Overall fuel efficiency of US airlines fails to improve on domestic routes during 2013, finds ICCT study

An annual performance study by the ICCT shows the fuel efficiency of US carriers on domestic routes failed to improve in 2013.  ICCT found little correlation between airline efficiency and profitability, and is concerned that as fuel prices steady or even fall there will even less incentive to make fuel efficiency gains.  Even less efficient carriers were also able to make  high profits through using older, less fuel efficient aircraft.   ICCT’s analysis shows the average annual fuel efficiency between 1990 and 2000 improved by 2.1%, improving to 2.8% between 2000 and 2010 and then fell back to 1.3% between 2010 and 2012.  Load factors rose from 60% in 1990 to 82% in 2010, but have flattened out in recent years.  The US aircraft fleet is ageing, with fewer new planes. The price of oil has fallen markedly in the past year, and may remain low for some time, due to US oil production. There is concern there will be less incentive, with cheaper fuel, to make energy savings. Or meet the IATA goal of 1.5% energy improvements annually to 2020.
.

 

 

Overall fuel efficiency of US airlines fails to improve on domestic routes during 2013, finds ICCT study

Wed 19 Nov 2014 (GreenAir online)

An annual performance study by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) shows the fuel efficiency of United States carriers on domestic routes failed to improve in 2013 despite the high cost of aviation fuel and industry targets.

In a league table of performance rankings, (see below) Alaska, Spirit and Frontier tied as the most fuel-efficient domestic carriers in 2013, whereas American Airlines, whose fuel efficiency fell by 1.5%, burned an estimated 27% more fuel than the three most efficient airlines to provide an equivalent level of transport service.

As in its previous study, ICCT found little correlation between airline efficiency and profitability, and is concerned that as fuel prices steady or even fall there will even less incentive to make fuel efficiency gains.

Alaska and Spirit have consistently led the performance ranking since ICCT’s original baseline analysis of 2010 data, with Frontier overtaking Southwest Airlines due to a 10% one-year improvement. However, these gains were offset mainly by the larger legacy carriers, with American propping up the table.

With 2013 proving to be a profitable year for most US airlines, Alaska and Spirit also had the highest operating profit margins but the study found that even less efficient carriers like Allegiant were also able to reap high profits through using older, less efficient aircraft.

ICCT’s analysis shows the average annual fuel efficiency between 1990 and 2000 improved by 2.1%, improving to 2.8% during the tough decade of 2000 to 2010 and then fell back to 1.3% between 2010 and 2012.

Multiple factors, says the independent non-profit research organisation, help explain the slowdown. Load factors, which increased from 60% in 1990 to 82% in 2010, have flattened out in recent years and are not therefore contributing to efficiency gains.

Despite the raft of new order announcements from the aircraft manufacturers, ICCT says deliveries of new aircraft to US carriers have fallen sharply – more than 60% off their peak in the last decade – so that today only one in seven new aircraft are delivered domestically.

With fewer deliveries, the US fleet has aged to almost 12 years on average last year. Although new re-engined and more fuel-efficient narrow-body Airbus and Boeing aircraft are on the horizon, relatively few new types have been brought to market over the past 15 years.

ICCT points to work at ICAO on a CO2 efficiency standard for new aircraft and a framework for a market-based incentive to cut airline carbon emissions as possible levers that will result in an improvement in fuel efficiency. With US domestic aviation carbon emissions making up one-quarter of the global total, the US Environmental Protection Agency has also announced its intent to move forward with an endangerment finding on aviation emissions under the Clean Air Act.

“Conventional wisdom says that fuel prices alone will be enough to drive airline efficiency, but that’s not what the data tells us,” commented ICCT’s Program Director for Aviation, Dan Rutherford. “This study highlights the need for international policies to address aviation emissions now that countries like China and the United States have announced their own commitments.”

Link:

ICCT – US Domestic Airline Fuel Efficiency Ranking 2013

ICCT Fuel Efficiency Scores 2013:

 


http://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=2006

.

Related GreenAir Online articles:

Read more »

Letter from NGOs: “All 3 of the Airports Commission’s shortlisted options would increase CO2 emissions”

Any new runway would increase CO2 emissions and make the UK’s climate change commitments much more difficult to achieve. The Commission has assumed that emissions will be somehow constrained, but has remained silent on what policy measures would achieve this in practice. A new runway would necessitate some combination of new taxes, limits on regional airport growth, and additional burdens on other sectors to cut emissions beyond the very challenging reductions already required. The NGOs are calling on all parties to make manifesto commitments that they would not permit the building of a new runway that will violate climate targets, exacerbate noise or air pollution, or damage wildlife and the British countryside. Whoever leads the next government will need to judge the recommendations of the Airports Commission in this context before deciding whether to build a new runway anywhere in the South East. (From AEF, FoE, Greenpeace, RSPB, WWF)
.

 

Airport expansion

November 14 2014  (Published in the Times)

All three of the Airports Commission’s shortlisted options would increase carbon dioxide emissions

Sir,

The Airports Commission’s assessment of expansion proposals at Heathrow and Gatwick (“Air fares to rise as new runways run billions over budget”, Nov 11) will inevitably be followed by debate about which proposal is “the least bad” in terms of noise, air pollution and public cost. But any of the three shortlisted options would increase carbon dioxide emissions and make the UK’s climate change commitments much more difficult to achieve.

The commission has assumed that emissions will be somehow constrained, but has remained silent on what policy measures would achieve this in practice. A new runway would necessitate some combination of new taxes, limits on regional airport growth, and additional burdens on other sectors to cut emissions beyond the very challenging reductions already required.

We are calling on all parties to make manifesto commitments that no airport expansion will violate climate targets, exacerbate noise or air pollution, or damage wildlife and the British countryside. Whoever leads the next government will need to judge the recommendations of the Airports Commission in this context before deciding whether to build a new runway anywhere in the South East.

 

Cait Hewitt, Aviation Environment Federation;

Andrew Pendleton, Friends of the Earth;

Martin Harper, RSPB;

Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK;

Ben Stafford, WWF-UK.

Printed in the TImes at  http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article4266970.ece

.


.

See also:

Airports Commission publishes appraisals of Heathrow and Gatwick expansion options

11.11.2014 (AEF)The Airports Commission has published its appraisals of options to expand Heathrow – doubling the length of one of the runways (the Heathrow Hub proposal) or building a third runway, or to expand Gatwick through building a second runway. We responded in our press release here.

The airports don’t know how much it would cost to build a new runway

The main story to emerge in the press has been the fact that all three of the scheme proposers underestimated the cost of building a new runway with Gatwick underestimating their costs by £2 billion (total cost of £9.3 billion), and Heathrow underestimating their costs by £3.8 billion (total cost £18.6 billion). It is still not clear exactly how much the costs of building a runway would be financed by public money, which we raised as a major concern in our recent blog.

Passengers would pay for a new runway

Another key issue to emerge from the Airports Commission’s appraisals is the fact that landing fees at either airport would have to increase to pay for the runway and these costs would be transferred to passengers. At Gatwick, passengers could be expected to pay an average of £15-18 for landing fees compared to £8 today. At Heathrow, the costs would rise from £20 today to £28-29 (with a peak of £32 on top of your ticket). Such price increases, as we highlighted in our report earlier in the year, would challenge the commitment of budget airlines to using Gatwick airport. The landing fees would be considerably higher than the rate of Air Passenger Duty on a shorthaul ticket.

A new runway could mean more people are affected by noise

At Gatwick, the number of people overflown would double according to the Airports Commission. The Heathrow Hub proposal, which had the main selling point of lower noise impacts than Heathrow’s proposed North West runway, would in fact also increase the numbers exposed to noise. If a North West runway was built at Heathrow, the noise impact would be less clear according to the Commission’s analysis, with numbers exposed to night noise potentially reducing while the number exposed to daytime noise could grow (compared with a no-expansion scenario).

A new runway would have ‘adverse’ impacts on local air quality

The sustainability appraisal of either a new or extended Heathrow runway describes the impact on local air quality as ‘significantly adverse’ and says it would pose a risk to local air quality levels. At Gatwick, the impact on local air quality is described as ‘adverse’. Both pose a risk of breaching legal limits on air quality.

The Airports Commission doesn’t consider carbon costs

The Airports Commission’s analysis of the wider economic impact of expansion fails to reflect the full carbon costs. These costs, according to the Commission would ‘dominate’ the economic appraisal of the schemes. The Airports Commission also acknowledges that it hasn’t considered what policies would be needed to restrict growth of emissions to the level they use in each stage of their analysis.

.
.
.
.
.
.

Read more »

Airports Commission consultation launched – acknowledging it lacks the necessary information on carbon constraints

The Airports Commission has published its consultation about the 3 short -listed runway schemes (Heathrow north-west runway, Heathrow “Hub” and Gatwick). The Commission, rather than themselves assessing whether a runway could, or should, be built – adding to UK carbon emissions, leaves that part of policy to others. The CCC (The Committee on Climate Change) has advised that UK aviation emissions should not rise to over 37.5MtCO2 per year, from around 33MtCO2 now. The Commission has had trouble trying to incorporate a new runway at one airport, as well as growth at other UK airports, within the 37.5MtCO2 cap. All sorts of assumptions have to be made. At heart, the Commission has conceded that: “The Commission intends to carry out further work to complete a fuller economic assessment of the case where UK aviation emissions are constrained to the CCC planning assumption of 37.5MtCO2e for its final report in summer 2015.”  ie. They do not have the necessary information on whether a runway could be viable, with the necessary price of carbon in future.
.

 

 

Consultation document

The Commission says:  (Page 25 of the consultation document)

“2.41  It has not been possible to assess the transport economic efficiency, delays or wider economic impacts under a carbon-capped forecast. This is because carbon prices are much higher in each scheme option than the ‘do minimum’ baseline, meaning the carbon policy component of the appraisal dominates the capacity appraisal. This is particularly problematic as appropriate carbon policies have not been investigated in detail. ”

[ In other words factoring in carbon costs would mean none of the schemes would look economically beneficial.  Therefore The Commission has ignored them. ]

The whole of Para 2.41 states:

 
2.41
“It has not been possible to assess the transport economic efficiency, delays or wider economic impacts under a carbon-capped forecast. This is because carbon prices are much higher in each scheme option than the ‘do minimum’ baseline (8), meaning the carbon policy component of the appraisal dominates the capacity appraisal. This is particularly problematic as appropriate carbon policies have not been investigated in detail. For example, carbon emissions have been forecast assuming a rate of technological development and fleet turnover commensurate with past trends, whereas in reality it might be expected that the higher carbon prices associated with greater capacity could incentivise technological developments and uptake which enhance the carbon efficiency of aircraft. This risks implying greater dis-benefits attached to cutting carbon than may be realistic. The Commission intends to carry out further work to complete a fuller economic assessment of the case where UK aviation emissions are constrained to the CCC planning assumption of 37.5MtCO2e for its final report in summer 2015.”
 
Footnote (8): The Commission uses a ‘do minimum’ assessment to develop a baseline to compare the schemes against, which assumes no airport expansion at the three short-listed sites. In the case of both Heathrow schemes this do minimum case is based on Heathrow Airport Ltd’s most up to date Masterplan, and for the Gatwick scheme the respective Gatwick Airport Ltd Masterplan. These cover both what the airports are like now and agreed plans for how to develop the airport with no new runway.
.

.

Airports Commission Consultation

11.11.2014
The Airports Commission’s consultation on their 3 short listed runway options has now been launched. It closes on 3rd February.

The main consultation document (94 pages):

Consultation document


 

 Airports Commission on Gatwick (138 pages)

Gatwick Airport second runway: business case and sustainability assessment


Airports Commission on Heathrow Hub – extended northern runway – ENR (144 pages):

Heathrow Airport extended northern runway: business case and sustainability assessment


Airports Commission on Heathrow Airport’s own runway scheme (144 pages):

Heathrow Airport north west runway: business case and sustainability assessment

 


The detailed technical documents supporting the runway schemes

Technical documents (over 50)



Consultation documents relating to carbon emissions

Commission’s page is at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/additional-airport-capacity-carbon-analysis
Both reports are by Jacobs.

1. Carbon Baseline   (69 pages)

The module considers estimates of baseline (‘do minimum’) and future runway scheme (‘do something’) emissions as far as is possible given the detail available at this stage. The baseline assumes the ‘do minimum’ base case defined as ‘how the airport will develop in the absence of a scheme to deliver an additional runway’.

2.  Carbon Assessment   (153 pages)

It identifies the potential impact of the three proposed schemes in terms of carbon (dioxide) emissions. In establishing the baseline for a 60 year appraisal, the do minimum has a base date of 2025 for Gatwick 2R and 2026 for Heathrow NWR [north west runway option]  and ENR [Heathrow Hub, extended northern runway] in line with assumed opening dates of ‘do something’ development, and corresponding end dates at 2085 / 2086. Comparisons for the years 2030, 2040 and 2050 are considered.  The report assesses CO2 emissions in terms of:

– aircraft
– passenger surface access
– airport operations (energy and fuel use)
– construction activity


Below are sections referring to carbon emissions from the Airports Commission’s consultation document:

1.8
Future demand forecasts across a range of scenarios predict significant growth
in demand for aviation to 2050, placing additional pressure on already stressed
airport infrastructure in London and the South East. This includes forecasts in which
carbon emissions from aviation in 2050 are constrained to the 2005 level, in line
with the Climate Change Committee’s planning assumption for achieving the UK’s
2050 emissions target.


1.9
Without the provision of new infrastructure the London airport system is likely to
be under very substantial pressure in 2030, and demand will significantly exceed
total available capacity by 2050. The Commission looked at accommodating this
future demand through a variety of means, including measures to redistribute
traffic, or through using surface transport improvements to replace the need for
air movements. None of these options was found to be effective in reducing the
capacity shortfall, and some of the measures were found to reduce long-haul
connectivity and be carbon inefficient. For these reasons, the Commission
concluded that there is a case for at least one net additional runway in
London and the South East by 2030.


