Tel: 020 7248 2227 RSS FeedRSS feed

“Make” try to sell their £23bn plan for Stansted 4-runway airport by saying it would cut flights over London

In October 2012 “Make” architects put forward outline proposals for a 4 runway Stansted. Now Stuart Blower from “Make” says: “One of the great advantages of our Stansted proposal is no aircraft need to fly over London” so reducing the aircraft noise, over London. “Make” are also saying that there is a low population density around Stansted, compared to that around Heathrow, so far fewer people would be affected.  They do at least condescend to acknowledge that a huge Stansted would create more noise for residents living near the airport.  At present the average journey time by rail beween Stansted and Liverpool Street is about  47 minutes, and the airport is lobbying to get this journey time cut.  “Make” is proposing that the new Crossrail line should be extended to Stansted, so it would only take 25 minutes from Canary Wharf to Stansted. However, the extra cost of this Crossrail link would be some £5 billion. The anticipated cost of the “Make” airport scheme would be £18 billion, so the total would be £23 billion. Along with all the other airport and runway proposals, this scheme will be submitted  by “Make” to the Airports Commission by the mid July deadline.  Any plans to expand Stansted, let alone to become a monster mega-airport, will be strenuously opposed locally.  
.


 

From Make Architects website  ©Make Architects

A computer generated impression of how 4 runways at Stansted could look

£23bn plan for Stansted hub airport to replace Heathrow

By Andrew Parker ( Financial Times)

Full FT article at  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3778d956-c229-11e2-ab66-00144feab7de.html#axzz2U7X7UPNS

Stansted should replace Heathrow as the UK’s hub by transforming the Essex airport into a four-runway operation with improved rail links at a cost of £23bn, according to proponents of the scheme.

Make, the London-based architect, is proposing to curb the jet noise suffered by residents living under Heathrow’s flightpaths by recommending that Stansted become the UK’s hub by 2028 – capable of dealing with 120m passengers every year.

….Make is planning to submit its Stansted scheme to the commission chaired by Sir Howard Davies

….Manchester Airports Group, …..is expected to evaluate the case for turning the Essex airport into a large hub in the coming months.

Full FT article at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3778d956-c229-11e2-ab66-00144feab7de.html#axzz2U7X7UPNS

 

.


.

Mega-Stansted ‘would cut flights over London’

 
 Plans: London-based architects Make have drawn up proposals to turn the Essex airport into a mega-hub twice the size of Heathrow by 2028
by Jonathan Prynn, Consumer Business Editor  (Evening Standard)

23 May 2013

Backers of ambitious plans to turn Stansted into a four-runway hub airport today claimed the scheme would reduce the number of flights over London.

London-based architects Make have drawn up proposals to turn the Essex airport into a mega-hub twice the size of Heathrow by 2028.

Stuart Blower, one of the Make architects behind the £23 billion project, said: “One of the great advantages of our Stansted proposal is no aircraft need to fly over London.”

This is mainly because the four runways proposed for Stansted run from the northeast to the southwest.

The architects also point out that the countryside around Stansted has a population density of 100 to 249 people per sq km compared with 2,500 to 4,999 around Heathrow.

Make intend to submit their plans to the independent commission chaired by Sir Howard Davies looking at how to increase aviation capacity in the South-East. However, they are certain to be opposed by local groups.

The Stop Stansted Expansion group has said in its submission that there is no need for more runways in the South East.  Its economics adviser, Brian Ross, said: “If there was demand for another 100 flights a day to China, there would be ample capacity to accommodate that straightaway. In fact, the overall demand for business flights is declining: overseas business trips by UK residents have fallen by a fifth since 2000.”

The Airports Commission will produce an interim report this year and its final recommendations by mid-2015.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/megastansted-would-cut-flights-over-london-8629079.html

.


.

Earlier

4-runway mega-hub at Stansted airport proposed by “Make” architects

22 October 2012

Plans for a new four-runway London mega-hub at Stansted capable of handling 150 million passengers a year have been unveiled. The plan is by architect Ken Shuttleworth, the architect behind the Gherkin in the City. The plans from his practice, “Make” Architects, would see Heathrow either entirely redeveloped or drastically reduced in size.  They would involve building three new 4km-long runways at Stansted and creating a new Crossrail link from Stansted to Stratford, reducing train journey times to 25 minutes. The Norman Foster-designed 1991 main terminal building could also be transformed into a train station under the plans but full architectural details have yet to be revealed. Timescales and construction cost have also yet to be confirmed. Boris is in favour of this new Stansted hub, if he cannot get his Thames estuary airport.

 http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=977
.
.
.

 

 

Read more »

China considers imposing carbon cap on country’s emissions – improving chance of a global deal?

China is the world’s largest emitter of CO2 (about 25%) and the US (about 17%) is the second largest. Until now neither China nor the US has made any commitment to a cut of their absolute CO2 emissions. However, now China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the agency responsible for planning the country’s social and economic development, has proposed a putting a ceiling on CO2 emissions by 2016.  Lord Stern considered this as very exciting news, which “should encourage all countries, and particularly the other large emitters such as the United States, to take stronger action on climate change. And it improves the prospects for a strong international treaty being agreed at the United Nations climate change summit in 2015.” Also Ed Davey believes that China’s changing attitude improves prospects for a global deal in 2015. The US has still not agreed any comparable cap. China has agreed to cut its carbon intensity – the amount of CO2 produced per dollar of economic output – by about 40% by 2020, compared to 2005 levels – but that still means a large rise in their emissions.

.

China agrees to impose carbon targets by 2016

Beijing’s thaw over greenhouse gases seen as major step in battling climate change
by TOM BAWDEN  (Independent)

21 MAY 2013

The battle against global warming has received a transformational boost after China, the world’s biggest producer of carbon dioxide, proposed to set a cap on its greenhouse gas emissions for the first time.

Under the proposal China, which is responsible for a quarter of the world’s carbon emissions, would put a ceiling on greenhouse gas emissions from 2016, in a bid to curb what most scientists agree is the main cause of climate change.

It marks a dramatic change in China’s approach to climate change that experts say will make countries around the world more likely to agree to stringent cuts to their carbon emissions in a co-ordinated effort to tackle global warming.

“This is very exciting news,” said Lord Stern, chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics.

Such an important move should encourage all countries, and particularly the other large emitters such as the United States, to take stronger action on climate change. And it improves the prospects for a strong international treaty being agreed at the United Nations climate change summit in 2015,” added Lord Stern, who, in his 2006 report for the UK government on the financial implications of climate change, produced what many regard as the world’s single most influential political document on the subject.

Nearly 200 countries around the world have pledged to agree legally binding targets to reduce their emissions at the next significant climate change summit in Paris in 2015.

Without a robust global agreement experts say there is virtually no prospect of keep global warming to 2C – beyond which most experts agree the consequences become increasingly disastrous.

Doug Parr, Greenpeace’s chief scientist, said: “This is a big shift in China’s position and should unblock the standoff between the US and China in the global climate change negotiations. Without an agreement between these two major players it is hard to see how an agreement can be reached in 2015.”

The US is the world’s second biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, accounting for 17.6% of the global total, while the UK makes up 1.6%.

Climate and Energy Change Secretary Ed Davey told The Independent that China’s changing attitude to climate change has made him increasingly confident that a deal can be reached in 2015.

“At the end of last year the Chinese leadership changed and started talking about creating an ‘ecological civilisation’. This doesn’t mean they have signed up to every bit of the climate change talks, but it means they recognise that their economic model has to take account of pollution and the environment and that damage that it’s doing to people’s health,” Mr Davey said.

“I’m really much more confident than many people about our ability to get an ambitious climate change deal done in 2015. Obama in his second term clearly wants to act on this and there has been a fantastic and dramatic change in America’s position. Taken together with China’s change, the tectonic plates of global climate change negotiations are really shifting,” Mr Davey added.

Mr Davey said he wants the UK to take a leading part in the global climate change discussions as part of the European negotiating block. However, he said he was concerned that the rise of the climate sceptic Ukip party could drag members of the Tory right in that direction and damage Britain’s credibility in debate on global warming.

Elliot Diringer, of the Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions think tank in Virginia in the US, said China’s move towards a cap was “encouraging news and definitely a move in the right direction” but said its true impact would depend on the level of the ceiling.

The proposal to introduce the cap has been made by China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), agency responsible for planning the country’s social and economic development.

Although the proposal needs to be accepted by China’s cabinet, the State Council, for it to be adopted but experts said the agency is extremely influential and is working with a government that appears to be increasingly committed to the environment. The agency also said it now expects China’s greenhouse emissions to peak in 2025, five years earlier than its previous estimate.

China has agreed to cut its so-called carbon intensity – the amount of CO2 produced per dollar of economic output – by about 40% by 2020, compared to 2005 levels.

However, this still allows for a considerable increase in emissions, albeit it at a slower pace. The cap proposed by NDRC would represent the first time China has committed to cut its absolute emissions – something that the US has failed to do.

Lord Stern said the move was a further sign that the EU “is losing its global leadership position on climate policy through its vacillation”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/china-agrees-to-impose-carbon-targets-by-2016-8626101.html

 

.


.

 Guardian added:
China is the world’s biggest carbon emitter and burns almost as much coal as the rest of the world’s countries combined……….

The push to reduce carbon emissions coincides with the newly installed leadership’s effort to tackle the country’s dire air pollution problem, which has emerged as a source of widespread anger and frustration in recent months. “Having a mid-term strategy, and trying to prepare years ahead, is actually in line with China’s interests and its political and social priorities,” she said.

On Monday, the Chinese newspaper 21st Century Business Herald reported that the NDRC has discussed implementing a national system to control the intensity and volume of carbon emissions by 2020. The agency expects China to reach its carbon emissions peak by 2025, five years earlier than many recent estimates, according to unnamed sources quoted in the article.

At a recent climate change meeting, the agency “announced that it’s currently researching and calculating a timetable for the greenhouse gas emissions peak, and will vigorously strive to implement a total emissions control scheme during the ’13th five-year plan’ period (from 2016-2020),” the paper quoted a NDRC official, also unnamed, as saying.

