Committee on Climate Change says additional policies are needed to keep UK aviation CO2 below 37.5MtCO2 cap

The Committee on Climate Change has produced its advice on the level of the 5th carbon budget, covering the period 2028-2032. The CCC states: “While UK demand for international aviation is likely to grow considerably, emissions must be limited. Previous analysis by the Committee concluded that, based on the available evidence, aviation should plan for its emissions in 2050 to be no higher than those in 2005. That requires strong efficiency improvements to balance demand growth of about 60%.”  And …” International aviation emissions should not formally be included in carbon budgets at this stage, though carbon budgets should continue to be set on track to a 2050 target inclusive of these emissions. We will provide further advice following the ICAO negotiations in 2016, and recommend that Government revisit inclusion at that point.” (The CO2 emissions from shipping will be included in the 5th carbon budget.)  UK aviation CO2 emissions are currently set to overshoot the 37.5MtCO2 level even without any new runways and to be higher still if a runway is added at either Heathrow or Gatwick. The CCC says in a scenario where emissions are not capped and only low ‘carbon abatement’ options (such as technology improvements) are available, aviation emissions could be as high as 51.9 Mt by 2050, underlining the need for policy action to address the gap.
.

 

What aviation means for the fifth carbon budget

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC), the official body advising the Government on climate change policy, has today published its advice on the fifth carbon budget, including a restatement of its recommendation that aviation emissions should be no higher in 2050 than in 2005 (37.5 Mt). CO2 from the sector is currently set to overshoot this level even without any new runways and to be higher still if expansion takes place at either Heathrow or Gatwick.

New CCC analysis published today indicates that in a scenario where emissions are not capped and only low ‘carbon abatement’ options (such as technology improvements) are available, aviation emissions could be as high as 51.9 Mt by 2050, underlining the need for policy action to address the gap.

Carbon budgets ensure that the UK is on the right path to deliver the economy-wide 80% emissions reduction required under the Climate Change Act. So far, the Government has consistently adopted and legislated CCC’s advice on the appropriate level of ambition for carbon budgets. The fifth budget will cover emissions from 2028-2032.

Image credit: Committee on Climate Change

 

Where does aviation fit in the UK climate change plan?

The CCC’s recommendation that carbon budgets must account for emissions from international aviation and shipping is longstanding. To date these emissions have not been formally included in carbon budgets given concerns about the appropriate approach to accounting for emissions from international travel.

The advice published today calls on Government to begin including shipping emissions in carbon budgets, but that “continuing uncertainties in aviation’s accounting within the EU ETS mean inclusion would be impractical at this time”. In the interim, CCC maintains that carbon budgets should continue to allow headroom for the future inclusion of aviation.

AEF supports inclusion of aviation emissions in carbon budgets and we set out some possible approaches for doing so in our response to the CCC’s consultation on its fifth carbon budget. But a continuation by Governbment of the current approach of ensuring that the UK is on course to deliver the long-term emissions target of 80% in a way that includes all sectors, and makes allowance for the future inclusion of aviation, is more important than formal inclusion of aviation emissions in carbon budgets in our view.

CCC recommends that aviation emissions should be no higher than 37.5 Mt in 2050 – the level in 2005 – and that the level of emissions reduction this assumes from other sectors in order to achieve the economy-wide target of an 80% cut is at the limit of what is feasible.

In June this year, the CCC advised the Government to draw up a policy plan for closing the gap between currently forecast aviation emissions and the 37.5 Mt target.

What does this mean for the runway debate?

The Airports Commission, in making its recommendations for a new runway at Heathrow, produced two sets of forecasts. One, the ‘carbon capped’ forecast, assumed that Government continues to act on the CCC’s advice in limiting aviation emissions to 37.5 Mt. The other, the ‘carbon traded’ forecast, ignored any constraint on emissions under the Climate Change Act and assumed that the only action to control UK aviation emissions would be inclusion in an international carbon trading scheme.

Today’s advice from the CCC implies that Government must work on the basis of a ‘carbon capped’ scenario, and that the advice of the Airports Commission to build a new South East runway should be considered in this context.

What do we want Government to do?

The Government will propose draft legislation in response to the CCC’s advice on the Fifth Carbon Budget in 2016. AEF will be asking for Government to implement the CCC’s recommendation to allow headroom for aviation emissions, and to reconsider whether in fact sufficient information either is or will be available to formally include aviation as well as shipping emissions in carbon budgets from 2028.

To demonstrate its commitment to keeping aviation emissions at a level compatible with the Climate Change Act, Government should also set out a detailed policy plan for limiting aviation demand growth to no more than 60% above its level in 2005, in line with CCC’s recommendationof June 2015, and no decisions should be taken to increase South East airport capacity unless it can be shown to be compatible with such a plan.

We’re hoping that the international climate change conference in Paris this December will produce some ambitious long-term commitments. We’re also hoping to see some evidence following the conference that the UK is willing to honour its domestic climate commitments now they are starting to bite. And getting aviation policy right is an important part of this picture.

http://www.aef.org.uk/2015/11/26/what-the-fifth-carbon-budget-advice-means-for-aviation/

.

The government will propose draft legislation for the 5th budget in 2016.


The Committee on Climate Change’s report:

Sectoral scenarios for the Fifth Carbon Budget Technical report  -November 2015

.


Some extracts from the CCC Fifth Carbon Budget Technical Report:

 

The Committee on Climate Change has produced its advice on the level of the 5th carbon budget, covering the period 2028-2032, as required under Section 4 of the Climate Change Act.  

UK emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) covered by carbon budgets were 520 MtCO2e in 2014. This excludes emissions from international aviation and shipping, for which 2014 estimates are not yet available but accounted for 41 MtCO2e in 2013.

.

(Page 9). Aviation. While UK demand for international aviation is likely to grow considerably, emissions must be limited. Previous analysis by the Committee concluded that, based on the available evidence, aviation should plan for its emissions in 2050 to be no higher than those in 2005. That requires strong efficiency improvements to balance demand growth of about 60%.

.

(Page 128) • Aviation. Our previous planning assumption for aviation emissions to be around 2005 levels in 2050 (i.e. 37.5 MtCO2), allowing an increase in demand of around 60%, remains appropriate. International aviation emissions should not formally be included in carbon budgets at this stage, though carbon budgets should continue to be set on track to a 2050 target inclusive of these emissions. We will provide further advice following the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) negotiations in 2016, and recommend that Government revisit inclusion at that point.

Shipping. The scope of the budget should be broadened to include international shipping, with an additional 40 MtCO2e added to the fifth carbon budget, reflecting projected emissions on a bunker fuel basis and under currently agreed international policies.

.

(Page 129). Domestic transport greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were 117 MtCO2e in 2013, accounting for 21% of total UK GHG emissions (Figure 5.1). Within domestic transport, 94% of GHG emissions come from surface transport CO2, the remaining 6% being due to domestic aviation and shipping CO2 and non-CO2 emissions:

Emissions from international aviation and shipping were 41 MtCO2 in 2013. These are not currently formally included in carbon budgets, but are covered by the UK’s 2050 target to reduce emissions by at least 80% relative to 1990.

.

(Page 150 ) b) Options for decarbonising aviation and shipping

Aviation emissions scenarios

The key drivers of future aviation emissions are demand for air travel and the carbon intensity of flying:

Demand for air travel.  The key drivers of demand will include future GDP growth, and fuel and carbon prices which feed through to ticket prices. Demand for air travel is particularly sensitive to changes in income rather than ticket prices, and will also be affected by the availability of alternatives to air travel (e.g. rail and potentially video conferencing).

Carbon intensity of flying. There are a range of options available to reduce the carbon intensity of aviation. These include improving the fuel efficiency of aircraft through engine and airframe developments, through efficiency improvements in air traffic management and in airlines’ operational practices, and through use of sustainable biofuels.

In the absence of measures, aviation emissions are likely to continue to increase. In our previous reports111, [Reference 111: For example, see CCC (2009) Meeting the UK aviation target – options for reducing emissions to 2050 and CCC (2012) Scope of carbon budgets: Statutory advice on inclusion of international aviation and shipping]  we set out analysis of the path for aviation emissions to 2050. This concluded that appropriate long-term assumptions for Government planning are for aviation emissions to be around 2005 levels in 2050 (i.e. 37.5 MtCO2). Under our ‘Likely’ scenario this was achieved through a 0.8% annual improvement in fuel efficiency, 10% take-up of biofuels, and by constraining demand growth to around 60% above 2005 levels in 2050.

For this report we commissioned DfT to model a number of emission scenarios to 2050 to test the achievability of our planning assumption. Our scenarios cover different uptake rates of abatement options:

• Central emissions scenario. Emissions are capped at 37.5 MtCO2 in 2050, in line with our planning assumption.

• High emissions ‘Barriers’ scenario. Emissions are not capped and only low abatement options are available.

• Low emissions ‘Max’ scenario. High abatement options are delivered.

In 2050, the Central scenario meets our planning assumption of 37.5 MtCO2, of which international aviation emissions are 36.2 MtCO2. In the Barriers scenario emissions are higher, at 51.9 MtCO2, and in the Max scenario emissions are lower at 32.6 MtCO2 (Figure 5.5).

