The “aspirational goal” was signed off by transport ministers at the International Civil Aviation Organisation (Icao) assembly in Montreal, Canada.

But there is currently no viable technology to eliminate planes’ emissions and airlines and governments at Icao have not contemplated reducing flying itself.

Airlines have largely chosen to use much-criticised carbon offset schemes to meet their climate targets.

Lula will update Brazil’s ‘insufficient’ climate plans if elected: advisor

A group of mostly high-income countries calling itself the “climate ambition coalition” pushed for the 2050 net zero goal against opposition from Russia and China.

Industry trade body Iata also backed the goal despite reported opposition from Chinese airlines.

At a preparatory meeting of the UN’s aviation body in July, 2050 net zero was put forward to the tri-annual Icao assembly in Montreal this week.

At the assembly, US transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg said the goal was “achievable if we act” and called on the assembly to “bring Icao fully into the world’s fight against climate change”.

Ugandan police ‘brutally arrest’ anti-pipeline protesters outside EU embassy

New Zealand’s representative wrote that the target was “the minimum aspiration this sector should aim for”.

But Russia’s representative told the assembly that the target “will without a doubt impose an unsustainable burden on the industry”.

China used a climate justice argument. Its delegation said the net zero goal “would lead to discriminatory market distortions to the disadvantage of developing countries” and that “China firmly opposes developed countries’ attempt to transfer their responsibility for emissions reductions to developing countries”.

But the majority of countries supported the net zero goal. It has been approved by the executive committee and goes to plenary today. The executive committee and plenary members are mostly the same people so it is likely to pass.

EU outlines funding options to help climate victims recover

From the assembly in Montreal, the International Coalition for Sustainable Aviation’s Tim Johnson said: “We hope Icao can agree a net zero 2050 goal today that would begin a process to bring aviation in line with the Paris Agreement. This has been a hard fought negotiation but the really hard work starts now to introduce the measures that will decarbonise the industry.”

Other campaigners were more critical. Anne Kretzschmar from Stay Grounded said: “Adopting a climate target with no binding commitments for states and no interim targets is like building an aeroplane without wings”.

Johnson said that green groups had pushed for interim targets in Montreal and, while the US and some European states had supported them, they had not wanted to jeopardise an agreement by pushing too hard for them.

Transport and Environment’s aviation lead Jo Dardenne questioned how aviation would meet its target.

“Having a long term aspirational goal on one side and then having a poor offsetting scheme [Corsia] on the other side and defending that it’s going to get aviation down to zero is just laughable,” she said.

World leaders not invited to attend critical UN biodiversity summit

The industry’s main technological solution to aviation emissions is the use of “sustainable aviation fuels” made out of plant matter. A recent report from the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) cautioned growing crops for energy has some downsides for the climate and cannot be produced at the scale needed to meet projected future aviation demand.

Instead, CATF says governments should research next-generation fuels like those based on clean hydrogen. These are years away from being commercially available.

Airlines have used offsets to claim emissions reductions. But these offsets, including Icao’s own Corsia scheme, have been widely criticised. Recently, budget European airline Easyjet said it would no longer use offsets and would focus on reducing its own emissions instead.

The post International air travel set for ‘aspirational’ 2050 net zero goal appeared first on Climate Home News.

The 36 countries that sit on the council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (Icao) – the UN body responsible for aviation – agreed on Tuesday to ease airlines’ obligation to offset their emission growth until at least 2023.

The move effectively postpones the date airlines have to start paying for carbon credits to offset a portion of their climate impact.

The decision was made after the International Air Transport Association (Iata) lobbied Icao to change the baseline from which emissions growth will be measured – a move it estimates could save airlines $15 billion in carbon offsetting costs.

As air travel collapsed in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic and with many airlines pleading for government bailouts, Iata argued previously agreed rules would create “an inappropriate economic burden on the sector”.

But observers and campaigners say the move has deflated the little ambition of the aviation’s sector climate plan, which was already “far below what is needed to avoid climate catastrophe”, according to a coalition of NGOs.

Prior to the rules being weakened, research by Climate Action Tracker judged the sector’s climate goals and the measures proposed to meet it “critically insufficient”.

Aviation’s black box: Non-disclosure agreements, closed doors and rising CO2

In a statement, the International Coalition for Sustainable Aviation (ICSA) said the decision was a “betrayal to future generations and a slap in the face of the multilateral work to build the programme”.

The ICSA has repeatedly said rewriting the rules of the aviation’s climate deal wasn’t necessary, as a flexibility provision in the scheme would have allowed airlines to reduce their offsetting cost until 2023.

Gilles Dufrasne, senior policy officer at Carbon Market Watch, said airlines were “making a mockery of governments and taxpayers, taking public money while fighting climate policies”.

The meeting’s outcome was described by Icao in a tweet as “great news for the environment” and safeguarding the sector’s emission reduction programme.

Bas Eickhout, a Dutch Green lawmaker in the European Parliament, reacted with incredulity:

Seriously? You are adjusting the baseline to 2019 only with procedural tricks, further undermining CORSIA’s credibility, and you spin that as great news for the environment. Is this an UN account or did aviation industry now also take over your twitter account? https://t.co/OEK3rz1toD

— Bas Eickhout (@BasEickhout) July 1, 2020

National members of Icao have agreed to make all growth in aviation emissions carbon neutral from 2020. With few technological solutions currently available to reduce planes’ pollution, airlines were expected to fund emissions cuts in other sectors, under a carbon market called Corsia.

The agreed baseline for measuring emissions was to be the two-year average across 2019 and 2020. But with 2020 turning into a year of anomalously low air travel because of restrictions to contain the spread of Covid-19, airlines proposed to change the baseline to pre-pandemic levels in 2019.

The Icao Council – which includes the world’s largest air travel manufacturing and infrastructure nations – agreed to change the baseline to 2019 for the first three years of the Corsia programme’s voluntary stage from 2021-23.

This means that if the sector’s emissions don’t rise above 2019 levels during that time – and traffic is expected to take some time to rebound – airlines won’t have to pay anything for their climate impacts.

The 193 members of Icao’s Assembly will decide in 2022 whether to continue with the baseline change beyond 2023 or revert back to the previously agreed 2019-20 average.

The proposal was pushed by the EU, which had formally endorsed rewriting the rules.

The US had threatened to withdraw from the scheme’s voluntary stage if the baseline was not changed, according to Dutch infrastructure minister Cora van Nieuwenhuizen in a letter updating Dutch lawmakers on negotiations published on 26 June.

Climate news in your inbox? Sign up here

Dufrasne, of Carbon Market Watch, accused Icao of “failing” to tackle the aviation sector’s climate problem. He echoed other campaigners’ calls for governments to regulate the industry at a national or regional level by ending the sector’s tax breaks and putting a price on pollution.

Previous analysis by the Öko-Institut in Germany and the US-based Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) found using the 2019-only baseline could give airlines a free pass to pollute until 2027, depending on the shape of the recovery.

Dan Rutherford, aviation director at the International Council on Clean Transportation, added this would make Corsia’s coverage of the sector’s emissions fall below 10% of global aviation CO2 emission to 2035 – meaning 90% of airlines’ carbon emissions would be “free of charge”.

As airlines try to woo back customers concerned about both Covid-19 and the climate impacts of flying, “they can’t afford to ignore the looming global crisis of climate change,” said Annie Petsonk, an aviation expert at EDF.

“The sooner that the costs of carbon control are included in the costs of doing business, the sooner new technologies will be developed.”

The move also means airlines will “lose their first-mover advantage” in securing long-term supply contracts from carbon credit suppliers, she added.

The post Airlines’ climate obligations postponed as UN body endorses industry proposal appeared first on Climate Home News.

In the wake of the global coronavirus pandemic, the International Air Transport Association (Iata), called on the UN body responsible for aviation to ease airlines’ obligations to offset their emissions growth under a scheme known as Corsia.

Iata urged the International Civil Aviation Organisation (Icao) to change the baseline from which emissions growth will be measured – a move it estimates could save airlines $15 billion in carbon offsetting costs.

At a time when the industry is reeling from grounded flights due to Covid-19, airlines argue current rules risk creating “an inappropriate economic burden on the sector”.

On Tuesday, EU member states backed the baseline change, which could see airlines pay nothing for their climate impact until 2024.

France, Germany, Italy, the UK, Finland, the Netherlands, Spain and Greece will speak in favour of the adjustment at a meeting of Icao’s council this week. That means the rule change could win majority support.

Campaigners say it would further damage the credibility of the offsetting scheme, which is widely regarded as weak and not aligned with the Paris Agreement goals.

“This could be the final blow for Corsia,” Gilles Dufrasne, senior policy officer at Carbon Market Watch told Climate Home News. “It was always a ridiculously weak system, but now it is becoming essentially meaningless. Airlines are just let off the hook one more time.”

Airlines could get free pass on climate for five years under industry proposal

Member states of Icao have agreed to offset all growth in aviation emissions from 2020. With few technological solutions currently available to reduce planes’ pollution, airlines were expected to fund emissions cuts in other sectors, under a carbon market called Corsia.

The agreed baseline for measuring emissions was to be the two-year average across 2019 and 2020. But with 2020 turning into a year of anomalously low air travel because of restrictions to contain the spread of Covid-19, airlines have proposed to measure from pre-pandemic levels in 2019.

Analysis by the Öko-Institut in Germany found that changing the baseline to 2019 could give airlines a free pass to pollute for the next three to six years depending on the speed of the recovery. A study by the US-based Environmental Defense Fund found similar results.

Observers to the UN aviation talks argue the baseline change isn’t needed because offsets are already very cheap. An existing flexibility provision built in Corsia could be used by airlines to delay their offsetting obligations and limit additional financial costs.

Jo Dardenne, aviation manager at NGO Transport & Environnent, told CHN the change in baseline meant “we’re going from a cheap offsetting scheme to no scheme at all”.

“The aviation sector is clearly using the Covid-19 crisis to dilute the environmental effectiveness of a scheme that was already expected to bring little to zero environmental benefits,” she said.

Climate news in your inbox? Sign up here

For Tim Johnson, director of the Aviation Environment Federation, the baseline change will undermine many governments’ stated intentions to bolster climate ambition.

Airlines have managed to get what they wanted from governments, Dufrasne added. Governments, including in the EU, are handing out multi-billion relief packages to airlines “with virtually no climate conditions while also agreeing to industry demands to weaken the already insufficient climate policies in place,” he said. “They are exploiting the crisis.”

Oleg Butković, minister for transport and infrastructure in Croatia, which holds the EU Council rotating presidency, said in a statement that the baseline change was “crucial to maintaining a similar level of ambition for the scheme” while taking into account airlines’ difficult circumstances.

But the move did not receive blanket support inside the EU. Sweden did not support the rule change. And a cross-party group of European lawmakers from the Parliament’s environment committee called for the average 2019-2020 baseline to be maintained until a planned review in 2022, when the shape of the sector’s recovery will be clearer.

Among them Bas Eickhout, a Green MEP, told CHN in an email: “Corsia is already extremely weak, the change that Iata pursues makes it even worse. Weakening Corsia now in such a substantial way will be nearly impossible to correct later,” he said.

French MEP Pascal Canfin, chair of the environment committee, added the EU will need to work to readdress the issue at the next Corsia review in 2022. “The EU should be leading on emission regulation, not watering down the ambition,” he said.

Aviation’s black box: Non-disclosure agreements, closed doors and rising CO2

The 36 members of the Icao Council, which includes the world’s largest air travel manufacturing and infrastructure nations, are expected to take a position on the issue this week.

Besides European countries, the US and the Latin American Civil Aviation Commission are also supporting the rule change, according to Reuters. Any decision taken by the council requires a majority of at least 19 countries.

However Annie Petsonk, aviation expert at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), said the council was not legally entitled to change the rules of the climate deal that was agreed by 193 countries at Icao’s Assembly in 2016. Instead, Icao’s assembly would need to approve any recommendations to change the rules for offsetting emissions.

If a decision was taken by the council, “this will deal a triple whammy” to Icao’s climate credibility, she told CHN: airlines will be given a free pass to pollute, the trust of countries that are not part of Icao’s council will be undermined as well as the public trust in the credibility of airlines’ environmental claims.

The post ‘Final blow’ to aviation climate plan as EU agrees to weaken rules appeared first on Climate Home News.

The International Air Transport Association (Iata), which represents the world’s airlines, has called on the UN body responsible for aviation to rewrite the rules for offsetting the sector’s emissions growth.

To curb the aviation sector’s growing emissions, member states of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (Icao) have agreed to make all growth in international flights carbon neutral after 2020.

With limited technical solutions available to make planes less polluting, airlines will rely on a carbon market known as Corsia. The scheme allows them to offset their emissions growth by funding carbon-cutting projects in other sectors.

The agreed baseline for measuring emissions was to be the two-year average across 2019 and 2020. However 2020 is turning into a year of anomalously low air travel, with planes grounded by travel restrictions to prevent the spread of Covid-19. That means airlines would have a bigger offsetting obligation than they anticipated if traffic rebounds quickly.

Iata is urging Icao to change the baseline to pre-pandemic levels in 2019 – a move it says could save airlines an estimated $15 billion in carbon offsetting costs.

Airlines urge UN body to ease climate goals for 2020s as traffic collapses

Last month, Iata described maintaining the 2019-2020 baseline as “an inappropriate economic burden” that would “significantly” increase the number of offsets airlines would need to buy to meet the climate target and lead to higher costs.

The proposal is to be discussed at an upcoming Icao Council meeting – a body of 36 countries, including the world’s largest plane manufacturing and airport hub nations – 8-26 June in Montreal, Canada.

The plan would “delay airlines’ climate mitigation requirements by several years and lead to significantly fewer emission reductions,” according to Lambert Schneider, research coordinator for international climate policy at the German-based Öko-Institut, who studied the impact of Iata’s proposal on climate action.

Industry experts have argued that a lower 2019-2020 baseline would have a negligible impact on airlines’ offsetting requirements and associated costs.

On the contrary, the study by the Öko-Institut found that Iata’s proposal to increase the baseline to 2019-only emissions would reduce airlines’ obligations to offset emissions growth between 25% and 75% by 2035 – depending on the speed of air travel recovery.

Climate news in your inbox? Sign up here

Schneider and his co-author Jakob Graichen concluded that Iata’s proposal would remove incentives for the aviation sector to invest in carbon-cutting measures.

They recommended maintaining the current baseline until an Icao review planned for 2022, which is due to review the overall ambition of the Corsia scheme.