“The NDRC is looking for a national cap, but nobody knows exactly when that is going to happen,” said Wu Changhua, greater China director of the Climate Group. “There’s still a lot of work to be done.”

The EU’s carbon trading scheme, the world’s largest, has suffered repeated setbacks in recent months. In April, MEPs voted against a proposed reform aimed to raise the price of carbon, which has been diluted by an overabundance of permits.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/22/china-carbon-trading-shenzhen

 

.


But by contrast, on aviation:

Is China dictating Europe’s climate policy?

May 20, 2013  (Transport & Environment)

…. extracts …..

The EU’s decision to ‘stop the clock’ on including emissions from intercontinental flights in its Emissions Trading Scheme appears to have been influenced by Chinese threats to cancel orders for new planes from Airbus. A letter from the president of the French aircraft maker to China’s leading aviation official – seen by Reuters – says Airbus played an influential role in persuading the EU to give the world’s governments another year to reach agreement on how to tackle carbon emissions from air transport. T&E says European governments have effectively given China ‘a veto over European policy’.

……..

T&E aviation manager Bill Hemmings said: ‘It is an extremely serious matter that Airbus has lobbied the EU to ‘Stop the Clock’ on behalf of China in such a brazen fashion. Airbus already enjoys massive financial support from the EU precisely because it is European, yet now appears to have put its own commercial interests before its legal obligations to uphold cornerstone EU environmental law aimed at protecting European citizens. There are also questions to be asked of the British, French and German governments, all of whom have significant claims in Airbus’ parent company EADS, who look to have caved in to China’s threats through Airbus’ lobbying. Where are we if our own governments hand the Chinese a veto over European foreign policy?’

 

http://www.transportenvironment.org/news/china-dictating-europe%E2%80%99s-climate-policy

 

.

.

.

Read more »

Heathrow and Gatwick submit their responses on Aviation & Climate Change to Airports Commission

Both Heathrow and Gatwick airports have submitted their responses to the Aviation Commission’s discussion paper on Aviation and Climate Change. Both base their aspirations of high growth rates over coming decades on evidence from the industry body “Sustainable Aviation”.  Not surprisingly, both airports’ submissions are attempts to justify the unjustifiable: to claim that emitting huge amounts more carbon dioxide can be achieved with no net emissions, by various probable and improbable means.  They hope improvements in efficiency by airlines and air traffic control, as well as improved aircraft design, will cut their emissions. They place unrealistic hopes in “sustainable” biofuels, with Gatwick’s submission saying “…by 2050, sustainable fuels could offer between 15 and 24% reduction in CO2 emissions attributable to UK aviation.” Gatwick also wants considerable Government support (ie public expense) to develop biofuels for the industry. And both depend to an enormous extent on international agreements through ICAO, and systems for carbon trading that do not currently exist.

.

Heathrow: UK aviation can grow and meet climate change targets

15 May, 2013  (Heathrow)

The Heathrow response to the Airport Commission’s discussion paper on Aviation & Climate Change is at  Heathrow response
Aircraft Blue Sky 2
Heathrow says:

Growing the UK’s airport hub capacity is consistent with meeting UK climate change targets, according to Heathrow’s response to the ‘Aviation and Climate Change’ discussion paper published by the Airports Commission.

The response, submitted today, cites projections by Sustainable Aviation1, [see below for their Roadmap graphic]  the UK aviation cross-industry association, that new aircraft and engine technology, operational efficiencies and sustainable biofuels will allow the UK to more than double air traffic by 2050 without a substantial increase in gross emissions [very optimistic on biofuels which, in reality, are not likely to be available in large amounts] consistent with the UK’s long term legally set climate change targets. Together these developments have already improved fuel efficiency by over 70 per cent in the last 40 years2.  [In reality, the older planes were more fuel efficient. Then the new jets took over, which were fuel inefficient; and the new improvements are only getting back now to where they were 40 years ago ....]

If international carbon trading is added to these factors, Sustainable Aviation forecasts that emissions over time would actually be reduced, achieving the global industry’s commitment to halve 2005 carbon emissions by 20502 [ ie. depending on carbon trading with other sectors to negate aviation carbon emissions. Not real cuts. by the industry - just hoping to buy permits from other sectors which actually make carbon cuts.]

Heathrow’s submission adds that constraining growth at a hub airport is an inefficient and ineffective way of reducing carbon emissions for three reasons:

  • Without additional UK hub capacity, passengers will still travel, but in less carbon efficient ways, so carbon will not be cut. UK long-haul passengers will have to transfer through EU hubs, adding an additional landing and take-off to each journey – the most carbon-intensive part of a flight. International passengers travelling to the UK may need to detour via a European hub, adding extra miles to long-haul routes. The Airports Commission concludes that by 2030, the carbon emissions from increased transfer trips would exceed any carbon savings made by those that would choose not to travel3. In addition, the UK would lose the economic benefits of direct connections.
  • All sectors need to play a role in reducing carbon emissions. Aviation delivers more than twice the economic value per tonne of carbon compared to other sectors [very unscientific figure - how could such a general claim be justified? how exactly were the figures derived? work done by Frontier Economics  on 2009 data]  so there is greater value-for-money in reducing carbon emissions in other non-transport areas4.
  • The unique long-haul routes from the UK’s only hub airport, Heathrow, deliver over twice the economic value per carbon tonne from trade and tourism compared to those from other UK airports4.

 

The existing transport infrastructure around Heathrow also provides additional carbon emissions benefits compared to other UK hub options.

The submission shows that, even if development of Stansted or a new Thames Estuary airport included significant investment in new transport infrastructure, Heathrow would still have 4.5million more people within a 60minute public transport catchment area than either airport. This means passengers and staff would create a significantly smaller carbon footprint when travelling to and from Heathrow.

Matt Gorman, Heathrow’s Sustainability Director, says: ‘Our submission argues that it is possible to grow the UK’s hub airport, Heathrow, without exceeding the UK’s long term climate change targets. This is thanks to exciting advances made by the aviation industry across technology, operational procedures and sustainable fuels which have changed the impact of this industry for the better and will continue to do so in the future.’

Notes to editors

1Sustainable Aviation 2050 C02 Roadmap, 2012.
http://www.sustainableaviation.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/SA-CO2-Road-Map-full-report-280212.pdf

2IATA, A global approach to reducing aviation emissions.http://www.iata.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/Documents/Global_Approach_Reducing_Emissions_251109web.pdf

3Airports Commission, Discussion Paper 03: Aviation and Climate Change, April 2013.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/186683/aviation-and-climate-change-paper.pdf

4The impact on the UK economy of reducing carbon emissions in Aviation, by Frontier Economics, 2011. Commissioned by Heathrow Airport. www.heathrowairport.com/mediacentre

 

http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.com/Press-releases/Heathrow-UK-aviation-can-grow-and-meet-climate-change-targets-554.aspx


The Heathrow response to the Airport Commission’s discussion paper on Aviation & Climate Change is at  Heathrow response


.

[Heathrow comments, under the effects of climate change, that ..... "that the material consideration is the risk of sea level rise for any potential future airport option at a coastal or estuary location and we suggest that this is an issue which the Commission might take into account."

There will have to be a horrific level of climate change to cause that degree of sea level rise. Can aviation really justify its continued growth when the climate, and the sea level has already risen that much? ]

.


.

Gatwick Airport’s response to the Commission’s Aviation & Climate Change discussion paper

…..   Gatwick has also separately submitted its response to the Airports Commission on Aviation and Climate Change – an area of key importance and focus for the airport. While there is much work to be done by the whole industry to manage climate change issues, innovation is already taking place in areas such as aircraft technology, which is reducing C02 levels. Within its submission, Gatwick has reiterated its commitment to its sustainability programme ‘Decade of Change’ and highlighted the use of biofuels as a key focus for the Airports Commission to consider for the future.

http://www.mediacentre.gatwickairport.com/

London Gatwick’s full submission is at Aviation and Climate Change

.

Gatwick airport, like Heathrow, places huge faith in biofuels to solve their future carbon problems. The Gatwick submission says (page 8)

We also believe that the DfT forecast for penetration of biofuels is too low. We endorse and the support the figure outlined in the Sustainable Aviation CO2 road map. We fully expect that penetration will be greater than 2.5% by 2050 particularly if the Government provides more support in this area in line with the approach outlined in SA’s CO2 road map.

Accordingly, we believe that by 2050, sustainable fuels could offer between 15 and 24% reduction in CO2 emissions attributable to UK aviation. This assumption is based on a 25-40% penetration of sustainable fuels into the global aviation fuel market, coupled with a 60% life-cycle CO2 saving per litre of fossil kerosene displaced.

.


The sort of reasoning that Gatwick and Heathrow use to justify large aviation expansion in future can be seen from these graphics:

Sustainable Aviation road map

.


From the Gatwick submission:

Gatwick airport climate submission May 2013

Another comment that reveals the tone of the response is (page 11):

“Behavioural change is not an approach supported by Gatwick. We believe the long term solution to managing the industry’s carbon emissions lies in delivering alternative low CO2 fuels in conjunction with other technological advancements. This will allow aviation to grow and meet demands from passengers in a sustainable manner ensuring the economic prosperity of the UK. ”

 

and

“…….the most compelling opportunity for the UK to exert an influence over CO2 emissions from aviation is not by constraining demand for UK aviation, but rather through investment in advanced technologies which can be deployed globally, earning export revenues for the UK while contributing to a more environmentally efficient industry world-wide. This would then allow for sustainable growth in the UK aviation sector ensuring UK connectivity and protecting the valuable contribution the industry makes to the economy.”

 

and

“The industry has already demonstrated significant carbon savings. Analysis by IATA (IATA, 2010) has shown that global commercial airline fuel efficiency has improved by over 30% in the past two decades, saving over 400 million tonnes of CO2 per annum at current activity levels, relative to the fleet efficiency in 1990. In contrast, total annual emissions of CO2 attributable to UK aviation correspond to less than one tenth of this figure. In line with
IPCC (sic) we believe that aviation can grow by around 60% and still achieve the Governments (sic) carbon emissions reduction targets.”