Figure 5.5: UK aviation emission scenarios (2010-2050) Source: DfT projections for CCC (2015).

CCC scenarios 2010 - 2050 Nov 2015

Under our central scenario, which is designed to meet the 2050 planning assumption, emissions would be unaffected by the assumed level of runway capacity. To the extent that additional runway capacity was provided in future, there would need to be less growth in demand and hence emissions at other airports in order to stay within the overall planning assumption (or higher abatement options would have to be delivered).

The key conclusion from our analysis is that our original planning assumption remains appropriate and feasible. In order to achieve this, additional policies will be needed. For example, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) is currently developing a market based measure to reduce international aviation emissions and aiming to agree this in autumn 2016. We will monitor the outcome of these talks closely to assess consistency with our planning assumption and provide further advice if necessary.

 

Inclusion of international aviation emissions in carbon budgets

In principle, emissions from international aviation should be included in carbon budgets unless there are strong practical considerations which prevent this. Where they cannot be included, budgets must be set such that the 2050 target in the Act can be met including these emissions – that has been the approach to date and is continued in this report.

Currently, inclusion of international aviation remains impractical, given the design of the EU ETS for aviation and ongoing uncertainty about how this will be treated in future:

• Given that aviation is included in the EU ETS, accounting rules for carbon budgets suggest that if international aviation is to be included in carbon budgets then it should be on the basis of UK allowances rather than on a gross basis (e.g. bunker fuels). However, the current design of the EU ETS for aviation means that only emissions from flights within Europe are covered. Inclusion on this basis would be unfavourable: it would leave a proportion of emissions outside carbon budgets, and the exact amount of UK emissions to add to carbon budgets and report annually would be unclear given the EU ETS is administered on an airline, rather than Member State, basis.

• ICAO negotiations about a global market-based measure for international aviation emissions are expected to conclude in autumn 2016. At that point the implications for carbon budgets should be assessed, including whether it is practical to include international aviation emissions in carbon budgets or more sensible to continue with formal exclusion, whilst making allowance for the emissions in the way the budget is set.

This approach to international aviation emissions does not affect the level of effort implied by our recommended fifth carbon budget. Whether or not it is included in budgets, our proposals are on a path to meeting the 2050 target with international aviation included.


 

.

(Page 163)

Domestic aviation emissions could be in the range 1.6-1.8 MtCO2e in 2030, up to a 14% fall 2013 levels, largely reflecting improvements in the fuel efficiency of aircraft. [Domestic aviation and shipping includes military aircraft and shipping]

.

(Page 170). 6. Delivering the scenarios

To deliver the abatement set out in our Central scenario, action is needed in the near term. The key policy implications of our scenarios are set out below.

[This includes]

Push for successful negotiations to reduce emissions from international aviation and shipping. This should ensure the agreement for international aviation delivers a policy framework consistent with the longer term climate objective, and that cost-effective abatement is incentivised in shipping, such that these sectors contribute to global emissions reduction.

 

The CCC report:  Sectoral scenarios for the Fifth Carbon Budget Technical report.  November 2015

https://d2kjx2p8nxa8ft.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Sectoral-scenarios-for-the-fifth-carbon-budget-Committee-on-Climate-Change.pdf


See earlier:

Government must curb growing aviation demand to meet CO2 targets, warns climate committee

The Government has until 2016 to set out an effective plan for limiting aviation emissions, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) said today. The UK’s official advisory body on delivery of the Climate Change Act used its 5th ‘Progress Report’ to Government to highlight the need for action on aviation, including constraints on demand.

AEF welcomes the CCC’s intervention as an important reminder of the climate change challenge facing UK aviation today, especially in the context of the airport capacity debate. AEF’s response to the CCC’s call for evidence on the fifth carbon budget highlighted the need for the CCC to reiterate its previous advice on the importance of aviation’s contribution to meeting the UK emissions target and on the need for future passenger demand to be managed.

It is encouraging to see the CCC reinforce this message while calling for the Government to set out a policy framework demonstarting how it will manage aviation emissions.

The CCC’s announcement comes on the eve of the Airports Commission’s recommendation for a where to build a new South East runway. While stopping short of explicitly recommending against the Commission’s findings, CCC cautions that “Decisions taken now need to avoid ‘lock-in’ to high carbon pathways” (p.11 of the summary and recommendations) . Since technological options for tackling aviation emissions are limited and aviation will remain dependent on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, the warning has particular relevance for decisions about airport capacity.

AEF has consistently highlighted the gap in policy for delivering the long-term emissions target for aviation that CCC recommends. With the Airports Commission having so far ducked the question, despite admitting that a new runway will further increase the challenge of limiting aviation CO2 to the target level, CCC has placed the ball firmly back in the Government’s court. Today’s report recommends very specifically that by 2016 the Government should “publish an effective policy framework for aviation emissions” that plans for UK 2050 emissions being no higher than 2005 levels (implying around a 60% increase in demand) as well as pushing for strong international and EU policies.

Our report on the climate change impacts of a new runway, published earlier this month, highlighted the scale of the challenge in trying to work South East airport expansion into any convincing policy plan that meets the CCC’s requirements. While in the absence of new airport capacity, the predicted overshoot of the emissions target looks possible to tackle, if expansion was approved at either Heathrow or Gatwick the only options for meeting the target would be draconian restrictions on regional airports or large increases in the cost of flying to manage demand. In reality, we argue, neither approach would be deliverable.

http://www.aef.org.uk/2015/06/30/government-must-curb-growing-aviation-demand-to-meet-co2-targets-warns-climate-committee/

.


 

and also

Committee on Climate Change confirm aviation CO2 must remain capped – putting new runway into question

On the eve of the Airports Commission’s runway recommendation, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has told Government it has until 2016 to set out an effective plan for limiting aviation emissions. The Government’s official advisory body on delivery of the UK’s Climate Change Act used its 5th ‘Progress Report’ to Government to highlight the need for action on aviation, including constraints on demand. The CCC says that given the anticipated growth in emissions from the sector, the DfT must set out how it will ensure that emissions from aviation are no higher in 2050 than they were in 2005 (37.5 Mt). The limited scope for improvements in aviation technology mean that demand growth must be kept to no more than 60% above its 2005 level. Current forecasts of air passenger growth with associated CO2 emissions exceed this level EVEN WITHOUT adding a new runway. With a new SE runway the growth in passenger demand – and thus CO2 emissions – would be even higher. Extensive analysis by the AEF has shown that a new runway would make the aviation emissions cap (37.5MtCO2 annually) impossible to achieve. Ruling out a new runway is the most obvious first step for the Government to take in response to the CCC’s advice. Adding a runway, and then having to deal with the extra carbon problem it has produced, is not an efficient way to deal with the issue.

Click here to view full story…

 

 

Read more »

French economist suggests high tax on premium air travel, to raise climate adaptation finance

How to tax the people who emit the most carbon is a tricky matter. A French economist, Thomas Piketty, has suggested a high tax on premium air travel. He says: “A €180 levy on business class tickets and €20 on economy class would raise the estimated €150 billion a year needed for climate adaptation.”  It could be a proxy for privilege. It “might be easier to implement but less well targeted at top emitters” than other options. That is one proposal to address global inequalities between high-polluting individuals and the victims of climate change.  A tax on air tickets to finance development programs already exists in some countries.  Piketty suggests we need to increase its level and generalise it.  Across the world, about 10% of people are responsible for 45% of global CO2 emissions, and increasingly some of the high emitters are a privileged elite in emerging economies. The rich in these countries now emit more carbon than working class Europeans. Meanwhile, there is a persistent shortage of finance for climate adaptation, and the OECD said just 16% of climate finance in 2013/14 went to adaptation. In the UK, a “frequent flyer” levy has been proposed, so anyone’s first flight is tax free, but the tax shoots up with each successive flight.  The reduced demand for air travel would make an additional runway unnecessary.
.


 

 

Thomas Piketty proposes flight tax to raise climate funds

French economists moot €180 levy on business class tickets to help vulnerable countries adapt to the impacts of climate change

By Megan Darby (for Climate Home, part of the Guardian Environment Network)

5.11.2015

Taxing business flights is one way to target high emitting lifestyles of the global rich.

Air travel should be taxed to protect the world’s vulnerable from drought, flooding and sea level rise.

A €180 ($196/£130) levy on business class tickets and €20 on economy class would raise the estimated €150bn a year needed for climate adaptation.

That is one proposal by French economists Lucas Chancel and Thomas Piketty to address global inequalities between high-polluting individuals and the victims of climate change.

“Taxing flights is one way to target high emitting lifestyles, especially if we tax business class more than economy class,” Chancel told Climate Home.

“A tax on air tickets to finance development programs already exists in some countries. What we need is to increase its level and generalise it.”

Piketty – author of Capital, a bestseller on wealth inequality – and Chancel outline huge disparities in people’s carbon footprints across the world.

One-tenth of people are responsible for 45% of global emissions.