2.32
In line with the approach taken in the Interim Report, the Commission has also
prepared two sets of forecasts for each scenario based on different approaches to
handling carbon emissions from aviation: ‘carbon-capped’ and ‘carbon-traded’.
Both sets of forecasts assume that the total number of emissions are set with
reference to stabilisation targets aiming for a global temperature increase of equal
or close to two degrees Celsius, and aiming to ensure that a four degree Celsius
global temperature increase is reached only with very low probability (less than 1%).
The two forecasts are characterised by the following key differences:

• The Commission’s ‘carbon-capped’ forecasts model the levels of aviation demand expected in a world where carbon dioxide emissions from flights departing UK airports are limited to 37.5MtCO2e – the level recommended by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) as a planning assumption to achieve carbon reductions across the whole UK economy of 80% over 1990 levels by 2050.(5) The ‘carbon-capped’ forecasts therefore increase the costs of carbon to ensure demand for aviation in the UK is reduced to stay within this planning assumption, and as such assume no trading of aviation emissions either within the UK economy or internationally (for example, under an EU Emissions Trading Scheme or any subsequent international global agreement).

• By contrast the Commission’s ‘carbon-traded’ forecasts model the levels of aviation demand in a future where carbon emissions from flights departing UK airports are traded at the European level until 2030 and thereafter traded as part of a liberal global carbon market. In contrast to the ‘carbon-capped’ forecasts these do not constrain emissions to a pre-determined level; rather, they reflect the demand response to DECC’s carbon values for appraisal.

Note (5) This assumes international aviation emissions are assigned to the UK economy on the basis of departing flights or bunker fuel sales in the UK, which is a relatively good proxy.


2.33 As with the Commission’s scenarios, the objective is not to identify a single ‘correct’ forecast, but rather to understand the varying effects on aviation demand of constraining and pricing carbon emissions. In effect the two worlds set out above represent a range of possible ways in which aviation in the UK may contribute to achieving stabilisation of the global climate.


2.34
2.34 At one end of the range the capped approach sees that happen within the UK economy. This takes a static view of what the relative effort between sectors should be, assuming no flexibility to promote economic efficiency or reflect society’s changing views of the value of aviation relative to other sectors. It is set with reference to the 37.5MtCO2e planning assumption the CCC recommends as a proxy until such time as a long-term global climate agreement is reached. This planning assumption has been developed with a view of what the relative effort of sectors should be based on what is known now – and thus reflects the CCC’s concern that should aviation emissions grow to 37.5MtCO2e, the implied 85% reduction in the CO2e emissions of other sectors may be at the limit of what is feasible. As the CCC notes it is a limit that should be kept under review, to allow for policy changes and new information about technology and abatement in different sectors.


2.35
The other end of the range assumes action to tackle emissions seeks the most globally economic efficient approach, without reference to national boundaries or other concerns that characterise current international negotiations.


2.36

The future reality is most likely to lie somewhere between these two worlds. For example, already today we can see a shift towards the international trading of aviation emissions through their inclusion in the EU emissions trading system, but also the international reactions to that and delays to its full implementation.


2.41
“It has not been possible to assess the transport economic efficiency, delays or wider economic impacts under a carbon-capped forecast. This is because carbon prices are much higher in each scheme option than the ‘do minimum’ baseline (8), meaning the carbon policy component of the appraisal dominates the capacity appraisal. This is particularly problematic as appropriate carbon policies have not been investigated in detail. For example, carbon emissions have been forecast assuming a rate of technological development and fleet turnover commensurate with past trends, whereas in reality it might be expected that the higher carbon prices associated with greater capacity could incentivise technological developments and uptake which enhance the carbon efficiency of aircraft. This risks implying greater dis-benefits attached to cutting carbon than may be realistic. The Commission intends to carry out further work to complete a fuller economic assessment of the case where UK aviation emissions are constrained to the CCC planning assumption of 37.5MtCO2e for its final report in summer 2015.”

Footnote (8): The Commission uses a ‘do minimum’ assessment to develop a baseline to compare the schemes against, which assumes no airport expansion at the three short-listed sites. In the case of both Heathrow schemes this do minimum case is based on Heathrow Airport Ltd’s most up to date Masterplan, and for the Gatwick scheme the respective Gatwick Airport Ltd Masterplan. These cover both what the airports are like now and agreed plans for how to develop the airport with no new runway.


3.16

While all of the carbon-capped scenarios keep carbon emissions from aviation within the range 37.4-37.6 MtCO2e in 2050, i.e. consistent with the Climate Change Committee’s (CCC) advice, all the carbon-traded expansion scenarios
entail increases in carbon emissions from aviation above 37.5 MtCO2e. The highest levels of emissions are associated with the low-cost is king and global growth scenarios, which would see UK aviation emissions in 2050 of 49-51 MtCO2e. If these emissions were not accounted for as part of a liberal global carbon market (as envisaged in this forecasting approach) and needed to be accommodated within any UK specific target this would see aviation emissions account for a larger share of the total and require commensurate reductions elsewhere in the economy, a situation in which the CCC advises it currently has ‘limited confidence. (Page 40).


3.67

While all of the carbon-capped scenarios keep carbon emissions from aviation at 37.5 MtCO2e in 2050, i.e. consistent with the Climate Change Committee’s advice, all the carbon-traded expansion scenarios entail increases in carbon emissions from aviation above that level. The highest levels of emissions are associated with the global growth and low-cost is king scenarios, which would see UK aviation emissions in 2050 of 50-51 MtCO2e. If these emissions were not accounted for as part of a liberal global carbon market (as envisaged in this forecasting approach) and needed to be accommodated within any UK specific target this would see aviation emissions account for a larger share of the total and require commensurate reductions elsewhere in the economy, a situation in which the CCC advises it currently has ‘limited confidence’.


For what it is worth, here are some more figures, but it is hard making sense of it all these documents …..

The Jacobs “Carbon Baseline” document, of no new runways, is at
The Jacobs  “Carbon Assessment” document of new runways, is at

Jacobs assessments of tonnes of carbon produced by air travel from Heathrow and Gatwick in the future, WITH a new runway
[tCO2 = Tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent ]
Gatwick  tCO2 over 60 years 334,749,796
of which air travel is 307,281,972
Heathrow NW runway over 60 years  1,353,628,755
of which air travel is 1,313,372,945
Heathrow extended north runway ENR  over 60 years 1,326,144,125
of which air travel is  1,287,128,426

Jacobs assessments of tonnes of carbon produced by air travel from Heathrow and Gatwick in the future, WITHOUT a new runway
By contrast, in the single runway Gatwick master plan scenario
238,421,704 tCO2 from Gatwick air travel over 60 years 2025 to 2085  with no new runway;
[(2,327,372,378) in that time for total UK aviation carbon emissions from air travel – which averages out at 38,8 MtCO2 per year, above the 37.5 MtCO2 target]
And 258,595,615  tCO2 Gatwick over the 60 years including all emissions, with surface transport, airport energy use etc
And Heathrow with just the 2 runways and without a 3rd runway
1,076,713,933 tCO2 from Heathrow air travel over 60 years 2025 to 2085
[(2,327,372,378 tCO2  in that time for total UK ]
1,109,236,629  tCO2 Heathrow over the 60 years including all emissions, with surface transport, airport energy use etc

Jacobs estimates of additional carbon emissions from building a new runway at Heathrow or at Gatwick
Gatwick:
So difference between the Jacobs assessment of air travel carbon with and without a runway is  307,281,972  minus 238,421,704 which is  
68,860,268 tonnes of CO2 more (from flights)over 60 years with a new runway.
 ie. a bit over 1 million tonnes more per year.
And 76,175,277 tCO2 more for the whole airport operations, surface transport etc over 60 years  (ie 1.27 MtCO2 more per year, with a new runway)
Gatwick emissions with 2nd runway Nov 2014 Jacobs

Heathrow:
So difference between the Jacobs assessment of air travel carbon with and without a runway is 1,313,372,945   minus 1,076,713,933 which is
236,659,012  tonnes of CO2 more over 60 years with a new runway.   ie. about 4 million tonnes more per year.
244,576,644  tCO2 more for the whole airport operations, surface transport etc over 60 years  (ie 4.1 MtCO2 more per year, with a new runway)
Note about the ground movements (which are not included) below. 
Heathrow emissions with 3rd runway Nov 2014 Jacobs

and below is the figure for Heathrow Hub – extended northern runway
Heathrow Hub runway emissions with 3rd runway Nov 2014 Jacobs

The ground movement component is not included. Jacobs says: “These emissions are not additional to the total aircraft emissions from ATMs, as they are already included by the DfT methodology used. Ground movement emissions are calculated to show a key part of the Landing and Take Off (LTO) cycle that the airport can influence through e.g. terminal, stand and taxiway design” …… and it continues …
 

Carbon Capped (= realistic growth).  Carbon Traded (= unrealistic growth)
Bear  in mind that UK total aviation carbon emissions are now about 33 – 34 million tonnes per year, and the CCC limit is 37.5 mt CO2 per year.
If Heathrow got a new runway, adding on 4 million tonnes of carbon per year, that would mean the UK would be at its maximum level, of 37.5 MtCO2 with no space for any other airport to increase long haul flights.
That just really confirms that no other airport could grow, if Heathrow got another runway. But they could if Gatwick got a new runway, for short haul holiday trips. But the problem is that exporting holiday makers and other leisure passengers does no good to the UK economy, so (whatever Gatwick likes to claim) a Gatwick runway would not benefit the UK economy much at all.
In the Airports Commission consultation, they use two scenarios.  In one (“Carbon Capped) the total carbon emissions of UK aviation have to remain below 37.5 MtCO2 per year. That means having to restrict the amount of flying, as just accommodation all the desire to fly would take the UK well over that amount of carbon.
The Commission’s other scenario is “Carbon Traded” by which, in some idealised world that does not exist (and may never exist!) there is perfect carbon trading for aviation, so the industry can grow and grow.  That depends on other sectors making huge carbon cuts, while aviation does not need to make cuts.  All a bit improbable – but the aviation industry need this to become a reality…..

Proportion of total UK aviation carbon emissions from London’s airports
Already by 2010 the London airports were 75% of the total aviation carbon emissions.
If Heathrow got its runway, with 4 MtCO2 more per year that would mean approximately 76.5% of UK aviation carbon emissions would be from London airports – if there was no growth at London airports other than the one with the new runway. That would not happen, so the % of UK aviation emissions would be more like, perhaps 80% + ?
If there is no new south east runway, the DfT forecasts in Jan 2013 said: ” [the % of UK aviation emissions from London airports]  is forecast to decline to 72% by 2030 and then to 55% by 2050. This is because in the ‘max use’ capacity scenario, growth in aircraft movements is largely only possible at regional airports after 2030.” https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223839/aviation-forecasts.pdf

The Jacobs report says: “The Future Airspace Strategy (FAS) indicates that it will deliver 500,000 tonnes of CO2 savings through more efficient aircraft routing.”. However, checking the NATS website, that http://www.nats.aero/newsbrief/future-airspace-strategy-nominated-janes-award/  says the saving of 500,000 tonnes is from ??? date up to 2020, so it is not an annual saving, and may be reducing each year in future.

Looking at the assessments of carbon emissions, by the Jacobs Carbon Assessment, they make various assumptions about the extent to which airport energy use and its carbon emissions, and the carbon emissions of surface access to the airport, will fall with time.  All a bit vague, but there are presumptions of about 15% less carbon being emitted, by use of low carbon electricity etc. Those assumptions may, or may not, be justified.  Only a tiny part of the totals, dwarfed by the flights, of course.
The Jacobs assessment report says:
“Emissions from buildings and airport operations initially increase, but then reduce and remain steady as carbon intensity per passenger and per m2 reduce over time, most significantly due to the presumed decarbonisation of grid electricity.”
Page ii of

On the carbon price, Jacobs says:  (Page 101)
“The core assumption is that EU ETS prices, as a way to value carbon-affecting projects, remain within the Low to High boundaries. While both the Central result and the Low to High range are presented for the baseline and the proposals, it is possible that there could be significant deviation from these values. For example, the demand scenario utilises the carbon capped assumption which assumes a given carbon price in order to deliver the required capped volume of emissions in 2050. Other scenarios would require different carbon prices in order to deliver a similar net impact across a wider carbon market. “

No account whatsoever taken of non-carbon emissions from aviation
And, of course, non-CO2 is left out. Jacobs says (Page 101)
“The appraisal does not attempt to consider aviation non-carbon impacts (such as
radiative forcing). Although this changes the overall emissions impact, the science
regarding the effect remains uncertain, and these effects occur at high altitude and
regardless of the scheme. Non-carbon impacts are not reported for clarity and
uncertainty reasons. “
.
.
.
.
.
.

Read more »

Caroline Lucas MP blog on the IPCC Report: A Tipping Point for Political Action

In her blog, Caroline says it is clearer than ever that we need to phase out fossil fuels, making a decisive switch to clean energy. We cannot afford to burn the vast majority of known fossil fuel reserves. The IPCC report warns of “severe, widespread, and irreversible” climate impacts if we do.  The most important message is that the main barrier to action isn’t lack of money or lack of technology. It’s lack of political will.  We need more than tinkering around the edges of business as usual. It’s no longer good enough to have policies to cut carbon in one part of the economy but to ignore others. “It doesn’t add up to say you want UK leadership on climate change and that you’re proud of the Climate Change Act whilst backing airport expansion and the creation of a whole new fossil fuel industry in the form of fracking for shale gas.” And “… the Infrastructure Bill needs radical amendment. At the moment, it promotes high carbon infrastructure such as new roads, and contains a provision to maximise UK oil and gas production.” Leaders must act; time is not on our side.
.