“However in order to achieve this sustainable growth, there need to be continued technological advances and developments and there will need to be significantly more support from Government to develop alternative fuels and a workable solution to carbon trading. These measures combined with the operational savings achievable from airspace changes and efficiencies in ground operations, will deliver the headroom which enables the industry to grow, whilst achieving the governments (sic) emission targets.”

.

.

.

.

.

Read more »

Letter from Airbus to Chinese aviation official shows how active Airbus was in getting ETS emasculated

In April a deal was agreed between Airbus and China that they would buy 18 long-haul A330s because of the ETS being temporarily stopped. Now Reuters reports on a letter from the Airbus Chief Executive, Fabrice Bregier to China’s top aviation official shortly after the EU back-pedaled on its ETS in November, (4 days after the ETS climb down) saying AIrbus had been “very active” in supporting China’s preference for a broader global system. The letter gives a glimpse into the intensity of the lobbying in the dispute, which helped persuade the EU to freeze the ETS.  Behind the scenes, Airbus claimed partial credit for the EU climb-down and cheered what its chief executive described to Beijing as “joint efforts” to limit damage to Chinese airlines. Bregier said “Through our joint efforts, we have managed to ensure that Chinese airlines are not unfairly impacted by the scheme as previously planned.” Airbus needs certainty on its future plane sales far in advance, in order to order parts.  Reuters says more valuable deals for Airbus from the Chinese remain on hold as China awaits the outcome of international talks on aviation carbon emissions.

.

 

Airbus to China: We support you, please buy our jets

  • An A380 aircraft is seen through a window with an Airbus logo during the EADS / Airbus 'New Year Press Conference' in Hamburg January 17, 2012. REUTERS/Morris Mac Matzen

By Barbara Lewis ( Reuters )

May 12, 2013

(Brussels – Reuters) – China’s decision to ease a boycott of some $11 billion in Airbus jet orders followed a high-level appeal from the planemaker urging Beijing to recognize its support over a trade row with Europe, a letter seen by Reuters shows.

It gives a glimpse into the intensity of the lobbying in the dispute, which helped persuade the European Union to freeze a law on regulating international aviation emissions.

China partly lifted a blockade on 45 long-haul A330 jet orders during a visit by French President Francois Hollande last month.

Behind the scenes, Airbus claimed partial credit for the EU climb-down and cheered what its chief executive described to Beijing as “joint efforts” to limit damage to Chinese airlines.

Writing to China’s top aviation official shortly after the EU back-pedaled on its Emissions Trading Scheme last November, Fabrice Bregier said Airbus had been “very active” in supporting China’s preference for a broader global system.

“Through our joint efforts, we have managed to ensure that Chinese airlines are not unfairly impacted by the scheme as previously planned,” Chief Executive Fabrice Bregier said.

“I hope we at Airbus have been able to clearly demonstrate our strong support to Chinese aviation.”

Airbus, which also got backing from European leaders, says the blocked orders alone put 2,000 jobs at risk.

“Since I became president of Airbus in June (2012), I have made this issue one of the top priorities for the company,” Bregier wrote to Li Jiaxiang, the government official in charge of the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC).

A spokesman for Airbus declined to comment on the letter but reiterated that the company, a subsidiary of EADS, welcomed the EU’s decision to pause the scheme for a year.

Bregier signed the two-page letter on November 16, four days after EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard agreed to “stop the clock” for a year on plans to make all airlines using EU airports pay for their emissions through a trading scheme.

The proposal unleashed a volley of international criticism and China – which viewed it as a breach of sovereignty – froze orders for aircraft worth up to $230 million each.

Bregier urged China to respond to the European Union’s decision by swiftly granting approvals for all 45 aircraft.

While Beijing approved 18 orders worth $4 billion, more valuable deals remain on hold as China awaits the outcome of international talks on the problem of managing borderless emissions without infringing sovereignty.

PRESSURE TO ORDER PARTS

Bregier’s letter sheds light on frantic efforts to unblock the orders as Airbus reached the deadline for ordering parts for the jets. According to his letter, the first aircraft was tentatively scheduled to be delivered in the summer of 2013.

Industry sources say a golden rule of the aerospace industry is that planes are never built without a firm order and deposit.

However, the schedule suggests Airbus may have been willing to show some flexibility, given China’s role as the world’s fastest-growing aviation market and a strategic trade partner.

Longest-lead-time components are ordered around a year in advance, meaning that if the planes are indeed to be delivered this summer, some parts would have been ordered last year.

The letter also gives the first available breakdown of the A330 orders, details of which have mostly been kept secret pending final approval from the Chinese government.

They include 10 aircraft for Air China, 10 for Hainan Airlines, 10 for China Southern and 15 for China Eastern. The letter said first deliveries were tentatively scheduled for mid-2013.

Airbus has not said which of these are included in the approvals for 18 aircraft announced on April 25.

It is not the first time high-profile plane orders have become swept up in trade tensions between China and Europe or the United States, home to Airbus’s arch-rival Boeing.

Supported by India and the United States, China objected to the EU airlines plan on the grounds that it based charges on the whole trip, including China’s jealously protected airspace.

The European Union says it was forced to act after more than a decade of inaction by the international community.

For internal EU flights the EU scheme remains in place and the European Union says it will re-impose the scheme for all flights using EU airports if global talks do not progress.

In practice, diplomats say that places the onus on the United Nations’ International Civil Aviation Organization to reach a breakthrough during its general assembly from September 24.

The absence of a deal would raise the prospect of further deadlock over Airbus orders.

Aviation executives are expected to tackle the issue on Monday in Montreal, home to ICAO, where they are attending an Airbus-sponsored environment workshop.

(Additional reporting by Tim Hepher; Editing by Louise Heavens)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/13/us-china-airbus-exclusive-idUSBRE94C00020130513

.


.

See earlier:

China agrees $4.1bn Airbus plane deal to buy 18 wide-body jets + $3.8 bn deal for 42 narrow-body jets

April 27, 2013      Fear by European countries, Airbus and many airlines, that loss of sales of Airbus planes to China was a reason for “stopping the clock” for a year, on aviation’s inclusion in the ETS. Now a deal has been agreed that China will buy 18 A330s from Airbus. Now inclusion of aviation in the ETS has been emasculated, Airbus is keen to sell as many planes as it can to China and returning to what it calls ‘business as usual’. The order that has now been announced is part of an earlier order for 45 wide-body jets, which are worth about $4n at list prices, although China may get a hefty discount on them. There is also an order by the Chinese for 42 A320 narrow-body jets, worth about $3.8bn though this deal had not been affected by the ETS debacle. Airbus, which is a subsidiary of EADS, hopes China will be its largest customer during coming 2 decades, buying large numbers of planes. France, Germany and Britain continue to do all they can to build strong commercial ties with China, to boost exports and income.     Click here to view full story…

.

EU states deny reports that their Airbus ministers seek suspension of EU ETS until ICAO agreement

GreenAir online  13.9.2012   http://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=1589 which includes this:    A spokesman at the UK’s Department for Business said it was incorrect that his minister was calling for a suspension of aviation from the EU ETS.  “The UK is committed to reducing aviation emissions and to the role of the EU ETS in doing so,” he told GreenAir. “Like other European nations, the UK is keen to address issues that have been raised by a number of nations around the operation of the aviation element of the EU ETS. There was agreement by the European ministers at the Berlin Air Show that these issues need to be addressed through a global agreement to tackle aviation emissions. We recognise that a failure to resolve these issues could have a serious impact on the UK and European aerospace manufacturing and aviation sectors. We are pressing for faster progress in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and other fora to secure a global solution which delivers on the EU’s objectives of continuing to reduce emissions from aviation.”

.

Airbus tries to get inclusion of aviation in ETS suspended. EU confirms no change.

September 13, 2012    There have been press stories suggesting that European officials backing Airbus are recommending the suspension of ETS in order to avert a trade war with major economic powers such as China and the USA. China and India do not allow their airlines to participate in the ETS because the charge is for the whole flight distance, not just the section over Europe. Beijing has blocked purchases of European aircraft (Airbus) by its carriers, so Airbus is unhappy about losing its fastest-growing market and is putting strong pressure on the EU as they may lose plane sales. Those backing Airbus want a “solution” before April 2013, but the matter is not due to be dealt with by ICAO till September 2013. Connie Hedegaard has confirmed that there are “no changes in EU and member states approach on the ETS and aviation” and this is just pressure from Airbus. The EU has repeatedly said it won’t give up its pollution curbs on airlines.    Click here to view full story…

 

.


 

More news about the ETS at 

EU ETS News Stories

.

.

.

.

.

Read more »

The clock has stopped on aviation’s inclusion in the ETS: but where is ICAO now?

Following the European Parliament’s vote approving the Commission’s proposal to “Stop the Clock”, Conservative MEP Peter Liese, aviation EU ETS and “Stop the Clock” Rapporteur, hosted a public briefing for MEPs in Brussels on 24th April to review progress of the ICAO High Level Group on Climate Change (HGCC) formation. The conference was attended by Jos Delbeke (Director–General DG Clima),  Prof David Lee (Manchester University), IATA’s Paul Steele and Green MEP Satu Hassi.  T&E have written a report on the meeting. Unless things changed, and ICAO made rapid progress leading to a constructive agreement on both the need for a global market-based mechanism (MBM) to address international aviation emissions and for a Framework to govern national/regional schemes such as the EU ETS , then the original aviation Directive would “snap back” automatically next January. The Directive wouldn’t be amended “because of pressure from China, the US or Airbus”. Jos Delbeke insisted that if the whole problem couldn’t be solved now it couldn’t be solved later and, consequently, the credibility of ICAO’s global goals was squarely on the table.

.

 

The clock has stopped: Where is ICAO now?