“Economic inequalities are reaching record high levels and reducing them constitutes a key challenge to policy-makers in the coming decades,” said Chancel.

“It’s the same thing with carbon: another huge challenge that puts our societies at risk. If we fail to address both, our societies can collapse.”

Increasingly, they say, inequalities within national borders are more important than those between countries.

The richest 1% in America, Luxemburg and Saudi Arabia emit 200+ tonnes of CO2 equivalent a year, more than 25 times the global average. The poorest in Mozambique, Rwanda and Malawi are responsible for around 0.1t CO2e.

But in between, a privileged elite in emerging economies is starting to outstrip working class Europeans.

Even in Tanzania, classed as one of the world’s least developed countries, the richest 1% emit as much as the global average – and the same as the second poorest decile in France.

Meanwhile, there is a persistent shortage of finance for measures such as drought-resistant seeds and flood defences to shield those endangered by carbon profligacy.

Just 16% of climate finance in 2013/14 went to adaptation, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates, with the rest going to low carbon projects.

The report suggests ways to close the gap, arguing it shouldn’t continue to rest on EU funds, given the growing emissions of China’s upper class.

In one scenario, all above-average emitters are taxed on carbon above that average threshold. That implies North Americans contribute 36%, Europeans 20% and Chinese people 15%.

In another, only the 1% pay. That skews the distribution way over to North America, which coughs up 57% of the total.

An airline levy is mooted as a proxy for privilege. It “might be easier to implement but less well targeted at top emitters” than other options, the report says.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/05/thomas-piketty-proposes-flight-tax-to-raise-climate-funds

.


 

Forget airport expansion, we need a Frequent Flyer Levy

23.11.2015

By Steven Devlin (New Economics Foundation. NEF)

Photo credit:   Benson Kua

Aviation emissions are a rapidly increasing environmental problem predominantly caused by a small and wealthy travelling elite. Yet flying receives exceptionally favourable treatment in our tax system.

As the Government prepares to announce its position on expanding airport capacity in the coming weeks, we put the spotlight on proposals for a new Frequent Flyer Levy.

A Frequent Flyer Levy would punish excessive flying, limit the environmental impact in a progressive way  and eliminate the need for new runways.

By 2050 it is expected that a quarter of all UK carbon emissions will be due to aviation.

This is because the UK has the highest level of flights taken per person of any country, [probably a little more even than the USA] and because, unlike most other sectors, the aviation industry is not expected to reduce its environmental impact in absolute terms over the long run.

The Department for Transport forecasts that demand for flights from UK airports will more than double between 2010 and 2050. The driver for this demand increase is predominantly short-haul leisure travel, rather than business travel or long-haul flights.

Demand for flights is distributed highly unequally among individuals. It is estimated that 70% of all flights in 2013 were taken by just 15% of the population, while 57% of the population took no flights abroad whatsoever, in that year.

Those who take flights are also significantly better off compared to the general population. For example, the mean income for leisure passengers at Edinburgh Airport in 2013 was £56,288, more than twice the average Scottish income for that year.

The continued expansion of air travel, therefore, is a very substantial environmental threat driven by a small, wealthy elite, the consequences of which will be borne primarily by the global poor.

Air travel currently benefits from a highly favourable taxation regime in the UK, with exemptions from VAT and fuel duty. The current system of Air Passenger Duty (APD) amounts to a small average charge on each flight. [APD is £13 per return short haul flight to anywhere in Europe.It is £26 for a return domestic flight. And it is £71 for any other return flight]. 

NEF research has shown that reforming this taxation scheme to create a new Frequent Flyer Levy, which has no charge for the first flight each year and an increasing tax rate for each successive flight, could limit the environmental impact in line with official targets, while redistributing the opportunity to fly down the income spectrum.

The Government is expected to announce a decision soon on whether or not to expand Heathrow, following the Davies Commission recommendation to do so.

Expansion at either Heathrow or Gatwick is incompatible with our climate targets under the Climate Change Act, and is likely to result in increased air and noise pollution for the local area.  Modelling of the Frequent Flyer Levy proposal finds that this policy could obviate the need for any new runway capacity.

The FFL would be efficient (raising large amounts of revenue with relatively little economic distortion) and progressive (being borne primarily by richer households).

Leading French economist and LSE Professor Thomas Picketty also recently advocated an increasing aviation tax as a progressive tool for combatting climate change.

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/forget-airport-expansion-we-need-a-frequent-flyer-levy

 


 

Weekly Economics Podcast from NEF (New Economics Foundation)

In this week’s podcast Leo Murray from the campaign ‘A Free Ride’ discusses airport expansion, its links to the UK economy and how a Frequent Flyer Levy could work.

Listen: https://soundcloud.com/weeklyeconomicspodcast/flying/

Subscribe: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/weekly-economics-podcast/id970353148

NEF blog: A fairer way to fly (http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/a-fairer-way-to-fly)


NEF report:

Managing aviation passenger demand with a Frequent Flyer Levy 

.

.

.

 

.


 

Read more »

COP21: 200 bikes and 5 tractors from Notre-Dame-des-Landes (planned airport site) set off for the Paris climate talks

A convoy of 200 bicycles and five tractors has left Notre-Dame-des-Landes (Loire-Atlantique) going to Paris  for the COP21 talks, to demand the abandonment of the proposed new Nantes airport.  The protesters, most wearing yellow vests proclaiming “No Airport” straddled their bikes in mid morning for a “tracto-vélo” that should arrive in Paris on November 28, two days before the opening of the international climate conference. They will “denounce the blatant hypocrisy between the will of the government to fight against global warming and the destruction of more than 1,600 hectares of farmland and wetlands in order to build a new airport.” During the week the convoy entitled “Cap sur la COP” will make the trip in stages of 40-70 km, and its stop in various towns and cities, to stay with local supporters and hold meetings and discussions with their many local support committees, that oppose the planned new airport. After the terrorist attacks in Paris, the organisers had been unsure about proceeding, but say they will not confront the police in any way, and are just attending in order to put across their message. The convoy plans to meet up with other convoys outside Paris before the COP.  Though the convoy is mainly cyclists, there will be some vehicles to transport people who can not make a long journey by bike, and for logistics.

Short briefing on the planned Notre-Dame-des-Landes airport

The group against the new airport, ACIPA, has put together a concise document, setting out 10 key reasons why no new airport is needed at Nantes.  It is in French, but quite easy to read the main headings.  “Nantes-Atlantique 10 vérités qui dérangent”
.


 

NDDL traco velo COP21

 

COP21: 200 bicycles leave from Notre-Dame-des-Landes to cycle to the talks in Paris

21.11.2015 (Le Parisien)

An AFP (Agence France Presse) journalist reports that a convoy of 200 bicycles and five tractors left on Saturday morning from Notre-Dame-des-Landes (Loire-Atlantique) heading for Paris to demand “abandonment” of the proposed new Nantes airport, on the occasion of COP21.

NDDL COP21

The protesters, most wearing a helmet and armed with yellow vests proclaiming “No Airport” straddled their bikes in mid morning for a “tractor-bike” that should lead them to the gates Paris November 28, two days before the opening of the international climate conference.

They will “denounce the blatant hypocrisy between the will of the government to fight against global warming and the destruction of more than 1,600 hectares of farmland and wetlands in order to build a new airport, “the organizers explained. They are the occupants of the” Zad “- the “area to defend”- and associations opposed to the airport.

During this week, the convoy entitled “Down to the COP” (“Cap sur la COP”) will make the trip in several stages of 40-70 km, and its members will participate in Angers, Le Mans or in Chartres in discussions with local support committees. Demonstrators will be “staying with local hosts,” said “Camille”, generic name that will give the opponents.

After the attacks of November 13 and the proclamation of a state of emergency, “we were not entirely sure about leaving but this convoy has been prepared for months and what happens on the Zad brings hope to many people,” he
said.

“We are going because we had reasons to organize this convoy still remain the same. The COP21 will be held, we have no reason not to go. And regarding the airport project, it may be delayed, but it is not abandoned. And what we want is for it to be abandoned,” added Genevieve Coiffard, a longtime opponent of the airport project.

For Philippe, another participant, with the ban on demonstrations taken by the Government, there is “no question of going to confront the police, but to carry a message.”

Opponents of the airport should meet up with other convoys on 27 November in Saclay (Essonne) including those from Bure and Roybon, where are created “Zad” before organizing the next “great banquet” at the gates of Paris.

The airport in Notre-Dame-des-Landes, about twenty kilometers north of Nantes, was originally scheduled to open in 2017.

.


 

Original French below:

COP21: départ de 200 bicyclettes de Notre-Dame-des-Landes à destination de Paris

21 Nov. 2015

Un convoi de 200 bicyclettes et cinq tracteurs est parti samedi matin de Notre-Dame-des-Landes (Loire-Atlantique) à destination de Paris pour réclamer “l’abandon” du projet de nouvel aéroport nantais, à l’occasion de la COP21, a constaté une journaliste de l’AFP.