Campaigners agreed.

Annie Petsonk, aviation expert at EDF, wrote in a blog that while airlines were desperate to save money in the wake of the pandemic, hastily rewriting the rules for the sector’s emission-curbing scheme “would be penny-wise and future-foolish” and damage public confidence in Corsia.

“If investors believe that governments will make ad hoc rule changes that strand their investments, they won’t make those investments,” she said.

“Re-writing Corsia’s rules would not only give airlines a free pass to pollute for the next half-decade, it would undermine investor confidence in airlines’ climate commitments at a time when regaining investor confidence is crucial to the sector’s survival.”

Aviation’s black box: Non-disclosure agreements, closed doors and rising CO2

A coalition of NGOs including EDF, Carbon Market Watch and WWF, along with businesses and offsetting programmes have urged Icao’s Council not to change the Corsia baseline.

In a letter, they argue that consistency in apply fixed rules objectively and following established processes are crucial for investor confidence, warning against changing the rules seven months before the start of the scheme. “The lack of durable investment would contribute to worsening the climate crisis,” they wrote.

“Corsia is an important mechanism for carbon markets around the world. Changes to elements as fundamental to its design as the baseline should be treated very cautiously.”

The Öko-Institut research compares two recovery scenarios to 2035 with the climate goal airlines agreed to meet before the coronavirus outbreak.

The first is based on Icao’s most optimistic scenario which assumes a 38% decrease in air travel this year compared to pre-Covid19, a fast recovery to 2019 emissions level in the next three years and continued growth thereafter at a rate similar to what was expected before the pandemic.

The second scenario is Icao’s most pessimistic with a 71% drop in air travel in 2020, a slower recovery of more than three years and continued growth from the mid-2020s at a slightly lower rate than expected before the pandemic.

When applying a 2019-2020 baseline, the study shows that a quick recovery scenario would require airlines to purchase slightly more carbon credits than they would have if the pandemic hadn’t happened.

A built-in flexibility provision in the Corsia scheme could, however, reduce the pandemic’s impact by lowering airlines’ offset obligations during the programme’s first voluntary stage between January 2021 and the end of 2023. From 2027, offsetting obligations will become mandatory for all international flights.

Under a slower recovery scenario, airlines wouldn’t need to offset any emissions between 2021 and 2023 and would be required to buy slightly fewer carbon credits than they would have expected to before the outbreak to offset their emissions growth to 2035.

When using Iata’s proposed 2019 baseline, offsetting requirements would disappear in a quick recovery scenario until 2024 and be reduced by 25% by 2035 compared to pre-pandemic trajectory. Under a slower recovery, airlines wouldn’t have to offset emissions until 2027 – reducing mitigation efforts by 75% by 2035.

An analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) published earlier this month found that Iata’s proposal could push the date for airlines to start offsetting their emissions under the Corsia scheme to 2028 or even later – 12 years after the scheme was agreed in 2016.

EDF looked at five possible post-Covid-19 scenarios for the aviation industry which assumed emissions would drop between 20% and 70% this year compared to pre-outbreak projections.

The analysis found that unless aviation’s emissions quickly rebound to levels pre-outbreak or higher by 2021, a 2019-only baseline would effectively postpone Corsia’s start planned in January 2021 for three to five years.

The post Airlines could get free pass on climate for five years under industry proposal appeared first on Climate Home News.

The International Air Transport Association (Iata), which represents the world’s airlines, said it wanted to change the baselines from which traffic growth will be judged in coming years to pre-pandemic levels in 2019.

It said it wanted  to “avoid an inappropriate economic burden on the sector” by dropping a planned baseline of average emissions in 2019-2020 that is likely to be much lower than 2019 since many flights are now grounded.

As part of efforts to curb the aviation sector’s growing emissions, countries that are members to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (Icao) – the UN body responsible for aviation – have agreed an “aspirational goal” to make all growth in international flights carbon neutral after 2020, compared to both 2019 and 2020.

Under the existing plan, countries have agreed to use a market-based offset mechanism known as Corsia. But the public health crisis and collapse of air travel means emissions from aviation are anticipated to fall this year.

A lower 2019-2020 baseline than initially expected would toughen airlines’ goals for curbing emissions growth and force companies to buy a lot more offsets to meet the sector’s climate target when traffic rebounds.

In a position paper, Iata said use of the two-year average could result in “significantly higher offsetting requirements and costs for operators further down the line”.

Coronavirus may toughen airlines’ goals for curbing emissions in 2020s

Iata called on the Icao’s council, the organisation’s governing body, to adjust Corsia’s baseline to 2019.

The trade group said using only 2019 would “preserve the environmental benefits” of Corsia as it “would remain more stringent” than the anticipated baseline, had the coronavirus crisis not happened and airlines’ emissions continued to grow in 2020.

It urged the council to make a decision on the issue before the end of June.

Corsia was agreed in 2016 and a review of the scheme was not expected before 2022.

The trade group’s call for Icao to review Corsia’s implementation comes after China – which has one of the world’s fastest growing air passenger markets – also called for the baseline to be adjusted during a meeting of Icao’s council last month.

The move also comes as the aviation industry is urging governments to provide it with economic relief as the pandemic stalled global travel. The US approved a near $60 billion bailout package for the industry last month.

However, adjusting the baseline would require political approval by other Icao members.

Bas Eickhout, a Green MEP and vice-chair of the European Parliament’s environment committee, told Climate Home News Corsia was already “extremely weak” and “won’t bring the aviation sector anywhere near to what is needed to tackle climate change”.

Governments still due to submit tougher climate plans in 2020, despite Cop26 delay

He added that while a lower baseline will force airlines to buy more credits, the credits were “very cheap” at a “couple of euros per tonne of CO2”.

Under Corsia’s first pilot phase to 2023, airlines will be able to offset their emissions using cheap Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) units.

“I don’t see the need for any adjustments now. I trust the EU won’t either,” Eickhout said, adding that any Corsia review would ideally make the baseline stricter, not weaker.

Corsia is due to come into force in January 2021 but will be voluntary for the first six years. That means only flights between countries which have volunteered to participate in the scheme will have to compensate for the growth in their emissions.

From 2027, offsetting obligations will become mandatory for all international flights.

Iata, which championed Corsia, said it was concerned that countries may be less willing to take part in the voluntary pilot phase if the scheme’s costs were higher than initially forecast.

“Current volunteers may reconsider their earlier decisions in order to safeguard the interest of their national air transport system and its connectivity,” it added.

Climate news in your inbox? Sign up here

But observers of UN aviation talks and campaigners say that while a lower baseline would impose greater offsetting requirements on airlines, built-in flexibility provisions could reduce the pandemic’s impact and limit additional financial costs.

Gilles Dufrasne, policy officer at Carbon Market Watch, told CHN the calculation of the baseline using a two-year average was designed to “avoid the impact of an exceptional year”.

“If things had gone the other way, and 2020 was a year of high traffic, we would not be having this discussion,” he said.

“It’s a non-issue,” said Andrew Murphy, aviation campaigner at the NGO Transport & Environment.

“Corsia was due to have next to no impact financially on airlines…. That airlines may have to buy a few million more offsets, industry wide, across three years, is really of no consequence,” he added, accusing Iata of attempting to “stave off more effective government regulation”.

For Tim Johnson, director of the Aviation Environment Federation, “given the need for Icao and industry to align aviation’s climate goals with the Paris Agreement, retaining 2020 as the baseline could turn out to be a positive step forward for climate ambition”.

The post Airlines urge UN body to ease climate goals for 2020s as traffic collapses appeared first on Climate Home News.

But the virus is also putting the finger on one of the industry’s most difficult challenges: curbing the sector’s increasing greenhouse gas emissions from a baseline of 2019 and 2020.

As part of goals to limit emissions, members of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (Icao), the UN body responsible for aviation, have agreed an “aspirational goal” to make all growth in international flights after 2020 carbon neutral.

Under the plan, countries have agreed to use a market-based offset mechanism known as Corsia to mitigate emissions from flying. Offsets are the primary tool to curb the sector’s emissions with alternative fuels and energy efficiency technologies not developed at scale.

The resolution to establish Corsia adopted in 2016 states that the sector’s growth should be offset compared with a baseline of average total emissions for 2019 and 2020.

But with thousands of flights grounded because of the coronavirus, emissions from aviation are anticipated to fall this year, reducing average emissions over the two years.

If traffic rebounds in coming years, growth from the baseline will be bigger than previously expected, forcing airlines to do more to offset emissions than they would if flights in 2020 were unaffected by coronavirus.

Coronavirus delays global efforts for climate and biodiversity action

Last week, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) said it anticipated revenue losses for passenger business of between $63 billion and $113 billion. Airline share prices have also been hit hard by the outbreak, now considered a pandemic by the World Health Organisation.

“Emissions can rebound next year from the coronavirus situation,” Annie Petsonk, aviation expert at Environmental Defense Fund, told Climate Home News, adding “airlines could have more to offset” emissions growth.

On the other hand, “the coronavirus paired with concerns about climate change could mean that people will act more carefully about getting to places in the future,” she said.

Separately, Petsonk wrote in a statement that Icao was likely to come under pressure to “change the fundamentals of Corsia” to ease the financial hardship for airlines.

That could include calls to revise the 2019-20 baseline. “This would be a dangerous mistake because it might trigger a reconvening of the 190+ member countries of Icao’s Assembly to renegotiate the hard-fought 2016 resolution,” she wrote.

From January 2021, only flights between countries which have volunteered to participate in the Corsia system will have to compensate for the growth in their emissions. From 2027, offsetting obligations will become mandatory for all international flights.

Flying accounts for about 2%-3% of global emissions, roughly the same as Germany. Icao’s own forecast anticipates emissions to increase by up to 300% by 2050 under business as usual.

Coronavirus and climate change are two crises that need humanity to unite

On Friday, Icao’s council – a body of 36 countries, including the world’s largest air travel manufacturing and infrastructure nations – is due to start discussing which of 14 carbon offset schemes  airlines will be allowed to use during the first three-year voluntary stage. The meeting is due to last until 20 March.

The decision is key to the integrity of the Corsia scheme in delivering real emissions reductions since it will impact the quality and quantity of offsets that airlines will be able to buy to cancel out the growth of their emissions.

The inclusion of credits from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a carbon market set up under the Kyoto Protocol, is a concern for observers and campaigners, who fear this could flood the market with billions of cheap credits that have not actually achieved emissions cuts.

A 2016 EU-commissioned report found that just 2% of CDM projects were highly likely to ensure “additional” emissions reductions.

The meeting, which is taking place in Icao’s headquarters in Montreal, is closed to observers and the media.

Icao’s Technical Advisory Body (TAB) made a set of recommendations to the council, which have not been made public. Climate Home News understands that at least six of the 14 schemes that applied have been judged eligible to be used under Corsia.

Campaigners have called on Icao to publish the TAB recommendations, warning against the risk of a back room deal and the politicisation of the decision.

Will governments pass the first test of the Paris climate agreement in 2020?

In a letter, the International Coalition for Sustainable Aviation warned the council its decisions and “the transparency with which you make these, puts the credibility of aviation’s climate efforts in the global spotlight”.

The start date to accept offset projects could have a key impact on the scheme’s integrity.

An earlier date would allow more credits on the market while a later start date would restrict the market’s liquidity. But research has found that the supply of credits is much higher than the demand forecast.

A study by Ecosystem Marketplace found that starting the crediting period in 2013, would allow for a billion tonnes of carbon credits from the CDM to become available under Corsia.

That is the equivalent of six to ten times airlines’ foreseeable demand, according to Ecosystem Marketplace.

Another option, reportedly being considered by Icao, is to include offsets that were based on emission reduction activities that have taken place between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2020.

“A lot of people began developing projects in 2016 explicitly because Corsia was announced that year,” said Steve Zwick of Ecosystem Marketplace.

We need your help… Climate Home News is an independent news outlet dedicated to the most important global stories. If you can spare even a few dollars each month, it would make a huge difference to us. Our Patreon account is a safe and easy way to support our work.

An analysis by Carbon Market Watch found that credits currently available on the voluntary markets, which exclude credits from the CDM for instance, are enough to cover Corsia’s demand well into 2025.

“This would leave five years for new projects to start and generate credits for the rest of Corsia,” Gilles Dufrasne, policy officer at Carbon Market Watch said, insisting eligibility should been defined by the quality over quantity of credits.

In its letter, the ICSA has called on Icao’s council members to exclude any offsets from projects which were started before 2020.

ICSA also called on the council to ensure emissions reductions are not double counted by both the airline buying the credits and the host country benefiting from the project.

There is still no international agreement on avoiding double counting emissions reduction after countries failed to agree on the issue at the last UN climate talks in Madrid in December.

The post Coronavirus may toughen airlines’ goals for curbing emissions in 2020s appeared first on Climate Home News.

Governments are expected to sign off on the deal in Montreal during a meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), which starts on Tuesday.

If agreed it will be a first for the aviation sector, which accounts for 2% of global emissions but was not obliged to cut its carbon footprint under last December’s Paris climate deal.

In an interview with Climate Home, EU climate commissioner Miguel Arias Canete said the ICAO targets were “not as ambitious as the EU would like” but they should find support.

“The worst thing is not having a market mechanism at all – we are not in a bad place at the moment,” he said.

The EU’s 28 member states were “working actively” to convince as many countries to back a motion to ensure aviation becomes a carbon neutral industry from 2020.

“We are making a big outreach with the High Ambition Coalition,” said Canete, referring to a group of developed and developing countries that formed at the Paris climate talks.

https://twitter.com/RobHuyser/status/779573512671559680

So far, nearly 60 governments including the US, China, Japan, Canada, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates have voiced support.

“This is an important deal to land and build on,” tweeted UK climate minister Nick Hurd, who was in New York last week for climate talks at the UN and Major Economies Forum.

Brazil, Russia and India are known outliers, with Delhi unlikely to sign up to an initial voluntary phase between 2020-2023, said a source in a European government.

Under plans to be discussed at ICAO a first phase would follow the trial period through 2024-2026, with a second phase ending in 2035.

With the sector growing at 4-5% a year, emissions from 2020 would be offset through carbon credits. An ICAO report projects that will cost up to US$6.2 billion in 2025, around 0.7% of global aviation revenues and $23.9bn in 2035, or 1.8% of revenue.

UN: climate-friendly flying could cost $60 billion a year

The plan gained support today from the influential Air Transport Action Group which represents the likes of Airbus, Boeing, Rolls Royce together with 265 airlines.