May 2, 2013  (Transport & Environment)

Following the European Parliament’s vote approving the Commission’s proposal to “Stop the Clock”, Conservative MEP Peter Liese, aviation EU ETS and “Stop the Clock” Rapporteur, hosted a public briefing for MEPs in Brussels on Wednesday 24th April to review progress of the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s (ICAO) High Level Group on Climate Change (HGCC) formation, of which had prompted Europe’s stop the clock decision.

The conference was attended by Jos Delbeke, Director–General DG Clima, Prof David Lee of Manchester University, IATA’s Paul Steele and Green MEP Satu Hassi. The derogation became European law on 25 April.

Here’s our report of what was said there.

Both Liese and Satu Hassi showed disappointment at the little progress of the HGCC, as evidenced by continuing differences both on the need for a global market-based mechanism (MBM) to address international aviation emissions and for a Framework to govern national/regional schemes such as the EU ETS (see ICAO update box made available at the meeting and downloadable here).

Unless things changed and ICAO made rapid progress leading to a constructive agreement on both these issues at its forthcoming triennial Assembly, then the original aviation Directive would “snap back” automatically next January. The Directive wouldn’t be amended “because of pressure from China, the US or Airbus”.

Liese criticised IATA and industry’s stance. He said: “If industry really wants a global aviation deal they need to lobby for it, not against it”. He appealed directly to US Secretary of State John Kerry to follow through on Obama’s second inaugural commitment to take action on climate change noting that, after all, the Kerry-Liebermann, and indeed later Waxman-Markey bill, would have regulated the CO2 emissions of all international flights from the United States had it not been blocked in the U.S. Senate.

Jos Delbeke outlined Europe’s three requirements in the negotiations, namely:

- agreement on a Framework;

- agreement on a global MBM; and

- a strengthening of technical and operational measures.

He argued that the “departing flights from a State” approach, which was Europe’s position, was the only environmentally effective and/or administratively possible way of regulating international flights irrespective of the nationality of carrier.

Airspace (i.e. regulating CO2 emissions of arriving or departing flights only within a State’s sovereign airspace) was extremely difficult to implement and industry should be worried by it.

Delbeke added that as not all States were ready, Europe had made the roadmap proposal to the HGCC. Where, however, was industry on the roadmap? He called on industry to reveal their proposal for a solution, as Europe was open to considering all options. ICAO’s aspirational goals needed to be more mandatory, the requirement and content of State Action Plans strengthened as the quality was variable, and work accelerated on the CO2 standard for new aircraft.

In sum, Delbeke stated that Europe had shown its willingness by suspending co-decision legislation in record time but there was a limit to how far Europe will go. “We were in negotiation but without progress in ICAO the EU ETS will return in full”, Delbeke concluded.

Prof David Lee, leading climate scientist and an independent scientific adviser to ICAO, gave a thorough presentation on the possible pathways for aviation emissions growth to 2050. The various forecasts for reducing emissions (technology and operational measures, biofuels and regional MBMs) showed that there would still be a significant gap left between estimated aviation emissions and industry’s own 2020 carbon neutral growth goal, as well as ICAO’s 2% efficiency goal and the 2-degree target.

Indeed it was shown clearly that without the EU ETS, there was little if no possibility of aviation being carbon neutral from 2020 let alone in 2050.

Lee lamented the fact that ICAO does not afford more public access to all this important data. Lee added: “Why most final reports and supporting documentation of ICAO Working Groups are ‘secret’, when they are largely public and stakeholder funded and contain no proprietary or confidential data, mystifies me. I have ensured transparency of my group’s final products and the authors retaining intellectual property rights”.

Prof David Lee also outlined the options for geographic scope of any Framework measure. Using “airspace” approach would only cover up to 22% of worldwide emissions (and only if every country acted). In the example of the EU ETS airspace would cover only about a third of the original scheme. The departing flights or Flight Information Regions (FIRs) options could cover 100%. However, FIRs would incur significant administrative difficulties while a key issue remains: 77 countries have no FIR at all.

Paul Steele, recently promoted to Senior Vice President of Member and External Relations at industry body IATA, complained that governments around the world were already taking US$7bn annually from airlines as “environmental” measures. Thus, he argued, IATA was keen on ICAO agreeing a global deal on MBMs (although only as a gap filler in the medium term) while acknowledging the road was tough.

Mr Steele called for MBMs that fulfil three main criteria:

- reduce emissions,

- minimise competitive distortions and

- be administratively simple.

He was concerned about the ICAO work on an MBM Framework as the danger was that efforts would stop there.

At the same time, Steele had few comforting words for Europe about it: geographical scope “was perhaps the most difficult question”; the airspace, which the US is pushing, and over-flight approaches were both potential “nightmares” for market distortion and carbon leakage. Both were the “wrong building blocks” to a global approach while the suggestion of using FIRs was a “non-starter”. He didn’t talk further about the existing departing flights approach.

Steele also cautioned against expecting any “Eureka moment” at ICAO’s Assembly in October. While he warned against reverting to the situation prior to last November, he emphasised the fact that there would be “huge problems” if the EU ETS “snapped back”. Steele concluded by suggesting that offsetting was the right approach and that it could eventually morph into emissions trading if that was wanted.

Green MEP Satu Hassi expressed opposition to the airspace approach. For Hassi, it was total emissions that mattered and IATA should be lobbying governments to agree a global deal.

During questions, Green MEP Eva Lichtenberg, said members of her European Parliament’s Transport Committee all supported a global approach, adding that everyone knew who was blocking it.

Responding to a question, Peter Liese said that the concept of “mutual agreement” being required under a global agreement was “crazy” and later described the US position on airspace as “nonsense”. For Liese, the EU and the U.S. needed to cooperate on the basis of outbound flights. Paul Steele reckoned that reducing aviation demand was very difficult. Jos Delbeke concluded that the whole issue was a wake-up call for ICAO.

Delbeke insisted that if the whole problem couldn’t be solved now it couldn’t be solved later and, consequently, the credibility of ICAO’s global goals was squarely on the table.

Derogating from EU law was no small matter but a serious signal that was not open-ended.

http://www.transportenvironment.org/news/clock-has-stopped-where-icao-now

.

Downloads:

.

.

.

.

.

Read more »

Crisis for ETS as EU Parliament rejects ‘backloading’ which would have improved carbon trading

In the European Parliament, MEPs have voted narrowly to reject plans to bolster the price of carbon in the EU ETS by delaying or ‘backloading’ the sale of 900 million carbon allowances, prompting accusations that they have badly dented the bloc’s reputation as a global leader in the fight against climate change. The proposals were defeated in by 334-315, forcing the plan to return to the committee stage. It is now expected that the price of carbon allowances will hit record lows in the next few days as the market responds to confirmation that short to medium-term action is unlikely to be taken to address the chronic oversupply of carbon allowances in the market. Trading after the vote saw the price of EU allowances (EUAs) fall to a new record low of €2.63 a tonne. The EC proposals to remove the 900 million allowances, in order to boost the price, were defeated by a coalition of mainly centre-right MEPs (saying it would be interference with the market-based mechanism and could lead to higher energy bills in some markets) and also climate sceptic MEPs (some UK Conservatives), who have rejected any steps to try and tackle climate change.

.

 

Crisis looms for carbon market as EU Parliament rejects ‘backloading’ plan

Businesses and green groups left bitterly disappointed as MEPs reject crucial carbon market reforms

By James Murray (Business Green)

16 Apr 2013

MEPs have voted narrowly to reject plans to bolster the price of carbon in the EU’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) by delaying or ‘backloading’ the sale of 900 million carbon allowances, prompting accusations that they have badly dented the bloc’s reputation as a global leader in the fight against climate change.

The proposals were defeated in by 334-315, forcing the plan to return to the committee stage.

Analysts are now predicting the price of carbon will hit record lows in the next few days as the market responds to confirmation that short to medium-term action is unlikely to be taken to address the chronic oversupply of carbon allowances in the market. Trading in the immediate aftermath of the vote saw the price of EU allowances (EUAs) fall from more than €4.50 a tonne to a new record low of €2.63 a tonne.

The European Commission proposals were defeated by a coalition of mainly centre-right MEPs who opposed the plans on the grounds they would represent interference with the market-based mechanism and could lead to higher energy bills in some markets. Their numbers were also boosted by climate sceptic MEPs, who have rejected any steps to try and tackle climate change.

A number of British Conservative MEPs are understood to have defied Prime Minister David Cameron to vote against the proposals.

Businesses and green groups that had been campaigning in support of the plan were left deeply disappointed by the vote. NGOs have consistently warned that the rejection of the ‘backloading’ plan would not only lead to a further collapse in the price of carbon, but would also undermine confidence in the EU’s wider climate change programmes.

Analysts and campaigners had also warned that the failure to approve the backloading plan would make it extremely difficult for the European Commission to push through wider-ranging reforms designed to permanently address the oversupply of carbon allowances in the EU ETS.

In addition, energy and climate ministers of Germany, France, Italy, the UK, Sweden and Denmark warned that the rejection of the plan would significantly increase the likelihood of individual member states pursuing their own carbon taxes, such as the UK’s controversial carbon floor price.

Attention will now turn to the European Commission’s wider package of reforms designed to tackle over supply in the carbon market through the permanent retirement of excess carbon allowances, tighter limits on the number of carbon offsets that can be used in the market, or lower emissions caps on those firms covered by the scheme.

However, analysts said rapid progress on the package of reforms is unlikely to materialise, and warned that the market is now unlikely to see any fundamental changes until 2015 at the earliest.

But EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard insisted the vote had left the door open for earlier action to support the carbon market. “The commission of course regrets that the European Parliament has not approved the backloading proposal,” she said in a statement. “However, it is worth noting that when it was suggested in the second vote that the parliament finalised its rejection right away, this was not supported.

“The proposal will now go back to the parliament’s Environment Committee for further consideration. Europe needs a robust carbon market to meet our climate targets and spur innovation. The commission remains convinced that backloading would help restore confidence in the EU ETS in the short term until we decide on more structural measures.”