Les manifestants, coiffés pour la plupart d’un casque et munis de gilets jaunes proclamant “Aéroport non”, ont enfourché leurs bicyclettes en milieu de matinée pour une “tracto-vélo” qui doit les mener aux portes de Paris le 28 novembre, deux jours avant l’ouverture de la conférence internationale sur le climat.

Ils entendent y “dénoncer l’hypocrisie criante entre la volonté du gouvernement de lutter contre le réchauffement climatique et la destruction de plus de 1.600 hectares de terres agricoles et de zones humides pour y construire un nouvel aéroport”, ont expliqué les organisateurs, des occupants de la “Zad” – la “zone à défendre” – et des associations opposées à l’aéroport.

Pendant cette semaine, le convoi intitulé “Cap sur la COP” fera plusieurs étapes de 40 à 70 km, et ses membres participeront à Angers, au Mans ou encore à Chartres à des débats avec des comités locaux de soutien. Les manifestants seront “logés chez l’habitant”, a indiqué “Camille”, nom générique que se donnent les opposants.

Après les attentats du 13 novembre et la proclamation de l’état d’urgence, “on n’était pas tout à fait certain de partir mais ce convoi est préparé depuis des mois et ce qui se passe sur la Zad est porteur d’espoir pour beaucoup de gens”, a-t-il affirmé.

“On part parce que les raisons qu’on avait d’organiser ce convoi sont intactes. La COP21 va se tenir, nous n’avons aucune raison de ne pas partir. Et en ce qui concerne le projet d’aéroport, il est peut-être retardé, mais il n’est pas abandonné. Et nous ce qu’on demande, c’est l’abandon”, a renchéri Geneviève Coiffard, opposante de longue date au projet d’aéroport.

Pour Philippe, un autre participant, avec l’interdiction de manifester prise par le gouvernement, il n’est “pas question d’aller affronter la police, mais de porter un message”.
Les opposants à l’aéroport doivent rejoindre le 27 novembre à Saclay (Essonne) d’autres convois venus notamment de Bure et de Roybon, où se sont créées des “Zad”, avant d’organiser le lendemain “un grand banquet” aux portes de Paris.

L’aéroport de Notre-Dame-des-Landes, à une vingtaine de kilomètres au nord de Nantes, devait initialement être inauguré en 2017.

http://www.europe1.fr/societe/cop21-depart-de-200-bicyclettes-de-notre-dame-des-landes-a-destination-de-paris-2623937

.


COP 21 – Convoi “tracto-vélo” de Notre-Dame-des-Landes à Paris

Un convoi en vélos et tracteurs du 21 au 28 novembre s’organise pour se rendre de Notre-Dame-des-Landes à Paris à l’occasion du sommet intergouvernemental.

L’Assemblée d’organisation du convoi a mis en place le trajet suivant :

  • Samedi 21 novembre : Nddl – Ancenis : 47 km
  • Dimanche 22 novembre : Ancenis – Angers : 60 km
  • Lundi 23 novembre : Angers – La Flèche : 50 km
  • Mardi 24 novembre : La Flèche – Le Mans : 45 km
  • Mercredi 25 novembre : Le Mans – Nogent le Rotrou : 66 km
  • Jeudi 26 novembre : Nogent le Rotrou – Chartres : 57 km
  • Vendredi 27 novembre : Chartres – Saclay : 71 km
  • Samedi 28 novembre : Saclay – Paris 20km (dernière étape commune avec d’autres convois et personnes venues en car)

Le convoi sera essentiellement constitué de cyclistes. Des tracteurs et quelques véhicules transporteront les personnes ne pouvant pas faire un long trajet à vélo, ainsi que la logistique.

Une caisse prix libre sera mise à disposition (un coût estimé à 10 € par jour et par personne : nourriture, hébergements etc.)

Pour un soutien financier, envoyez un mail sur mslcnddl@riseup.net avec en objet : soutien financier

Le parcours sera marqué par des discussions, échanges, repas solidaires entre les participant-e-s et les personnes et groupes les accueillant, mais aussi rencontres, communication au fil du chemin.

Suivant les étapes, les équipes Solidaires plus particulièrement sollicitées sont celles des départements 44, 49, 72, 28 91 et 75.

http://www.solidaires.org/COP-21-Convoi-tracto-velo-de-Notre-Dame-des-Landes-a-Paris

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Large variation found in airlines’ CO2 emissions due to engine efficiency and proportion of premium passengers

.

Large variation found in airlines’ CO2 emissions

Lufthansa and BA two thirds as fuel efficient as Norwegian Air Shuttle, says report by group that exposed VW emissions-rigging scandal

Pollution from a non-stop transatlantic round trip averages around one tonne of CO2 per passenger, the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) research [not yet published?] found – the same as would be clocked up in a year by commuting 22 miles to work daily in a Toyota Prius.  

[Prius does about 48 – 50 mpg. That’s about 110 grams CO2/km.  For new cars in the UK, a manufacturer’s average fleet must meet 130g CO2/km by 2015 Link Therefore, many cars on the road are much less efficient that the Prius – meaning it is the equivalent of less than 22 miles per day.  AW note].

Separately, a leaked European parliament study seen by the Guardian has forecast that the aviation and shipping industries will make up 39% of global CO2 emissions by 2050, based on present trends.

The ICCT report said a typical passenger on Norwegian Air Shuttle travelled 40km per litre of fuel (113 mpg) , while flyers on British Airways and Lufthansa travelled only 27km. (76 mpg)

Dan Rutherford, an author of the report, said: “Eighty per cent of the difference can be explained by two factors: seating configurations – how much premium, business and first-class seating you have – and the fuel burn of an aircraft, or how efficient it is. Norwegian Air Shuttle has invested more in newer, more fuel-efficient planes, while BA is using older, predominantly 747 aircraft.”

First-class and business passengers accounted for a disproportionate amount of the pollution. Premium passengers were responsible for 14% of available seat kilometres flown on transatlantic routes, but they accounted for around one-third of total carbon emissions, the paper found.

Other poor performers in the study included United Airlines, Virgin Atlantic and American Airlines, who scored barely above BA and Lufthansa. At the other end of the table, Air Berlin, KLM and Aer Lingus averaged 36km per litre of fuel.

Rutherford said the results, which will be filed with the International Civil Aviation Organisation (Icao), showed a deterioration from last year’s rankings, which revealed a 25% difference between best and worst performers.

“There is a large and underestimated potential for in-sector CO2 emission reductions,” the report states. “This highlights the role for additional policies to limit aviation emissions, notably the CO2 standard being developed by the Icao and a global market-based measure to price aviation carbon.”

International airlines and shipping companies are not currently obliged to cut their CO2 output.

An attempt to include aviation in the EU’s emissions trading system was defeated two years ago. Icao says it will try for carbon neutral growth after 2020, but expects no new policies before an assembly in November 2016.

The projections in the leaked European parliament study suggest that aviation and shipping will continue to increase their share of global emissions. It predicts that by 2050 aviation will account for 22% of the total, and shipping 17%.

“Clearly this would derail the efforts in Paris to stay within two degrees’ warming,” said Sotiris Raptis, a shipping policy officer at Transport & Environment. “Any deal in Paris must lead to an emissions reduction target for aviation and shipping, like all other sectors of the global economy.”

Airline emissions are currently responsible for an estimated 5% of global warming, and the shipping industry around half that, and both figures are growing fast. Globally, aircraft emitted about 700m metric tonnes of CO2 in 2013, and without policy intervention that figure is expected to triple by 2050.

The issue will be discussed at the Paris climate summit, after an attempt to remove it from the draft text was blocked.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/16/large-variation-found-in-airlines-co2-emissions?CMP=share_btn_tw

.

.

 

Read more »

Energy Secretary Amber Rudd admits misleading Parliament about missing 25% green energy undershoot

A letter from Energy Secretary Amber Rudd leaked to The Ecologist shows that she misled Parliament by promising the UK was ‘on course’ to deliver on its renewable energy targets (15% of final energy consumption from renewables by 2020) – when in fact there is a delivery shortfall in 2020 of almost 25%. Her plan to fill the gap relies on more biofuels, buying in green power and ‘credits’ from abroad – everything but wind and solar. She says: “The trajectory currently leads to a shortfall against the target in 2020 of around 50 TWh or 3.5% points in our internal central forecasts (which are not public). Publicly we are clear that the UK continues to make progress to meet the target.” However, she has told the House of Commons that the UK is still meeting renewables targets.  This puts the UK at risk of legal action taken in the UK, and fines imposed by the European Court of Justice. There could be a full Parliamentary investigation. She also has a problem with hoping that by 2020 biofuels will make up 10% of transport fuels, due to conflicts of deforestation and conflict with land for agriculture. [If the UK is not able to meet its carbon targets, in its carbon budgets, it is not possible for aviation to increase its annual CO2 emissions above 37.5MtCO2. Failure of other sectors to make cuts put the weak aviation target in question.]
.