 

Caroline Lucas MP blog on the IPCC Report: A Tipping Point for Political Action

5/11/2014  (Huffington Post – Blog)

The new climate science report from the UN offers cause for hope. It confirms we still have the chance to avoid the worst impacts of climate change and to secure major social, economic and environmental benefits by slashing our carbon emissions and making the transition to a zero carbon economy.

It’s clearer than ever that we need to phase out fossil fuels, making a decisive switch to clean energy. Politicians can either keep listening to a small number of polluting fossil fuel companies, who’re keen to profit from keeping us hooked on oil, coal and gas, or they can listen to the majority of other voices from civil society to business calling for an urgent switch to low and zero carbon heat and power.

We cannot afford to burn the vast majority of known fossil fuel reserves. The report warns of “severe, widespread, and irreversible” climate impacts if we do.

But perhaps the most important message is that the main barrier to action isn’t lack of money or lack of technology. From my inbox and conversations with Brighton residents, I know it’s not lack of public support for bold action on climate change either. It’s lack of political will.

The UN report makes clear we need a rapid transformation to a clean energy system, not more tinkering around the edges of business as usual. It’s no longer good enough to have policies to cut carbon in one part of the economy but to ignore others.

It doesn’t add up to say you want UK leadership on climate change and that you’re proud of the Climate Change Act whilst backing airport expansion and the creation of a whole new fossil fuel industry in the form of fracking for shale gas.

There are some opportunities coming up for political leaders to show whether they understand.

First, the Government should be going all out for renewable energy: it’s popular, it improves our energy security, and costs are falling rapidly. This includes reversing the reckless decision to end subsidies for solar farms.

The Environment Secretary, Liz Truss, admitted there’s no real evidence for her claims that solar arrays are displacing food production. Moreover, with policies of support rather than sabotage, solar farms could generate 60GW of generation capacity by 2030, enough to power the equivalent of 18 million homes and support almost 50,000 jobs across the British solar supply chain.

Second, the Infrastructure Bill needs radical amendment. At the moment, it promotes high carbon infrastructure such as new roads, and contains a provision to maximise UK oil and gas production. Instead, home energy efficiency, to end the scandal of fuel poverty, should be at the top of the UK’s infrastructure priorities, alongside renewable energy, public transport and zero carbon, affordable homes. As the Danish Minister of Climate Energy and Buildings said: “This report convinces me that we need to phase out fossil fuels sooner than we thought”. How many Ministers and shadow Ministers agree?

And third, we must put vulnerable communities at the heart of our response to climate change – in the UK and internationally. The UK must commit to the UN green climate fund to help poorer countries adapt. The Government’s position on the post-2015 development goals must include support for a standalone climate change goal.

Renewable energy is not unaffordable as the fossil fuel giants would like us to believe. The costs are plummeting. Globally, poor countries going for wind and solar at twice the rate of rich ones. Here in the UK, we must deal with the root causes of fuel poverty and re-write the rules of the game: taking power back from the Big Six energy companies and putting people, not just profit, at the heart of our energy system. The Energy Bill of Rights, launched recently by Fuel Poverty Action, sets out a radical vision to achieve this.

Climate change demands a collective response. We can’t expect other countries to act if we don’t. And as UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said: “Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act; time is not on our side.”

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/caroline-lucas/climate-change-ipcc-report_b_6105936.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics&ir=UK+Politics

.


.

Earlier:

IPCC report says large cuts in CO2 emissions are vital, and need to be soon, to stop severe impacts of climate change

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has produced its Synthesis report, bringing together work from 3 earlier reports. It is unequivocal about the extent of the danger posed by climate change, and the imperative need to make huge cuts in global carbon emissions. The science is absolutely clear – politicians ignore it at their peril. Ignorance can no longer be an excuse for not taking action. The IPCC says climate change is set to inflict “severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts” on people and the natural world unless CO2 emissions are cut sharply and rapidly. They say climate disruptions will cause huge difficulties for humanity, including food shortages and violent conflicts. Inaction would be costly; the longer the delay, the higher the cost. Lord Stern said delaying cutting CO2 emissions would be “profoundly irrational”. Ed Davey said: “…we must act on climate change now.” But he backs building a 2nd Gatwick runway. With the extent of carbon cuts it is essential to make, how can the inevitable rise in UK aviation carbon emissions, caused by an additional intensely used runway, possibly be justified?

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

.

Read more »

IPCC report says large cuts in CO2 emissions are vital, and need to be soon, to stop severe impacts of climate change

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has produced its Synthesis report, bringing together work from 3 earlier reports. It is unequivocal about the extent of the danger posed by climate change, and the imperative need to make huge cuts in global carbon emissions. The science is absolutely clear – politicians ignore it at their peril.  Ignorance can no longer be an excuse for not taking action.  The IPCC says climate change is set to inflict “severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts” on people and the natural world unless CO2 emissions are cut sharply and rapidly. They say climate disruptions will cause huge difficulties for humanity, including food shortages and violent conflicts. Inaction would be costly; the longer the delay, the higher the cost. Lord Stern said delaying cutting CO2 emissions would be “profoundly irrational”. Ed Davey said: “…we must act on climate change now.” But he backs building a 2nd Gatwick runway.  With the extent of carbon cuts it is essential to make, how can the inevitable rise in UK aviation carbon emissions, caused by an additional intensely used runway, possibly be justified?
.


Rising aviation carbon emissions – and the cuts required globally

Apart from an IATA aspiration to cut global aviation CO2 emissions by 1.5% per year, up to 2020 (while growing the global industry by about 4 – 5% per year) the only way – other than a vague hope of future use of a tiny amount of “sustainable?” biofuels – the industry will only meet its theoretical target of “carbon neutral growth” by buying offsets for its carbon emissions.

That means aviation intends to continue increasing its total carbon emissions by maybe 3 – 4% per year, but justifying this by paying other sectors to do some actual, real, cuts in carbon.

However, the extent of the carbon cuts we need is great, (as evidenced by the IPCC report).

Can the world really afford to allow an ever-expanding aviation sector to swallow up the hard-won, difficult, carbon reductions achieved elsewhere?


IPCC: rapid carbon emission cuts vital to stop severe impact of climate change

Most important assessment of global warming yet warns carbon emissions must be cut sharply and soon, but UN’s IPCC says solutions are available and affordable

By Damian Carrington (Guardian)

2 November 2014

Carbon emissions will have to fall to zero to avoid catastrophic climate change, the IPCC says. 
Climate change is set to inflict “severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts” on people and the natural world unless carbon emissions are cut sharply and rapidly, according to the most important assessment of global warming yet published.

The stark report states that climate change has already increased the risk of severe heatwaves and other extreme weather and warns of worse to come, including food shortages and violent conflicts.

But it also found that ways to avoid dangerous global warming are both available and affordable.

“Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in the message,” said the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, attending what he described as the “historic” report launch. “Leaders must act. Time is not on our side.” He said that quick, decisive action would build a better and sustainable future, while inaction would be costly.

Ban added a message to investors, such as pension fund managers: “Please reduce your investments in the coal- and fossil fuel-based economy and [move] to renewable energy.”

The report, released in Copenhagen on Sunday by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is the work of thousands of scientists and was agreed after negotiations by the world’s governments. It is the first IPCC report since 2007 to bring together all aspects of tackling climate change and for the first time states: that it is economically affordable; that carbon emissions will ultimately have to fall to zero; and that global poverty can only be reduced by halting global warming. The report also makes clear that carbon emissions, mainly from burning coal, oil and gas, are currently rising to record levels, not falling.

The report comes at a critical time for international action on climate change, with the deadline for a global deal just over a year away. In September, 120 national leaders met at the UN in New York to address climate change, while hundreds of thousands of marchers around the world demanded action.

“We have the means to limit climate change,” said Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC. “The solutions are many and allow for continued economic and human development. All we need is the will to change.”

Lord Nicholas Stern, a professor at the London School of Economics and the author of an influential earlier study, said the new IPCC report was the “most important assessment of climate change ever prepared” and that it made plain that “further delays in tackling climate change would be dangerous and profoundly irrational”.

“The reality of climate change is undeniable, and cannot be simply wished away by politicians who lack the courage to confront the scientific evidence,” he said, adding that the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people were at risk.

Ed Davey, the UK energy and climate change secretary, said: “This is the most comprehensive and robust assessment ever produced. It sends a clear message: we must act on climate change now.  [But the man backs fracking, and a backs a new south east England runway at Gatwick, expanding aviation …]

John Kerry, the US secretary of state, said: “This is another canary in the coal mine. We can’t prevent a large scale disaster if we don’t heed this kind of hard science.”

Bill McKibben, a high-profile climate campaigner with 350.org, said: “For scientists, conservative by nature, to use ‘serious, pervasive, and irreversible’ to describe the effects of climate falls just short of announcing that climate change will produce a zombie apocalypse plus random beheadings plus Ebola.” Breaking the power of the fossil fuel industry would not be easy, McKibben said. “But, thanks to the IPCC, no one will ever be able to say they weren’t warned.”

The new overarching IPCC report builds on previous reports on the science, impacts and solutions for climate change. It concludes that global warming is “unequivocal”, that humanity’s role in causing it is “clear” and that many effects will last for hundreds to thousands of years even if the planet’s rising temperature is halted.

In terms of impacts, such as heatwaves and extreme rain storms causing floods, the report concludes that the effects are already being felt: “In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans.”

Droughts, coastal storm surges from the rising oceans and wildlife extinctions on land and in the seas will all worsen unless emissions are cut, the report states. This will have knock-on effects, according to the IPCC: “Climate change is projected to undermine food security.” The report also found the risk of wars could increase: “Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks.”

Two-thirds of all the emissions permissible if dangerous climate change is to be avoided have already been pumped into the atmosphere, the IPPC found.

The lowest cost route to stopping dangerous warming would be for emissions to peak by 2020 – an extremely challenging goal – and then fall to zero later this century.

The report calculates that to prevent dangerous climate change, investment in low-carbon electricity and energy efficiency will have to rise by several hundred billion dollars a year before 2030. But it also found that delaying significant emission cuts to 2030 puts up the cost of reducing carbon dioxide by almost 50%, partly because dirty power stations would have to be closed early. “If you wait, you also have to do more difficult and expensive things,” said Jim Skea, a professor at Imperial College London and an IPCC working group vice-chair.

Tackling climate change need only trim economic growth rates by a tiny fraction, the IPCC states, and may actually improve growth by providing other benefits, such as cutting health-damaging air pollution.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) – the nascent technology which aims to bury CO2 underground – is deemed extremely important by the IPPC. It estimates that the cost of the big emissions cuts required would more than double without CCS. Pachauri said: “With CCS it is entirely possible for fossil fuels to continue to be used on a large scale.”

The focus on CCS is not because the technology has advanced a great deal in recent years, said Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a professor at the Université Catholique de Louvain in Belgium and vice-chair of the IPCC, but because emissions have continued to increase so quickly. “We have emitted so much more, so we have to clean up more later”, he said.

Linking CCS to the burning of wood and other plant fuels would reduce atmospheric CO2 levels because the carbon they contain is sucked from the air as they grow. But van Ypersele said the IPCC report also states “very honestly and fairly” that there are risks to this approach, such as conflicts with food security.

In contrast to the importance the IPCC gives to CCS, abandoning nuclear power or deploying only limited wind or solar power increases the cost of emission cuts by just 6-7%. The report also states that behavioural changes, such as dietary changes that could involve eating less meat, can have a role in cutting emissions.

As part of setting out how the world’s nations can cut emissions effectively, the IPCC report gives prominence to ethical considerations. “[Carbon emission cuts] and adaptation raise issues of equity, justice, and fairness,” says the report. “The evidence suggests that outcomes seen as equitable can lead to more effective [international] cooperation.”

These issues are central to the global climate change negotiations and their inclusion in the report was welcomed by campaigners, as was the statement that adapting countries and coastlines to cope with global warming cannot by itself avert serious impacts.

“Rich governments must stop making empty promises and come up with the cash so the poorest do not have to foot the bill for the lifestyles of the wealthy,” said Harjeet Singh, from ActionAid.

The statement that carbon emissions must fall to zero was “gamechanging”, according to Kaisa Kosonen, from Greenpeace. “We can still limit warming to 2C, or even 1.5C or less even, [but] we need to phase out emissions,” she said. Unlike CCS, which is yet to be proven commercially, she said renewable energy was falling rapidly in cost.

Sam Smith, from WWF, said: “The big change in this report is that it shows fighting climate change is not going to cripple economies and that it is essential to bringing people out of poverty. What is needed now is concerted political action.” The rapid response of politicians to the recent global financial crisis showed, according to Smith, that “they could act quickly and at scale if they are sufficiently motivated”.

Michel Jarraud, secretary general of the World Meteorological Organisation, said the much greater certainty expressed in the new IPCC report would give international climate talks a better chance than those which failed in 2009. “Ignorance can no longer be an excuse for no action,” he said.

Observers played down the moves made by some countries with large fossil fuel reserves to weaken the language of the draft IPCC report written by scientists and seen by the Guardian, saying the final report was conservative but strong.

However, the statement that “climate change is expected to lead to increases in ill-health in many regions, including greater likelihood of death” was deleted in the final report, along with criticism that politicians sometimes “engage in short-term thinking and are biased toward the status quo”.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/02/rapid-carbon-emission-cuts-severe-impact-climate-change-ipcc-report


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

http://www.ipcc.ch/

The Synthesis Report distils and integrates the findings of the three working group contributions to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report — the most comprehensive assessment of climate change yet undertaken, produced by hundreds of scientists — as well as the two Special Reports produced during this cycle.

Summary for Policymakers 
Synthesis Report – Longer Report 
Factsheet
Quick link to report PDFs

 

One short section of the Summary for Policymakers says:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPM.pdf

“Without additional efforts to reduce GHG emissions beyond those in place today, global emissions growth is expected to persist, driven by growth in global population and economic activities. Global mean surface temperature increases in 2100 in baseline scenarios – those without additional mitigation – range from 3.7 to 4.8°C above the average for 1850-1900 for a median climate response.