Writing on Twitter, Labour Shadow Climate Change Minister and green campaigner Baroness Bryony Worthington, suggested that the backloading plan could yet be revived in some form. “On ETS, 63 abstentions is high,” she wrote. “If work out why abstained + address issues could ENVI Committee come forward w diff proposal + win support?”

The result of today’s vote will lead to renewed calls from businesses, green groups and politicians for the EU to reach a decision on climate-related targets for the post-2020 period. Negotiations have been ongoing for months on the nature of any new targets, with member states understood to be divided on the scale of any emissions targets for 2030 and whether or not to repeat the package of targets for 2020 and impose new targets for energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Miles Austin, executive director of the Carbon Markets and Investors Association (CMIA), expressed frustration at the result of the vote.

“The consequences of MEPs voting against backloading will undoubtedly be rapidly reflected in the EUA price over the coming days; this solely lies at the feet of parliament,” he said in a statement. “Hopefully as a result they will finally demonstrate their ability to lead and accelerate the timetable for the now even more urgently needed structural reforms of the EU ETS.”

His comments were echoed by Guy Newey, head of environment and energy at the Policy Exchange think tank, who urged MEPs to now redouble efforts to deliver more comprehensive reforms to the ETS.

“Scuffling over short-term, temporary measures is a sideshow compared to the need for real reform of the ETS and Europe’s wider approach to climate,” he said. “That is where political attention must be focused.

“The challenge for reformers is to provide a long-term signal that Europe is serious about decarbonisation. That means delivering a clear ambition on carbon targets to 2030 and beyond, but also an end to measures that undermine the ETS’s price signal, in particular the counterproductive Renewable Energy Target that pushes up energy bills unnecessarily.”

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2261749/breaking-crisis-looms-for-carbon-market-as-eu-parliament-rejects-backloading-plan

 

 

.


 

.

16 April 2013 (BBC)

EU parliament rejects plan to boost carbon trading

Matt McGrath

By Matt McGrathEnvironment correspondent, BBC News 

  •  

The European Parliament has rejected a plan to rescue the EU’s ailing carbon trading scheme.   Members narrowly voted against a so-called “backloading” proposal that would have cut the huge surplus of allowances currently being traded.

Because of this excess, the price of carbon on the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has plunged to less than 5 euros a tonne.

But opponents won the day by arguing the plan would push up energy costs.

The price of carbon has fluctuated considerably since the ETS was launched in 2005. The scheme limits the emissions from around 12,000 power plants and factories across the 27-member bloc.

“The central plank of Europe’s strategy for cutting carbon emissions is now rendered impotent”

Joss Garman Greenpeace UK

At one point the trading price was well above €30 per tonne But concerns over the growing number of allowances issued has caused a significant drop in recent years. In January this year it hovered around €3 per tonne.

In an effort to push up the price and make low carbon investments more attractive the European Commission proposed withholding around 900 million allowances from the market over the next two years. The hope was that this “backloading” proposal would promote scarcity and would drive up the price.

The move was backed by a number of European energy companies which placed a full page advertisement in the Financial Times urging a “yes” vote in the Parliament.

But industries that use a large amount of energy were angered by the proposal. They said that the low price of carbon accurately reflected the economic reality of a Europe struggling with a slump for the past four years.

They said that backloading would put many companies at a significant competitive disadvantage to businesses in the US which have benefitted from lower energy costs thanks to shale gas.

Despite political backing from the UK, France and Italy, MEPs voted against the proposal by 334 votes to 315 with more than 60 abstentions. It will now go back to the Parliament’s environment committee for further consideration.

burger
Campaigners have highlighted the fact that the EU price of carbon has recently been around the same price as a burger

Poland’s minster for the environment, Marcin Korolec, welcomed the move in a tweet.

“The vote of reason,” he wrote.

“Hope we can focus now on discussions on 2030 vision. Things that matter.”

However there was anger about the actions of UK Conservative MEPs. Twenty two Tory members voted against the backloading idea.

Chris Davies is the Lib Dem spokesman on environment in the European Parliament. He said the actions of the Conservatives undermined the efforts of the coalition government to protect the environment.

“Conservative MEPs could have made a decisive difference and levelled the playing field for UK manufacturers building car parts, aerospace technologies and other energy intensive export businesses.

“Instead they have let their hatred of the EU get in the way of their own party policy and of economic growth.

The EU Commissioner for climate action, Connie Hedegaard said the she regretted that backloading had been rejected.

”Europe needs a robust carbon market to meet our climate targets and spur innovation,” she said in a statement.

“The Commission remains convinced that backloading would help restore confidence in the EU ETS in the short term until we decide on more structural measures. We will now reflect on the next steps to ensure that Europe has strong EU ETS.”

Some environmental groups were furious that the plan had been rejected. According to Joss Garman, political director of Greenpeace UK, it cast doubt on the future of the scheme.

“The central plank of Europe’s strategy for cutting carbon emissions is now rendered impotent as it won’t stop a single dirty coal plant from being built,” he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22167675

 

EU carbon price hits all-time low   21.1.2013

.


.

From Sandbag

What next for the EU ETS?

posted by Bryony  Worthington
on 16th Apr 2013

The future of the ETS in Europe the short term looks pretty bleak – the carbon price has already fallen by close to a half, from an already rock bottom level, as the market absorbs the news that the Parliament has voted against throttling back some of the supply into the already overloaded market.

The immediate implications of this are that forthcoming auctions may struggle to go ahead as technical reserve prices, intended to prevent sales significantly below the market price, could kick in as they already have before in Greece and Austria.

This could serve as sort of stop-start temporary ‘backloading’ but it unlikely to lift prices by very much.

Member States who have been banking on incomes from auctions to fund public services or supporting green policies will find they have a hole in their finances and this could prompt the introduction of more carbon taxes to compensate – as was recently introduced in the UK.

This will be bad for business as the once level carbon playing field across Europe starts to splinter distorting trade. The low prices are also bad news for Europe’s more efficient, well-run companies who will no longer be rewarded for doing the right thing.

In the short run it’s also bad for the two thirds or so of installations currently holding comfortable surpluses as there will be no-one interested in buying their spare allowances, removing a source of income at a time when all potential cash flow represents a potential lifeline.

In the medium term, there is the possibility that a different, more ambitious proposal will emerge from the Council, Commission or indeed the Parliament.

There were a number of abstentions in the vote today – if they can articulate what their concerns were and have them addressed, something new could emerge. Equally, some members of one of the most powerful blocks the EPP have claimed they do support fixing the ETS just not through backloading so they may support a different approach if one can be agreed on.

There is a slim chance something could be agreed ahead of the next parliamentary elections in May next year. If that fails then it will be two years or more before anything can be done at an EU level.

In the longer term the ETS will simply carry on regardless as there is nothing in the legislation that causes it to cease.

By around 2020 much of the industrial surpluses will have run out and future free allocations to industry will be fast disappearing. Offsetting provisions will also run out. So if the policy does not change then prices will inevitably rise again in about 10 years or so.

Sadly for the EU, to sit around doing very little for the rest of the decade means loss of investment and sends a very bad signal – especially in the run up to the 2015 UN negotiations when the world is meant to try and agree the next international treaty.

For this reason it seems likely the focus of the Commission will now shift to deciding climate targets for 2030 which if they are accompanied by changes in the ETS trajectory could serve to lift the carbon price from the doldrums a lot earlier than it would otherwise.

Looking outside of the ETS the failure to fix the ETS could derail political will in other countries – most notably Australia and Korea – however there could also be a plus side as countries currently copying the EU model may well think twice when considering their own plans and introduce safeguards against such drastic price crashes, following more closely the Californian model.

Overall the EU ETS is down but not out. We are losing time and investment opportunities while it remains on the floor but it will bounce back and we intend to ensure that this happens sooner rather than later.

http://www.sandbag.org.uk/blog/2013/apr/16/what-next-eu-ets/

 

Read more »

Research shows climate change will lead to more clear air turbulence and bumpier flights

Climate change will lead to bumpier flights caused by increased mid-air turbulence, according to an analysis by scientists, at the University of Reading, of the impact of global warming on weather systems over the next 40 years. The study is published in the journal Nature Climate Change. The increasing clear air turbulence results from the impact of climate change on the jet streams, which are at the altitude at which airliners fly.  The jet streams are driven by the temperature difference between the poles and the tropics. More turbulence will cause more injuries to passengers and aircrew every year, as well as delays and damage to planes. There is an estimate of this costing some £100m each year. The Reading study indicated the frequency of turbulence on trans-Atlantic flights will double by 2050 and its intensity increase by 10-40%. Rerouting flights to avoid stronger patches of turbulence could increase fuel consumption and carbon emissions, make delays at airports more common, and ultimately push up ticket prices.  Ironic. Aviation helps drive climate change – and gets some of its adverse impacts. 
.