 

See also BBC (Roger Harrabin) article on 10.11.2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34774145

 

Leaked letter: Rudd admits 25% green energy undershoot, misled Parliament

By Oliver Tickell (The Ecologist)

9th November 2015

A letter from Energy Secretary Amber Rudd leaked to The Ecologist shows that she misled Parliament by promising the UK was ‘on course’ to deliver on its renewable energy targets – when in fact there is a delivery shortfall in 2020 of almost 25%. Her plan to fill the gap relies on more biofuels, buying in green power and ‘credits’ from abroad – everything but wind and solar.

The trajectory currently leads to a shortfall against the target in 2020 of around 50 TWh or 3.5% points in our internal central forecasts (which are not public). Publically we are clear that the UK continues to make progress to meet the target.

A letter from Energy Secretary Amber Rudd leaked to The Ecologist shows that the UK is on track to miss its legally binding obligation to achieve strict EU targets on renewable energy by an estimated 50TWh (terawatt hours), or 3.5% of its 15% obligation – that is a shortfall of almost 25%.

This stands in stark contrast to her public position. On 17th September she told the House of Commons: “When it became apparent that we were way in excess of [spending limits on renewables], but were still meeting our renewables targets, it was right to limit the amount of money we were spending.”

As Rudd warns, this impending failure to meet EU renewables targets puts the UK at a double risk – of legal action taken in the UK, which the government would probably lose; and of enormous fines imposed by the European Court of Justice:

“The absence of a credible plan to meet the target carries the risk of successful judicial review, and failing to meet the overall target in 2020 could lead to on-going fines imposed by the EU Court of Justice (which could take into account avoided costs) until the UK reaches the target level.”

But by misleading the House of Commons in her statement, she is now certain to have a more immediate problem on her hands – demands for her resignation and a full-blown Parliamentary investigation.

Her first test will come tomorrow before the Energy and Climate Change Committee tomorrow (Tuesday 10th November) when its members grill her on her department’s annual report and accounts.

The grisly detail of Rudd’s smoke-and-mirrors

The letter, to Cabinet colleagues Philip Hammond (Foreign Secretary), Oliver Letwin (Cabinet Office), Greg Hands (Chief Secretary to the Treasury) and Patrick McLoughlin (Transport Secretary) begins by setting out the scale of what the UK has to achieve:

“The target sets a legally binding obligation on HMG to deliver 15% of the UK’s final energy consumption across electricity, heat and transport from renewable sources in 2020, with a binding sub-target for 10% of transport fuels to be from renewable sources in 2020.

“Beyond a flat rate of renewables for each member state, the effort share for meeting the EU-wide 20% target was based on GDP. As a result of this, and the fact that the UK started from a very low base of renewables deployment, our target requires amongst the most significant annual growth in renewables deployment (16% average annual growth from 2011 to 2020) of any member state.”

And although the UK’s current trajectory is on course for a massive miss of 32-66 TWh (terawatt hours) per year by 2020, with a central estimate of a 50TWh shortfall, the UK’s public position is that there is no problem meeting the target.

Yet her public statements all indicate that everything is on track. As noted above, on 17th September she told the House of Commons: “We had a commitment to limit the levy control framework to £7.6 billion by 2020. When it became apparent that we were way in excess of that, but were still meeting our renewables targets, it was right to limit the amount of money we were spending. That is why we took action quickly to do so.”

………………………..

………………………….

The ‘third way’ – buy it in from Norway

Rudd’s third step is certain to cause huge anger in the UK’s renewable energy industry as it involves simply buying it in from abroad, specifically from Norway’s hydroelectric dams. But it comes with one big problem – the required electrical connection to Norway won’t be ready on time:

“Additional deployment of electricity focuses on importing renewable electricity from Norway via the planned interconnector. This could deliver a maximum of 10TWh, depending on market forces. However, my officials do not expect the interconnector to be in operation until late 2021 at the earliest, and therefore would not strictly help the UK to reach its 2020 target.”

But that’s not the only problem: if the renewable power is generated in Norway then how can it be made to count as British just be importing it?

“Should this change, we believe that an intergovernmental agreement would be necessary, under which the UK would be required to make payment(s) to the Norwegian government (on top of that which would be paid for the electricity supplied through normal market mechanisms).”

Which is all very well, but it will cost the Uk money that should be going into our own renewables programme., Moreover there’s no guarantee that the arrangement would be considered valid by the European Commission or by the European Court.

So why not just buy in ‘statistical credits’ from other countries?

Nonetheless Rudd goers on to consider further “Use of co-operation mechanisms” that would allow the UK to finance renewable energy projects in other EU states.

Which raises the question: when the UK has Europe’s richest wind power resource, why would we want to do that? In the process exporting the jobs, expertise and industrial investment to other countries?

“In the absence of other measures to increase renewable energy consumption in the UK, a strategy to meet the target (and to ensure that the target is met in the most cost-effective way) would need to involve the UK purchasing renewables deployment later in the decade from other EU Member States which have over-achieved their target.

“There are two ways to do this The first would see HMG directly support a specific renewables project in another EU or European Economic Area Member State or third country, with an agreed proportion of the renewable energy generated being transmitted to the EU where the project occurs in a third country.”

And another problem then strikes: “However, at this stage there are no projects we have identified with the potential to deploy in the right time frames.” Which leads Rudd to attempt to invent a whole new market mechanism in ‘statistical credits’ for renewable energy from other EU countries.

“The alternative is to reach an agreement with an EU or EEA Member State, which is likely to over-achieve on its target, to buy ‘statistical credits’ from it in 2020. The market for such transactions does not yet exist, and there is a low likelihood that sufficient credits will be available to meet the total UK shortfall of 50TWh.”

Just one small problem there: there is currently no such thing as a ‘statistical credit’ that the Commission or the European Court would recognise. In addition, adds Rudd,

“We believe there is a medium – low likelihood that sufficient credits will be available to meet a shortfall of 30TWh. Costs are, however, also highly uncertain. Nevertheless, trading has the potential to make a cost effective contribution towards meeting the target alongside a package of domestic action.”

…………….

……………

Transport Minister warns – biofuels costly, unsustainable

In another problem for Amber Rudd’s plan Andrew Jones, minister at the Transport Department in charge of environment and innovation, wrote to Amber Rudd in a second leaked letter, warning against further increases in biofuel use in transport on cost, food security and ecological grounds:

“I concur with you, however, that meeting the 10% sub-target for renewable energy in 2020 is challenging. It requires a doubling of current biofuel inclusion rates right up to the limits allowed for by fuel standards in regular petrol and diesel in just a few years, and it will also require great care to secure sustainable sources of biomass supply and avoid consumer opposition …

“I should highlight that I do not consider it appropriate to go beyond the transport sub target. As you point out, we understand that demand at such levels appears likely to cause deforestation through new demand for agricultural land, and it could also increase food as well as fuel prices.

“This is why the UK Government argued strongly for the introduction of recently adopted measures to limit food based biofuels at EU level. As a consequence, environmental and social NGOs would be expected to campaign strongly against it.

“I believe such campaigning would be likely to win public support, not least given the estimated total increase of around 3 pence per litre on fuel costs that could result.”

Between a rock and a hard place

This all leaves Amber Rudd in an increasingly untenable position. First, she has effectively admitted to having deceived Parliament. That’s something she will surely struggle to justify to the Energy and Climate Change Committee tomorrow.

Second, she has revealed the disastrous outcome of her policy to destroy the UK’s renewable energy industry. The fact that the UK is seriously considering buying in actual power and non-existent ‘statistical credits’ for renewable energy from other European countries also speaks volumes for her policy failure.

As for the idea of supporting renewable energy projects abroad instead of here in the UK, it’s not hard to imagine how that will go down with the UK’s renewable industry. The solar industry alone is set to lose 27,000 jobs as a result of cuts to solar power subsidies.

And her idea to increase the volume of biofuels in petrol and diesel has rightly been shot out of the water by transport minister Andrew Jones.

There is of course one eminently sensible and achievable solution – to restore sustainable levels of support for wind and solar energy and roll it out in bulk for 2020 at ever diminishing cost.

Rudd, clearly, has lost all credibity at this stage, both politically and with the renewable energy industry that ultimately has to deliver the UK’s targets.

The obvious choice for Cameron is to bring back Greg Barker, who as an MP was a respected energy minister from 2010 to 2014, and remains honorary president of the British Photovoltaic Association. He now sits in the House of Lords.

.

Loss of face before Paris climate talks

​Greenpeace Head of Energy, Daisy Sands commented: “This letter shows us the dark side of the government’s incoherent energy policy in full technicolour. For the first time, we learn that the government is expecting to miss the EU’s legally binding renewables target. This is hugely shocking.

“More deplorably, it is willfully hiding this from public scrutiny. The government is planning on cutting support for the solar and wind subsidies in the name of affordability. But perversely, we see that the government  believes investing in renewable energy projects involving buying power from abroad is more desirable than supporting home grown renewable energy industries.

“Even more worryingly, it seems the government is seeking to haggle with the EU to revise down our legal commitments. This policy makes no environmental or economic sense as the UK is losing jobs and affordable clean, renewable energy sources.

“The government’s claim to leadership in the Paris climate negotiations requires us to have targets, but we must meet them too.”

The full article is at

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2986190/leaked_letter_rudd_admits_25_green_energy_undershoot_misled_parliament.html

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

.