They range from 2.5°C to 7.8°C when including climate uncertainty (5th to 95th percentile range). (high confidence)

Emissions scenarios leading to GHG concentrations in 2100 of about 450 ppm CO2-eq or lower are likely to maintain warming below 2°C over the 21st century relative to pre-industrial levels.

These scenarios are characterized by 40% to 70% global anthropogenic GHG emissions reductions by 2050 compared to 2010 and emissions levels near zero or below in 2100. Mitigation scenarios reaching concentration levels of about 500 ppm CO2-eq by 2100 are more likely than not to limit temperature change to less than 2oC, unless they temporarily overshoot concentration levels of roughly 530 ppm CO2-eq before 2100, in which case they are about as likely as not to achieve that goal.

In these 500 ppm CO2-eq scenarios, global 2050 emissions levels are 25-55% lower than in 2010. Scenarios with higher emissions in 2050 are characterized by a greater reliance on Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies beyond mid-century (and vice versa).

Trajectories that are likely to limit warming to 3°C relative to pre-industrial levels reduce emissions less rapidly than those limiting warming to 2oC. A limited number of studies provide scenarios that are more likely than not to limit warming to 1.5°C by 2100; these scenarios are characterized by concentrations below 430 ppm CO2-eq by 2100 and 2050 emission reduction between 70% and 95% below 2010.

For a comprehensive overview of the characteristics of emissions scenarios, their GHG concentrations and their likelihood to keep warming to below a range of temperature levels, see Table SPM.1″

.

and

“Delaying additional mitigation to 2030 will substantially increase the challenges associated with limiting warming over the 21st century to below 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels. It will require substantially higher rates of emissions reductions from 2030 to 2050; a much more rapid scale-up of low-carbon energy over this period; a larger reliance on CDR in the long term; and higher transitional and long-term economic impacts. Estimated global emissions levels in 2020 based on the Cancún Pledges are not consistent with cost  effective mitigation trajectories that are at least about as likely as not to limit warming to below 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels, but they do not preclude the option to meet this goal (high confidence)”.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPM.pdf


 

IPCC’s urgent warning to tackle climate change

The UN panel of climate scientists says some consequences of global warming will become irreversible unless greenhouse gas emissions fall to zero by the end of the century − but latest research suggests the reality may be even more urgent than that.

By Alex Kirby

LONDON, 3 November, 2014

Climate change threatens to become “severe, pervasive and irreversible”, according to the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Without drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, the report says, global average temperatures will probably increase by another 2°C by mid-century on their 1986-2005 levels. This implies temperatures nearly 4°C higher by 2100.

The warnings come in the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report, itself a distillation of the three distinct volumes of the Panel’s Fifth Assessment Report (on climate science, impacts and mitigation) published since September 2013.

Will to change

The IPCC chair, Dr R K Pachauri, said at the Summary’s launch in Copenhagen: “We have the means to limit climate change. The solutions are many, and allow for continued economic and human development. All we need is the will to change. . .”

The Panel insists that adapting to climate change will not be enough, and that the world must make “substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions”.

Dr Pachauri said: “To keep a good chance of staying below 2ºC [the international threshold for temperature rise], and at manageable costs, our emissions should drop by 40% to 70% globally between 2010 and 2050, falling to zero or below by 2100.”

The Summary, spelling out in careful terms what this means, says: “A large fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to millennial timescale, except in the case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period.”

Put more simply, this means that without an effective way to clean up the main greenhouse gas, the world will face permanent changes. Unfortunately, the method proposed for cleaning the atmosphere − carbon capture and storage − has not yet proved itself at scale.

So Dr Pachauri’s plea that the world finds “the will to change“ is fine, so far as it goes. The problem is that there are also several technological hurdles still to surmount.

And that’s not the only problem with this report. As with previous major IPCC reports, it unavoidably trails some way behind the facts. The authors of the three volumes on which the Summary is based, published in the last 14 months, were able to consider only climate science published up till 15 March, 2013.

Serious consequences

But among research published since then − and too late to be considered by the IPCC teams − was a NASA report suggesting that the melting glaciers of West Antarctica may have passed the point of no return, with serious consequences for global sea levels.

Yet the IPCC Summary says simply: “Abrupt and irreversible ice loss from the Antarctic ice sheet is possible, but current evidence and understanding is insufficient to make a quantitative assessment.”

Other recent advances in climate science that were published too late for the Panel to consider relate to the Greenland ice sheet and to the Amazon.

This is not to blame the IPCC for producing a report that has serious gaps. Its assessment reports appear only once every six or seven years, and are written by unpaid volunteers, supported by a permanent staff of around 12 people.

But if you hear the IPCC being accused − as it often is − of alarmism, consider how truly alarming the Summary would have been if the authors had been able to digest all we now know about the effects of climate change. − Climate News Network

http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/ipccs-urgent-warning-to-tackle-climate-change/

.

.


 

.

IATA’s Fact Sheet: Climate Change

Industry Goals:

  • An average improvement in fuel efficiency of 1.5% per year to 2020
  • A cap on net aviation CO2 emissions from 2020: carbon-neutral growth
  • Cut net CO2 emissions in half by 2050 compared to 2005                                                       [Net emissions. Not gross].

Air Transport’s Climate Change Track Record

  • Air transport accounts for 2% of global manmade CO2 emissions
    • Air transport’s relative contribution has not increased in the past 20 years and is not expected to increase beyond 3% by 2050  according to The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
  • Air transport has reduced its fuel use and CO2 emissions per passenger kilometer by well over 70% compared to the 1960s.
  • Although in 2012 passenger kilometer performed increased by as much as 5.3% and tonne kilometers performed by 3.3%, total emissions increased only 1.4% to 689 million tonnes of CO2, compared to 679 million tonnes in 2011
  • Emissions growth of 1.4% in 2012 is the result of
    • A 2.7% capacity increase (accounting for 18 million tonnes of CO2)
    • But was partially offset by an annual percentage efficiency improvement of 1.3%

Carbon-Neutral Growth 2020 (CNG2020)

  • CNG2020 means that aviation’s net CO2 emissions will not increase beyond 2020 levels even as demand for air transport continues to grow
  • The industry is working hard to deliver CNG2020 (Four Pillar strategy), but it is also contingent upon action by other stakeholders, notably:
    • The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) needs to adopt a CO2 emission standard for new aircraft types
    • Governments and fuel companies need to support and scale up the production of sustainable biofuels for aviation
    • Governments and air navigation service providers need to improve air traffic management, and live up to their commitments to deliver the Single European Sky in Europe and NextGen in the United States
    • At its Annual General Meeting in June 2013, IATA members adopted a resolutionproviding a set of principles on how governments could integrate a single global market-based measure as part of an overall package of measures to put a cap on net aviation emissions from 2020

Four Pillar Strategy to Address Climate Change

Technology

  • Short-term: enhancements and modifications to existing in-service fleet
  • Medium-term: accelerate fleet renewal, introduce latest technologies, including drop-in biofuels
  • Long-term: radical new technologies and aircraft designs
  • IATA Technology Roadmap identifies technologies that could reduce fuel burn per aircraft by up to 30%

Operations

  • Improved operations can save fuel and CO2 emissions by up to 6% per year (IPCC)
  • IATA helps fuel conservation by compiling best practices, publishing guidance, visiting airlines and training
  • IATA will extend fuel conservation programs and promote airline environmental management systems

Infrastructure

  • Governments and infrastructure providers could avoid up to 12% of CO2 emissions by addressing airport and airspace inefficiencies (IPCC)
    • Some 4% of this has already been achieved since 1999 (according to the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation – CANSO)
    • Single European Sky (SES), US NextGen Air Transport System and flexible use of airspace would contribute to these savings

Economic measures

  • To the extent that the industry’s climate change objectives may not be achieved through the first three pillars alone, a cost-effective single global market-based measure is needed to bridge the gap
  • Considering the international nature of aviation, a global approach to aviation emissions must be preferred over a patchwork of individual and uncoordinated policies:
    • A market-based measure should be cost-effective and administratively simple
    • Airlines should only be held accountable once for their emissions
    • A patchwork of measures may lead to the same emissions being covered by more than one mechanism.
  • A global mechanism is needed to prevent market distortions and carbon leakage

At its 38th session, the ICAO Assembly decided to develop a global market-based measure for international aviation. It requested the ICAO Council to finalize the work on the technical aspects, environmental and economic impacts and modalities of the possible options for a global MBM scheme. The results of the work of the Council will be reported to the next Assembly in 2016 for approval.

Updated: December 2013

http://www.iata.org/pressroom/facts_figures/fact_sheets/pages/environment.aspx

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Study finds a carbon gap of 220 million tonnes in 2023 will require offsetting by the airline industry

A very readable, short, paper by ICF sets out the extent to which global aviation will not be able to make the carbon reductions it claims will be possible.  ICF looked at the global commitment by the industry to make fuel efficiency gains of 1.5% annually to 2020, and then “carbon neutral growth” from 2020 onwards – despite annual growth in passengers of about 4-5% per year. ICF concludes that  even with improvements in aircraft technology, airline efficiencies and operational improvements, together with the introduction of  6% biofuels, there will be a sizeable 23% carbon gap between commercial aviation forecasts and industry targets by 2023.  Without that much biofuel (which ICF considers unlikely) the gap would be 27%. Without industry efficiencies and biofuels, global aviation would be emitting about 53% more carbon in 2023 than now.  ICF believes carbon offsetting to be the most cost-effective way to close the carbon gap – but that only means aviation buying carbon credits from other sectors which are actually reducing their emissions, while aviation can then continue to increase theirs. 
.

 

Study finds a carbon gap of 220 million tonnes in 2023 will require offsetting by the airline industry

Friday 31 Oct 2014 (GreenAir online)

Link: ICF International   Mind_the_Carbon_Gap Oct 2014 (6 pages)

Even with improvements in aircraft technology, airline efficiencies and operational improvements, together with the introduction of biofuels, there will be a sizeable carbon gap between commercial aviation forecasts and industry targets by 2023, according to a study by consultancy ICF International. Without these improvements and biofuel take-up, ICF estimates commercial aviation will produce 53% more carbon in 2023 than today, leading to a 33% gap with the industry’s goal of capping net emissions from 2020. The consultancy’s own forecast is for global CO2 emissions from aviation to reach 942 million tonnes by 2020 and so form the baseline for the industry’s carbon-neutral growth target. With efficiencies and biofuels, the annual carbon gap would be in the region of 220 million tonnes by 2023, which ICF says will have to be mitigated through carbon offsetting.

ICF, which has considerable expertise in airline industry planning and forecasting, estimates global carbon emissions from aviation in 2013 at around 750 million tonnes, a higher assessment than that from the industry itself, which puts the figure at 705 million tonnes. To arrive at the 942 million tonnes by 2020, ICF factored in the industry’s goal of improving annual efficiency by 1.5% through to 2020 against a forecasted increase in global flight hours.

The consultancy believes that compared to most recent industry forecasts, changes in aircraft productivity will reduce the number of flights airlines need to operate to carry the same number of passengers. Over the next 20 years, it says, air traffic will grow by 4% and the fleet required to carry that traffic will increase by just 3.1%.

It says the slower growth in flight hours will make it easier for the industry to achieve its carbon-neutral growth from 2020 goal. “Even with a lower forecast in flying hours, however, the baseline outlook for aviation carbon still exceeds industry targets by 42% in 2023,” cautions ICF in its ‘Mind the Carbon Gap’ white paper.

To close that gap, ICF studied a range of technology improvements and efficiencies that airlines and aircraft manufacturers can introduce over the 10-year period that could cut annual carbon output by 8% in 2023. This would reduce ICF’s baseline estimate of 1,253 million tonnes of CO2 to 1,195 tonnes in 2023.

ICF notes industry groups and individual airlines have built up hopes that biofuels will be a solution to aviation emissions but its study is less optimistic about the prospect.

“Market forces do not appear aligned to make biofuels cost competitive with traditional kerosene in the near term or medium term,” says the paper. “There is little appetite for government subsidies to cover this cost differential, as the United States historically did for corn-based ethanol production or as many governments have done to support renewable electricity. Unfortunately, biofuels are unlikely to close the full gap between projected aviation carbon and the industry’s targets.”

However, ICF estimates that biofuels could contribute to a further reduction of 33 million tonnes of CO2 in 2023, bringing the carbon gap down to 220 tonnes.

The consultancy – which says it has provided guidance on aviation emissions to ICAO, analysis for the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme and is currently helping China design its future carbon trading programme – believes carbon offsetting to be the most cost-effective way to close that gap.

Link:

ICF International    Mind_the_Carbon_Gap Oct 2014  (6 pages)

http://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=2001

.

CF aviation carbon forecast (with efficiencies and no biofuels):

 

Copyright © 2014 GreenAir Communications

.


 

The section of the ICF report on biofuel states:

Biofuels

Industry groups and individual airlines have built up great hope — or hype—about biofuels as a solution to aviation emissions. This focus indicates an implicit recognition that even the most optimistic scenarios of efficiency improvements will be insufficient to meet the industry’s commitments to carbon-neutral growth.

The most promising biofuels under consideration today, derived from Jatropha and Salicornia oils, result in 40 to 60% of the lifecycle carbon emissions produced by petroleum jet fuel.

Although biofuels have lower carbon content than oil, energy consumed in production reduces benefits from CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere during cultivation.

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) estimates that by 2020, biofuels will make up approximately 6% of all aviation fuels.  Applying the FAA’s 6% assumption to ICF’s baseline carbon forecast would reduce total aviation carbon output up to 3.6%
during the forecast period.

Unfortunately, this scenario will require a significant coordinated effort to achieve because of a number of obstacles to widespread use of biofuels, some technical and some economic.