 

 

Climate change will lead to bumpier flights, say scientists

The shifting of the jet stream over Europe caused by global warming will lead to clear-air turbulence
Climate change will lead to bumpier flights caused by increased mid-air turbulence, according to an analysis by scientists of the impact of global warming on weather systems over the next four decades.
The increasing air turbulence results from the impact of climate change on the jet streams, the fast, mile-wide winds that whistle round the planet at the same altitude as airliners. The shifting of the jet stream over Europe has also been blamed for the UK’s wash-out summer in 2012 andfrozen spring this year.
The rough ride ahead joins other unexpected impacts of climate change, which include dodgier wi-fi and mobile phone signals and even slower marathon race times for athletes.
Paul Williams, at the University of Reading who led the new research, said: “Air turbulence does more than just interrupt the service of in-flight drinks. It injures hundreds of passengers and aircrew every year. It also causes delays and damages planes, with the total cost to society being about £100m each year.”
The study, which used the same turbulence models that air traffic controllers use every day, found that the frequency of turbulence on the many flights between Europe and North America will double by 2050 and its intensity increase by 10-40%.
“Rerouting flights to avoid stronger patches of turbulence could increase fuel consumption and carbon emissions, make delays at airports more common, and ultimately push up ticket prices,” said Williams.
The research, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, focused only clear-air turbulence, rather than the buffeting caused by major storms, which may also become more common in a warming world. “Clear-air turbulence is especially problematic to airliners, because it is invisible to pilots and satellites,” said Manoj Joshi at the University of East Anglia, who also worked on the new study.
There is evidence that clear-air turbulence has already risen by 40-90%over Europe and North America since 1958, but that is set to increase further due to global warming. The jet streams, which meander for thousands of miles, are driven by the temperature difference between the poles and the tropics, Williams explained.
Climate change is heating the Arctic faster than lower latitudes, because of the rapid loss of reflective sea ice, so the temperature difference is growing. That leads to stronger jet streams and greater turbulence. The modelling done by Williams and Joshi assumed that carbon dioxide levels will double from pre-industrial levels by 2050, which is in the mid-range of current projections for future emissions.
Most injuries caused by clear-air turbulence occur to passengers not wearing their seatbelts, who hit their heads on the aircraft’s ceiling. Williams said his new findings, the first to assess the impact of climate change on turbulence, has already changed his own behaviour: “I certainly always keep my seatbelt fastened now, which I didn’t used to do.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/08/climate-change-air-turbulence
.

.

Air travel to get bumpier as CO2 emissions rise, scientists say

8.4.2013 (Reuters)
* Turbulence to become more frequent, stronger by mid-century
* CO2 emissions forecast to double by 2050
By Nina Chestney
Turbulence on transatlantic flights will become more frequent and severe by 2050 as carbon dioxide emissions rise, leading to longer journey times and increased fuel consumption, British scientists said in a study on Monday.
Any air traveller has probably experienced turbulence. It can happen without warning and is caused by climate conditions such as atmospheric pressure, jet streams, cold and warm fronts or thunderstorms.
Light turbulence shakes the aircraft, but more severe episodes can injure passengers and cause structural damage to planes, costing around an estimated $150 million a year.
Turbulence will be stronger and occur more often if carbon dioxide emissions double by 2050 as the International Energy Agency forecasts, scientists at the universities of Reading and East Anglia said in the study published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Carbon dioxide is one of the most potent greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. Increasing emissions raise the global average temperature, heating up the lower atmosphere.
However, warming also changes the atmosphere 10 km above ground level, making it more unstable for planes, Paul Williams at the University of Reading and co-author of the report, told Reuters.
FASTEN YOUR SEATBELTS
The scientists focused on the North Atlantic flight corridor – where 600 planes travel between Europe and North America each day – using computer simulations to examine the effects of climate change on conditions there.
They found that the chances of encountering significant turbulence by the middle of the century will increase by between 40 and 170 percent, with the most likely outcome being a doubling of airspace containing significant turbulence.
The average strength of turbulence would also increase by between 10 and 40 percent.
Bumpier air journeys would make flying more uncomfortable and raise the risks to passengers and crew.
Detours to avoid strong patches of turbulence would lengthen flight times, increasing fuel consumption, emissions and airport delays, which would ultimately drive up ticket prices, Williams said.
Air travel is one of the fastest-growing sources of carbon dioxide emissions, but the effects of climate change on turbulence have not been studied before.
“Aviation is partly responsible for changing the climate in the first place. It is ironic that the climate looks set to exact its revenge by creating a more turbulent atmosphere for flying,” Williams said.
The International Air Transport Association said the issue of climate sensitivity still held many uncertainties and the study would not change airline procedures.
The aviation sector is aiming to halve its net CO2 emissions by 2050 from 2005 levels through new technology, alternative fuels and increased efficiency.
There have also been attempts to tax the sector amid slow progress towards a global deal on curbing aviation emissions.
The European Union tried to force all airlines landing or taking off from EU airports to pay for their emissions last year through its carbon trading scheme. But opposition was so fierce it almost led to a trade war, so the law was frozen for a year for inter-continental flights. (Editing by Alistair Lyon)
 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/08/climate-airlines-turbulence-idUSL5N0CQ3CA20130408
.

.

Read more »

AEF comment on Airports Commission climate paper: forecast demand rise remains incompatible with UK climate targets

AEF (the Aviation Environment Federation) has commented on the discussion paper published by the Airports Commission, on aviation and climate change. AEF notes that the paper appears keen for the UK to avoid disadvantaging itself economically through constraints on airport capacity. The paper also acknowledges that there have also been problems with the effectiveness of EU ETS in recent years due to over-supply of credits and that the ETS is currently partly suspended. The paper also appreciates that if UK aviation expands above its 2005 level, this would require “more challenging reductions” in other sectors of the UK economy. AEF comments that even with constraints on aviation growth from capacity constraints, taxes and inclusion in the ETS,  “forecast demand growth remains significantly higher than the level compatible with climate targets. In other words, if we want to meet these targets, new measures should be considered for constraining emissions, and unconstrained aviation growth with new runways should be out of the question.”

 


Airports Commission publishes climate paper

Apr 5th 2013  (Aviation Environment Federation)

The Airports Commission, appointed by Government to advise on the possible need for new airport capacity in the UK, has today published the third in its series of issues papers. This most recent publication considers aviation’s climate change impacts, as well as the possible impact of climate change effects on any future infrastructure.

The Commission appears keen for the UK to avoid disadvantaging itself economically through constraints on airport capacity, and quotes the Committee on Climate Change as expressing a preference for European or international climate measures over unilateral action in the UK. Nevertheless the Commission notes that European action on aviation emissions – through implementation of the EU ETS for all arriving and departing flights – has been partially suspended for one year in the hope that progress can be made on an international approach to aviation emissions. And it acknowledges that there have also been problems with the effectiveness of EU ETS in recent years related to an oversupply of carbon credits.

In terms of UK action on aviation emissions, the paper acknowledges that while aviation is currently not formally included in the UK’s Climate Act and carbon budgets, both the Committee on Climate Change and the Government itself have made allowance in the budgets for inclusion of the sector in future. As the assumption for the purpose of the budgets has been that aviation emissions will remain constant at the level of the EU ETS cap for aviation, and as this cap is close to the figure for the 2005 emissions level from UK aviation, “a significant overshoot of 2005 aviation emissions levels in 2050 would suggest more challenging reductions in other sectors”, suggests the paper.

AEF’s view is that such an overshoot would effectively make it impossible to achieve the aims of the Climate Act, as it would assume reductions of greater than 90% from other sectors of the economy. The paper devotes a whole chapter to consideration of possible ‘carbon leakage’ that may arise if the UK were to impose constraints on airport expansion for climate reasons while other EU states imposed none (the model used assumes unlimited growth at competitor, hubs, for example).

Yet it is clear from figures presented by the Commission that, as we have previously shown, even assuming that airport capacity is constrained to current levels, that APD continues, and that aviation is included in EU ETS or a comparable global measure, forecast demand growth remains significantly higher than the level compatible with climate targets. In other words, if we want to meet these targets, new measures should be considered for constraining emissions, and unconstrained aviation growth with new runways should be out of the question.

A situation in which the UK was the only EU member to take action on aviation emissions seems, meanwhile, extremely unlikely. All major economies have committed to carbon dioxide reductions of 80% of 1990 levels by 2050, matching the UK’s legally binding commitment, and the EU-wide 2020 emissions reduction target includes aviation. It is also worth noting that both France and Germany are now witnessing significant public opposition to airport expansion on the grounds of noise and landscape impacts, with thousands of campaigners in Frankfurt meeting weekly for the past 18 months to call for closure of the airport’s fourth runway.

The Commission paper is available here. Or you can download our copy here.

 

http://www.aef.org.uk/?p=1541

 

.


.

See also

Airports Commission publishes discussion document on Aviation and Climate Change

April 5, 2013

The Airports Commission has published its 3rd discussion paper, on Aviation and Climate Change, through which it will assemble advice and opinion on which to base its airport decisions. The consultation period lasts till 17th May. In a thoughtful document, covering a wide range of issues in relation to aviation and climate change, it sets out the usual range of issues (carbon emissions, role of international negotiations though the EU ETS and ICAO, the role of biofuels in future, role of operational improvements, impact of aviation’s non-CO2 impacts) but it also looks at the effect of both carbon constraints on future aviation growth and the effect of UK airport capacity constraints on overall emissions. It looks at the likely consequences of more long haul flights from the UK being taken from European hub airports, and the CO2 and climate effects of this happening more (“carbon leakage”). The Airports Commission has the problem of attempting to decide on CO2 issues at a time when the future of the ETS is uncertain, and effective progress by ICAO is not likely to be swift. Therefore UK policy on aviation carbon emissions is also on hold, with even agreement on non-CO2 impacts undecided.

Click here to view full story…

Read more »

Airlines that have grown rapidly since 2004/6 need to buy more ETS carbon allowances

Airlines in Europe such as EasyJet and Ryanair, which almost entirely fly within Europe, continue to need to buy carbon permits through the EU Emissions Trading System. The ETS has been temporarily suspended this year (“stopping the clock”) for flights to and from Europe.  For intra-EU flights, the ETS means airlines need to buy 15% of the carbon permits they need, and the cap for 2012 was for 97% of their average emissions between 2004 – 2006.   This falls to 95% for 2013 and future years. Therefore airlines that have grown significantly since 2004 -6 such as Ryanair and EasyJet have to pay more than airlines that have barely grown, or shrunk their emissions since then (the older legacy airlines).  It seem Ryanair emitted about 34% more carbon in 2012 and so has a shortfall of 1.9 million tons CO2 which would cost it €8.4 million based on a price of €4.44  a metric ton. Easyjet’s emissions were 25% above, so their shortage last year would amount to about 910,000 tons (costing about €4 million).

.

EU Carbon Data Signals Airlines May Need to Buy Permits

By Mathew Carr

Apr 5, 2013 (Bloomberg)

Airlines in Europe may need to buy carbon permits or pay fines after data showed the carriers’ emissions in 2012 exceeded their allocation of free allowances by about 30%, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Ryanair Holdings Plc, Europe’s biggest low-cost airline, emitted 7.46 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2012, or 34% more than than its free permits, preliminary data from the European Union shows.