.

 

Read more »

17 NGOs write to European Commission to get them to push for inclusion of aviation and shipping in Paris agreement

In response to the announcement that the carbon emissions international aviation and shipping are to be left off the draft Paris agreement, 17 European NGOs and environmental networks have written to the Arias Cañete (Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy in the European Commission) and EU-28 Climate Ministers. They say the omission of these two large sectors, with their combined huge carbon emissions, would – if sustained – greatly undermine efforts to limit a global temperature increase to 1.5/2 degrees.  Aviation is responsible for 5% of global warming with shipping emitting 3% of global CO2, and their carbon emissions are set to grow by up to 250% by 2050. The group of 17 say they represent millions of concerned European citizens.  They ask that the Commission ensures these two sectors are covered by the Paris Agreement, so that they make a fair contribution to the world’s shared objective of a sustainable, low-carbon future. The letter states: “What the world needs from Paris is an agreement which charts our path to a low-carbon future. What we must not get is an agreement which says ambition for some, exemptions for others. Paris cannot mean these sectors are fuel-tax and now emissions-target free.”

Please write to your MP to ask them to put pressure on the European Commission to get aviation and shipping put back into the agreement. Details below.
.

 

European NGOs

9 October 2015

Re: Omission of international aviation and shipping emissions from draft Paris agreement

Dear EU Ministers for Climate Change and Commissioner Arias Cañete,

European citizens are dismayed to see that the draft Paris agreement published this week has dropped any reference to reducing emissions from international aviation and shipping. CO2 emissions from these sectors exceed those of the UK and Germany combined, and are expected to treble by 2050 unless immediate measures are introduced. Yet from the draft it would seem as if these sectors don’t even exist. The aim of the UNFCCC process is to craft a climate agreement that limits a global temperature increase to 1.5/2 degrees Celsius. Excluding any requirement for international aviation and shipping to contribute their fair share to this effort will fatally undermine that objective.

18 years on, the Kyoto Protocol strictures on these sectors have clearly failed. Even the IMO Secretary-General now feels able to deny publicly any need whatsoever to cap shipping emissions. ICAO promises ambition but is clearly struggling to even see through the limited measure it committed to in 2013. The absence of any mention of aviation and shipping at Paris will not only place no obligation on either sector to contribute to meeting the 1.5/2 degree target but represent a retreat from even the limited language contained in the Kyoto Protocol. Such an outcome would represent a complete failure of international climate governance.

December’s agreement must send a clear signal to all actors that more ambition is required if we are to avoid a catastrophic increase in temperature. As the draft agreement states, there is “a need for universal and sustained action by all to respond to the urgent threat of climate change”.

Europe has played a leading role in establishing an ambitious vision for the Paris process including clearly stating the need for action by aviation and shipping. We call on European Ministers to act immediately with other states to ensure that the language in previous drafts on aviation and shipping emissions is reinstated. Paris must contain an explicit requirement for ICAO and IMO to establish reduction targets and adopt sectoral measures that contribute fairly to limiting a temperature increase to 1.5/2 degrees. Parties are already subject to such a requirement and many of them, regardless of capacity, are coming forward with increasingly ambitious targets and measures of their own. These efforts must not be undermined by special privileges to sectors that are well able to make a fair and adequate contribution.

What the world needs from Paris is an agreement which charts our path to a low-carbon future. What we must not get is an agreement which says ambition for some, exemptions for others. Paris cannot mean these sectors are fuel-tax and now emissions-target free.

For the NGOs,

Bill Hemmings, Aviation and Shipping Manager, Transport & Environment

 

On behalf of:

Air Pollution & Climate Secretariat;

Association 2Clesius;

Aviation Environment Federation;

Carbon Market Watch;

Climate Action Network Europe;

Environmental Pillar (Ireland);

Fédération InterEnvironnement Wallonie;

Germanwatch; Green Budget Europe;

Naturschutzbund Deutschland;

Oxfam;

Réseau Action Climat France;

Seas At Risk;

Surfrider Foundation Europe;

Transport & Environment;

Verkehrsclub Österreich;

World Wide Fund for Nature Europe..


.

Take action !

Please write to your MP to ask them to get text including international aviation and shipping put back into the draft Paris Agreement

Seventeen European NGOs and environmental networks have written to Arias Cañete(European Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy) in response to the announcement that the text calling for more ambition in limiting carbon emissions from international aviation and shipping has been dropped from the draft Paris Agreement on curbing global climate impacts.

The NGOs say the omission of these two large sectors, with their combined huge carbon emissions, would – if sustained – greatly undermine efforts to limit a global temperature increase to 1.5 to 2 degrees C. They are asking the European Commission to ensure that these two sectors are covered by the Paris Agreement, so that they make a fair contribution to the world’s shared objective of a sustainable, low-carbon future.

Please write to (or email) your MP to ask them to put pressure on the government to get international aviation and shipping carbon emissions included properly in the Paris Agreement.  A short letter of a few sentences is enough!

And ask your MP to pass your letter on to Secretary of State at  DECC (the Department for Energy and Climate Change) to get a response from the Rt Hon Amber Rudd.

You can locate your MP’s contact details here     This needs to be done soon!

Aviation is responsible for 5% of global warming with shipping emitting 3% of global CO2, and their carbon emissions are set to grow by up to 250% by 2050. The group of 17 say they represent millions of concerned European citizens.  The NGO’s letter, which was also sent to the 28 EU Climate Ministers, says these two sectors should not get exemptions not available to other sectors. As is the case for other sectors, they should have targets for their carbon emissions.

More details and to see the NGO letter – above.

.


 

See also

Paris could leave aviation and shipping fuel tax-free and climate target-free

The international aviation and shipping sectors are set to be exempt from targeted CO2 emissions cuts in the December Paris climate agreement, according to the latest draft deal. The final deal needs to be agreed in the coming weeks. The draft deal removes previous calls for aviation and shipping CO2 reduction targets, with neither sector covered by national targets. Environmental NGOs say this is an irresponsible U-turn. Aviation is responsible for 5% of global warming with shipping emitting 3% of global CO2, and their carbon emissions are set to grow by up to 250% by 2050, making attempts to limit global warming to 2°C all but impossible. The IMO has said an overall cap on shipping emissions “would inhibit world trade.” Proposals from the least developed countries, that shipping and aviation should contribute to climate finance were also dropped in the draft, despite strong calls for them from the IMF and World Bank.Though the climate impact of global aviation is about the same as that of Germany, the sector has tax-free fuel and it is now to have target-free emissions. Bill Hemmings, of T&E said: “It’s a betrayal of future generations and a sad reflection on the way the UN has become beholden to special interests. Paris needs to think again and quickly.”

Click here to view full story…

Road to Paris: A climate deal must include aviation and shipping

In the century or so since the first commercial flight, aviation emissions have grown to account for about 5% of global warming. CO2 from shipping is about 3% of the global total. These sectors combined are equivalent to the sixth largest emitter if compared with world nations. Both sectors are among the fastest growing sources of emissions at a global level. Only domestic aviation and shipping (bunker) emissions were included in the Kyoto climate targets, set in 1997. To date, only the EU has subject its domestic and intra EU aviation emissions to a reduction target under the EU ETS. No measures are in place anywhere to limit or reduce international shipping GHG emissions.

Paragraph 2.2 of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol handed responsibility to limit and reduce international aviation and shipping emissions to the UN specialised agencies responsible for regulating these sectors – the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO). In the 18 years since then, ICAO has failed to implement one single measure to limit international aviation emissions but managed to agree to rule out fuel taxation and undermine the EU’s emissions trading scheme. The jury is out on ongoing ICAO work to develop a CO2 standard from new aircraft and to agree a global market-based measure intended to commence in 2020. In the meantime aviation emissions continue to grow at 2-3% p.a. Read more in our ‘Free Guide to ICAO’.

The IMO did agree a design efficiency standard for new ships which took effect in 2013 but it will take a generation to affect the global fleet and its stringency and effectiveness are under question. Negotiations at the IMO about tracking ship fuel consumption continue while consideration of a global cap was pushed aside as recently as May 2015. Under current policies, the Third IMO GHG study forecasts shipping CO2 emissions to increase by 50% to 250% by 2050, which would then represent between 6%-14% of total global emissions. A similar scenario exists for aviation. Both Organisations have fallen way short of delivering meaningful measures to reduce emissions from these sectors, consistent with the 1.5/2 degrees objective.

Why do we need action from the Paris COP?

The upcoming Paris COP’s goal is to achieve a legally binding and comprehensive agreement to combat climate change (UNFCCC), and to keep the increase in global temperature below 1.5/2 degrees. At the Copenhagen COP in 2009, all countries – developed and developing – agreed that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and that the international community should implement measures to at least keep the increase of temperature below 2 degrees compared to preindustrial levels (Copenhagen Accord, 2009). However, this level of warming still represents a threat for many low-lying nations, so aiming to keep a temperature increase to at or under 1.5 degrees is considered a key target for other parties (Cancun Agreements, 2010; AOSIS, 2014).