Technically, biofuels must gain the trust of airlines and regulators as safe alternatives to kerosene, including the impact on engine maintenance and new methods to ensure safe handling at the airport and procedures for emergency response.

Current aircraft engines depend on aromatic components in petroleum, such as benzene, that help rubber seals expand during engine combustion. Barring development of new engine technology, biofuels will constitute no more than half the total fuel onboard.  As a result, biofuels will require a parallel fueling infrastructure at airports to blend fuels in the right mix for each product.

Economically, biofuels may simply be too expensive for airlines to embrace on a wide scale. Biofuels currently cost at least $3.00 more per gallon ($993 per tonne) than jet fuel, or a premium of $15,000 for a typical transcontinental flight. Market forces do not appear aligned to make biofuels cost competitive with traditional kerosene in the near term or medium term. There is little appetite for government subsidies to cover this cost differential, as the United States historically did for corn-based ethanol production or as many governments have done to support renewable electricity.

Meanwhile, other industries are already willing to pay higher prices for bio-based polymers, further reducing market incentives to process feedstock into biofuels for aircraft instead of other purposes.

Unfortunately, biofuels are unlikely to close the full gap between projected aviation carbon and the industry’s targets.

http://www.icfi.com/insights/white-papers/2014/carbon-gap-alternative-for-aviation-emissions

.


 

On offsetting they say:

How Offsets Work

Participants in an emissions trading scheme purchase certificates that prove a carbon reduction has been achieved in another industry or location. In one functioning example, the United Nations certifies carbon reduction actions, such as eliminating fugitive refrigerant emissions. To offset carbon produced in flight, airlines would purchase these certificates, thereby reducing global emissions at a lower cost than airlines would be able to achieve themselves..

.


 

On Market Based Measures the report says:

Market-based Measures

Assuming aircraft manufacturers and airlines implement widespread efficiency improvements, and assuming the airline industry is able to implement some biofuel use, [the ICF says: “We assume that North America and Europe achieve the biofuel usage
levels predicted by the FAA and that the Middle East and Pacific Rim ramp
up to European production levels by 2020″.]  ICF’s forecast still shows a gap between the outlook for aviation carbon and the industry’s stated targets.

This gap equates to 220 million tons of CO2 in 2023, or the equivalent annual emissions from 44 million cars.

For the aviation industry to meet its emissions targets in 2023 and beyond, reductions in other industries will have to offset airline emissions.

There is precedent for reductions in GHG using such market based approaches. In the Northeastern United States, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) invested $700 million over 5 years to produce more than $2 billion in energy savings. RGGI worksbecause producers with the highest emissions were able to purchase reductions from firms with the lowest cost to reduce emissions.

Similarly, after implementing prudent efficiencies in aviation, it is more cost-effective to reduce GHG emissions in other industries. It will simply cost less to install methane digesters on farms or to insulate buildings than to accelerate aircraft retirement.

ICF has experience developing offset programs to enable the most efficient outcomes. ICF gave some of the earliest guidance on aviation emissions to ICAO—the UN body responsible for aviation — and has provided analysis for the European Union’s Emissions
Trading Scheme. Currently, ICF is helping China design its future carbon trading program

.


 

.
ICF International says of itself:  (aviation is just one sector in which it works)

ICF International provides professional services and technology solutions that deliver beneficial impact in areas critical to the world’s future.

The firm combines passion for its work with industry expertise and innovative analytics to produce compelling results throughout the entire program lifecycle, from research and analysis through implementation and improvement.

Since 1969, ICF has been serving government at all levels, major corporations, and multilateral institutions. More than 4,500 employees serve these clients from more than 70 offices worldwide.

.

.

.


 

.

DfT estimates of amount of biofuels are between the two figures of 2.5% and 10% biofuel use by 2050.

See Page 22 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/186683/aviation-and-climate-change-paper.pdf

.

 

 

.

 

Read more »

Keith Taylor MEP: “We don’t need a new runway at Gatwick – or Heathrow, or Stansted or anywhere else for that matter”

Keith Taylor, the Green Party MEP, has set out clearly why no new runway is needed. The Airports Commission will shortly publish their consultation options, for runway plans at Heathrow and Gatwick. Keith says the extensive evidence against there being a need for a new south east runway is being ignored. The massive advertising and PR budgets by the airports are attempting to persuade that a new runway is vital is described as a con. While in theory the Commission was set up to establish if there was a need for a runway, in reality it has just been a process of making the decision where to build one more politically acceptable. It has not been an issue of “whether” as it should have been – but just “where.” Keith comments: “… it seems the Commission’s sole purpose has become to choose where expansion will go despite the very strong existing evidence against all airport expansion.”  People in the UK already fly more than almost any other nation. Economic claims of  the benefits of a new runway and claims about jobs created are also grossly exaggerated.  The aviation industry is perpetrating a massive hoax, for their own purposes. 
.

 

SussexVoice “Talk Politics” – Green MEP Keith Taylor – We don’t need more runways

28.10.2014  (By Keith Taylor)

Keith Taylor is Member of the European Parliament for South East England and a Green Party member.

We don’t need a new runway at Gatwick – or Heathrow, or Stansted or anywhere else for that matter.

The overwhelming evidence presented against airport expansion in 2009/10 when the then Labour government was backing proposals for a third runway at Heathrow is being ignored.

The huge budgets of the pro expansion lobby are busy trying to convince people expansion is the only way to go.  It’s a con.

When Prime Minister David Cameron set up the Davies Commission in 2012 there was a rising crescendo of business pressure for new runways. Cameron effectively kicked the issue into touch until after the 2015 General Election, ostensibly with a brief to Davies to consider whether expansion in the South East was necessary.

Many people believe Cameron had already privately decided that new runway(s) would be built, and forming the Commission was a cynical attempt at delaying any decision and deferring any political responsibility for implementing their recommendations.

The reality now is that the Davies Commission will recommend not whether expansion will take place but where it will happen.

In fact, it seems the Commission’s sole purpose has become to choose where expansion will go despite the very strong existing evidence against all airport expansion.

Such evidence includes the fact that without the go-ahead for any new runways, Britain is already amongst the most frequent flyers in the world. And that already more passengers fly in and out of London than any other city in the world.

Furthermore, nine of the ten most popular destinations from Heathrow are short-haul flights. [ Details ]  Existing rail services could offer workable alternatives on most of these routes, thus freeing up landing slots for longer haul flights, addressing airport capacity problems. As trains are around ten times less polluting than planes this would also be better for the environment. [ Details of plane/train carbon by Seat 61 ].

The employment benefits of expansion have also been overplayed. Claims that airport expansion will help create thousands of new jobs to help the country through the recession are based on unreliable statistics and in fact, expansion results in more UK tourists going abroad which creates a ‘tourism deficit’, where tourists’ money is exported from UK.      [Tourism deficit ].

Economist Brendon Sewill said:

“The Government, aided by the aviation industry, is perpetrating a hoax that airport expansion is vital to the economy and will help us though the recession. Councillors and planning officers are being misled by exaggerated claims that the expansion of their local airports will create lots of extra jobs. For example, ten years ago Manchester Airport claimed that its second runway would create 50,000 extra jobs [ link ]  whereas in practice employment at the airport has increased by only 4,000.”  [See employment details below. Airport had 2,088 employees in 2013 and 2,585 in 2000]. 

As anti-aviation expansion campaigners, we must be more strategic. If residents of Gatwick and residents of Heathrow both oppose expansion on their own local impacts then this will just be seen as a NIMBY reaction and our chances of winning will be limited.

But if we can create a situation whereby all anti-aviation expansion campaigners are calling for no runway expansion anywhere – because of the very convincing arguments that we have at our disposal on the environment, climate change, noise, air pollution and community blight – then we’re in with a chance of winning.

That also means supporting the regional airport campaigns in their smaller battles to prevent expansion such as the successful campaign I recently supported at Redhill Aerodrome. [ link ]

The fight-back is already happening and will be strengthened when everyone starts saying ‘Stop All Airport Expansion’ to promote the issues further up the agenda.

I look forward to making these points at the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign (GACC) conference on Saturday 22nd November.

http://www.sussexvoice.co.uk/2014/10/28/sussex-voice-talk-politics-green-mep-keith-taylor-we-dont-need-more-runways/

 

.

.


.

Employment details for Manchester airport.

Its 2nd runway was built in 2001.
The average monthly number of persons (including the directors) employed by the Group during the year was:

In  2000

Administration  397

Operational  1,633

Baggage handling  555

Total   2,585


 

In  2001 

Administration 405

Operational 1,639

Baggage handling 619

Total 2,663 

http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/alldocs/314061A7BF7257488025738D004BB429/$File/Annual+Report+and+Accounts+0001.pdf

That document said:

“With the Airport set to grow significantly over the next 15 years with the number of passengers forecast to more than double to nearly 41 million a year by 2015”

In reality, the number of passengers in 2013 at Manchester airport was 20,682,900


 

In   2007

The average number of persons (including executive directors) employed by the Group during the year was:

2,263


In 2008

2,481

http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/alldocs/BF3EEF3422FA8E3280257497004ACCEE/$File/Annual+Report+0708.pdf


 

In 2013

The average number of persons (including Executive Directors) employed by the Group during the year was:

2,088


 

In 2014

The average number of persons (including Executive Directors) employed by the Group during the year was:

2,226

http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/alldocs/2D7BEAB35258108D80257D1F004BF436/$File/MAG+Annual+Report+2014.pdf

.

.

.

 

 

Read more »

EU agreement of 40% carbon cuts by 2030 condemned as unambitious and far below what is needed

The EU came to an agreement on 23rd October, to make an overall cut of 40% in carbon emissions, compared to their 1990 level, by 2030. Though proclaimed by governments etc as a huge achievement, in reality it is nothing of the sort. The UK regrettably lobbied to weaken the targets. The 40% target includes some credits from emissions trading with countries outside the EU, so the actual targets are only 27% for energy efficiency, and 27% for renewable energy. Friends of the Earth points out that the EU had already achieved a 20% cut in emissions by 2012, meaning that it is pretty much business-as-usual for the years till 2030, with such a lax target. Leading climate scientist Professor Kevin Anderson from the Tyndall Centre sent an open letter to David Cameron about the inadequacy of the EU targets. This letter explains why, for the chance of it being “likely” that we do not exceed the international community’s 2°C commitment, requires the EU to reduce the emissions from its energy system by 80% by 2030, with complete decarbonisation just a few years later.  Not a mere 40% by 2030.  
.

 

Friends of the Earth comment:
EU2030 climate decision puts polluters’ interests first

Reacting to new EU targets for tackling climate change agreed last night, Asad Rehman, international climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth said:

“David Cameron has written himself into history alongside Canadian PM Stephen Harper and Australian leader Tony Abbott as the men who were willing to turn their backs on climate science, on the demands of their people and on the everyday reality of devastating climate impacts. 

“This decision has put the interests of polluters ahead of the interests of people and the planet. Cameron may attempt to spin this backward step on climate as progress but it has effectively shut the door on limiting temperature rises to 2c and that will have devastating consequences for the poorest countries in the world.

“This decision is bad for jobs, the economy and people’s needs. The only winners will be the dirty energy corporations who have panicked Cameron into giving them a fat cheque and a renewed license to pollute.”

ENDS

Notes to editors

1. The UK government convinced other countries to back their proposal for the EU climate and energy package to consist of only a binding but weak emissions reduction target and non-binding weak targets on energy efficiency and renewable energy.

2.  40% target – a number that sounds much higher than it is?

The greenhouse target of 40% is a 27% domestic emissions target in real terms (once surplus hot air credits from the discredited Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and ESD surplus are included). The EU has already reached a target of 20% cuts by 2012. For the next 18 years EU emissions cuts could slow down to a crawl.

The EU (28) GHG target in 2020 is 20% on 1990 levels.

According to the EU’s own statistics the EU was at 19.2% in 2012 on 1990 levels – which means that the 2020 target will have been met with 8 years still to go.

In million tonnes of CO2 that means:

  • In 1990 the EU was emitting 5626 MTCO2 pollutants
  • In 2012 the EU was emitting 4544 MTCO2 pollutants

with a legally binding target under the Kyoto Protocol of 4398 MTCO2 emissions by 2020.

The 40% target in 2030 being proposed by the UK Govt at the EU Council meeting would mean that in 2030 the EU would be emitting 3375 MTCO2 pollutants.

However the ETS surplus credits which are handed out as free permits to pollute could add in a worst case scenario an additional right to emit 1350 MTCO2 emissions. Alternatively these 1350 will be phased across the 10 year period, slowing the transformation and effort required each year. Please see chart here.

That target for 2030 would therefore not be ambitious than the target for 2020. In essence that means that the EU could take no action between 2012 to 2020. And then between 2020 and 2030 the EU 40% target could mean very little additional action.

3. Is the EU target of 40% a fair share of the global effort needed to keep temperatures below 2c?

Friends of the Earth England Wales and Northern Ireland together with the support of Stockholm Environment Institute have launched a website to calculate all countries’ fair share of global effort needed to avoid dangerous climate change. It would mean that the EU would actually need to be at negative 3800 MTCO2 by 2030.

Since the EU could no longer deliver all its emissions domestically it would need to help finance actions outside of the EU as part of its mitigation effort. According to FoE EWNI’s statistics this would be a domestic emissions target and an international finance target.

The EU should be at 1462 MTCO2 emissions – which is –74% domestic target for 2030 on 1990 levels and $345 billion in climate finance transfers

4. Is the UK championing an ambitious approach to the Paris COP in 2015? See an analysis by Friends of the Earth of the UK’s approach to the Paris COP in 2015.