“We are very close to that agreement becoming a reality. We urge governments meeting at ICAO agree on the world’s first sectoral market mechanism for tackling climate change,” said ATAG executive director Michael Gill.

“Whilst the industry remains in favour of a mandatory approach, it says that the initial voluntary system can work if enough States volunteer,” read a separate statement from ATAG.

Despite long term cost projections for the sector running to billions, initial impacts on the sector “won’t be much,” said an analysis from Platts.

“In the long run however, expect to see airlines buying up carbon credits and increasingly switching to sustainable fuels as they seek to manage their carbon exposure.”

What are the implications of an @icao aviation emissions deal? https://t.co/wOtmF2zyzu pic.twitter.com/Kr0jF67Epe

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) September 26, 2016

Still, despite a deluge of positive diplomatic signals many green groups and EU lawmakers remain unconvinced ICAO will play its part in limiting global warming to below the UN’s 2C target.

“This is a territory grab by the industry to realise its right to pollute,” said Jeff Gazzard, a veteran air transport campaigner.

On Monday, 90 NGOs including Friends of the Earth, Plane Stupid and Transport and Environment registered their concern that the offsets used may have limited environmental benefits.

“One of the main concerns is that ICAO’s proposal to reduce the climate impact of aviation relies heavily on carbon offsetting,” the NGOs say.

“Offsetting is widely considered a false solution to climate change because it does not reduce emissions, but merely shift emissions from one sector to another. At best, it is a zero-sum option.”

Writing in the Guardian, MEPs Bas Eickhout and Keith Taylor said EU officials must ensure the scheme remains “under constant review” and offers assurances on the integrity of offsets.

“The scope of participation must be sufficiently wide-ranging, and the wealthiest countries must take responsibility for their historical burden and pledge to do more to reduce emissions.

“Finally, allowing regional blocs such as the EU to take further measures to curb aviation emissions is an essential part of enabling them to honour the commitments they made in Paris, especially if ICAO fails to deliver.”

The post EU urges global support for UN aviation climate plan appeared first on Climate Home News.

The EU, US, China are among nearly 50 countries to have so far signalled support for a new pact, which is set to be signed off at an October meeting of the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organisation.

“After the decision of my Cabinet on Monday to signal our intent to join ICAO’s new global market-based measure from the beginning, I was thrilled to hear from a number of my Pacific counterparts that they are actively considering doing the same,” said Hilda Heine.

“We are looking forward to taking these issues up with our bigger Pacific brothers and sisters in the next few days.”

Did you know?
Aviation accounts for around 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions. If it was a country, it would be the 7th largest emitter – just below Germany and above Canada and South Korea.

Small island states and around 50 countries classed by the UN as “least developed” are officially exempted from ICAO proposals, which seek to limit carbon pollution from aviation at 2020 levels.

Under plans published after a meeting in Montreal last month, the pact would start with a 2012-2023 pilot phase followed by a voluntary 2024-2026 period.

The second phase from 2027-2035 would be mandatory for all countries bar around 90 of the world’s poorest states.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

India, Russia, Egypt and Libya are among countries that are understood to be unwilling to sign up, while doubts remain over Nigeria, Brazil and South Africa.

In a statement Michael Gill, head of the Air Transport Action Group (ATAG), a body representing airlines, said he did not think a pilot phase was necessary.

“The aviation sector, through hundreds of collaborative efforts around the world, has shown that carbon dioxide reductions are not only achievable, they are also beneficial to the business,” he said.

“We have passed that message on to regulators meeting at ICAO. It is unusual for an industry to be pushing governments to take this kind of economic action, but we believe it is time for aviation to show leadership and make an historic decision at the ICAO Assembly.”

The post Pacific nations signal support for UN aviation emissions deal appeared first on Climate Home News.

Nearly 50 countries will take part in the plan brokered by the Montreal-based International Civil Aviation Organisation, due for sign-off in little over three weeks.

In a joint statement, the US and China governments said they “expect to be early participants” in the market-based measure, which is scheduled to come online from 2021.

Speaking on Saturday, US president Barack Obama said the countries had presented a roadmap to get “negotiations done this year”.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

In a separate statement the European Civil Aviation Conference, a 42-strong coalition of all EU and 16 non-EU states, said its members planned to join the new UN initiative “from the start”.

An estimated 2% of carbon pollution comes from flying, but the sector was left out of the 2015 Paris climate agreement in anticipation of an agreement at ICAO this year.

The latest set of proposals for an aviation deal were published on 2 September, and were referred to by the US and China as a “consensus text”.

Participation would be voluntary through a 2021-2023 pilot phase and a 2024-2026 first phase.

A second phase from 2027-2035 would be mandatory for all countries bar those exempted, which includes around 90 small island states and those countries classed by the UN as least developed.

UN: climate-friendly flying could cost $60 billion a year

A State Department official has told Bloomberg the planned deal would cover 80% of global aviation emissions.

Still, the optional nature of the initial phases raised concerns over the new mechanism’s “ability to deliver the CO2 reductions it needs to,” warned James Beard, an aviation analyst with WWF.

Early participation from Brazil, India, Russia and South Africa was still unclear, he added.

Dan Rutherford, a director with the International Council of Clean Transportation, said the costs of the UN goal for carbon-neutral growth from 2020 could rise steeply depending on how many countries take part.

“How much post-2020 growth will need to be offset now depends upon which countries opt into the initial voluntary phases,” he said.

Under current plans around 60% of traffic growth from 2020-2030 would need to be offset under the new market mechanism, he added in a blogpost.

According to ICAO, offsets will cost airlines between US$1.5-6.2 billion in 2025 and $5.3 to 23.9 billion in 2035, depending on carbon prices.

The post EU, US, China confirm support for aviation climate deal appeared first on Climate Home News.

Around 170 new bioenergy refineries would need to be built every year through to mid-century, catering for annual growth of 4% through 2030 and beyond.

Meeting this target would require a “large share” of bioenergy resources to be devoted to the aviation sector, said the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) report.

“Even under this scenario, achieving carbon neutral growth exclusively from the use of sustainable alternative fuels is unlikely to happen in 2021 or shortly thereafter as for the production of alternative fuels an initial ramp-up phase is required before production can reach the levels mentioned above,” it reads.

Many hunger campaigners already oppose current levels of biofuels, arguing they use farmlands in poorer parts of the world that could supply food to millions.

Aviation fumes: Obama targets final piece of climate legacy

The study suggests the industry will rely heavily on offsetting its greenhouse gas emissions from 2020, the year countries have committed to carbon neutral aviation growth.

By the end of the decade CO2 emissions from flying are likely to hit 682-755 megatonnes, says ICAO. By 2050 that figure could hit 2,500 MT.

Better engines, paints, flying techniques and improvements to infrastructure could knock off just under 1,000MT a year, leaving a gap of 1,039MT.

“Sustainable alternative drop-in fuels are the only practical renewable energy option available for aircraft today,” says Boubacar Djibo, head of ICAO’s airport transport bureau in the report.

“While the technical feasibility, environmental impacts and safety of biofuels have been well-demonstrated, integrated thinking is now required to accompany their large-scale deployment.”

In pictures: Solar Impulse completes global flight

Aviation accounts for 2% of global emissions of carbon dioxide, but it’s a figure expected to rise as the industry expands through Asia, Africa and South America.

Malawi, Uganda, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Vietnam and Ethiopia are among countries projected to see 7-8% growth in flights each year.

Talks on developing a market-based mechanism to tackle aviation emissions are ongoing, with a UN deal expected in Montreal this October.

But given projected emissions growth, costs of offsetting emissions are likely to be steep, ranging from US$1.5-6.2 billion in 2025 to $5.3 to 23.9 billion in 2035, depending on carbon prices.

“Putting in perspective with the reality of the business, the analysis also shows that the cost of carbon offsetting for operators would range from 0.2 to 0.6 % of total revenues from international aviation in 2025; and 0.5 to 1.4 % of total revenues from international aviation in 2035,” says the report.

Last week the US government signalled its intention to deliver a UN deal in the autumn, releasing a study warning of the climate and health risks posed by aviation emissions.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

The post UN: climate-friendly flying could cost $60 billion a year appeared first on Climate Home News.

With four months until the International Civil Aviation Organization aims to finalise a deal, major uncertainties remain on its environmental integrity.

A proposal by Singapore to introduce a “pre-implementation phase” had campaigners worried action on a growing source of greenhouse gas emissions could be delayed.

It is “injecting a lot of confusion”, Brad Schallert of WWF told Climate Home.

The industry had previously agreed to aim for carbon neutral growth from 2020, paying other sectors to cut emissions equivalent to any increase.

Report: China and US set for airline emissions clash 

While the details have yet to be worked out, Singapore’s intervention could see that start date pushed back.

NGOs argue any pilot phase, to test out reporting methods with voluntary offsetting, must take place before 2020.

“If you don’t start it until 2020, that is just another way you are opening up the emissions gap,” said Schallert.

The Air Transport Action Group, which represents airlines, airports and aircraft makers, agrees.

Executive director Michael Gill said in a statement: “The industry is ready to play its role and we further encourage governments to deliver a deal with concrete parameters that allows us to start implementation from 2020.”

Developing support

Also unresolved is the question of how to divide responsibility between developed and developing markets.

Draft plans ahead of the meeting exempted up to 40% of aviation emissions, according to NGO analysis, with carve-outs for poor and small countries.

Much of the focus of talks was on who would be obliged to buy offsets and how that was calculated.

Both green groups and industry are calling for wider coverage, saying poorer states can be supported in other ways.

The 36-country Council is set to thrash out the issues at a June meeting, ahead of the September Assembly with all 191 member states.

“The proposal has to show environmental integrity,” said Tim Johnson, director of the Aviation Environment Federation.

“We know that technology improvements and even biofuels are insufficient. Without the market-based measure, it is impossible to close that gap.”

He welcomed a clearer framework for reviewing the scheme every three years, however.

The latest draft states these reviews should consider improvements to support temperature goals in the Paris Agreement: holding global warming below 2C.

The post Rich and poor divided over UN aviation emissions deal appeared first on Climate Home News.

(Pic: Ronnie Macdonald/Flickr)

By Alex Pashley

A deal to slash aviation emissions later this year risks being blown off course unless it overcomes major differences between wealthy and developing countries, according to NGOs. 

Regional meetings are taking place ahead of a September assembly of UN aviation authority, ICAO, tasked with delivering a goal to cap the industry’s emissions at 2020 levels.

Aviation was a significant omission from last year’s Paris climate deal. If left unchecked, the sector’s share of global emissions could jump from 3% to over 20% by 2050.

ICAO has committed to get all its 191 members to agree to a market-based mechanism to tackle that at its first assembly in three years.

“The deal of the year is ICAO,” said Annie Petsonk, international counsel at the US-based Environmental Defense Fund. “I think it will be challenging as there are still significant differences between countries … it will take some work to bridge.”

A flying fairy tale: Why aviation carbon cuts won’t take off 

After meetings of technical experts, the body has held a series of informal Global Aviation Dialogues (GLADs) over the last two weeks to discuss the changes.

A draft proposal released in March spotlights tensions between developed and developing countries over burden sharing.

High-income countries with the largest industries would have to comply by 2021, followed by medium-income countries in 2026. The smallest and poorest are totally exempt.

That undermines the body’s commitment to carbon-neutral growth by 2020, says James Beard, an aviation specialist at WWF. Major players like China, India or South Africa will be given a grace period.

Report: UN panel agrees on CO2 efficiency standard for planes 

“In the first five years of the scheme a third of emissions might not be included. That’s a pretty big dent in its environmental integrity,” he said.

It could also run afoul of ICAO’s rule of ‘non-discrimination’ between competitors.

For instance, a British Airways flight from London to Cape Town, South Africa would be subject to the scheme. But a South Africa Airways flight of the same route would not.

Another issue is whether the cap falls on an individual airline or the sector. Existing proposals put it entirely on one or the other.

The former benefits legacy carriers who have already grown into big businesses and harms fast-growing competitors, in the developing world for instance.

“If an airline has a negative growth rate, it has no offset obligations. It seems bizarre,” adds Beard.

Report: IMF calls for carbon levy on ships and planes 

An offsetting mechanism is the body’s instrument to achieve carbon-neutral growth.

“The draft resolution in its current form provides little certainty that the worst offsets will be kept out, and there is no reference to a negative list which is an essential aspect of a robust [market-based measure],” said Andrew Murphy at Brussels-based NGO, Transport and Environment.

Fierce divides exist between groups on whether they can target forest protection through the market-based REDD+ mechanism, designed to incentivise the protection of forests.

This week, sustainable investor association CMIA said allowing airlines to offset emissions growth through REDD+ credits would be “win-win” by tropical forest communities, by funding anti-deforestation projects.

But a group of campaigners including Greenpeace and FERN said it would not ensure real-world emissions cuts and could destabilise communities in places with weak governance.

The round of GLADs finishes in Mexico City on April 8. The meetings will contribute to a new draft set to be presented at a preparatory meeting in May in Montreal.

The post Aviation talks face headwinds on rich-poor compromise appeared first on Climate Home News.

(Pic: Julian Haler/Flickr)

By Bill Hemmings

Ten days ago the airline industry stunned the world. After years of prevarication the world’s top airlines and leading manufacturers said they would take climate change seriously.

The UN’s aviation body, ICAO for short, announced a carbon emissions standard that would apply to new aircraft from 2020, and to all new deliveries of in-production aircraft – current types, or minor variations on current types – as from 2028.

Aircraft that don’t meet the standard will not be allowed to be produced after 2028.  None of the operational aircraft currently in the fleet will be affected.

The statement was widely acclaimed, notably by the US government. But will it really have any significant impact on reducing emissions?

Our contention is it will not, riddled as it is with flaws. It will not be a “rigorous and challenging” standard as industry claimed, nor will it save the 650 megatonnes of CO2 emissions by 2040 that the White House proudly proclaimed.

ICAO and states shaped the standard around parochial national manufacturer interests instead of the need to mitigate climate change. Aircraft designers will still face many challenges developing the next generation of airliners, but this standard will not be one of them.

Beyond business as usual?

New generation aircraft are generally some 10-15% more fuel efficient than those they replace. They need to be to sell. This translates to an average annual efficiency improvement of between 0.5% and 1.0%.

Constant market pressures result in a continuously improving line when you plot the average fuel consumption of new aircraft types against their entry into commercial service date.