To achieve these goals an imminent peak in GHG emissions is required followed by sustained emissions reductions (UNEP, 2010). This means that all sectors of the global economy must reduce their GHG emissions by 40-70% compared to 2010 levels. However, if no action is taken in the aviation and shipping sectors, these “bunker” emissions are expected to increase by between 50% and 270% by 2050.

The below graph shows the range of expected increase in GHG emissions in the shipping sector up until 2050 if no action is taken, as projected by the Third IMO GHG Study (2014).

Graph of the range of expected increase in GHG emissions in the shipping sector

 

To achieve the 2 or 1.5 degree scenario, international shipping emissions must peak in 2020 and then start to decline sharply (see below graph).

Graph of international shipping emissions

 

For aviation, the trajectory for emissions growth is equally stark. According to ICAO, all scenarios will see aviation emissions grow sharply to 2050 and beyond, again endangering achievement of the 2 degrees target.

 

What must the Paris agreement commit to?

Emission reduction targets for international aviation and shipping need to be urgently agreed so that these sectors can begin to contribute to the objective of avoiding a temperature increase of more than 2/1.5 degrees. T&E therefore calls for countries participating in the UN climate negotiations (UNFCCC) to include domestic shipping and aviation within their emission reduction plans (Intended National Determined Contributions – INDCs) which together form the global reduction effort. Countries should also insist that ICAO and IMO set realistic reduction targets consistent with 1.5/2 degrees and adopt measures to implement them. ICAO and IMO have essential expertise in their respective sectors, but they must have a clearly defined role in the global climate agreement and they must take full responsibility for setting credible targets and introducing effective measures to achieve such targets.

http://www.transportenvironment.org/road-paris-climate-deal-must-include-aviation-and-shipping

.

.


.

MEPs call for reduction target on aviation and shipping emissions in Paris deal

Brussels, 14 October 2015 – statement for immediate release

Statement from Transport & Environment following European Parliament’s vote for the EU to ensure aviation and shipping emissions are included in the final Paris climate deal

Link to PR: http://bit.ly/1hExiRI

MEPs today called on the EU and all other countries at this year’s Paris climate summit to ensure a requirement is included for reducing emissions from international aviation and shipping. Parliamentarians called for emissions reduction targets for both sectors to be set before the end of 2016 by the corresponding UN agencies, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

Echoing comments earlier this week from the OECD’s International Transport Forum that it would be odd for countries to have to adhere to emissions reduction targets but not the international shipping sector, the Parliament’s plenary voted for parties to the Paris deal to ensure that aviation and shipping is regulated consistent with keeping the increase in global warming below 2°C and thus avoiding the most disastrous effects of climate change.

Sotiris Raptis, shipping policy officer at Transport & Environment, said: “The Parliament has sent a clear message to the EU and all negotiators at Paris; the aviation and shipping sectors need emissions reduction targets too, so there is no reasonable excuse to continue exempting them. You just can’t have a global deal to combat climate change without capping the growing emissions from international aviation and shipping, which have CO2 emissions equal to those of the UK and Germany respectively.”

Aviation accounts for about 5% of global warming. Net emissions continue to grow 2-3% a year. CO2 from shipping is about 3% of the global total. Both sectors are among the fastest growing sources of emissions at a global level.

ENDS

For more information, contact:

Sotiris Raptis

Shipping policy officer

Transport & Environment (T&E)

sotiris.raptis@transportenvironment.org

 

.

 

 

Read more »

New report by the Green Party shows UK will not meet climate change targets with new runways

The Green Party has published a new report entitled: “Airport Expansion Doesn’t Make Climate Sense.” The report reveals that the UK will not meet its climate change targets if David Cameron goes ahead with a new runway at Heathrow, Gatwick or anywhere in the South-East of England. It offers a fresh perspective on the airport expansion debate by offering alternatives to new runways that a climate-sensitive government would pursue; including moving many short-haul flight passengers onto existing rail services and taxing very frequent flyers. The report’s key messages are that adding a SE runway does not fit into UK carbon targets.  The current expansion debate offers a false choice, of merely whether a runway should be put at Heathrow or at Gatwick. This masks the reality that the UK has to reduce air passenger numbers, not increase them, to keep within the carbon limits in the Climate Change Act. The Government and the London Mayoral candidates must explain how it’s possible to build any new UK runway while meeting the UK’s targets for cutting emissions. The new report shows it just isn’t.
.

 

 

Report reveals UK will not meet climate change targets with new runways

8.10.2015 (Economic Voice)
By Economic Voice Staff

“Airport Expansion Doesn’t Make Climate Sense” published by the Green Party

A Green Party report to be published on Friday (9 October) will reveal that the UK will not meet its climate change targets if David Cameron goes ahead with a new runway at Heathrow, Gatwick or anywhere in the South-East of England.

Airport Expansion Doesn’t Make Climate Sense will provide a fresh perspective on the airport expansion debate by offering alternatives to new runways that a climate-sensitive government would pursue; including moving many short-haul flight passengers onto existing rail services and taxing very frequent flyers.

The report’s key messages are that airport expansion does not make climate sense, the current expansion debate offers a false choice and that the UK cannot make its contribution to cutting carbon emissions whilst expanding its airports and increasing emissions from aviation.

Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett said:

“Airport Expansion Doesn’t Make Climate Sense demonstrates how the current expansion argument is offering a false choice. Debating between Gatwick or Heathrow masks the reality  that the UK has to reduce air passenger numbers, not increase them.

“The report highlights a number of ways to halt the apparent need for airport expansion, including the introduction of a frequent flyer tax which would tax aviation much more fairly.”

Bennett added:

“David Cameron and the London Mayoral candidates must explain how it’s possible to build a new runway while meeting the UK’s targets for cutting emissions. This report shows it isn’t.”

Sian Berry, the Green Party’s candidate for the 2016 London Mayoral election, who is speaking at an anti-Heathrow expansion rally at Trafalgar Square on Saturday said:

“Bigger airports make no climate sense. We cannot increase our emissions from aviation while making a fair contribution to keeping global warming within safe limits. How can the Prime Minister convince delegates at the Paris climate talks he’s serious if he goes there while wanting a new runway?

“The Greens are the only party with the clear message that we need no new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick or anywhere in the South-East of England. It’s our job to convince the government to end this false choice debate, trying to pit communities against each other over which airport to expand and who should suffer the increased pollution and noise that would result.”

http://www.economicvoice.com/report-reveals-uk-will-not-meet-climate-change-targets-with-new-runways/

 

The report is at  https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/MINIREPORT_AirportExpansion_v4.pdf


 

.

The Aviation Environment Federation (AEF) says – August 2015: 

Conclusion – the carbon gap looks increasingly hard to close

AEF has consistently pushed the Airports Commission for answers in terms of the climate change impacts of a new runway, and its final report does come clean on some of these. But the headline messages handed to politicians ignore this new analysis and instead glide over the massive climate challenge that a new runway would pose.

Big issues, meanwhile, remain unresolved. Whose forecasts of future air traffic mix are right – the Commission’s or the Governments? Are the measures that would be needed to reduce emissions to the level of the carbon cap actually deliverable? And is there actually a robust economic case for expansion once environmental and other costs are factored in?

Despite its reforecasting of aviation emissions, the Commission has failed to present a credible case for how, in the real world, emissions from aviation can be limited to a level consistent with UK climate policy if a new runway is built.

It’s now for the Government to admit that building a new runway makes neither economic nor environmental sense.

http://www.aef.org.uk/uploads/The-Airports-Commission%E2%80%99s-final-report-%E2%80%93-has-it-closed-the-carbon-gapFINAL.pdf


 

.

Did you know that aviation CO2 is set to exceed climate targets even without a new runway?

Short briefing from AEF (Aviation Environment Federation) and AirportWatch

September 2015

Despite new technology, carbon trading, and biofuels, carbon emissions are predicted to overshoot the maximum level compatible with climate legislation and would be even higher with a new runway.

A clear plan for limiting aviation emissions in line with the Climate Change Act is essential before a decision on a new runway.

.

Explanation, comment and references from AEF:

• Infographic: Why airport expansion risks the UK’s climate change commitments (March 2015)  http://www.aef.org.uk/2015/03/16/infographic-why-airport-expansion-risks-the-uksclimate-change-commitments/

• All set for take off? Aviation emissions to soar under Airports Commission proposals ((June 2015) http://www.aef.org.uk/uploads/All-set-for-take-off-AEF-report.pdf

• The Airports Commission’s final report: has it closed the carbon gap? (August 2015) http://www.aef.org.uk/uploads/The-Airports-Commission%E2%80%99s-final-report-%E2%80%93-has-it-closed-the-carbon-gapFINAL.pdf

.