5. Is the UK responsible for weak energy renewable energy targets?

The UK also lobbied heavily for a non binding and weak 27% renewable energy target – this represents barely more than business-as–usual and will send a dangerous signal to UK investors that the EU renewables policy is being abandoned. The current renewables directive Europe has developed certain production volumes up to 2020. The target of 27% by 2030 however breaks continuity from 6.4% per cent per year between 2010 and 2020 to 1.4% per cent per year, between 2020 and 2030. The target is so weak that its estimated that the same level of renewables could be achieved without any target. For more informations see: http://www.foeeurope.org/2030-renewables.

6. Is the UK responsible for weak energy efficiency targets?

The UK was also responsible for pushing for non binding energy efficiency targets. Despite energy efficiency being seen as the 1st fuel the UK finally accepted a 27% energy efficiency target rather than its initial proposal of 25% as long as the targets were not binding at a national level. This target fails to meet even the EU’s own very conservative analysis which showed higher targets delivered a huge boost for jobs, the economy and energy security. In effect Cameron has sacrificed British jobs, British warm homes, lower gas imports from abroad as well as a possible 2.68% increase in UK GDP because of pressure from eurosceptics in his and other parties. Gas imports for example are expected to fall by just 12% with a 27% target, compared to 22% with a 30% target and 40% with a 40% target.

7. Are the current targets in line with climate science?

Leading climate scientist Professor Kevin Anderson from the Tyndall Centre sent an open letter to David Cameron about the inadequacy of the EU targets.

IPCC Vice Chair Professor Jim Skea also says that EU targets will fail to protect the climate.

8. There are widespread concerns over the new EU Commission. Friends of the Earth Europe together with other leading green groups have expressed serious reservations about the new Commissions commitment to the environment and to tackling climate change.

9. Friends of the Earth is campaigning against fracking and for clean alternatives like solar power.

 http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/eu2030-climate-decision-puts-polluters-interests-first_24102014


Open letter from Professor Kevin Anderson to the PM outlining how 2°C demands an 80% cut in EU emissions by 2030

Below is an open letter (22nd Oct. 2014) to both the UK’s Prime Minister and the Secretary of State at the Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) [Ed Davey].

The letter summarises why the IPCC’s carbon budgets for a “likely” chance of not exceeding the international community’s 2°C commitment, requires the EU to reduce the emissions from its energy system by 80% by 2030, with complete decarbonisation just a few years later.

**************

 

22nd October 2014

RE: The EU 2030 decarbonisation target and the framework for climate and energy policies

Dear Prime Minister and Secretary of State,

I wish to state my grave concern about the proposed ‘2030 framework for climate and energy policies’ that is to be finalised at this week’s European Council meeting of heads of state and senior ministers. If the 40% target proposed in the earlier Green Paper [1] is adopted, the EU will be signalling its dismissal of the IPCC’s carbon budgets associated with a 2°C rise in global temperature. It will give priority to politically expediency at the expense of scientific integrity, irrevocably damaging the climate change negotiations in Paris 2015.

My chief concern with the framework relates to the Commission’s assertion that “emissions would need to be reduced by 40% in the EU to be … consistent with the internationally agreed target to limit atmospheric warming to below 2°C”[1]. Whilst such a position may have political traction, it is in direct breach of the EU’s repeated commitment to reduce its emissions “consistent with science and on the basis of equity”[2].

The IPCC’s budgets for a “likely”[3] chance of not exceeding 2°C, accompanied by weak allowances for equity, demand the EU deliver, at least, an 80% reduction in emissions from its energy system by 2030, with full decarbonisation shortly after.

This stark contrast with the Green Paper’s proposed 40% reduction arises from two principal issues.

1) The IPCC’s “likely” carbon budgets The IPCC’s budgets, for a “likely” chance of not exceeding the 2°C target, range from around 600 to 1200 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO2) for the period 2011-2100 [4]. To put this in context, in the four years since 2011 almost 150 billion tonnes have already been emitted; i.e. between a quarter and an eighth of the total carbon budget for the rest of the century. To estimate the budget for energy-only carbon, it is necessary to subtract emissions from deforestation and cement production [5]. Even with stringent control on emissions from these sectors, the remaining carbon budget for energy equates to as few as 5 and at the most 20 years of emissions equivalent to those in 2014 [6].

2) The inclusion of equity when apportioning emissions to regions The EU has acknowledged the need for its emissions to reach a peak and subsequently begin reducing well before those of industrialising and poorer nations. Even today, the carbon intensity of a typical Chinese person’s lifestyle is considerably lower than that of their European counterpart (5.9 tonnes p.a. per person compared with 9.4 for the EU28, rising to 10.1 and 11.4 tonnes for the UK and Germany respectively [7]). Under even the most stringent deal at the Paris 2015 negotiations, it is doubtful that the industrialising and poorer nations will collectively reach a peak in their emissions before 2025. However, if this were to be achieved, and if by the 2030s they deliver mitigation rates similar to those of the wealthier nations, the “likely” carbon budget remaining for the EU, USA etc. demands immediate double-digit mitigation rates [8].

Put simply, the basic arithmetic of: (1) the IPCC’s 2°C carbon budgets; (2) highly optimistic assumptions on deforestation and cement; (3) stringent emissions pathways for industrialising and poorer nations; and (4) the EU’s oft-cited commitment on 2°C; requires the European Council to increase the 2030 target to, at least, an 80% reduction in emissions.

Alternatively, if the Green Paper’s 40% target is adopted, the EU should be honest about why it has chosen to renege on it previous 2°C commitments. Moreover, it should explain the reasoning for judging the challenges of stringent mitigation as more onerous than the increased risk of dangerous repercussions for poorer and climatically more vulnerable communities.

I understand the enormous political difficulties for European heads of state in developing a transparent and evidence-based mitigation agenda. However, the reasons for today’s climate dilemma reside in our prolonged abject failure to set in train an effective programme of mitigation. A quarter of a century on from the IPCC’s first report, the carbon intensity of a typical EU citizen’s lifestyle remains unchanged [7]. I urge you to resist the vested interests calling for continued inaction and instead drive for an ambitious policy framework “consistent with science” and developed on “the basis of equity”. Ultimately, this will be the legacy we bequeath to future generations.

Yours sincerely

Kevin Anderson

Professor of Energy and Climate Change
Deputy Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research University of Manchester
PA- Amrita Sidhu, amrita.sidhu@manchester.ac.uk tel: +44(0)161 306 3700

Notes:

[1] Green Paper, A 2030 framework for climate and energy policies. Brussels, 27.3.2013 COM(2013) 169 final

[2] Report of the Conference of the Parties; fifteenth session; Copenhagen, 7 to 19 December 2009. See also: President Barroso on the results of the L’Aquila summit; European Commission, MEMO/09/332; 10/07/2009 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-09-332_en.htm

[3] This is the language used by the IPCC in the AR5 to provide a qualitative interpretation of quantitative probabilities. It is based on the Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. IPCC Cross-Working Group Meeting on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. Jasper Ridge, CA, USA. 6-7 July 2010

[4] IPCC Summary for Policy Makers; Working Group III Table 6.3, p.12. The precise budget range is 630 to 1180 GtCO2

[5] With the surge in construction required to transition to a low-carbon infrastructure alongside ongoing industrialisation within poorer nations, reversing the 6.9% p.a. growth in emissions from cement will be extremely challenging. The assumptions used in this letter rely on deforestation and cement emissions, for the century, totalling 100 and 200GtCO2respectively. For cement this relates to either: 1) an immediate halving in current growth rates with a transition to zero emissions by 2075; or, 2) a continuation at current rates to 2030 with a transition to zero emissions by 2050.

[6] Once deforestation and cement emissions are included the remaining budget range for energy-only is ~190 to 740GtCO2 for 2015-2100. Emissions for 2014 will be around 37GtCO2, hence the 5 to 20 year estimate. It is important to note that global emissions are currently growing at ~3% p.a., and that there is no prospect of this changing significantly before 2020, by when emissions from energy will be ~42GtCO2.

[7] Calculated from consumption-based inventories where emissions from imports and exports are also included. Territorial and consumption-based data is available for the EU28 region and individual EU nations from the Global Carbon Atlas.

[8] For a detailed account of these conclusions in for Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 nations, see: Anderson K, Bows A. Beyond dangerous climate change: emission pathways for a new world. Phil Trans R Soc A: Math Phys Eng Sci 2011, 369:20–44.

* This letter builds on a previous submission (13.12.2013) to the EU Commission President with regards to the Green Paper A 2030 framework for climate and energy policies. Brussels, 27.3.2013 COM(2013) 169 final 

http://kevinanderson.info/blog/letter-to-the-pm-outlining-how-2c-demands-an-80-cut-in-eu-emissions-by-2030/


 Euractiv reported it like this:

EU leaders adopt ‘flexible’ energy and climate targets for 2030

24/10/2014  (Euractiv)

EU leaders Thursday night (23 October) committed by 2030 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40%, and increase energy efficiency and renewables by at least 27%.

French President François Hollande said the deal would send a clear message to big polluters such as China and the United States ahead of UN talks in Paris next year to agree global legally binding greenhouse gas emissions.

A special “flexibility clause” was added to the final text, making it possible for the European Council to return to the targets after the UN summit in December 2015.

But Hollande told reporters that the clause was not dependent on the Paris talks, as the Council can revisit the targets anytime.

Hollande, who will host the negotiations, said it was a “conclusive and definitive” agreement. It was essential a deal was reached before the Paris summit next year, he said.

Efficiency and renewables targets watered down

But the efficiency and renewables targets were watered down. The European Commission had called for an efficiency goal of 30%. That was reduced to 27% across the EU.  The EU level target is not legally binding at the national level or EU level and will be reviewed in 2020 “having in mind” a 30% EU-level target, according to the summit conclusions.

The renewables target of at least 27% is binding at EU-wide level but, after opposition from countries such as the United Kingdom, it will not be binding at national level. All three targets are compared to 1990 levels.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel also noted that the climate agreement has made the EU capable of being an important player on the international stage. She said that the binding target of at least 27% renewables was particularly important to Germany and that those member states, that want to do more, are able to do so under this agreement.

“Germany will not have a hard time [living up to the targets]. We have already set tougher national targets,” said the German chancellor.

Merkel stressed that while the 40% emissions reduction target is going to be broken down to individual member states based on their GDP per capita, those countries that will have lower targets would have to do more in other areas.

Free allowances of carbon emissions to poorer countries will continue after 2020 to offset competition from countries not subject to EU climate laws.

The deal was condemned by groups such as Greenpeace and Oxfam as being too weak. “It is shocking that business leaders called for more ambitious targets than those agreed by EU leaders,” Oxfam said.

Polish Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz said the deal would not cost her country. Poland was the country that mostly opposed ambitious climate goals, fearing for its coal power plants.

“I said that we will not return from this summit with new [financial] burdens, and indeed there are no new burdens,” Kopacz told Polish reporters.

……. and it continues  ……

 

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-priorities-2020/eu-leaders-adopt-flexible-energy-and-climate-targets-2030-309462

 

 


 The Guardian reported it like this:

EU leaders agree to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030

Climate commissioner hails ‘strong signal’ ahead of global Paris summit but key aspects of deal left vague or voluntary

By  in Brussels (Guardian)

24 October 2014

European leaders have struck a broad climate change pact obliging the EU as a whole to cut greenhouse gases by at least 40% by 2030.

But key aspects of the deal that will form a bargaining position for global climate talks in Paris next year were left vague or voluntary, raising questions as to how the aims would be realised.

As well as the greenhouse gas, two 27% targets were agreed – for renewable energy market share and increase in energy efficiency improvement. The former would be binding only on the EU as a whole. The latter would be optional, although it could be raised to 30% by a review in 2020.

“It was not easy, not at all, but we managed to reach a fair decision that sets the EU on an ambitious but cost-effective climate path,” Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council told a press conference in Brussels.

“This package is very good news for our fight against climate change,” the European Commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso, added. “No player in the world is as ambitious as the EU.”

With an eye on the haggling expected ahead of a global climate summit in Paris next year, the EU’s climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, said the agreement was an important step for the whole world. She said: “We have sent a strong signal to other big economies and all other countries: we have done our homework, now we urge you to follow Europe’s example.” 

But a clause was inserted into the text that could trigger a review of the EU’s new targets if other countries do not come forward with comparable commitments in Paris.

The Brussels summit was dominated by arguments over energy savings and climate policy, with countries from Poland to Portugal pleading special circumstances and threatening to veto any breakthrough unless their demands were met.

David Cameron was keen to minimise any perceived loss of UK sovereignty over energy policy, for fear of further exposure to attacks from the Eurosceptic wing of his Conservative party and Ukip. The prime minister won a battle to keep policies aimed at boosting renewables and saving electricity voluntary for member states.

“It’s important that you’ve got flexibility over your energy mix,” said a Downing Street spokeswoman. Cameron had hoped to cut the energy efficiency figure to 25%, but was prepared to accept 27% as long as it was not binding on Britain.

Portugal attained a non-binding objective that 15% of the bloc’s energy be transportable via cross-border connections by 2030, with an invitation to the European Commission to make concrete proposals for project financing from the EU budget.

Danish concerns were addressed with the introduction of a “cap and trade approach” to sectors previously considered outside the bloc’s carbon market such as agriculture, buildings and transport – which alone represents 31% of the bloc’s emissions.

Poland, heavily dependent on coal-fired energy production, threatened to block the deal unless the costs to its economy and industry were discounted by €15bn – €20bn (£12bn-£16bn) between 2020 and 2030, under a complicated system of concessions from the EU’s carbon trading system.

Concessions granted to Poland will allow it to continue reaping hundreds of millions of euros in free allowances to modernise coal-fired power plants. Of eight EU nations eligible for the free allocations, Poland claimed 60% of the total up until 2019.

A poll by TNS and YouGov for the online activist group Avaaz late last week found that 56% of Poles thought that EU financial support for energy should back clean energy rather than fossil fuels.