EasyJet Plc’s U.K. account indicates it needs 25% more allowances, while Aer Lingus Group Plc has a shortfall of 24%, the information shows.

Airlines are investing in more efficient technology even as the cost of carbon permits in the EU’s emissions trading system, or ETS, fell 25%in the past year.

Dublin-based Ryanair said it bought new fuel-efficient aircraft that cut greenhouse- gas emissions by 50%, [which is simply not true - 50% compared with what?] while EasyJet is reducing the weight of its seats and service carts.

“The scheme is designed to create a shortfall to incentivize airlines to operate more efficiently and top up” allowances, Paul Moore, a spokesman for EasyJet in Luton,  said in an e-mailed response to questions. “EasyJet has long been a supporter of the emissions trading system and will fully comply with its obligations.”

Under Europe’s carbon program, emitters must match emissions with EU allowances or United Nations offset credits by the end of April each year or pay a fine of €100 a ton.

Polluters can top up their free allocation with allowances bought in the market.

External Flights

Ryanair’s shortfall of 1.9 million tons would cost it €8.4 million ($10.8 million) based on the closing price of €4.44  a metric ton for December EU airline allowances yesterday on ICE Futures Europe in London.

EasyJet’s shortage last year would amount to about 910,000 tons, following emissions of 4.6 million tons, the EU data show.

The EU has proposed excluding from its carbon program flights that took off or landed outside the bloc’s borders in 2012, said Itamar Orlandi, an analyst in London for New Energy Finance.

Ryanair, EasyJet and Aer Lingus usually fly within the EU so their data supports the estimate for a permit shortage of about 30%, he said.

While airlines with external flights are also granted free allowances for those journeys, they may have only reported emissions for intra-EU trips, Orlandi said. Carriers must hand back the free permits for outside flights unless they choose to include those journeys in the EU program.

No Oversupply

Deutsche Lufthansa AG (LHA) was allocated 14.6 million tons of free allowances in 2012 and reported emissions of 6.1 million tons, according to the EU data published April 2.

Peter Schneckenleitner, a spokesman for the airline in Cologne, Germany, declined to specify what portion of the company’s free permits apply to flights outside the EU.

“The Lufthansa Group doesn’t see any oversupply of allowances,” Schneckenleitner said yesterday in an e-mailed reply to questions. The airline’s yearly carbon market costs will be in the “double-digit millions” of euros, he said.

Lufthansa had historic-low fuel consumption in 2012, he said, without providing details.

“The money we are losing because of ETS would be better invested into new, fuel-efficient technology,” he said.

Ryanair has an average fleet age of less than four years and will comply with all EU laws, Robin Kiely, a spokesman for the company in Dublin, said yesterday by e-mail.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-05/eu-carbon-data-signals-airlines-may-need-to-buy-permits.html

.


.

EasyJet passenger growth from 2006 to 2011:

CAA data shows  2011 data

About 54.0 billion seat kilometres used by EasyJet in 2011

.

CAA data shows   2006 data
About 27.6 bilion  seat kilometres used by EasyJet in 2006

.* * * * * * * * * *

Ryanair’s passenger growth from 2006 to 2012

Ryanair had 79.6 million  passengers  in 2012  Ryanair website

  and 76.4 million passengers in 2011  Ryanair website

Ryanair had 33.4 million passengers  in 2006   Ryanair website

.

.

There is a lot of information about the ETS and how it affects aviation.                                                                   The questions & answers below are just some to be found on this European Commission webpage:

.Why are historic aviation emissions important for aviation’s inclusion in the EU ETS?

Historic aviation emissions are the basis for calculating the cap on aviation emissions applied when the sector is included in the EU ETS from January 2012. Today’s decision by the European Commission publishes the mean average of the annual emissions for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 of all flights that would be covered by the EU ETS performed by air carriers to and from European airports. Based on this average annual historical aviation emissions for the period 2004-2006, the number of aviation allowances to be created in 2012 amounts to 212,892,052 tonnes (97% of historic aviation emissions), and the number of aviation allowances to be created each year from 2013 onwards amounts to 208,502,525 tonnes (95% of historic aviation emissions).

.

How were historic aviation emissions calculated?

The Commission has been assisted by Eurocontrol – the European organisation for the safety of air navigation. The comprehensive air traffic data contained in Eurocontrol’s databases from the Central Route Charges Office (CRCO) and the Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU) were considered the best available data for calculation of the historic emissions. These provide among other things a calculation of the actual route length for each individual flight. Emissions were then calculated on a flight-by-flight basis using the ANCAT 3 (Abatement of Nuisances Caused by Air Transport) methodology and the CASE (Calculation of Emissions by Selective Equivalence) methodology.

In addition to Eurocontrol’s data, the Commission also used information on actual fuel consumption from almost 30 aircraft operators of different types and sizes. This data was for aircraft types that were responsible for 93% of emissions in the base years.

Thirdly, additional calculations were carried out to account for fuel consumption associated with the use of the auxiliary power units (APUs). APUs are small engines that are used to provide lighting and air conditioning when the aircraft is stationary at airports. They are used when the aircraft is not connected to ground source electrical power and ventilation services. The approach taken was first to determine the average APU fuel consumption for different aircraft types. The individual emission factors of APU fuel consumption were then extrapolated to calculate total APU emissions applying a process which took into account the actual share of fuel burn for the flights under the EU ETS of each aircraft type and the use of ground power in airports. The emissions corresponding to the resulting total APU fuel consumption were included in the historical aviation emissions for each of the years 2004, 2005 and 2006.

.

Why was the 2004-2006 period chosen as a baseline for aviation emissions?

The 2004-06 baseline period is defined in the legislation on the inclusion of aviation in the EU ETS. The baseline period for aviation allocation under the EU ETS is different from the 1990 baseline for the EU’s overall reduction commitment as it takes into account the significant growth in aviation over the last 15 years.

.

How will allocations per aircraft operator be calculated?

82% of the allowances will be given for free to aircraft operators and 15% of the CO2 allowances are allocated by auctioning. The remaining 3% will be allocated to a special reserve for later distribution to fast growing airlines and new entrants into the market.

The free allowances will be allocated by a benchmarking process which measures the activity of each operator in 2010 in terms of the number of passengers and freight that they carry and the total distance travelled. The benchmark should be published by 30 September 2011.

Member states have agreed that all revenues from auctioning should be used to tackle climate change including in the transport sector.

.

What will the effect be on aviation emissions?

The environmental impact of including aviation in the EU ETS will be significant because aviation emissions, which are currently growing rapidly, will be capped at below their average level in 2004-2006. By 2020 it is estimated that a total of 183 million tonnes of CO2 will be saved per year on the flights covered, a 46% reduction compared with business as usual. This is equivalent, for instance, to twice Austria’s annual greenhouse gas emissions from all sources. Some of these reductions are likely to be made by airlines themselves. However, participation in the EU system will also give them other options: buying additional allowances on the market – i.e. paying other participants to reduce their emissions – or investing in emission-saving projects carried out under the Kyoto Protocol’s flexible mechanisms. Providing aviation with these options does not reduce the environmental impact of the proposal since the climate impact of emission reductions is the same regardless of where they are made.

.

 How big is EU aviation’s contribution to climate change?

Direct emissions from aviation account for about 3% of the EU’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The large majority of these emissions comes from international flights, i.e. flights between two Member States or between a Member State and a non-EU country. This figure does not include indirect warming effects, such as those from NOx emissions, contrails and cirrus cloud effects. The overall impact is therefore estimated to be higher. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that aviation’s total impact is about 2 to 4 times higher than the effect of its past CO2 emissions alone. Recent EU research results indicate that this ratio may be somewhat smaller (around 2 times). None of these estimates take into account the uncertain but potentially very significant effects of cirrus clouds.

EU emissions from international aviation are increasing fast – doubling since 1990 – as air travel becomes cheaper without its environmental costs being addressed. For example, someone flying from London to New York and back generates roughly the same level of emissions as the average person in the EU does by heating their home for a whole year. Emissions are forecast to continue growing for the foreseeable future.

Emissions from aviation are higher than from certain entire sectors covered by the EU ETS, for example refineries and steel production. When aviation joins the EU ETS it is forecast to be the second largest sector in terms of emissions, second only to electricity generation.

.

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/aviation/faq_en.htm

 

 

.


.

There is also information on the temporary suspension of the ETS this year:

Questions & Answers on the proposal to temporarily ‘stop the clock’ under the EU’s Emission Trading System (EU ETS) for flights to and from European airports

Read more »

Airports Commission publishes discussion document on Aviation and Climate Change

The Airports Commission has published its 3rd discussion paper, on Aviation and Climate Change, through which it will assemble advice and opinion on which to base its airport decisions. The consultation period lasts till 17th May. In a thoughtful document, covering a wide range of issues in relation to aviation and climate change, it sets out the usual range of issues (carbon emissions, role of international negotiations though the EU ETS and ICAO, the role of biofuels in future, role of operational improvements, impact of aviation’s non-CO2 impacts) but it also looks at the effect of both carbon constraints on future aviation growth and the effect of UK airport capacity constraints on overall emissions.  It looks at the likely consequences of more long haul flights from the UK being taken from European hub airports, and the CO2 and climate effects of this happening more (“carbon leakage”). The Airports Commission has the problem of attempting to decide on CO2 issues at a time when the future of the ETS is uncertain, and effective progress by ICAO is not likely to be swift. Therefore UK policy on aviation carbon emissions is also on hold, with even agreement on non-CO2 impacts undecided. 

.

 

 The Aviation and Climate Change document (39 pages)

 Airports Commission seeks evidence on aviation and climate change

Airports Commission press release

5 April 2013

The Airports Commission has today (5 April 2013) published ‘Aviation and climate change’, the third in a series of discussion papers to build the evidence base to inform its assessment of the UK’s airport capacity needs.