Yet ICAO intends to regulate this ever improving trend with a flat (time independent) carbon standard. Even if the stringency is initially set at a level that will have an impact, its effect will quickly fade over time as market-driven improvements cut in.

The maximum theoretical effect of the standard at maximum stringencies is just 1 gigatonne of CO2 between 2020-2040, while total CO2 emissions from aviation over this period will be in the order of some 31 Gtonnes, i.e. a potential saving of just 3%.

Limited impact

New large aircraft types applying for certification on or after 2020 will be required to have a fuel efficiency at what is known as stringency level 8.5 (the potential stringency levels ranged from 1 to 10 in increasing impact).

Current ‘new’ large in-production aircraft types like the Airbus A320NEO and the Boeing B737-8MAX, with first deliveries between 2014 and 2020, already pass stringency levels 8 and 9 and some even 10.

So it is very unlikely that the next generation of new aircraft types, which will be required to comply to level 8.5, will have any problems doing so. New types, which will start to enter operations in about 2024, will surely comply with level 10 by a comfortable margin if they want to find buyers. So, no detectable effect of the standard here.

Shipping and aviation: Missing pieces in the climate puzzle

For in-production aircraft, those current or variations of current aircraft designs. stringency has been set at level 7 from 2023 onwards.

‘Option 1’ would have required a simultaneous production cut-off from 2023 of all aircraft not compliant to level 7. However, somewhere in the negotiations, a specific loophole, “Option 3”, was introduced delaying the production cut-off for the in-production standard to 2028 from an initial, more effective, 2023.

Thus, for instance, the Boeing B767 with its fuel inefficient 1990s technology, can now continue to be built until 2028 and populate the skies until 2055-2060. The decision to apply Option 3 slashes the potential environmental effect of the standard by some 200 – 300 megatonnes up to 2040.

Who wanted a 2028 delay?

The first candidate is the relatively new Airbus giant A380. This aircraft seems just to manage stringency level 6 but would need more substantial investments to raise it to level 7.

No A380 orders were received in 2014/2015 and a few this year. Some have been cancelled, and the production backlog extends only to 2020. So a 2023 standard would not seem to compromise current A380 commitments.

The A380’s main client, Emirates, has in fact asked for a more fuel efficient version which might at least achieve level 9 and could even be on the market by 2023 or before.

The US military – which insists that its tanker aircraft meet civil certification requirements – may have lobbied against tougher standards (Pic: Pixabay)

Had the Europeans stuck to what we know was their original position – stringency level 6/Option 1 – this would have generated an additional 12 percentage points of carbon savings over the level 7/Option 3 decision and the A380 would have been safe until the next ICAO round decided an update to the standard way beyond 2028. So there must have been another player asking for level 7/Option 3.

The most likely candidate is the United States. The B767 freighter and tanker versions only manage to comply with a low stringency level. The B767 has a backlog for big freighters. Fedex ordered 100 of the type in 2015 for delivery between 2018 and 2023. The US military – which insists that its tanker aircraft meet civil certification requirements – ordered 179 B767 to be delivered between 2017 and 2027.

Inflated claims

The White House claimed immediately after the ICAO announcement that the standard would save 650 Mton by 2040. However this calculation is based on an assumption that manufacturers would start to voluntarily update their in-production aircraft to the level of the ICAO standard in order to remain commercially competitive.

Much of this effect would have, in fact, come from the B767 (and the A380) but Option 3 appears to relieve Boeing from having to upgrade its B767 freight version and the 2028 production cut off removed any requirement for manufacturers to lift a finger before then.

Was the higher stringency level 7 forced to compensate for the Option 3 backward step? US interests would not have been affected as all Boeing aircraft would comply or be rescued by Option 3.

Level 7 for Europe would, however, have necessitated support for Option 3 in order to preserve continued production of the A380. Of course this is all mere speculation as the negotiations were held behind closed doors.

Delays increase emissions

Before ICAO met, the US surprised everyone with a very ambitious initial proposal that would generate 85% of the standard’s theoretical potential emission savings. Europe’s proposed 45% potential saving as the minimum acceptable.

The final decisions unlock less than 30% of the standard’s potential emissions reductions – rather a large climb down for a world power.

The White House crowed that “for more than five years, the United States has played a leadership role in developing these standards” while the EU claimed it played “a central role in brokering this ambitious deal”.

The truth is that the US has not been very helpful in defining an effective standard and Europe’s contribution has been of mixed quality. The external environmental costs of the additional CO2 emissions caused by the Option 3 delay alone amount to well over $6 billion.

Bill Hemmings is the aviation and shipping director at Transport & Environment (T&E), a Brussels-based sustainable transport group.

The post A flying fairy tale: Why aviation carbon cuts won’t take off appeared first on Climate Home News.

(Pic: Boeing)

By Ed King

Europe was ‘bullied’ by Russia, China and the USA into watering down its aviation emissions trading system this week, say observers close to the process.

A European Parliament vote today backed plans drawn up by lawmakers to make long haul flights exempt from any penalties until 2016, scrapping hopes that all flights in EU airspace would be covered by the ETS.

Brussels-based NGO Transport & Environment says MEPs capitulated to “pressure, bullying and threats” from industry criticism led by Airbus and countries outside the EU.

“Just when the IPCC’s latest report shows how climate change is already affecting every aspect of human life, European governments and politicians have chosen to effectively scrap the only law in the world that attempts to curb aviation’s soaring emissions,” said Bill Hemmings, aviation manager at T&E.

Jason Anderson, Head of European Climate and Energy Policy at WWF, said the EU has “compromised too much” with the decision, which could see the aviation emissions covered drop by 75%.

The news will please non-EU countries and the bloc’s aviation industry, which had lobbied heavily against the ETS covering flights in and out of the region.

@CHedegaardEU do you agree with @transenv that the EU was “bullied” into this decision by China, Russia and the US?

— Edward King (@rtcc_edking) April 3, 2014

The aviation sector is responsible for around 5% of global carbon emissions, a figure expected to rise to 15% later this century.

EU officials say the decision will allow talks on a global deal under to the UN’s aviation body, ICAO, to proceed more smoothly.

EU Climate chief Connie Hedegaard, who backed the compromise, tweeted: “@europarl vote on #ETSaviation is better than no result. Now pressure is on the rest of the world to move forward and agree a global MBMU countries”

Her spokesperson, Isaac Valero, was rather more blunt: “Aviation – the good: there’s an outcome – the bad: not the highest level of ambition – the ugly: fierce lobbying. Let’s move on, for now.”

Last year ICAO outlined plans for a ‘market based measure’ with possible adoption in 2016 and implementation by 2020.

If ICAO fails to come up with workable proposals to shrink the sector’s carbon footprint, the Commission’s original provision will be imposed on all flights taking off and landing in the EU from 2017.

The post EU ‘bullied’ into diluting aviation emissions trading scheme appeared first on Climate Home News.

Long-haul carriers get until 2016 to come up with plan to cut CO2 from aviation sector. (Source: Flickr/travelsofamonkey)

By John McGarrity

Long-haul flights will remain exempt from the EU’s emissions trading scheme until 2016 after a provisional deal was reached yesterday by lawmakers in Brussels, meaning more time for the global aviation industry to decide how to shrink its large carbon footprint.

Negotiators from the European Parliament, the EU Commission and the EU presidency have agreed to extend the current suspension of regulations for intercontinental flights, measures that will be put to a meeting of member states on Friday.

A vote in the European Parliament early next month is expected to back the deal, which would give the UN’s aviation agency, ICAO, more time to come up with a plan on how to cut emissions from a sector estimated to account for 5% of manmade global warming.

“With today’s deal, European governments have conceded again to international pressure without getting anything meaningful in return, let alone guarantees that soaring international aviation emissions will one day be tackled,” said Bill Hemmings, aviation manager at campaign group Transport & Environment in a statement.

Peter Groote, a German MEP who was one of the negotiators for yesterday’s deal, said ICAO’s next general assembly in 2016 would need to produce international agreement on  a global market-based scheme to cut CO2 emissions to take force after 2020.

However if the International Civil Aviation Organisation fails to come up with workable proposals to shrink the sector’s carbon footprint, the European Commission’s original provision would be imposed on all flights taking off and landing in the EU from 2017.

Currently, only flights within the EU have to buy carbon permits, accounting for just a quarter of the emissions covered by the original scheme.

The EU’s suspension in 2012 of laws applying to long-haul flights, known as ‘stop the clock’, was widely viewed as concession to the global aviation industry by allowing it a year to come up with workable proposals to cut emissions.

But progress since then has been slow, and last October ICAO only agreed to draw up a compact on emissions by 2020, rather than putting measures into force by the end of the decade.

Green groups and Brussels sources say France, Germany and the UK – the main partners in Europe’s airplane manufacturer Airbus – had taken the lead in yesterday’s decision.

Until the EU emissions law was suspended in 2012, countries including the US, China and India railed against what they termed a breach of national sovereignty and warned  of a trade war.

This could have meant cancellations of orders for Airbus planes, a move the company warned could have cost thousands of well-paid and highly-skilled jobs in Europe.

The post EU proposes more time for long-haul airlines to cut CO2 appeared first on Climate Home News.

Connie Hedegaard, EU Climate Commissioner (Pic: Johannes Jansson)

By Sophie Yeo

When the EU established a regional trading scheme for the aviation industry in 2012, it was a brave political decision.

For this trading scheme, the EU decided to regulate the emissions of all flights that either departed from or arrived at a European airport. It was the first, and it remains the only, regional trading scheme that has been set up to regulate the carbon emissions from aviation, and it helped the EU to stake out its position as an environmental leader.

The best testimony to the ambition of the scheme is probably the backlash that it faced. Other states from outside the EU objected to the notion that the EU could regulate the emissions from their aircrafts over their own airspace, regarding it as a threat to their sovereignty.

So in November, the EU ‘stopped the clock’ for one year on its ETS, on the condition that in this period the world would work together, within the UN’s aviation body ICAO, to develop a global market based mechanism to regulate the emissions from all flights.

These negotiations have reached fever pitch in the last month, as countries gathered in Montreal to discuss how exactly this global MBM could be introduced. It was not a new point of discussion.

The UN’s International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has been skirting around the issue of how to reduce the emissions from the industry since the Kyoto Protocol handed over responsibility for the sector in 1997 – but this time the added pressure from the EU meant that hopes were high.

EU takes a beating

The first blow for the EU came at the beginning of September, when the EU agreed to reduce the emissions covered by its emissions trading scheme to those within its own airspace, covering only a fraction of the pollution that it would have done before.

But after the final meetings on Friday, the EU has been left even more battered and bruised, having been cornered into agreeing to a regional scheme that includes only flights that both depart and land within the EU, and may only regulate the emissions from those that enter from outside the EU with the “mutual agreement” of the other state.

In exchange, ICAO has agreed to develop a global MBM by the next General Assembly of ICAO in 2016, with the intention of implementing it by 2020.

For some, this outcome represents a humiliating retreat, with the EU negotiators being forced to crawl back to Brussels on their knees licking their wounds, having compromised on their position without achieving much in return from ICAO.

Bill Hemmings, from Transport and Environment, said, “Europe’s ETS, the only international measure that actually reduces emissions from international aviation, has been hamstrung by ICAO delegates more interested in evading responsibility than protecting the environment.

“In exchange for the halting of the only real and effective system, they propose to ‘agree to agree on something in 2016’. The Assembly’s resolution text looks like a Swiss cheese – full of holes; exactly the patchwork it was supposed to avoid.”

Pyrrhic victory?

But the statement that emerged from the EU on the final resolution was far more positive, suggesting they considered the final resolution to be something of a victory.

Connie Hedegaard, Commissioner for Climate Action in the EU, said: “The EU’s hard work has paid off. After so many years of talks, ICAO has finally agreed to the first-ever global deal to curb aviation emissions.

“If it hadn’t been for the EU’s hard work and determination, we wouldn’t have got this decision today to create a global market-based measure. What matters to us is that the aviation sector also contributes to our efforts to reduce emissions.

“While we would have liked more countries to accept our regional scheme, progress was made overall and we will now factor this in when, together with the member states and the European Parliament, we decide on the way forward with the EU ETS.”

It may appear that the EU is putting on a brave face, but there are also others outside of the EU inner circle for whom the outcome doesn’t represent the tragic fall of the hero of environmental leadership that some have perceived.

Legal framework

The fact that Hedegaard can say that the EU is still considering the way forward with the EU ETS highlights an important aspect of the outcome: despite the fanfare surrounding it, ICAO does not have the final say when it comes to regulating the aviation industry.

While the final ICAO document is an important statement on the positions of the countries involved, it is not legally binding, but rather represents a political agreement. And the process hasn’t ended for the EU just because they’ve left the Montreal negotiations. The new proposals will have to get the agreement of the European Parliament and the Commission before the EU law can be amended.

Legal authority in the aviation industry is still derived from the 1944 Chicago Convention, which sets out the principle that each country has sovereignty over its own airspace, which means that legally the EU is not bound to getting “mutual agreement” if it wants to regulate the emissions above its land.

EU Parliament

Tim Johnson from Aviation Environment Federation told RTCC that he expects the European Parliament to start nursing the ETS back to health in some way when any amendments are taken before it.

He says: “ICAO is one audience but they’ve still got to go back to Parliament and get the agreement to change, and I think the parliament will demand that sort of approach. I’d expect them to do so: they need it to maintain that leverage.

“We don’t want another three years of talks with no outcome in 2016. The global has to be a preferable alternative to what Europe’s doing, so we don’t want too much given away too soon.”

He added that other states, particularly the US, might be more willing to broker a deal with the EU, particularly since denying a state the right to maintain sovereignty over its own airspace could be setting a dangerous precedent that many would not consider worthwhile, considering that this is a principle that applies not just to emissions, but also to navigation and security.

He also dismissed the idea that Europe’s environmental leadership was weakened by the outcome.

“They’d gone in there willing to negotiate and be flexible, so the fact that they didn’t get what they wanted, I don’t think it should be seen as though their credibility has been diminished in any way,” he says.

“I think they are still pioneers that are looking to take the rest of the world with them. I think if they can maintain that then they’re still in a good position for the climate talks generally. There are options and this isn’t quite the end of the story yet.”

Jean Leston, transport and policy manager at WWF-UK, added in an interview with RTCC last week that the EU could continue to play a pivotal role going forwards as the world attempts to figure out exactly how to develop this global market based mechanism (MBM).