“It’s scandalous,” said Julia Michalak, a spokeswoman for Climate Action Network Europe. “A continuation of free emission permits for Poland’s coal-reliant energy system would be a grave mistake. Leaders who came to Brussels to agree new historic climate goals, are actually discussing whether to hand out money to Europe’s dirtiest power plants.”

Intense bilateral discussions between Cameron, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and other EU leaders over the last week tried to find ways of placating the Poles, who kept open their option of vetoing the summit outcome until the end.

The anticipated 40% greenhouse gas cut by 2030 would be measured against benchmark 1990 levels. That figure is to be binding on the EU and the minimum level achieved, with Germany and Britain happy to agree a higher figure.

Tony Robson, the CEO of Knauf Insulation – a leading insulation firm that had threatened to divest from Europe unless firm energy saving targets were announced – said that the 27% figure for energy efficiency improvement was “no better than business as usual” in an open letter to EU leaders.

A 27% target “sends a strong signal to the energy efficiency industry to ‘leave Europe and make your investments elsewhere’”, he wrote.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/24/eu-leaders-agree-to-cut-greenhouse-gas-emissions-by-40-by-2030

 


 By contrast with the inadequate deal actually achieved, it is being promoted by government as a great success. Which it is not.

 

Ed Davey MP writes … Signed, sealed and delivered, an ambitious climate change deal for Europe

By Edward Davey MP (Liberal Democrat Voice)
24th October 2014
We’ve done it! For Liberal Democrats in government, this EU climate deal is our most significant green win so far. While Liberal Democrats are passionate about tackling climate change, the likes of Owen Paterson and UKIP seem to delight in talking down the threat that it poses, but that should make us even more determined to tell people why this deal is so crucial.

What have we achieved? An ambitious Europe-wide climate change deal that will see greenhouse gases cut by at least 40% by 2030. Other countries wanted a lower target, but I argued that the science demanded higher. And I was determined that if in next year’s UN climate talks other countries like the US and China show similar ambition, Europe should be ready to increase its efforts still further – so the words “at least” in the deal are more important than normal.

In the two years I spent working on this, I was also determined the deal was as flexible as possible so we could go green as cost effectively as possible – able to benefit from new technologies as they evolve. We have built the world’s first ever low carbon,electricity market here in the UK to be technology neutral, and now Europe has copied us.

Effectively what we’ve done is Europeanise the UK’s Climate Change Act – the rest of Europe is levelling up to what the UK has already committed to do.

There’s also an added bonus. This deal bolsters Europe’s energy security by moving away from imports and towards a mix of home-grown energy. Mr Putin won’t enjoy reading that this deal will see the EU’s net energy imports reduce by 14%, and EU gas imports by 12% in 2030.

How have we achieved this? Let’s just say that not everyone in government thought we could get agreement on this. Some thought it was too ambitious. But we pushed ahead with it, fought several battles and won cross UK Government agreement.

The key to getting this deal done has been working with like-minded European partners. It’s been a long process, but working with those partners via the Green Growth Group that I set up has meant that we’ve won the argument and the deal has been done.

Make no mistake, this deal is the most significant environment agreement any UK Government has ever been involved with – and the Liberal Democrats led it in the UK and the EU. We can now say, this is the greenest government ever, thanks to the Liberal Democrats.

What comes next? Well, my ambition for cutting climate change doesn’t stop here. We now need to sell this package to the rest of the world. Next year in Paris I want to see an ambitious global deal signed. There is a lot of work to be done over the coming months to ensure we continue this momentum and pave the way for that deal. Rest assured I’ll be leading the charge.

* Edward Davey is Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and MP for Kingston and Surbiton
http://www.libdemvoice.org/ed-davey-mp-writessigned-sealed-and-delivered-an-ambitious-climate-change-deal-for-europe-43044.html

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Stansted airport claim “66% cut in net carbon footprint” this year – they are buying biomass-generated electricity from Drax

Stansted airport has produced its “Sustainability Report” for 2013. It announces the remarkable claim that:  “Our net carbon footprint for 2013/14 was 9,940 tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions – a reduction of 66% compared to 2012/13.” It does not specify what a “net” carbon footprint is though. Unfortunately the format of the 2013 Sustainability Report and the format of earlier years makes comparison impossible.  However, the claim of a 66% cut – written to imply a cut in the carbon footprint of the whole airport – is only referring to its use of electricity. The press release says: “… 66% reduction in the carbon footprint achieved by moving the airport onto MAG’s group contract for purchasing low carbon electricity, which is generated using only biomass such as wood and straw rather than coal.”  It turns out that MAG has a contract with Haven Energy, that is part of Drax, which is turning its generators from burning coal to burning biomass, in the form of wood pellets from forest in the southern USA, doing considerable environmental harm. While Drax claims its biomass electricity has 80% less CO2 than coal, some consider it to produce more, not less. That 66% claim is highly dubious …
.

 

Stansted reports 66% reduction in carbon footprint in first year of MAG ownership

21 Oct 2014

Reducing carbon footprint by 66%, diverting 93% of waste from landfill and trialling new technologies to improve aircraft performance on set departure routes are just a snapshot of the highlights in Stansted Airport’s corporate responsibility report published today, reflecting on performance during the first year of M.A.G ownership.

As the biggest single site employer in the region, providing direct employment for 10,850 people across 190 companies based at the airport, Stansted is a gateway to Europe offering more scheduled connections than any other UK airport; and having returned to growth under M.A.G ownership for the first time since 2007 and with a £260million investment programme underway to improve services and facilities for passengers we are a turning point in the airports history.

Stansted CSR Table

As Stansted continues to grow, carefully managing the airport’s operations is at the centre of M.A.G’s CSR strategy, which seeks to ensure the social and economic benefits of the airport are shared as widely as possible whilst minimising environmental impacts.

M.A.G’s Director of CSR, Neil Robinson, has lead the transition to bring a renewed focus on CSR at Stansted and commenting on the report published today he said:

“The team at Stansted shared our desire to drive forward a new CSR strategy with great progress made in just the first year, with the most significant saving being a 66% reduction in the carbon footprint achieved by moving the airport onto M.A.G’s group contract for purchasing low carbon electricity, which is generated using only biomass such as wood and straw rather than coal.  [ It emerges, by separate research, that MAG is buying its power from Drax, which is converting its generators from coal to biomass. It uses pellets obtained largely from forests in the USA, doing environmental harm, and shipping these across the Atlantic. Drax is claiming there is an 80% carbon saving of its wood pellets compared to coal. See below. But opponents suspect that, taking everything into account, the carbon emissions from wood pellets could be even worse than those from coal. Huge subsidies are involved. Stansted can get this electricity at a low price, due to Climate Change Levy Exemption Certificates. AW note] 

“Our commitment to waste management was recognised when Stansted was awarded Gold accreditation by National Recycling Stars and with the volume of waste recycled or recovered increased by 24% we finished the year having diverted 93% of waste from landfill putting us firmly on-track to achieve our target of sending zero waste direct to landfill by the end of 2015.

“We had very encouraging results from a trial carried out in partnership with easyJet and in agreement with the CAA of new technology that helps aircraft stay closer to the centre line on set departure routes, which will help reduce the noise footprint of people affected by aircraft noise on the ground and we’re now expanding this trial to other airline partners.

“Our drive to improve staff engagement got off to a flying start when we introduced a dedicated team for internal communications and through renewed focus of our community strategy a new work experience programme was introduced, we increased staff volunteering, set up a mentoring scheme for GCSE students and established the London Stansted Community Network to bring together the 190 companies based at Stansted to talk as one community.

“This report outlines just some of the first stepping stones laid by M.A.G for the new CSR strategy being implemented at Stansted and we’re currently out to public consultation on our draft Sustainable Development Plan which will set the future business objectives and the CSR agenda as we take the business forward.”

The full report is available online at   www.stanstedairport.com/corporateresponsibility

Some of the key achievements under each of the objectives are:

Our Environment

  • 66% reduction in carbon footprint compared 2012/13 (29,199t 2012/13 down to 9,940t 2013/14)
  • 93% waste diverted from landfill (75% in 2012 up to 93% 2013)
  • Awarded Gold accreditation in National Recyling Stars
  • 51% passengers used public transport maintaining Stansted’s position as the leading major airport for public transport use

Our Communities

  • 450 people employed through the airport employment academy
  • 500 hours of employee volunteering to support the local community
  • Over £112,000 donated to local community groups
  • Trialled new technology to improve aircraft performance on departure routes and to help reduce noise footprint of people affected by aircraft noise

Our Business

  • £774 million in gross added value to the region
  • £1.8 million in new contracts generated at the annual Meet The Buyers event
  • Provided direct employment for 10,850 people across 190 companies on-site
  • Over 700 recruits attend free job fair offering 120 vacancies

Our Colleagues

  • Achieved British Safety Council’s 5 star rating and retained OHSAS 18001 accreditation for health and safety systems
  • Launched new employment engagement strategy to improve internal communication channels
  • Led new approach to engagement with unions
  • Introduced new format of all colleague briefings and met over 90% of work force face to face to update on business strategy and future plans

http://www.stanstedairport.com/about-us/media-centre/press-releases/stansted-reports-66-reduction-in-carbon-footprint-in-first-year-of-mag-ownership

.

.


 Stansted’s 2013 Sustainability Report

Stansted’s report section on its carbon footprint states:

Preventing emissions and improving efficiency

At London Stansted Airport, energy efficiency and carbon emissions are considered at every stage of a project and it is our policy to install energy efficient technology wherever possible in new developments and refurbishment projects. For example, throughout the first stage of the redevelopment and refurbishment of the London Stansted terminal building, we have installed LED lighting systems in the passenger search area and the new toilet block in the international departure lounge. We have also installed LED lighting in office block lobbies, lifts and a number of escalators. We will continue to install LED lighting wherever possible in the building upgrades planned for 2014/15 and are developing plans to change more of our existing traditional

lighting to LED throughout 2014-15. This will include the wholesale change out of lighting in our terminal service tunnel to LED technology.

We have also focused on the terminal building’s heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. During 2013/14 we undertook improvements to our chilled water systems, which have delivered further reductions in energy consumption. We are currently upgrading the air-handling units in the main terminal building to increase efficiency with variable speed drives and better sensors and controls and we will be looking at HVAC systems in a number of other buildings.

These projects have helped to deliver a 6% reduction in the energy consumed by the
airport’s operations.

Monitoring and targeting is another key element of our approach to energy management. In
2013/14 we commenced a major programme to upgrade our electricity metering. This will
include the installation of over 100* meters and the connection of meters in our main buildings to an automatic meter reading system (AMR). This programme should be completed by the end of 2014 and will significantly improve our ability to analyse consumption and prioritise energy efficiency measures.

This year we have amended our carbon footprint reporting to align with the wider MAG group and to improve the transparency of our reporting of emissions we can directly control and those we can only influence.

Our net carbon footprint for 2013/14 was 9,940 tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions – a reduction of 66% compared to 2012/13. This very substantial reduction is largely due to emissions avoided through our purchase of grid electricity from renewable sources.  [No details of figures, or assumptions made, are given.   The government presumes the carbon emissions from any source of renewable electricity  are zero, though this in actually not accurate. AW note].  Our biomass boiler which we installed in 2008 has had some technical difficulties and we are currently reviewing options for low carbon heat generation for the terminal along with our overall approach to on-site generation from renewables.

We continue to work with our partners to support efforts to reduce their emissions. A number
of the measures described in the noise section also contribute to reduction of emissions from aircraft. We have maintained our record on public transport with over 50% of passengers using public transport to travel to and from the airport.

Page 13 of

http://www.stanstedairport.com/media/1237744/london-stansted-airport-corporate-responsibility-report-2013-14.pdf

.


.

 By contrast, the 2012 Stansted Sustainability Report stated:

Stansted Airport Limited has been producing a carbon footprint since 2008. [sic!!]                 By thinking creatively about energy efficiency and working closely with business partners,
passengers and our employees we have been able to reduce our carbon emissions by over 60,000 tonnes of CO2 over the last four years. This is the equivalent to taking
5,335 vehicles off the road for a year.

In 2012, we continued with this trend, reducing our full carbon footprint by 6.2%. This equates to a saving 26,788 tonnes of CO2. This is a greater reduction than would have been expected based on reduced passenger numbers which fell by 585,674 or 3.3% compared to 2011 figures. In defining our carbon footprint we have followed Greenhouse Gas reporting protocols and split the emissions into key groups. Direct emissions relate to those emissions Stansted has direct or indirect control of such as gas or electricity use and are technically known as Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. The other emissions result from the operation of the airport which Stansted has limited control or influence over and are known as indirect or Scope 3 emissions. Our direct emissions reduced by 3% primarily due to reduction in the use of gas and electricity and improved management of aircraft and surface transport emissions. The increase in business travel emissions is due to improved data collection and ability to determine precise emissions. The airport’s five yearly data table can be accessed on www.stanstedairport.com/sustainability

It is actually on Page 14 of http://www.stanstedairport.com/media/4300/sustainability_report_2013__web_final.pdf

.


.

Manchester Airports Group (MAG) buy their electricity from Haven Power, which is part of Drax.

 

“As part of our commitment to make ground operations carbon neutral across the Manchester Airports Group by 2015, we are always looking at ways to reduce energy demand, produce our own renewable energy on site or where this is not feasible, source renewable power. Haven Power’s dedication to renewable energy mirrors our own sustainability values and we are therefore looking forward to developing a long term partnership with them.”

Neil Robinson, CSR Director Manchester Airports Group

http://www.havenpower.com/about-us/testimonials

Haven Power gets supplies of Climate Change Levy (CCL) exempt electricity. To avoid paying CCL, businesses can request power that is accredited by Levy Exemption Certificates (LECs). electricity through its parent company, Drax Power.  This is what MAG has done.

Haven Power publishes a breakdown of the fuel mix used to generate all the electricity it supplies. This is produced on an annual basis in accordance with the terms of Haven Power’s Electricity Supply Licence and the relevant Regulations.

