficient engines or even innovative design (super-thin wings held up by trusses, for example).
More efficient flight paths—Airlines can equip their flight teams with GPS and Wi-Fi technologies that will allow them to adjust flight paths more efficiently in real time to avoid undesirable weather conditions (such as turbulence and headwinds) and take advantage of tailwinds or other beneficial conditions. While Virgin America has already adopted this new technology, improvements to air traffic management systems must be done on a national basis to optimize flight paths.
More carbon efficient biofuels—While next generation biofuels hold real promise for air travel, they are not yet commercially available today. New technologies, or in this case biofuels, often require upfront capital investments such as equipment or R&D, and may be too expensive to compete with existing forms of energy (such as jet fuel) until they reach a scale that optimizes cost efficiencies. This state is often referred to as the “valley of death.” Biofuels will become commercially viable alternatives to jet fuel once demand increases enough that the fledgling biofuels companies can appeal to investors or otherwise obtain financing necessary to produce them on a large scale.
I think it’s worth noting that incentives that helped other industries to scale up and reach price parity may also be effective here. For example, a 30 percent U.S. federal tax credit is available for residential solar systems and businesses and has contributed to the recent growth in solar energy by making production costs more affordable. This cost savings contributed to solar prices dropping by more than 80 percent since 2008.
Less weight onboard—Airlines have an obligation to provide food, beverages and entertainment to their passengers. The weight of all of these supplies (along with baggage and passengers) has an impact on fuel consumption. Airlines can optimize catering selections to more precisely meet demands, while also making efforts to reduce any excess weight from operational manuals and customer magazines.
Given that commercial airlines will continue to produce GHG emissions, those of us who travel by air should do our part to support airlines that are proactively reducing their emissions. I am pleased to see the industry take a forward-thinking, industry-led and global approach to lessening their impact on climate change. I hope that the airlines will continue to address industry-wide challenges, and that other major industries will step up and follow their lead.
[1] http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-10-06/un-agreement-reached-on-aircraft-climate-change-emissions
CORSIA will start with a voluntary period (from 2021-2026). Beginning in 2027, adopting the policy will become mandatory for all ICAO member countries whose airlines fly international flights. The mandatory policy will exclude some less developed countries, small island states and any country with a small amount of international air traffic (currently proposed at less than 0.5 percent of global traffic).
This pact is an important development that complements the recent Paris Accord. The Paris Accord did not include international flights, which account for about 60 percent of aviation, in part due to complexities related to allocating and accounting for emissions from flights that are “shared” between different countries.
CORSIA will be implemented by countries (States) through the development of States Action Plans that include planned actions as well as progress monitoring and reporting to address carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from international civil aviation to ICAO. CORSIA addresses the need to allocate the total amount of CO2 emissions to be offset in a given year among individual aircraft operators participating in the scheme. If the total emissions of flights rise, airlines that fail to meet GHG reduction goals will have to “offset” the emissions above their goal by purchasing carbon-reduction credits (also referred to as carbon offsets), such as those from renewable energy projects, to offset their emissions.
While the aviation industry considers the agreement “historic,” others criticize the aviation industry for a lack of efforts to date and for the delayed mandatory phase of CORSIA. Critics also raise concerns that CORSIA would allow the sector to increase its emissions by allowing airlines to purchase carbon offsets if they fail to achieve the required reductions in emissions in their operations.
Carbon offsets have been criticized for a variety of issues, including a lack of additionality--the amount of carbon dioxide captured, stored or prevented from reaching the atmosphere compared to what would have happened without the project.
In addition, analysis done by the International Council for Clean Transportation shows that the terms of CORSIA will offset only about three-quarters of the growth in emissions from international aviation above 2020 levels.[1] However, no practical, zero-carbon alternatives to conventional airplanes that can be produced at scale exist. Airlines may require carbon offsets to help them achieve overall reduction in GHG emissions.
A little background on my experiences in the industry
I have been a sustainability advisor to Virgin America since their inception. My work for Virgin has included reporting on GHG emissions via The Climate Registry, researching opportunities related to biofuels and producing their most recent Sustainability Report. My experience with the airline industry has given me some insights that I’d like to share to balance out some of the criticism that this agreement is receiving.
Airlines have it tough. The industry is a poster child for climate change woes, even though they account for just two percent of all GHG emissions. Airlines will need to rely on liquid fuel for the foreseeable future, as next generation (GHG beneficial) biofuels struggle to become commercially viable (see my February 2, 2016 blog). Efficiencies are difficult to obtain without replacing entire fleets with new (and highly capital intensive) airplanes. Use of navigational technology requires overhauls of national navigation infrastructure systems to operate. In addition, safety is paramount and cannot be compromised when pursuing new technologies and materials.
The aviation industry is primed for an industry-level approach to controlling emissions because the players rely largely on the same equipment providers (such as airplane and engine manufactures), infrastructure (air traffic control and navigation systems, for example), and service providers (including airports and catering). They also face a common challenge of bringing low carbon, next generation biofuels to commercial viability.
I believe that the industry can address these challenges to reduce their GHG emissions and contribute to additional reductions in some of the following ways:
More efficient planes—Since airplanes will continue to require liquid fuel, airlines must reduce fuel consumption to decrease GHG emissions. Any solution to greater efficiency in aircraft will likely include lighter materials, more efficient engines or even innovative design (super-thin wings held up by trusses, for example).
More efficient flight paths—Airlines can equip their flight teams with GPS and Wi-Fi technologies that will allow them to adjust flight paths more efficiently in real time to avoid undesirable weather conditions (such as turbulence and headwinds) and take advantage of tailwinds or other beneficial conditions. While Virgin America has already adopted this new technology, improvements to air traffic management systems must be done on a national basis to optimize flight paths.
More carbon efficient biofuels—While next generation biofuels hold real promise for air travel, they are not yet commercially available today. New technologies, or in this case biofuels, often require upfront capital investments such as equipment or R&D, and may be too expensive to compete with existing forms of energy (such as jet fuel) until they reach a scale that optimizes cost efficiencies. This state is often referred to as the “valley of death.” Biofuels will become commercially viable alternatives to jet fuel once demand increases enough that the fledgling biofuels companies can appeal to investors or otherwise obtain financing necessary to produce them on a large scale.
I think it’s worth noting that incentives that helped other industries to scale up and reach price parity may also be effective here. For example, a 30 percent U.S. federal tax credit is available for residential solar systems and businesses and has contributed to the recent growth in solar energy by making production costs more affordable. This cost savings contributed to solar prices dropping by more than 80 percent since 2008.
Less weight onboard—Airlines have an obligation to provide food, beverages and entertainment to their passengers. The weight of all of these supplies (along with baggage and passengers) has an impact on fuel consumption. Airlines can optimize catering selections to more precisely meet demands, while also making efforts to reduce any excess weight from operational manuals and customer magazines.
Given that commercial airlines will continue to produce GHG emissions, those of us who travel by air should do our part to support airlines that are proactively reducing their emissions. I am pleased to see the industry take a forward-thinking, industry-led and global approach to lessening their impact on climate change. I hope that the airlines will continue to address industry-wide challenges, and that other major industries will step up and follow their lead.
[1] http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-10-06/un-agreement-reached-on-aircraft-climate-change-emissions
RSS Feed