“We’ve seen the environmental leader brought down by the pack, but I think once the dust has settled the EU still has a lot to offer in international negotiations,” she said.

“This is the only system that’s up and running, and proves that cap-and-trade can work. In the next three years there’s going to be a lot of work to design and develop an MBM and the EU experience is going to be vital in helping to deliver that.”

Long term game

But is the global deal that is on the table robust enough to make the EU’s compromise worthwhile? Liz Gallagher, Senior Policy Advisor at E3G, thinks so.

She told RTCC, “I think if you think about how Europe has manoeuvred on this one, it’s not always the initial short term impacts. It’s actually the long game that they seem to be playing, and what they’ve got is a global agreement to develop an MBM, which is what they wanted.”

Acknowledging that the current deal has been accused of being weak and patchy, she highlights that, when the deal takes place in 2016, the world will be working in a different political space, influenced by what she hopes will be a raising of ambition as a result of the 2015 UN climate negotiations in Paris, where many hope a legally binding agreement will be achieved.

She says, “At the moment, we’re operating in a space which has very limited political energy and ambition in it, so what we got was the best outcome at ICAO given the current political energy and mandates on the ground.

“What we’ll see over the next two years in the ramp up to the 2015 climate agreement, there’ll be a lot more commitment injected into the discussions and international debate and that will hopefully culminate in the 2015 agreement, which will then send really strong signals out to ICAO to say, ‘Oi, get your act together.’

“Although at the moment it seems a bit vague, actually what that will result in is more ambition in the end and some kind of outcome so we can get a global MBM.”

That analysis will be music to the ears of EU climate chief Connie Hedegaard, whose attention is now turning east to Warsaw, where the framework of that 2015 deal is set to be thrashed out in little over a month’s time.

The EU is a major player at these talks. Small island states and the Least Developed Countries bloc are relying on Hedegaard and her team to cajole the USA, China, Brazil, India and Russia to discuss critical greenhouse gas cuts.

And for Gallagher it’s important that the initial ambition of the EU at ICAO shouldn’t be lost in all the political noise that has taken place over the last week, some of it very emotive.

“Europe has been on the forefront in terms of climate action, particularly across the developed world, and being a leader means you don’t always get everything you want or put on the table,” she says.

“Leadership is a risky business and they have taken a risk, and I think it will pay off in the longer term.”

The post What next for EU climate diplomacy after aviation compromise? appeared first on Climate Home News.

Souce: Flickr / Vyacheslav Bondaruk

By Sophie Yeo

The UN’s aviation body voted on a resolution today that lays the foundations of a market based mechanism (MBM) to curb emissions, at the same time as laying waste to the EU’s own emissions trading scheme.

After a heated debate in Montreal yesterday, ICAO resolved on a text that instructs states to develop a global market based mechanism to be brought to the next General Assembly, which will take place in 2016.

This was finally approved today after a week of intense negotiations, which observers have called “unprecedented” within ICAO.

Many consider this a positive step forward: the issue of how to implement an MBM has been one of the central points of contention since the Kyoto Protocol instructed the UN aviation body to come up with a way to regulate the emissions of the industry back in 1997.

Despite on-going discussions and long term efforts by the EU to broker an environmentally effective deal, there are countries on the other side of the debate that have shown scant willingness to compromise.

The resolution states that, if an agreement on a global MBM is decided upon at the next Assembly, it must be implemented by 2020 – the year after which any growth within the industry must be carbon neutral. It is a deadline which puts added pressure on ICAO to reach an agreement by 2016.

Annie Petsonk from EDF, speaking from Montreal, emphasises that in many ways this is a step forward for the agency.

She tells RTCC, “They’ve set upon a timetable for the negotiation of it. They’re gone quite a way with developing a set of principles of it. We think all those things are very significant.

“Are they a giant leap? No, because it’s just initiating talks and we’ve seen talks be initiated in ICAO before, but these have a time-bound deadline of the next ICAO assembly and there’s been quite a lot of technical work done, so they have a good foundation on which to proceed.”

For some, this deadline of 2016 isn’t soon enough. Emissions from aviation are responsible for 4.9% of manmade climate change, and these are growing faster than any other mode of transport. If unmitigated, these emissions are projected to double or even triple by 2050.

A recent paper by David Lee from Manchester Metropolitan University showed that implementing a market based mechanism quickly was the best way to minimise global warming.

Jean Leston, Transport Policy Manager at WWF-UK, tells RTCC: “There is nothing in this resolution that guarantees an MBM. All we’ve got is a decision to develop one over the next three years and then that has to go to Assembly for agreement in 2016.”

Bill Hemmings, aviation manager at Transport & Environment, said, ““The EU put its faith in the ICAO process, and because of unacceptable weakening and delay, this faith has now been shattered. The science is crystal clear – we can no longer afford to procrastinate if we want to reverse the effects of man-made climate change.”

EU ETS

Negotiations began on Thursday last week, but when countries failed to reach a consensus they were pushed forward to recommence last Wednesday, after a weekend of informal bilateral conversations.

Those speaking to RTCC from the sidelines of the negotiations in Montreal highlight that it has not been an easy week. Emotions have been running high, with the EU in particular taking a beating from countries that are opposed to its regional emissions trading scheme (ETS) proposal.

The final agreement was a considerable blow to the EU’s regional scheme, reducing it to the bare minimum, and going beyond the compromise that the EU had already put on the table last month.

Under the new resolution, the EU may only impose its ETS on flights that both depart and land from within its own airspace.

If it wants to trade the emissions emitted over its own airspace by aircrafts that have come from outside of the EU, it may now only do so with the consent of the other country.

“Certainly yesterday morning saw scenes here I don’t think ICAO has ever seen before,” says Leston. “There was just an incredible outpouring of dislike of the EU ETS, very aggressive interventions from a lot of states, and an almost overwhelming antipathy towards the ETS. You could really smell blood in the room.”

Petsonk adds: “There is clearly an effort to try to push back on a state’s ability to implement a national and regional MBM, and we regarded that as half a step back.”

Leston says that, although this is a blow to the EU, she believes that it will have much to contribute as the global MBM is developed.

She says, “We’ve seen the environmental leader brought down by the pack, but I think once the dust has settled the EU still has a lot to offer in international negotiations.

“This is the only system that’s up and running, and proves that cap-and-trade can work. In the next three years there’s going to be a lot of work to design and develop an MBM, and the EU experience is going to be vital in helping to deliver an MBM.”

Reservations

Another reservation to the final text was the concern shown for “common but differentiated responsibilities” shown within the resolution, which excludes states with less than a 1% share of total civil international aviation activities – a principle enshrined within the UNFCCC, but excluded from the Chicago Convention, which established the modern aviation industry.

Excluding these countries would ultimately make an aviation deal less effective, as it would exempt all but around 20 of the world’s countries from taking part in the global trading scheme.

The large scale disagreement over the issue of equity bodes ill for negotiations between developed and developing states at the upcoming UN climate talks in both Warsaw this November and Paris in 2015, for which the ICAO discussions are an important precursor.

Leston told RTCC, “I think we would have really liked to see more progress on the ground here in Montreal, going forwards into the COP in Warsaw through to Paris, because a positive outcome from ICAO would have been a really positive force for the good going into the UNFCCC climate talks.

“The fact that we’ve had such a tiny step forward and we’ve seen so much division between developing and developed countries over highly politicised issues such as common but differentiated responsibilities really does not bode well for the future climate talks.

“International negotiations really must move beyond entrenched positions if we’re ever to solve climate change. The more states act out of self-interest and seek not to take action, the more trouble we’re headed for in the future.”

The post UN aviation emissions deal strikes harsh blow to EU trading scheme appeared first on Climate Home News.

(Pic: Edik Berg)

Bangladesh: The NGOs appointed for different climate adaptation projects had to give as much as 20% of their project money as a bribe to government officials to have their funds released from Bangladesh Climate Change Trust Fund (BCCTF), reveals a study. (Daily Star)

UN: The UN’s civil aviation body reached consensus on 3 October for a roadmap to decide to create a market-based scheme curbing aviation emissions by 2020, but rejected an EU proposal allowing it to apply its Emissions Trading System (ETS) to foreign airlines in the interim. (EurActiv)

UK: A deal over subsidies for Britain’s first new nuclear plant in a generation could now be agreed within weeks, Michael Fallon, the energy minister, has said, which would cost an estimated £14 billion but is not expected to be running until the early 2020s. (Telegraph)

Canada: Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s environment minister is casting doubt about scientific observations of melting summer sea ice in Canada’s north suggesting that scientific observations were not as important as the Harper government’s priorities in its new role as chair of a group of Arctic nations. (Canada.com)

UK: Foreign secretary William Hague has said that he had raised the case of Greenpeace activists accused by Russia of piracy with the Russian foreign minister Lavrov last week. Hague said the Foreign Office would continue to raise specific concerns Greenpeace had about due process or welfare with the Russian authorities. (Gov.uk)

US: As part of the ongoing effort to ensure that California is prepared for the impacts of climate change, the Climate Change Consortium for Specialty Crops has produced a report, “Impacts and Strategies for Resilience” which identifies recommendations to address the challenges posed by climate change to producers of specialty crops. (Lake County News)

UK: Sir Mark Walport, chief scientific advisor to the UK government, told the Royal Society that climate change experts need to learn how best to translate their findings for a wider audience. (RTCC)

Research: Bloomberg New Energy Finance has submitted evidence to the UK Parliament showing fracking will not bring down gas and electricity bills by as much as the government has promised voters. (RTCC)

UK: The head of the UK’s influential advisory Climate Change Committee has warned the government there can be no legal or economic justification to change the country’s current decarbonisation plans. (RTCC)

Denmark: Goldman Sachs, pension funds investor ATP and PFA Pension has committed to an investment of DKK 11 billion (over $2 billion) in Dong Energy to safeguard the future of one of the world’s biggest operators of wind farms, which is one of a number of European utilities struggling with high debt, weak power demand and the low profitability of the gas-fired power plants it also runs. (RTCC)

Research: According to new research from market analysts at IHS, global PV installations are forecast to exceed 40GW by 2014 for the first time, generating installation revenue of more than $86 billion. (RTCC)

The post Bangladeshi NGOs bribe government to release climate funds, says report appeared first on Climate Home News.

(Pic: BriYYZ)

By Nilima Choudhury

The absence of key US negotiators due to the government shutdown may ensure a more ambitious aviation emissions deal is agreed in Montreal this week say analysts.

The Obama administration closed down all non-essential operations on Tuesday after Congress failed to agree a new budget deal.

“The US shutdown is actually good because half of the US has had to fly home apparently and the weaker the US aviation the better for the climate so that’s kind of a nice benefit,” said Aoife O’Leary from NGO Transport & Environment, who is in Montreal.

“The US has been leading all the negative charge on this and they’re getting exactly what they want at the moment and even the countries that have been quite moderate in ICAO [have] joined in line behind the US. So it’s looking pretty bleak.”

It’s currently unclear how many of the US delegation have departed. RTCC has asked the State Department to confirm how many (if any) have left.

The UN-sponsored talks at ICAO involve envoys from 190 countries are aimed at developing a market based mechanism (MBM) for the global aviation industry that would reduce emissions.

The US has been historically opposed to any such deal, and vehemently opposed EU efforts in 2012 to unilaterally place all flights in and out of Europe under its own emissions trading scheme (ETS).

Weak proposals

The EU has been pushing for ambitious deal to impose a carbon tax on all airlines using its airspace, but a draft deal presented this week suggests that was optimistic.

Described as a “dream come true” for airlines by O’Leary, it will not allow the EU to cover overflights – flights that do not land or take off from somewhere in the EU – without mutual agreement. This would mean the ETS could only cover sovereign airspace and not regional airspace as previously announced.

The draft text is expected to be finalised either Friday or Saturday this week.

“It is not clear yet how the EU would deal with this,” said O’Leary, “because it would make a big mess of the ETS. Unfortunately it seems that this will be the text that the majority agree to in the end.”

An alleged breach of airspace is one of the main objections by other countries.

“The argument all along about the ETS is it violates other countries sovereignty because we’re regulating the carbon emitted on someone else’s runway which is bullshit because nobody else was ever going to regulate that carbon anyway and it’s not like they’re particularly attached to that carbon – they don’t want anyone to do it,” said O’Leary.

“Even if every country in the world created their own airspace regime 78% of aviation emissions would still be unregulated due to the huge amount of carbon that is emitted over the high seas.”

Carbon budget

These talks have gained added significance this week with the release this week of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

It warned the world can absorb approximately 1000GT of greenhouse gases — of which humans have already used up about two thirds.

Countries are expected to discuss the ‘budget’ at next month’s UN climate talks in Warsaw, but with aviation emissions expected to rise rapidly between now at 2050, the ICAO talks are seen as hugely important.

Some scientists say pollution from planes could be more damaging to the environment because of the altitude they are released, meaning carbon dioxide at that height could have greater ‘radiative forcing’.

Speaking from Montreal, WWF transport policy manager Jean Leston said any sense of urgency was “completely lacking”.

She added: “Given the level of dissention I’ve seen on the ground here, it’s going to be a very uphill task if you’re ever going to get an MBM.

The post US govt shutdown could accelerate aviation emission agreement appeared first on Climate Home News.

Source: Flickr / picmasta

By Sophie Yeo

The consensus between UN member states on the recently launched IPCC report has yet to be replicated at the UN’s high level aviation meetings, according to sources close to the negotiations.

The IPCC’s stark warning that the world is on track for 2C of warming by 2100 has not done much to spur on the negotiations on how to reduce the emissions of the heavily polluting aviation industry.

States have been sparring on the controversial topic of whether a global market based measure (MBM) should be implemented to offset the emissions from flights, and how such a mechanism might be regulated.

But discussions yesterday ended without any resolution being passed, and the Assembly has put off attempting to reach a consensus until next week, when negotiations on the topic will be reopened.

In the meantime, the President of the Assembly, Michel Wachenheim, has agreed to hold informal bilateral conversations with key states on Friday and Saturday afternoon, with a view to drafting changes to the existing resolution, which will be presented to the Assembly next Wednesday.

Brad Schallert, senior program manager at WWF, told RTCC from the sidelines of the meetings taking place in Montreal, “There’s still plenty of disagreement.”

But he added that the global community was in a better place generally on the subject of implementing a global MBM, and that he had high hopes that a consensus could be agreed when the issue is discussed again on Wednesday.