The paper explores the science and policy around aviation and climate change that the Commission will need to consider when making its assessment of the nature, scale and timing of the UK’s aviation capacity and connectivity needs. It discusses approaches to forecasting aviation emissions and the potential carbon implications of airport capacity constraints. It also considers the climate change adaptation issues that the Commission will need to consider when making recommendations on future airport capacity.

Sir Howard Davies, the Chair of the Airports Commission, said:

Understanding this issue is a priority for the Commission. The climate change debate has moved on significantly since the government’s last review of airport capacity in its 2003 white paper. The Climate Change Act, Aviation EU ETS, and developments in climate science are all things that we will need to take into account in the course of our work . This paper attempts to summarise our current state of knowledge and invites responses to help us to develop our understanding.

The paper further demonstrates the Commission’s evidence based approach to deciding on the scale, nature and timing on any need for additional capacity. Parties are invited to submit evidence to the Commission on the issues raised in the paper, by 17 May 2013.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/airports-commission-seeks-evidence-on-aviation-and-climate-change

.


.

See also:

AEF comment on Airports Commission climate paper: forecast demand rise remains incompatible with UK climate targets

5.4.2013  (Aviation Environment Federation)

AEF (the Aviation Environment Federation) has commented on the discussion paper published by the Airports Commission, on aviation and climate change. AEF notes that the paper appears keen for the UK to avoid disadvantaging itself economically through constraints on airport capacity. The paper also acknowledges that there have also been problems with the effectiveness of EU ETS in recent years due to over-supply of credits and that the ETS is currently partly suspended. The paper also appreciates that if UK aviation expands above its 2005 level, this would require “more challenging reductions” in other sectors of the UK economy. AEF comments that even with constraints on aviation growth from capacity constraints, taxes and inclusion in the ETS,  ”forecast demand growth remains significantly higher than the level compatible with climate targets. In other words, if we want to meet these targets, new measures should be considered for constraining emissions, and unconstrained aviation growth with new runways should be out of the question.”

http://www.aef.org.uk/?p=1541

.


.

Below are some extracts from the discussion document:

(see full text for references etc)

Mentions of the EU ETS

Page 15

The current Government is awaiting greater certainty over the future scope of the EU ETS, and the outcome of the ICAO negotiations towards a global deal on aviation emissions, before making a decision on whether the UK should retain a national emissions target for aviation.

Whilst the aim of constraining aviation emissions to 2005 levels in 2050 is not itself legally binding, legislated carbon budgets have been set on the assumption that aviation emissions out to 2050 are constant at the level of the EU ETS cap in 2020. Given that the EU ETS cap has been set with reference to average emissions between 2004 and 2006 (i.e. very close to 2005 emissions levels), a significant overshoot of 2005 aviation emissions levels in 2050 would suggest more challenging reductions in other sectors.
Page 25
It is important to note that, assuming the EU ETS (or an equivalent scheme) continues out to 2050, aviation continues to be included and that the scheme functions as intended, this would not result in any change in CO2 emissions at an EU level. In such a scenario, CO2 savings or displacement to other European countries by the UK aviation sector would all fall within the overall ETS cap, so there would in theory be no scope for emissions ‘leakage’ from UK to European airports.

 

Mentions of the ICAO

Page 12

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has been debating options for a global market-based measure to tackle aviation emissions.   Market-based measures could include emissions trading schemes or emissions offsetting.

ICAO believes that such a measure would contribute to achieving a specific emissions reduction in the most cost-effective and flexible manner.   However, progress towards a global market-based measure has been relatively slow, and the ICAO Council on
9 December 2012 agreed to set up a  high-level group to try to resolve the issues that had been preventing more rapid progress. The high-level group has since met three times, most recently in March 2013. It will make recommendations that will be debated at the ICAO General Assembly in September 2013. The Airports Commission will continue to monitor the ICAO discussions as our work progresses

Alongside steps towards a global market-based measure, ICAO’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) has been debating a new CO2 standard for aircraft.
Agreement has now been reached on a system for measuring emissions and on
certification procedures. Work is continuing around the stringency and scope of the standard.

However, international rules and regulations also place some constraints around potential policies to tackle aviation emissions. For example, the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation (the ‘Chicago Convention’), which established the ICAO, prohibits signatory states from imposing taxes on fuels purchased for use in international aviation.

Page 13
The aim of the EU ETS, in common with the market-based measures being contemplated by ICAO, is to deliver a specific reduction in emissions in the most cost-effective way. It is also designed to incentivise investment in emissions abatement measures, since any sector that emits less than the relevant cap can sell its surplus allowances to participants in other sectors

As a result of the formation of the high-level group at ICAO, and the potential for progress towards a global measure, the EC announced in November 2012 that it would ‘stop the clock’ on the enforcement of ETS obligations on flights between European airports and the rest of the world. This was intended as a goodwill gesture, and to enable the current negotiations in ICAO to make further progress. However, the EC has stated that if ‘clear and sufficient progress’ is not evident by the ICAO General Assembly in September 2013, then it intends to reinstate ETS obligations on these flights.

page 15

The current Government is awaiting greater certainty over the future scope of the EU ETS, and the outcome of the ICAO negotiations towards a global deal on aviation emissions, before making a decision on whether the UK should retain a national emissions target for aviation.

 

Mentions of Aircraft induced cirrus (AIC)

page 8

Less well understood are the climate effects of water vapour, sulphates, soot, linear contrails and AIC. In these cases, as can be seen from Figure 2.1, the direction of the effect (warming or cooling) tends to be known, but in some cases there are significant uncertainties around its magnitude. The effects of AIC have proved particularly difficult to
quantify, although it is thought that they may have a potentially significant warming effect.

Overall, aviation emissions have been estimated to account for around 3.5% to 4.9% of total present-day (2005) global anthropogenic depending on whether AIC is included. (Reference 9 – Lee et al)

page 23

The DfT has developed an approach to estimating non-CO2 emissions from aviation. More recently, this methodology has not been used on the grounds of the scientific uncertainty around the effect of these emissions. Similarly, in its recent advice on the inclusion of aviation and shipping in carbon budgets, the CCC recommended that non-CO2 emissions not covered by the Kyoto Protocol34 (including NOX, contrails and AIC) should not be included in carbon budgets at present, but that options to reduce them will need to be developed over the coming years.

 

Mentions of Europe

Page 26

However, the Commission recognises that there is inevitable uncertainty around the international policy framework for climate change out to 2050, so we will need to understand the potential implications of UK airport capacity for global aviation emissions
under a range of scenarios. We have therefore undertaken some provisional modelling of potential CO2 emissions savings and ‘leakage’ attributable to projected capacity constraints at UK airports, based on the latest (January 2013) set of DfT forecasts.

 

Mentions of biofuels

Mentions of biofuels

Page 10

The prospect of rising oil prices, combined with carbon constraints arising from cap and trade schemes, has resulted in growing interest in the potential use of biofuels as an alternative to kerosene in jet engines. Recent tests by engine and airframe manufacturers
have shown biofuels use in aircraft to be technically feasible – indeed, biofuels are now officially certified for use up to 50% blend with conventional jet fuel.

However, there are important questions around their sustainability which will need to be taken into account as policy develops.
There are also significant questions around the potential for biofuels to act as a  ustainable alternative to kerosene.   Whilst biofuels use in aviation has been shown to be technically feasible, the pace and timing of biofuels penetration in the aviation sector remains uncertain, owing to the technical barriers that need to be overcome and the investment
needed to achieve commercial-scale production.

In the longer term, there are important sustainability concerns around largescale biofuels use. The CCC (Committee on Climate Change) and others have highlighted in particular:
●● Emissions from producing biofuels. These are heavily
dependent on the type of feedstock used, meaning that the potential
lifecycle GHG savings from biofuels vary significantly depending on the
production route.
●● Effects of land-use change. Where growth of biofuels feedstock results in
land-use change directly (e.g. deforestation) or indirectly (e.g.
displacement of food production), this can reduce lifecycle GHG savings
significantly.

●●Competition for available biofuels.  Aviation will have to compete for scarce biofuels with other sectors such as road transport, shipping, household cooking and heating, and energy generation.
●● Tensions between biofuels and food production. Projected population growth and rising living standards in developing countries are likely to lead to increasing requirements for global food production. It is unclear whether sufficient land and water will be available for growing biofuels feedstock on a large scale.
Under the ‘likely’ scenario, a 60% increase in passengers by 2050, relative to the 2005 baseline, would be compatible with the aviation sector emissions target. Effectively, this is the level of growth that is exactly offset by fuel efficiency improvement and biofuels. The demand growth that could be accommodated within the target rises to around 135% in the ‘speculative’ scenario with its more optimistic assumptions.

[The table on page 22 shows anticipated carbon savings for aviation under the DfT's 3 scenarios, with 2.5% use of biofuel by 2050 or 10% biofuel in the higher scenarios. These are expected to cause a 2.5% to 5% carbon saving by 2050.   AW.]

Page 30

Biofuels
●● Supporting biofuels demonstration plant covering fuel production, refining and demonstration [biofuel demonstration plant]; and
●● Regulation to mandate biofuels uptake in aviation (subsidised or unsubsidised) [mandatory biofuels].

 

 

.


 

.

Notes to editors on the AC press release of 5.4.2013:

The Airports Commission was launched on 2 November 2012. Its terms of reference require that it should report no later than the end of 2013 on:

  • its assessment of the evidence on the nature, scale and timing of the steps needed to maintain the UK’s global hub status
  • its recommendation(s) for immediate actions to improve the use of existing runway capacity in the next 5 years – consistent with credible long term options

Its terms of reference also require that it should report no later than summer 2015 on:

  • its assessment of the options for meeting the UK’s international connectivity needs, including their economic, social and environmental impact
  • its recommendation(s) for the optimum approach to meeting any needs
  • its recommendation(s) for ensuring that the need is met as expeditiously as practicable within the required timescale

For interview requests or other media enquiries relating to the work of the Airports Commission please call 0207 944 3118.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/airports-commission-seeks-evidence-on-aviation-and-climate-change

Read more »