Customers who purchase Climate Change Levy exempt electricity are provided with the appropriate documentation.

http://www.havenpower.com/customer-information/sourcing-our-power

 

Haven Power say:

Haven Power can supply businesses with Climate Change Levy (CCL) exempt electricity.

This option has been developed for businesses committed to being more sustainable, without increasing their electricity costs.

CCL is a tax levied by the government on fuels used by businesses, including electricity. This cost is passed onto customers by their supplier who collects this Levy with their electricity bills.

To avoid paying CCL, businesses can buy power that is accredited by Levy Exemption Certificates (LECs).

Levy Exempt power does not attract CCL, so despite a slightly higher energy cost, once the CCL tax is removed the overall price is the same as standard power. This option is available on all of products.*

*Available for customers using more than 15,000 kWh [per annum] and with no other form of exemption in place.

To learn more about levy exempt power call us on 01473 725943.

http://www.havenpower.com/levy-exempt-power

Details of the fuel mix for electricity supplied by Haven Power

Under Haven Power’s licence to supply electricity, we are required to let our customers know about the fuel mix of the electricity we supply.

The fuel mix for electricity supplied by Haven Power during the year ending 31 March 2014 is shown below as well as the contribution of each energy source to the total amount of electricity purchased by Haven Power Ltd.

Haven Power’s Fuel Mix 2014

Source of Electricity Percentage
Coal 34%
Natural Gas 20%
Nuclear 6%
Renewable 36%
Other fuels 4%

Environmental impact 420g CO2/kWh plus 0.00055g high level radioactive waste/kWh.

http://www.havenpower.com/customer-information/sourcing-our-power/regulatory-fuel-mix


 

Drax Power

Drax and biomass

Drax is transforming itself into a predominantly biomass-fuelled generator through burning sustainable biomass in place of coal. We plan to convert three of our six generating units to burn biomass. The first unit was converted in April 2013.

Drax only burns sustainable biomass. Our calculations show that the range of biomass materials we have burnt over the last few years has a far lower carbon footprint than that of fossil fuel-fired power stations.

We measure the full carbon life cycle of generating electricity from biomass, which means we measure the carbon emissions at each step of the supply chain, including harvesting, processing and transportation.

The average carbon dioxide saving, over the full life cycle, resulting from burning biomass in place of coal is above 80%.

http://www.drax.com/biomass/what-is-biomass/


.

Biofuelwatch says on burning biomass to generate electricity in the UK

Power station operators such as Drax Plc and E.On are getting some good PR for supposedly “going green”, but the truth of course, is far from that. As we discuss below, burning biomass actually emits more CO2 from their smokestacks than burning coal does. These conversions are really about keeping old, dirty power stations alive for longer, and cashing in on government subsidies.

These power stations shouldn’t be burning coal or biomass because of the huge impacts both have on communities, the environment and the climate.

Read our coal-biomass conversions briefing below or download it as a pdf here

.

http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/uk-campaign/coal-biomass-conversions/


 Some news items about the problems with burning imported wood pellets as biomass to burn in UK power stations:

Drax renewable energy move ‘could harm forests’

22.9.2014 (BBC)

The UK’s biggest coal power station has been accused of causing environmental damage as it moves to produce electricity from “renewable” resources.

Drax in North Yorkshire is converting half of its boilers to burn wood.

Environmentalists are worried the huge demand for wood pellets from Drax and other UK power stations will damage forests in the US.

Drax chief executive Dorothy Thompson said pellets would come from areas that are “not protected”.

“When you burn trees, the CO2 goes straight out the chimney and into the atmosphere,” said Harry Huyton, head of climate change at the RSPB.

“For a long time it was thought that the forest will re-grow and absorb that carbon dioxide, but it’s common sense that trees take a bit of time to grow.”

‘Preserve jobs’
The wood pellets are to be shipped across the Atlantic as there are not enough trees in the UK to supply the power station.

Environmentalist Derb Carter, of the Southern Environmental Law Center in North Carolina, said: “People can see there’s a lot that will be lost if these trees are cut and burnt for fuel.”

But Ms Thompson said: “We would only deal with pellet producers who deliver biomass from areas that are not protected.

“By turning us into a renewable power station, biomass gives us a long-term future, it preserves jobs in Yorkshire and actually it’s a really good renewable.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-29306959


 

Forests could face threat from biomass power ‘gold rush’

Sustainability fear over new power stations’ demand for wood pellets after report says their use has implications globally

Bt Jamie Doward (The Observer)
9.11.2013

Britain’s new generation of biomass power stations will have to source millions of tonnes of wood from thousands of miles away if they are to operate near to their full capacity, raising questions about the claims made for the sustainability of the new technology.

Ministers believe biomass technology could provide as much as 11% of the UK’s energy by 2020, something that would help it meet its carbon commitments. The Environment Agency estimates that biomass-fired electricity generation, most of which involves burning wood pellets, can cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 90% compared with coal-fired power stations. Eight biomass power stations, including one in a unit in the giant Drax power station, are operating in the UK and a further seven are in the pipeline. None operates near capacity.

But now environmental groups are questioning where the new plants will source their wood if the technology takes off. A campaign group, Biofuelwatch, calculates in a new report that the UK could end up burning as much as 82m tonnes of biomass each year – more than eight times the UK’s annual wood production. If Drax were to operate at full capacity, it alone would get through 16m tonnes of wood a year, according to the report, which claims a Europe-wide demand for biomass is triggering a “gold rush” for wood pellets that could have implications for global land use.

The report highlights the example of Portugal, where 10% of the country is now covered by eucalyptus plantations much of which is used for biomass energy production. Two campaign groups, the Dogwood Alliance and the US Natural Resources Defence Council, have issued critical reports about the way that forests in the southern states of the US are being used for biomass production. There are also concerns that tracts of Brazil are being used to supply the wood pellets.

But the concerns have been fiercely rejected by the biomass industry. Enviva, which supplies Drax with wood pellets, said its biomass came mainly from offcuts from poor-quality trees that are left over from those grown for the construction and paper industries. It said it would be uneconomic to cut down forests purely for biomass and that the cost of shipping a tonne of wood pellets from the east coast of the US to the UK was similar to transporting the same amount some 225 miles within the UK. It said that even the most optimistic forecasts for global wood pellet demand suggested it would not exceed 40m tonnes – equivalent to 80m tonnes of wood – a year by 2020.

“Biomass is the only renewable energy source that can replace coal quickly and cost-effectively, providing the same operational benefits while dramatically improving the environmental profile of energy generation,” a company spokesman said.

MGT Power, which is behind a proposed biomass plant on Teesside, potentially the largest of its kind in the world, told the Observer it had dropped plans to source its wood from Brazil, although it denied this was to do with sustainability concerns.

A spokesman said that biomass could be an important green technology for the UK. “We feel very strongly that biomass can provide energy at lower prices than offshore wind,” the spokesman said.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/09/biomass-power-stations-wood-forests-report

.

.


 

.

 

Electricity providers:

This website http://www.electricityinfo.org/suppliers.php gives details of the mix of sources of electricity for all the main electricity providers.

 

Read more »

Kevin Anderson blog on decisions of academics and climate community about personal travel

In a blog in June 2014, Professor Kevin Anderson writes about the need for people to consider their own behaviour in relation to flying. He is personally highly conscious of his own energy use.  He looks in particular at academics and those in the climate change community, and their justification for the use of high carbon travel. These are some quotes: “Amongst academics, NGOs, green-business gurus and climate change policy makers, there is little collective sense of either the urgency of change needed or of our being complicit in the grim situation we now face.”  And on the desire to fly to save time to spend with our families: “When we’re dead and buried our children will likely still be here dealing with the legacy of our inaction today; do we discount their futures at such a rate as to always favour those family activities that we can join in with?”  And “Surely if humankind is to respond to the unprecedented challenges posed by soaring emissions, we, as a community, should be a catalyst for change – behaving as if we believe in our own research, campaign objectives etc. – rather than simply acting as a bellwether of society’s complacency.”
.

Does Greenpeace’s sanctioning of short-haul flights mirror wider hypocrisy amongst the climate change community?

By Professor Kevin Anderson
June 2014.
The following article is in response to a  report in the Guardian  in which the head of Greenpeace UK defends the need for one of its top executives to make regular flights between his home and work (Amsterdam and Luxembourg).
The recent suite of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) underline the rapidly dwindling global carbon budget into which we have to squeeze twenty first century carbon emissions. This transition from society’s ill-informed focus on 2050 (or some other conveniently far off date) to scientifically credible carbon budgets, reframes the mitigation challenge in terms of deep reductions in emissions delivered over the coming decade.
It is within this context of urgency and in the pivotal run up to the climate negotiations in Paris 2015, that Greenpeace’s sanctioning of regular short-haul flights, needs to be considered.
Defending their international programme director’s regular Luxembourg to Amsterdam flights on the basis of “needs of his family”, resonates with my experience as an academic working within the climate change community. Amongst academics, NGOs, green-business gurus and climate change policy makers, there is little collective sense of either the urgency of change needed or of our being complicit in the grim situation we now face.
Since the first IPCC report in 1990, even the rate of emissions growth has risen – to a point where emissions today, a quarter of a century later, are some 60% higher. If such emission trends continue, then we’re heading for enormous changes for many families even in the short term.
These families may not be our own – much more likely they’ll be those who have not contributed to the problem, have little income and live in areas geographically more vulnerable to climate impacts.
We choose to fly to be with our family as quickly as possible – so as not to be away for more than a few days. But the repercussions (ok, not on a 1-to-1 basis perhaps) are for another family in another place to lose their home, suffer food and water shortages, social and community pressures and wider conflicts – to put at risk the very fabric of their families and communities.
Moreover, using fast and high carbon transport to reduce the time we spend away from our families also has longer-term repercussions for our own children. Are we rushing back for the sake of our families or for our own individual engagement with our families? This is a subtle but important distinction.
Are we concerned about our families only whilst we’re around to enjoy and benefit from them, or are we more altruistically concerned regardless of our own immediate returns? When we’re dead and buried our children will likely still be here dealing with the legacy of our inaction today; do we discount their futures at such a rate as to always favour those family activities that we can join in with?
Flying is emblematic of a modern and thriving society. Regardless of evidence the aviation industry is touted as central to future prosperity – a view deeply embedded in the culture and internationalisation agenda of both universities and many NGOs.
But such a framing of contemporary society is categorically at odds with the carbon budgets accompanying the global community’s pledge to hold the rise in temperature below 2°C – i.e. to avoid “dangerous climate change”.
Aviation, as with virtually every sector, makes all the right noises about becoming more efficient and reducing carbon intensity. But this misunderstands the science and challenge of climate change. All that really matters are absolute emissions – not how efficient we are.
This ultimately is the rub – we have left it far too late for technology alone to deliver the necessary rates of mitigation.
Those of us intimately engaged on climate change know this. Whether academics, NGOs, business leaders, policy makers or journalists, we cannot hide behind a lack of knowledge of our emissions or a poor understanding of the impacts of climate change.
Despite this, the frequency of our flying to ‘essential’ meetings, conferences etc., mirrors the rapid rise in global emissions – all salved with a repeated suite of trite excuses. Surely if humankind is to respond to the unprecedented challenges posed by soaring emissions, we, as a community, should be a catalyst for change – behaving as if we believe in our own research, campaign objectives etc. – rather than simply acting as a bellwether of society’s complacency.
________

The above response borrows from previous articles, particularly Hypocrites in the air and Evangelising from 32 thousand feet.

A further exchange, unhelpfully titled “Is flying still beyond the pale”, was published in the New Internationalist.

With a specific focus on the UK see:
– Aviation & shipping privileged again?  – published as a Tyndall Centre Briefing Note 47
– A one-way ticket to high carbon lock-in please – published in Carbon Management

In addition, the following papers address issues on aviation at the EU, UK and regional levels (these were written several years ago, but the arguments remain broadly valid today – 2014):
– Aviation in turbulent times
– Air transport, climate change and tourism
– Policy clash: Can aviation growth be reconciled with the UK 60% carbon-reduction target?
– Apportioning aviation CO2 emissions to regional administrations

For discussion on aviation in relation to 2°C carbon budgets, see 2013 book chapter: Carbon budgets for aviation or gamble with our future

For similar arguments made in relation to the shipping industry (another sector exempt from the Kyoto protocol and often neglected in national carbon inventories) see: Executing a Scharnow turn: reconciling shipping emissions with international commitments on climate change

http://kevinanderson.info/blog/failing-by-example-greenpeace-sanction-short-haul-flights-for-its-executives/
.
.

.


About Kevin Anderson:

Kevin Anderson is professor of energy and climate change in the School of Mechanical, Aeronautical and Civil Engineering at the University of Manchester. He was previously director of the Tyndall Centre, the UK’s leading academic climate change research organisation, during which time he held a joint post with the University of East Anglia. Kevin now leads Tyndall Manchester’s energy and climate change research programme and is deputy director of the Tyndall Centre. He is research active with recent publications in Royal Society journals, Nature and Energy Policy, and engages widely across all tiers of government.  

With his colleague Alice Bows, Kevin’s work on carbon budgets has been pivotal in revealing the widening gulf between political rhetoric on climate change and the reality of rapidly escalating emissions. His work makes clear that there is now little to no chance of maintaining the rise in global mean surface temperature at below 2°C, despite repeated high-level statements to the contrary. Moreover, Kevin’s research demonstrates how avoiding even a 4°C rise demands a radical reframing of both the climate change agenda and the economic characterisation of contemporary society.  

Kevin has a decade’s industrial experience, principally in the petrochemical industry. He sits as commissioner on the Welsh Governments climate change commission and is a director of Greenstone Carbon Management – a London-based company providing emission-related advice to private and public sector organisations. Kevin is a chartered engineer and Fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.

His website is  Kevinanderson.info  comment on climate at http://kevinanderson.info/

.

Read more »