“I think that the process that the President has set up has a good chance of getting a good amount of countries on board. I think they’re trying to reduce the amount of reservation to the text because that’s what happened in 2010 and they’re trying to avoid that scenario again,” he said.

European Union

Much is at stake. The EU, which stopped the clock on its own aviation ETS to allow for the political breathing space for a global deal to take place, has already compromised beyond what many NGOs have told RTCC is an acceptable level. It has agreed to limit its own ETS to its own airspace – a long way off its original proposal of imposing a carbon trading scheme for the total emissions of all flights that start and end in the EU.

Its latest proposal of airspace only on departing flights is more politically acceptable, but less environmentally efficient. Sources within the EU have told RTCC that it is a compromise that they are willing to accept, as they believe it would facilitate a global deal that in the long term would be far more effective.

But if the current text before the Assembly is not passed, the EU could revert to its initial ETS. “The EU says they need a framework that’s recognised by ICAO at this assembly, so they don’t have a lot of wiggle room on that,” says Schallert.

“If they didn’t get what they wanted, it automatically by law it is such that it would just snap back into place, both departing and arriving flights.”

Points of contention

RTCC understands that there are a number of aspects of the current resolution that have been contentious, in particular the part that says the individual states may implement their own regional MBM until a global measure is put into place – a barely veiled reference to the EU, the only regional ETS that is being considered at the moment.

Such a patchwork of measures, says Tony Tyler, director general of IATA, the industry body, would be “the airline industry’s worst nightmare”.

Speaking at a conference in Hong Kong in February, he said, “Aviation is a global industry and climate change is a global issue. It only makes sense that the solution also be global.”

Other countries, meanwhile, have objected to the part of the document which states that states which do implement regional measures “should grant exemptions for application of MBMs on routes to and from developing States whose share of international civil aviation activities is below the threshold of 1% of total revenue ton kilometers of international civil aviation activities.”

There is a concern, says Schallert, that such a provision would lead to the exemption of too many emissions.

Others, such as China, are pushing for more recognition of the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities – a more controversial aspect of aviation negotiations than in other UN talks, as it conflicts with the 1948 Chicago Convention, which underpins much of the modern aviation industry.

Pinning down details

A positive aspect that has come out of the talks is that countries are now focused on the details, rather than the principles of a global MBM, which many hope will help the situation to progress beyond the political wrangling that has held it up for so long. Singapore in particular appears to have adopted a progressive approach towards the negotiations.

It is hoped that the pragmatic approach of the President will encourage further details to be pinned down over the weekend.

“It’s positive that States are generally focusing on the detail of how market-based measures are applied rather than the principle, and we hope the informal discussions can make substantial progress towards a global deal,” Tim Johnson, Director of Aviation Environment Federation, told RTCC.

Schallert added, “Singapore said that countries concerns in this Assembly meeting were based on ideological positions and principles, but if we strictly debate on principles we may not be able to come to consensus.

“I think what the President is asking for is proposals that are concrete, that find solutions, not just your negotiating position. ‘Don’t come to the table with that’, that’s the message that he sent, and we’re hopeful that countries realise that is what’s going to have to happen, because countries don’t want to be the pariah of this assembly.

“No one wants to hold the process back and a country would be holding the process back if they weren’t working towards agreement and going for the most environmentally effective outcome.”

The post UN aviation negotiations stall as pressure builds to sign off deal appeared first on Climate Home News.

Pic: Flickr / Mike Miley

By Sophie Yeo

Ban Ki-moon has encouraged the nations meeting in Montreal this week to come to a conclusion on how to reduce aviation emissions.

ICAO, the aviation arm of the UN, will bring together 191 countries over two weeks, where a key decision will be made on whether to regulate the carbon emissions from the highly polluting aviation sector.

The resolution, on the agenda to be discussed today, asks countries to commit to setting up a framework for a global market based measure to be decided on in 2016 and implemented in 2020.

“You are central to the climate change and sustainable development agenda,” Ban told the 38^th ICAO Assembly in a video, in a reference to the aim of the UN to set up a package of Sustainable Development Goals to come into force in 2015, on the expiry of the Millennium Development Goals.

“The benefits of air travel should be available to all, but they should be provided as efficiently and cleanly as possible.

“We have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change is a threat to economies large and small, to the development and well-being of societies everywhere, and to the health of the planet.”

The EU ‘stopped the clock’ on its own emissions trading scheme to provide the political breathing space for a global deal to take place. It is due to restart in January 2014, and the EU has agreed to compromise on its scope if the draft is passed at the Montreal gathering.

But for many, and in particular NGOs, the resolution on the table at the current Assembly does not go far enough, signifying further delay when many had hoped that this would be the year when a market based mechanism could finally be agreed.

Jean Leston, transport policy manager at WWF-UK said in a statement after the resolution was finalised earlier this month, “If there was a competition for foot dragging, ICAO would have won it long ago.

“The world has waited 16 long years for ICAO to decide how it is going to reduce aviation emissions… It’s now down to Assembly members to make sure that ICAO delivers on its promise to seal the deal at the forthcoming 38th Assembly.”

In addition, a recent paper from Manchester Metropolitan University showed that it was essential that a measure to reduce the emissions from aviation was introduced as soon as possible, due to the way in which carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere over time.

“The longer we delay, the greater the costs – to communities, businesses, economies and the planet,” added Ban.

“But, if we act together, we can rise to the challenge and build a better more secure world.

“I count on this meeting to explore how the aviation sector can limit carbon emissions and contribute to sustainable development.”

The post Aviation central to tackling climate change, says Ban Ki-moon appeared first on Climate Home News.

Pic: Flickr / The-Lane-Team

By Sophie Yeo

Not all flights are equal where pollution is concerned. According to a new study, aircrafts from Australia and New Zealand have a higher environmental impact than their European counterparts.

The study, carried out by researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, calculates the amount of ozone created by kilogram of fuel burnt on the journey.

It finds that a certain area of the Pacific, around 1000km to the east of the Solomon Islands, has a high level of sensitivity to aircraft emissions – five times greater than sensitivity in Europe, for instance, and 3.7 times higher than in North America.

Ozone is a potent greenhouse gas with comparable short term effects to carbon dioxide. The volume emitted by each aircraft is not absolute, but depends on the sensitivity of the atmosphere where it flies.

This means that the impacts of ozone are felt in specific regions at specific times, rather than on a global scale. For instance, the researchers found October flights to be 40% more polluting than April ones.

Lead author of the paper, Steven Barrett, said: “Our findings show that the cleanest parts of the atmosphere exhibit the most dramatic response to new emissions. New emissions in this part of the Pacific will result in a relatively larger response from the atmosphere.”

The researchers estimated that flights going through this region will result in an extra 15kg of ozone being produced each year for every 1kg of nitrogen oxides emitted by the aircraft.

Each of the ten highest ozone producing flights have origins or destinations in New Zealand or Australia, with the most polluting flight of all being from Sydney to Bombay, India. This is because the majority of the flight passes through the area of heightened ozone sensitivity.

Furthermore, the top ranked ozone producing flights cause 157 times more ozone formation than the bottom ranked ones.

Aviation negotiations

These findings are particularly timely, considering the heated international discussions taking place this month around the politically controversial of aviation emissions.

ICAO, the UN aviation regulatory body, met this month to decide on a policy to curb pollution from the heavily polluting industry.

On Wednesday, members of the council met to decide on a text to take forward to the General Assembly, which kicks off on the 24 September. The text proposes that states should come together to propose a global deal on a trading scheme for the carbon emitted by aviation.

But it is unclear – not to mention politically contentious – how the emissions would be doled out among individual countries.

The EU proposed its own trading scheme, where airlines would have to account for every kilogram of CO2 produced for all flights either entering or departing from the EU, but ‘stopped the clock’ on this to allow political breathing space for a global deal to be negotiated.

In what some have seen as a disappointing compromise, it has now emerged that the EU will scale down its emissions trading scheme in exchange for a pledge that a global market based mechanism will be decided in 2016.

Under this pared down trading scheme, flights only have to account for the emissions produced by aircrafts in EU airspace, meaning that airlines can continue to pollute freely over the oceans and foreign airspace – including the sensitive area over the Pacific.

“The places that the sensitivities are highest now are the fastest growing regions in terms of civil aviation growth,” says Barrett, “so there could potentially be ways to achieve significant reductions in the climate impact of aviation by focusing on re-routing aircraft around the particular regions of the world where ozone formation is highly sensitive to NOx emissions.

“Of course, longer flights are going to burn more fuel and emit more CO2, so there will be a trade-off between increasing flight distance and other climate impacts, such as the effect of ozone.

“The scientific underpinning of this trade-off needs further investigation so that we have a better understanding and can see whether such a trade-off can be justified.”

The post Pacific flights most polluting, finds study appeared first on Climate Home News.

(Pic: Adrian Pingstone)

Aviation: The European Union agreed to limit the scope of its carbon curbs on airlines as the United Nations aviation panel’s council pledged to work on a global plan to cut pollution from the industry beginning in 2020. (Bloomberg)

Aviation: WWF condemned the leadership council of the UN International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Council to adopt a global, market-based measure to reduce carbon emissions from international aviation as inexcusable, said WWF’s transport policy officer Jean Leston. ICAO has made virtually no progress over the last 16 years to agree a global deal for aviation emissions. (WWF)

New Zealand: The ozone hole over New Zealand would recover between the years 2050 and 2100, but it may warm up Antarctica which could then affect the West Coast and Canterbury Plains, said Dr Adrian McDonald, from Canterbury University’s Physics and Astronomy department, commenting after data released by the World Meteorological Organisation. (The New Zealand Herald)

Pacific: The 44th Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting adopted today the Majuro Declaration for Climate Leadership which marks a critical step in the region’s efforts to spark a new wave of climate leadership that accelerates the reduction and phasing down of greenhouse gas emission worldwide. (Global Times)

Pacific: Marshall Islands president Christopher Loeak says he would rather drown than leave his country if it is submerged by rising sea levels, addressing Pacific Island leaders and delegates from around the world at the start of the 15-nation Pacific Islands Forum. (RTCC)

UK: Greenpeace campaigners have erected a mock-drilling rig in front of Lancashire County Council chambers in protest at the prospect of shale gas drilling restarting in the area. The rig outside the main entrance is surrounded by an eight metre tall fence and is blasting out a soundtrack of drills, traffic noises, and industrial sounds as councillor enter the building. (Business Green)

Australia: The Australian coalition has announced a A$40 million trust fund to promote the maintenance of the Great Barrier Reef and tackle poaching and illegal fishing, but environmental groups say more needs to be done. (Blue & Green)

UK: The British public broadly supports investment in wind and solar energy systems, according to a survey commissioned by the BBC and published today. Of 1035 adults interviewed, 84% were keen on more solar panels where they lived, 67% wanted more windfarms while 47% thought building more nuclear power stations was a good idea. (RTCC)

Motoring: Toyota Motor has said it is recalling around 200,000 hybrid SUVs globally including the Lexus RX400h, due to a glitch in the hybrid system’s inverter. (Auto News)

The post UN talks fail to establish aviation emissions trading scheme appeared first on Climate Home News.

(Pic: Flickr/PRA images)

By Aoife O’Leary

Aviation is responsible for 5% of global warming emissions and this share is growing.

This might not sound like a lot but when you consider that if aviation were a country it would be ranked 7^th – in-between the UK and Japan in terms of yearly CO2 emissions; not insignificant.

The question over what to do about these emissions has long occupied the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the UN body responsible for aviation. Indeed, they have now been discussing what to do for over 17 years without agreement.

It’s not surprising then that the EU got a little frustrated with the slow progress. ICAO even decided back in 2004 not to proceed with a global market based measure but recommended countries and regions could establish their own emissions trading schemes.

In 2012 the EU started regulating emissions for flights landing or taking off at EU airports by including aviation in the EU ETS.

This prompted many countries, led by the US, to mount a vicious opposition to the EU move, claiming a global agreement was needed and because they saw the requirement to account for carbon emitted by the whole flight as it passed over the high seas, non-EU countries and indeed on their own runways as a breach of sovereignty.

In response to all this opposition, the EU law was suspended on all intercontinental routes, almost as soon as it started, to give ICAO yet more time to come to a global agreement. Except this is not a permanent change, it is limited to one year only.

Groundhog day

That year is almost up.

ICAO makes its decisions in its Assembly meeting every three years. The next one is this week. This is where a deal must be struck if the EU is to be expected to permanently amend the scheme.

The second objection that is continually hurled at the EU is the alleged breach of sovereignty as outlined above.

The argument is that because the EU accounts for all the carbon on a flight from Brussels to New York, right up until the wheels hit the runway at JFK, the EU has violated international law by regulating outside its jurisdiction.

However, the Court of Justice of the European Union looked into this claim and declared that the EU act was legal and did not interfere with any country’s sovereignty.

The EU regulation could be seen as over-reach (in the political sense) because the EU regulates all emissions both to and from its territory.

Amending the scheme to only cover departing flights would allow other countries to regulate the other leg of flights. Indeed, the EU offered this style of regulation but no other country was interested and it seems the industry lobbied heavily against it.

Diplomatic isolation

However, a departing flights system would still regulate emissions on someone else’s runway.

Thus, unfortunately it seems that the EU is becoming increasingly isolated with most countries forming the consensus, steered by the US, that the EU should only regulate the carbon emitted by planes within EU airspace.

At first blush the EU only regulating within EU airspace seems reasonable. Until you look at the environmental effects: even if every country in the world accounted for all emissions in their airspace, only 22% of global aviation emissions would be regulated.

This makes sense as think about that fight from Brussels to JFK, most of it is over the high seas –which country is or should be responsible for those emissions?

If departing flights cannot be agreed, a far more sensible solution than airspace would be to regulate on the basis of what we call 50/50. To explain this, let’s take that Brussels to JFK flight again.

The EU would be responsible for the first 50% of emissions every time the plane took off from Brussels. Then, on the return leg, when the plane took off from JFK, the EU would be responsible for the second 50%, i.e. the second half of the journey as it came into land at Brussels.

The US could then enact a law for their 50% of both journeys if they wanted to. But such a law importantly removes the alleged sovereignty argument by not regulating any carbon that is emitted in the airspace of the country of arrival.

There will be a debate on these options in the European Parliament on 4 September (you can register here) hosted by Peter Liese, the MEP who lead on this file for the one year pause and the original inclusion of aviation in the ETS.

The real question for debate now is what the EU will do when the one year pause expires –will it bring back the ETS in its entirety or permanently amend the scope to include only departing flights, 50% of both flight legs or just that portion emitted in EU airspace.

Not to mention the huge pressure on the EU from industry and many countries to collapse the entire system for aviation.

Aoife O’Leary is a Sustainable Shipping & Aviation Officer at the NGO Transport & Environment (T&E). Follow her on twitter @aooleary.

The post EU faces dilemma as aviation climate deal stays grounded appeared first on Climate Home News.

Pic: Flickr / Mike Miley

By Sophie Yeo

A global deal to reduce emissions from the aviation industry is looking increasingly unlikely to be agreed at the international negotiations taking place next week in Montreal.

A draft text of the resolution to be discussed at a council meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) seen by RTCC proposes that states work towards the development of a market based mechanism to reduce emissions.

But in a move branded “disappointing” by NGOs, it states that no decision will be taken until the 39th General Assembly in 2016 – one year after countries are set to cement a binding UN climate agreement in Paris.

The document requests the ICAO Council to “make a recommendation on a global MBM [market based measure] scheme that addresses key design elements … and the mechanisms for the implementation of the scheme from 2020.”

It highlights that an MBM should “contribute towards achieving global aspirational goals” for the aviation industry – improving the efficiency of the world fleet by 2% per annum up to 2050 – but equally “should not impose inappropriate economic burden on international aviation”.

China, America and the EU are said to be keen to move the text forward at the Council meeting, while developing countries are less enthusiastic, worried that any form of MBM could stifle their growing aviation industries.

15-year delay

There has been little action to reduce the sector’s growing greenhouse gas emissions since ICAO, the industry-influenced aviation arm of the UN, was assigned the task under the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.

This additional delay is likely to be seen as another victory for the airline industry. Many had hoped that the added threat of a controversial Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) imposed by the EU would help bring matters to a head.

Under this system, all aircraft flying into or out of the EU were required to monitor and pay for their carbon emissions.

The outrage of other countries, which saw this system as a threat to their sovereignty, meant that last November the EU ‘stopped the clock’ on the proposed ETS for a year, in order to allow political breathing space for an international agreement to take place.

NGO disappointment

The approaching reinstatement of the EU ETS for international flights to and from the continent means that negotiations on a global deal have been gaining pace.

Many observers had hoped that an agreement for some sort of market based mechanism could be reached by the ICAO General Assembly at the end of September.

This text promises little but more talk and delay by ICAO and the aviation industry, according to Jean Leston, transport policy manager for WWF.

“It is not 100% disappointing, but it’s certainly 80% disappointing,” she says. “On the plus side, it is still calling for an MBM,”

Leston told RTCC there are fears that the industry may rely on implementing a “basket of measures” – a combination of technological and operational improvements aimed at improving the fuel efficiency of aircrafts – instead of committing to carbon trading scheme.

“If there is an agreement at the assembly then that is a victory of sorts, although the NGO community would say that’s a hollow victory because we don’t know what kind of MBM that’s going to be.”

Range of options

ICAO is currently considering three types of MBM: carbon offsetting, offsetting with an added revenue generation mechanism, and a cap-and-trade ETS.

The latest version of the draft text instructs the council to “finalize the work on the technical aspects, environmental benefits, economic impacts on international aviation and modalities of the three options for a global MBM scheme.”

The document acknowledges that the industry’s preference is for offsetting without generation – the least environmentally effective scheme – but continues to keep all three options on the table, to be decided upon at the 2016 General Assembly.

“ICAO is not making any meaningful decisions, and meanwhile the aviation industry can continue to pollute,” says Leston. The report itself emphasises that any mechanism eventually adopted should continue to promote the sustainable growth of the industry.

The aviation industry currently represents a significant chunk of net carbon emissions. In 2005, it was responsible for about 2.3% of CO2 emitted globally. If the international fraction of these emissions – about 62% of the total figure – were a country, it would be the 17^th largest emitter of CO2 in the world.

Science warning

Studies from Manchester Metropolitan University indicate that a market based mechanism is essential if the aviation industry is to achieve its ICAO-set goal of carbon neutral growth in the aviation industry from 2020.

Its most recent report, released this week, said that it was essential that a market based mechanism was achieved as soon as possible, in order to avoid the global warming that would be triggered by the carbon emitted between now and 2020, after which the aviation industry is bound to limit its emissions.

Professor David Lee, the author of the report and a scientific advisor to ICAO, explained to RTCC that, because CO2 is a long term pollutant that builds up in the atmosphere, the end point of policy negotiations is less important than immediate action – a fact which is says is often forgotten by policy makers.

“These early savings pay off,” he says. “Actually, the whole issue is about timing. You can translate this through to the whole of CO2 emissions; not just aviation – everything. Timing is everything.

“We have to reduce the emissions early. Otherwise the end point is really almost irrelevant.

“If we reduce emissions very late to achieve our emissions goal and pat ourselves on the back, actually the real environmental outcome could be so much worse than if we adopted early measures.”

General Assembly

The text is still in its draft stage, and will be debated by the ICAO Council on the 4 September before being presented to the General Assembly on the 24^th.

This means that changes could still take place – or that it could be rejected entirely. Leston describes this as being a “worst case scenario”, as it leaves the negotiations at an even weaker stage than they currently are.

RTCC understands that some of the key countries who have typically been seen as an obstacle to negotiations, in particular China and America, are intending to support the text, while it is the developing states such as India and Brazil that are likely to put up opposition. The EU is said to support the text.

“A lot of the developing states are still questioning the need for an MBM at all,” says Leston.

“They’re looking for a lot of exemptions, and some of them will arbitrate against the idea of a global MBM, saying it would cost their economies, their industries, and that they don’t think it’s a universal requirement.”

The post Aviation industry unlikely to agree emissions reduction deal until 2016 appeared first on Climate Home News.

The cost of carbon offsetting could add as little as $2 to a one-way ticket (Pic: Julian Herzog)

By Sophie Yeo

The aviation industry can achieve its goal of carbon neutral growth from 2020 by using the available supply of low cost carbon credits.

According to new analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), the cost of adopting a market based system of carbon offsetting could add as little as $2 to a typical one way fare.

This, say the authors of the study, could encourage the industry to adopt more ambitious targets in aviation emission reduction.

“What we’ve done is count up the number of potential offset that are available under the existing schemes, and that’s the Clean Development Mechanism, Kyoto, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and the voluntary market,” Guy Turner, chief economist at BNEF and co-author of the paper, told RTCC.

“We’ve added them all and we’ve looked at how many there are. The aviation industry could create its own offsetting mechanism.

“But what is important is that you have an independent body like the UN that verifies the quality of the credits.”

Climate goals

Currently, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) is working to targets agreed in 2010, including non-binding agreements to improve fuel efficiency by 2% a year to 2050 and to stabilize CO2 emissions by 2020.

This development occurred after years of stalemate following 1997 Kyoto Protocol, where the decision was taken to assign responsibility for managing aviation greenhouse gas emissions to ICAO. Efforts to control the pollution from aviation are now gaining momentum.

This is largely due to the move by the European Union to include aviation within its own ETS – a move that prompted enough outrage at an international level to encourage ICAO to start negotiations on a global ETS, which would cover emissions from international flights.

Last month, the goal to stabilise carbon emissions in the aviation sector from 2020 took a step forward when the International Air Transport Association (IATA) explicitly urged ICAO member states to develop a mandatory global carbon offsetting scheme in order to achieve its carbon neutral goals.

The industry called on ICAO to agree on a global offset program with strong environmental integrity, so that aviation’s own emissions costs and emissions cuts in other sectors could be used to meet aviation’s targets.

Carbon neutral cost

The new report, called Carbon Neutral Growth for Aviation: At What Price?, examines what this program might cost.

The analysis shows that surplus offset credits already available in the world’s carbon trading systems (4.4bn tonnes of CO2 in 2020) could meet just under 50% of the airlines’ potential need between 2020 and 2050.

If governments adopt tough criteria to ensure offsets represent real emissions reductions, the cost of these credits to aviation would be about $4 to $6 per tonne in 2015.

The calculations consider emissions offsets from both cap-and-trade schemes and project-based schemes.

Turner said, “When you have a cap scheme, the credits are generally of a high integrity. From a project based scheme like the CDM, I think you just need very robust rules and criteria to make sure that the credits are genuine and of a high integrity.”

The cost of this would represent a fraction of international aviation revenue – less than 0.5% – over the period. The analysis suggests that it would add less than $2 to a typical one way fare.

Annie Petsonk, international counsel at Environmental Defense Fund and co-author of the paper, said: “This analysis demonstrates just how affordable a market-based mechanism can be in limiting carbon emissions.

“While aviation’s formidable technological ability can help reduce its carbon footprint, our analysis shows the critical role that high-integrity, low-cost reductions in other sectors can play in meeting the industry’s goal of carbon-neutral growth from 2020.

“As governments in ICAO consider how to address aviation’s contribution to climate change, this should give them the confidence to move ahead with a market-based mechanism for carbon-neutral growth.”

The availability and low cost of carbon credits could also enable to the aviation industry to adopt more ambitious targets.

Turner said: “These findings show that the international aviation sector can control its CO2 emissions relatively cheaply by using market based mechanisms.

The small cost and the ability to pass any costs through into ticket prices, should encourage the international aviation sector to accelerate and deepen its emission reduction pledges. More ambitious emission reductions now look much more doable, than mere stabilization from 2020.”

The post Cheap carbon offsets could strengthen aviation emissions goals appeared first on Climate Home News.

The world’s leading airlines have called on governments to agree to a new greenhouse gas offsetting scheme for the aviation industry.

The 240 members of the IATA trade group, representing 84% of global air traffic, passed a resolution at its AGM on Monday calling for a mandatory system that would require airlines to offset any growth in their emissions after 2020.

“Airlines are committed to working with governments to build a solid platform for the future sustainable development of aviation,” said Tony Tyler, IATA’s director general and CEO.

“Today, they have come together to recommend to governments the adoption of a single market based measure (MBM) for aviation and provide suggestions on how it might be applied to individual carriers. Now the ball is in the court of governments,” added Tyler.

Airlines have sent a clear signal that they want to tackle emissions but there are fears it does not go far enough (Source: Virgin)

Governments will meet in Autumn for the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s symposium (ICAO), which only occurs every three years. It is the final chance to agree a climate deal for the aviation sector that would tie it in with the main UNFCCC climate treaty, which must be agreed by the end of 2015.

Emissions from aviation and shipping were spun out of the UNFCCC talks to allow their specialist needs to be addressed from within.

Jean Leston, transport policy lead for WWF-UK said last month that a strong IATA statement from the AGM could be enough trigger the more action at ICAO.

Speaking to RTCC on Monday, Leston welcomed the news but said she was not sure if the IATA statement went far enough.

“It’s great that IATA has strongly endorsed the need for an MBM agreement this year within ICAO. But it’s disappointing that it has settled for the least environmentally effective option of offsetting without revenue generation.

“This will do little to reduce global emissions and nothing to provide climate finance to developing countries. IATA’s resolution is also lacking in urgency as the MBM doesn’t come into effect until after 2020 that’s seven years of inaction when what is needed is emissions reduction now,” she said.

The EU briefly included all international airlines in its emissions trading scheme for any flight that either landed or took off from an EU airport. The move was opposed by strongly by the US, Russia and China.

It exempted international flights for a year in November 2012 on the condition significant progress was made on a global aviation emissions deal in the meantime.

”It is a very strong message that the airline industry seems ready to support a single global market-based measure (MBM) to keep their emissions in check,” EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard said in response to the IATA statement.

“Now it is time for the governments to match this and deliver in ICAO. The EU is ready.”

The post Airlines call on governments to sign aviation emissions deal appeared first on Climate Home News.

The EU must not back down from its threat to “restart the clock” on including international airlines in its emissions trading scheme, WWF has warned.

The EU attracted the ire of a number of emerging economies including Brazil, India and China, after it stipulated that any flight landing or taking off from an EU airport had to account for its emissions in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

It dropped the rule with the so-called ‘stop the clock’ announcement last November but warned it would return if “significant progress” was not made this year at the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

Official talks on a global emissions market for aviation will resume in the next few weeks at ICAO, ahead of the body’s General Assembly in September.

“The ETS has been a double edged sword. It was the first and in many ways successful mechanism to reduce aviation emissions. It was a real catalyst for action within ICAO,” Jean Leston, transport lead, WWF-UK told RTCC. “If we didn’t have ETS we wouldn’t have this level of interest in Market Based Mechanisms (MBMs) today.

“On the negative side, some people have had their heads turned since stop the clock and have forgotten that we have a very limited period of time [to get a deal].

China, India, Russia and Brazil were among the most vociferous opponents to the EU’s aviation emissions scheme (Source: Flickr/Julian Herzog)

“There’s a danger that a lot of countries and airlines think that the ETS is fatally weakened by stop the clock and is unlikely to restart. So all that useful pressure has now sadly disappeared. No one wants to see a weakening of the ETS or the possibility of a trade war.

“The worst case scenario is no outcome in September and a cave in by the EU in the ETS. That’s what we have to avoid,” she added.

The decision to halt the inclusion of foreign airlines’ EU flights in the ETS was linked at the time to a deal between airplane manufacturer Airbus and China.

China postponed a $12bn order of Airbus planes in retaliation for its airlines being required to take part in the ETS.

“We hope we will go back to business as usual…and that we won’t have to worry about ETS when we do business here,” Laurence Barron, president of Airbus China said shortly after the EU announced the stop the clock measure.

China has reiterated that it will not participate in any “compulsory market measure” of the EU, setting up the prospect of an ongoing trade dispute.

The two are already in disagreement over the subsidised Chinese solar power components entering the European market. The EU has announced that a 47% levy will be added to compensate for the subsidy and level the playing field for European manufacturers.

“It will be very difficult to restart the clock on the ETS. The Airbus intervention has set a dangerous precedent and it shows that some governments will do anything to respond to industry requests. Their economic preoccupation blinds them to larger environmental issues,” said Leston.

Education

A climate change symposium at ICAO last week brought together policymakers, airlines and civil society to discuss the options for a global agreement to tackle greenhouse gases from the sector.

Leston said that airlines were pressing for a deal but until many smaller nations were armed with the facts, there may be a reluctance to commit.

“I have been pleasantly surprised by how strongly supportive of global MBMs the industry has been as a whole,” she said.

“I hadn’t appreciated how much knowledge on global MBMs needs to be imparted to a lot of countries that are struggling to understand why it is important. I wasn’t expecting quite so much indifference. That suggests it will be difficult to agree an MBM this year.”

Aviation accounts for between 2-3% of global greenhouse gas emissions with the figure rising.

Some have backed a carbon levy on aviation and shipping as a means of raising funds for the UN’s Green Climate Fund, that aims to raise $100bn a year by 2020 for low carbon projects.

RTCC Video: Airbus describes the perfect sustainable flight

The post WWF: EU must hold nerve on aviation climate deal appeared first on Climate Home News.

United Nations negotiations to contain emissions from planes and ships recommence in Montreal and London this week, with hopes for a global climate change deal in 2015 resting on these two sectors.

Only China, USA, India and Russia emit more atmosphere-warming greenhouse gases than the global contribution of shipping and aviation, which tops 1.6 bn tonnes of CO2 a year.

These talks are difficult given the limited alternatives to each mode of transport and increasing demand around the planet.

Technological fixes from biofuels to airships are still a long way away from making significant contributions. Limiting the emissions of each industry in its current form is best bet.

As both sectors are covered by their very own dedicated UN bodies, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), it is here where negotiations on tackling their contribution to climate change takes place.

This week both will meet to discuss establishing some form of financial system to encourage emissions reductions, with many analysts predicting US engagement in aviation talks could pre-empt a breakthrough.

Measures to cut aviation and shipping emissions face a landmark week (Source: Flickr/Conanil)

Neither has enjoyed rapid progress but as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) homes in on its 2020 global deal to be agreed by 2015, both risk being left behind.

“It would be crazy for ICAO to get out of sync with those [deadlines], it would mean that the industry was showing slower progress than is being shown elsewhere,” says Jean Leston, WWF-UK’s transport team leader.

The EU triggered outrage by including international flights in its regional carbon market and backed down in November 2012 on the condition that ICAO demonstrated progress on an international deal.

With one general assembly every three years, this Autumn’s meeting is the last timely throw of the dice.

“It’s all to play for but the USA is the real key country here,” explains Leston. “If the US can make any strong statement to support more rapid progress in ICAO and demonstrate their commitment to rapid progress in ICAO some big emerging economies will probably follow suit.”

The countries she is referring to are principally China and India. China, she says is more open minded about the possibility of some form of emissions trading or mandatory carbon offsetting system for the sector. India has dug its heels in.

“It sees the ICAO negotiations as a subset of the UNFCCC negotiations and they want Common But Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR) to be first and foremost,” says Leston.

CBDR is a founding principle of the UNFCCC talks designed to ensure rich nations take responsibility for their emissions and poorer countries aren’t over-burdened with obligations that hinder their economic development.

The ICAO climate conference will build many of the arguments ahead of weeks of formal negotiations covering ICAO’s full remit. All eyes will be on US climate change envoy Todd Stern when the agenda turns to climate change.

Shipping

The IMO talks have come up against the CBDR issue even more violently. The IMO makes rule for ships not countries. Its foundation is built on the idea of treating all countries the same. Fulfilling both of these conditions is not easy but there are signs of progress there too.

The IMO holds environment meetings roughly every eight months and this week’s sitting could yield meaningful results.

Mark Lutes is a policy coordinator with WWF and is a veteran of the IMO talks. He says some of the tensions created by the adoption of major energy efficiency regulations in 2011, are melting away. This means the sector could make a contribution to global emission reduction sooner rather than later.

“They should be looking at the same deadlines as the UNFCCC as the outer limits of what they can do. They should be able to do it sooner. I think shipping and aviation should be able to contribute to pre-2020 ambition as well,” he says referring to the emerging climate treaty’s goal to find new ways to slash emissions prior to the global deal coming into force in 2020.

Industry

Leston says the aviation sector is supportive of a market based mechanism with airlines and plane manufacturers joining NGOs and most governments in looking for a solution. The airlines’ preference is for an offsetting system however. This would not generate money in the same way as a carbon levy or an emissions trading scheme.

“We would consider that a terrible missed opportunity because revenue generation could help them invest in greater energy efficiency and biofuels. It would help the industry to decarbonise and could also help provide climate finance to developing countries,” says Leston.

Waning industry support for a system to curb shipping emissions could be the one cloud hanging over the IMO talks in London.

“I get the impression that the industry is sensing less political pressure for an agreement, so they may take a harder line. A few years ago the EU was pushing strongly for a regional or an international measure. The industry could now think that they can get away with doing nothing now,” warns Lutes.

With responsibility for both sectors moved out of the spotlight of the UNFCCC talks, it is easy to over look the talks. As atmospheric CO2 cruises above 400ppm, the opportunity to cut emissions without waiting for the 2015 deal shouldn’t be missed.

The post USA holds key to aviation emissions deal appeared first on Climate Home News.

The EU’s strict new controls on sulphur emissions from shipping fuel come into force today.

The current limit on sulphur content of 3.5% will be rolled back to 0.5% by 2020. Without the changes, shipping would be responsible for more of the region’s sulphur emissions than all its land-based sources put together.

In addition to limiting acid rain causing sulphur output, it will also reduce the amount of particulate matter in the air, tiny particles that can have serious health impacts.

“Improving air quality is a long-standing environmental challenge. It has taken some time but now the maritime sector is engaged,” said Janez Potočnik, Environment Commissioner.

Sulphur Dioxide emissions from EU shipping would equal all land sources by 2020 with action. (Source: Flickr/Tom Turner/SeaTeam Images)

“The big winners are the European citizens who will breathe cleaner air and enjoy a healthier life and industry supplying clean fuels and technology.”

Shipping fuels can have a sulphur concentration up to 5000 times higher than those for lorries and trucks.

Although sulphur dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, the addition of EU-wide shipping regulations could signal the bloc’s plans to legislate the shipping sector to cuts its climate altering emissions.

Efforts are currently under way through the UN’s International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to find a financial mechanism to incentivise reduced emissions. The EU had been considering establishing its own regional system in response to frustration with efforts through the IMO, but has backed down.

It is thought that carbon levies on EU shipping alone could be worth $10bn a year. The Green Climate fund, the principle tool for aggregating climate aid has set itself a target of raising $100bn annually from 2020 onwards.

Funds from both the shipping and aviation sector are considered to be a promising potential source of climate finance with the IMO and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) developing plans for their respective industries.

Negotiations have been controversial and too slow for some with the EU recently establishing, and then winding down, an international carbon trading scheme applicable to all flights using airports in the region.

It has given ICAO one year to conclude its own system or it will once again include all airlines.

The post EU targets air pollution with tightened shipping rules appeared first on Climate Home News.

The EU is preparing to ‘stop the clock’ on aviation’s inclusion in its carbon trading scheme, and has given the UN’s international aviation authority 12 months to resolve the situation.

Speaking at a press conference, Hedegaard said flights in and out of Europe would no longer be included in the scheme. Flights within Europe will still be charged.

“I have proposed the EU stops the clock when it comes to enforcement of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) for flights in and out of Europe till after the next International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) General Assembly next autumn,” she said.

Hedegaard welcomed the progress made under the ICAO, but warned that if countries failed to make progress by the group’s next general assembly, scheduled for November 2013, then flights to and from the EU would once again be included in the trading scheme.

Hedegaard says the EU will freeze ETS but warns they must see action on a new global deal (Source: Chris.Loxton/Flickr)

“If this exercise ends in nothing we are back to where we are today in the EU ETS and we are back there automatically,” she added.

The EU ETS is the world’s largest carbon trading scheme, covering 30 European countries and helping them meet their Kyoto Protocol commitments.

Countries meet this month at the UN’s climate conference in Doha, to decide the future of the Protocol, and begin discussions on a climate deal which could create long-term global demand for carbon trading.

The Commission has been under intense pressure to scrap the inclusion of all airlines in the ETS. The current scheme means all flights into or out of Europe’s airports are charged for each tonne of carbon emitted for their entire journey.

The US also passed legislation making it illegal for its airlines to abide by these rules. China and India have also refused to comply.

The ICAO’s latest council meeting ended on Friday setting out a timeline for the agreement of a new global framework for the aviation sector to address its emissions.

Hedegaard said a global market based mechanism would need to be agreed.

While the commissioner has proposed the EU halt the inclusion of airlines in the EU ETS until this meeting, the decision will have to be agreed by both the EU Parliament and all member states before it can be implemented.

She said she would not speculate when it would be made but that she expects to get this agreement.

“I would not have suggested it if I did not think I could get backing,” she said. “The nitty gritty details of when the paragraph will go through and what that will be that is another thing. There is the political this is what we want to do – I think you will get a sense of that very quickly and then the more technical procedures of who you get it through can take longer.”

The post EU to freeze airline trading rules appeared first on Climate Home News.

New computer systems could save airlines 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, according to Virgin Atlantic’s latest sustainability report.

The company have estimated the new software, installed in July 2012, will reduce its fuel emissions by 92,000 tonnes and save them £20 million each year. The emissions saved are the equivalent of taking around 30,000 cars of the UK’s roads.

The software pinpoints areas where aircraft can be used more efficiently.

Aviation is currently responsible for around 2% of global emissions. These emissions are considered by the UN under the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

While airlines have committed to an emissions reduction target of 50% by 2050, compared to 2005, under ICAO, this is currently a voluntary target and is not considered under the remit of the legally binding UN climate convention, the UNFCCC.

With limited action on aviation, last year the EU brought the industry into its own emissions trading scheme, which caused controversy among governments and industry groups around the world.

Airlines are considering many ways of meeting the ICAO targets, including carbon trading and the use of alternative fuels, predominately biofuels.

Fuel efficiency will also play a role, and is considered the low hanging fruit for many airlines.

In its third sustainability report, Virgin Atlantic announced it was on target to hit its own carbon reduction target of 30% between 2007 and 2020.

“An airline striving to be green is not a contradiction in terms that people may think,” said Steve Ridgway, Virgin Atlantic Chief Executive.

“Fuel efficiency is the most crucial pillar in Virgin Atlantic’s sustainability plans, and in the last 12 months the airline has moved forward rapidly with a number of change and operational improvements.”

The new software can monitor how arrival delays can increase the amount of fuel burnt; how flight plans, pilot techniques and maintenance can affect efficiency; and how the activity on the ground can also impact the amount of fuel used.

In all it analyses 300 different points during the flight to identify where savings can be made.

The airline’s report also announced the introduction of seven new aircraft, which are estimated to be 15% more fuel efficient than older planes used by Virgin Atlantic.

The company also reaffirmed the continuation of its work researching alternative aviation fuel, in cooperation with New Zealand based company LanzaTech, which would use waste gases from industrial steel production.

Related Video: Thierry Nowaczyk, Environmental Affairs, Airbus, talks RTCC through the perfect flight in terms of efficiency

The post Virgin Atlantic saves 100,000 tonnes of CO2 with new fuel efficiency system appeared first on Climate Home News.

A global deal to address emissions from the aviation sector should concentrate on cutting carbon, not raising funds, an industry insider has told RTCC.

The EU has included all flights that use EU airports in its emissions cap and trade system as of this year, regardless of the nationality of the airline, and given the importance of European airports, it’s a move that affects all major operators around the world.

Aviation generates at least 3% of the EU’s total greenhouse gas emissions and EU emissions from international air travel have doubled since 1990.

While the decision has the support of all 28 EU member states, a number of countries including India, Russia and the US oppose what they see as a “unilateral” move.

Con trails from aircraft in the skies between London's Heathrow and Gatwick airports, one of the busiest aviation hubs in the world. (Source: Flickr/Chris.Loxton)

They also believe that the legislation breaches international aviation agreements signed through the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

A bill is currently working its way through the US Congress to ban American airlines from taking part in the trading scheme, with opponents labelling the ETS an ‘assault on our sovereignty’ and an ‘illegitimate tax’.

In 2011 the Point Carbon website estimated the cost to participating airlines would be in the region of €1.1bn, although the price of carbon has fallen dramatically since then.

Related stories:

Aviation deal should focus on cutting carbon, not taxing airlines, says industry

EU tax deal breaker for climate talks, says India’s environment minister

Biofuel flights clouded in controversy

A significant proportion of that cost is expected to be passed onto customers in the form of rising ticket prices, and a US airline industry insider has told RTCC that as it stands, they are not convinced the scheme will achieve a significant reduction in emissions.

“A lot of the climate financing discussions have really just been about raising money, but if a scheme is well-designed and global in nature, then it should also be able to reduce emissions, which is the most important part of the challenge.

“Taxes seem to be quite a blunt instrument which delivers money to government coffers, but does not provide necessary emissions reductions,” they added.

Final approach

Aviation has been billed as a possible source of finance for the UN climate agency’s Green Climate Fund, which aims to guarantee carbon reduction projects around the world.

Critics of the airlines say they are simply looking to stall attempts for them to account for their emissions – aviation is the most carbon intensive and fastest-growing source of transport CO2 emissions.

The US-based Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has noted that if the US government complains about the EU to ICAO, a panel of five members, that are not directly involved in the dispute, acts as the jury.

With 16 other countries joining the US in the so-called “coalition of the unwilling” and EU member states all discounted, only Burkina Faso, Morocco, and Swaziland remain, two short of the requirement for five members.

“The airlines have already tried the lawsuit tactic before, and they lost. After two years of court argument, a panel of thirteen judges on Europe’s equivalent to the U.S. Supreme Court held that the program was fully consistent with international law,” the EDF’s Annie Petsonk wrote in response to last week’s meeting.

“That kind of lawsuit would be decidedly counterproductive if the administration’s real goal is – as it has repeatedly stated – to get action in ICAO on limiting greenhouse gas emissions from aviation,” she added.

What options are on the table?

According to www.greenaironline.com, there are three options on the table for a global emissions deal that will be presented to ICAO at its next assembly in 2013. It is unclear whether this work could continue if a dispute on emissions trading was passing through ICAO.

Mandatory offsetting – Airlines are awarded an allowance of CO2 and are then obliged to offset it in the same way as a passenger may choose to do to cover CO2 from their own travel.

Mandatory offsetting with a financial mechanism – This is basically a more complex version of the above that rewards airlines that offset more than their own emissions. It is thought to be the least popular due to its complexity.

Cap and trade – The most familiar system would be similar to the EU emissions trading scheme with caps on CO2 output assigned and airlines left to purchase required excess credits or shake-up their operations to stay within the bounds of their designated emissions.

RELATED VIDEO: How Airbus plan to run the ‘perfect, sustainable flight’

The post Aviation deal should focus on cutting carbon, not taxing airlines, says industry appeared first on Climate Home News.