Explanation, comment and references from Airportwatch:

• Carbon emissions and a new runway – short version (July 2015) http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Climate-briefing.-June-2015-Short.pdf

• Carbon emissions and a new runway – longer version with references (July 2015) http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Climate-briefing.-June-2015-Long.pdf

Read more »

Paris could leave aviation and shipping fuel tax-free and climate target-free

The international aviation and shipping sectors are set to be exempt from targeted CO2 emissions cuts in the December Paris climate agreement, according to the latest draft deal. The final deal needs to be agreed in the coming weeks. The draft deal removes previous calls for aviation and shipping CO2 reduction targets, with neither sector covered by national targets. Environmental NGOs say this is an irresponsible U-turn. Aviation is responsible for 5% of global warming with shipping emitting 3% of global CO2, and their carbon emissions are set to grow by up to 250% by 2050, making attempts to limit global warming to 2°C all but impossible.  The IMO has said an overall cap on shipping emissions “would inhibit world trade.”  Proposals from the least developed countries, that shipping and aviation should contribute to climate finance were also dropped in the draft, despite strong calls for them from the IMF and World Bank.Though the climate impact of global aviation is about the same as that of Germany, the sector has tax-free fuel and it is now to have target-free emissions. Bill Hemmings, of T&E said: “It’s a betrayal of future generations and a sad reflection on the way the UN has become beholden to special interests. Paris needs to think again and quickly.”

.

 

Paris could leave aviation and shipping fuel tax-free and climate target-free

The aviation and shipping sectors are set to be exempt from targeted CO2 emissions cuts in the December Paris climate agreement, according to the latest draft deal. This is an irresponsible U-turn, say environmental groups Seas At Risk and Transport & Environment. CO2 emissions from the two sectors are set to grow by up to 250% by 2050, making attempts to limit global warming to 2°C all but impossible.
The latest draft Paris deal removes previous calls for aviation and shipping CO2 reduction targets. Both international sectors are not covered by national targets in the Paris agreement. Aviation is responsible for 5% of global warming with shipping emitting 3% of global CO2. Even so, last week outgoing IMO secretary-general, Koji Sekimizu, argued publicly against an overall cap on ship emissions, saying it would inhibit world trade.
John Maggs, senior policy advisor at Seas At Risk, said: “Excluding shipping from Paris opens up a fatal flaw in the global strategy to tackle climate change. As the IMO secretary-general’s recent remarks show, without a clear signal from the UNFCCC, the IMO is incapable of making the necessary decisions to ensure shipping takes a fair share of the burden of reducing emissions.”
Proposals from the least developed countries, which are likely to suffer most from the consequences of climate change, that shipping and aviation should contribute to climate finance were also dropped in the draft, despite strong calls from the IMF and World Bank for such levies.
Bill Hemmings, aviation manager at Transport & Environment, said: “International aviation and shipping have climate impacts equal to Germany and South Korea respectively, yet they are tax-free on their fuel and are now set to be target-free on their emissions. It’s a betrayal of future generations and a sad reflection on the way the UN has become beholden to special interests. Paris needs to think again and quickly.”
Pre-Paris climate talks resume in Bonn on 19 October. Countries must decide in the coming weeks on a final text to take to Paris in December.
.
Comment from one of the NGOs working on bunkers [ie. fuel for aviation and shipping and its CO2 emissions] for the Paris talks:
Deletion of the bunkers text is an incredibly backward step so far as international governance of climate action is concerned. To say nothing about these two sectors or link them to the Paris process in any way is simply inexplicable. There is time for reinstatement and NGOs must be at the forefront of efforts to do this. And quickly.
European and North American NGOs agree the matter is inexplicable and urgent.
.

Earlier:

Airlines write to UN Secretary General to say they want governments to set up offsetting for their carbon growth

Airbus, Boeing and Rolls-Royce are among 28 signatories to open letter to the Secretary General of the UN, stressing the need for a carbon market to curb aviation CO2. They say they are committed to curbing the aviation sector’s greenhouse gas emissions, ahead of a Paris climate deal this December. Their letter says they will not increase net (Note: net not gross) CO2 emissions from aviation after 2020 and halve them compared to 2005 by 2050. These cuts would in practice not be made by actually reducing the amount of CO2 aviation emits, but by buying credits from other sectors that actually reduce their carbon. To do this, they need to agree a carbon market at the 2016 summit of UN aviation authority, ICAO. The design of a “market mechanism” (system of trading carbon) to offset emissions by investing in low carbon development projects is behind schedule. The aviation industry is keen to be seen to be doing something, though internal divisions within ICAO mean agreeing anything that would actually be effective in limiting the sector’s carbon emissions. They still hope to be able to cut emissions by a few % by use of biofuels, though this is not looking promising. Though the letter is a start, global aviation needs much more ambition, and it cannot rely on offsets indefinitely. See critique of offsetting for carbon cuts.

Click here to view full story…

European Parliament urges EU governments to include aviation and shipping in a strong Paris climate deal

The Environment Ministers of the 28 European member states will be meeting on 18 September to finalise the EU position for COP21, to be held in Paris at the end of November. The heads of 7 of the 8 political groups of the European Parliament’s environment committee have written to the EU Environment Ministers urging them to include international shipping and aviation in a global climate deal at Paris. They said: “To promote increased climate ambition from ICAO and IMO, like all the other sectors of the global economy, aviation and international shipping require an emissions reduction target. There is no reasonable excuse to continue exempting these two economy sectors from the global policy framework. Aviation and shipping need to contribute in the same way that is required of all UNFCCC Parties, large and small.” The group, T&E commented that: “It’s simply fair to demand from two economic sectors with emissions the size of Germany and South Korea – about 8% of world CO2 – to reduce their emissions in line with keeping the global temperature increase below 2 degrees C. The IMO and ICAO have been procrastinating so far. The time for action has come.”. The CO2 emissions from global aviation are expected to grow by 200 – 300% by 2050.

Click here to view full story..

Read more »

Airlines write to UN Secretary General to say they want governments to set up offsetting for their carbon growth

Airbus, Boeing and Rolls-Royce are among 28 signatories to open letter to the Secretary General of the UN, stressing the need for a carbon market to curb aviation CO2. They say they are committed to curbing the aviation sector’s greenhouse gas emissions, ahead of a Paris climate deal this December. Their letter says they will not increase net (Note: net not gross) CO2 emissions from aviation after 2020 and halve them compared to 2005 by 2050. These cuts would in practice not be made by actually reducing the amount of CO2 aviation emits, but by buying credits from other sectors that actually reduce their carbon. To do this, they need to agree a carbon market at the 2016 summit of UN aviation authority, ICAO.  The design of a “market mechanism” (system of trading carbon) to offset emissions by investing in low carbon development projects is behind schedule. The aviation industry is keen to be seen to be doing something, though internal divisions within ICAO mean agreeing anything that would actually be effective in limiting the sector’s carbon emissions. They still hope to be able to cut emissions by a few % by use of biofuels, though this is not looking promising. Though the letter is a start, global aviation needs much more ambition, and it cannot rely on offsets indefinitely. See also critique of offsetting for carbon cuts.
.

 

Airlines commit to climate action ahead of Paris

30.9.2015 (Climate Home)

Airbus, Boeing and Rolls-Royce among signatories to open letter pledging a carbon market to curb aviation emissions

By Megan Darby

Aviation industry leaders have reaffirmed their commitment to curbing the sector’s greenhouse gas emissions, ahead of a Paris climate deal.

Chiefs of Boeing, Airbus and Rolls-Royce were among 28 signatories to an open letter published on Wednesday, pledging to stabilise emissions from 2020 and halve them by 2050 from a 2005 baseline.

To hit those targets, they emphasised the need to agree a carbon market at the 2016 summit of UN aviation authority, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

They wrote: “It’s a challenging task. But it is one to which the aviation industry is fully committed.”

Representing more than 90% of airline traffic worldwide, nearly a trillion dollars of annual revenue and 4 million employees, the organisations called on governments to support their goals.

Michael Gill, head of the Air Transport Action Group which coordinated the letter, said: “This is an influential set of business leaders adding their voice to those supporting climate action in the lead-up to the COP21 negotiations in Paris and one year ahead of aviation’s own climate deadline.”

The industry aims to meet rising demand for flights without increasing emissions from 2020 onwards.

That will involve increasing fuel efficiency, developing biofuels and offsetting any emissions growth that cannot be avoided.

Yet industry figures have warned the design of a market mechanism to offset emissions by investing in low carbon development projects is behind schedule.

WWF-UK aviation specialist James Beard said: “There are key decisions that still need to be taken on the ICAO market-based measure, including what sorts of offsets and biofuels will be allowed. It’s crucial that these decisions are fair for all countries and promote sustainable development.

“The target of carbon neutral growth from 2020 is a start but much more ambition will be needed. The aviation industry cannot rely on offsets indefinitely. It must pull its weight on both reducing emissions and providing climate finance for developing countries.”

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/09/30/airlines-commit-to-climate-action-ahead-of-paris

.


 

The letter from ATAG

to the Secretary General of the United Nations, the head of the UNFCCC and the French Government delegation leading the COP21 talks in Paris.  :

30.9.2015

Sir,

One year ahead of the 39th International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Assembly and as governments prepare to meet in Paris for the crucial COP 21 climate change negotiations, the aviation industry reaffirms its commitment to reduce aviation’s contribution to climate change.

As a result of billions of dollars of investment and collaborative action already taken by the industry, a passenger today produces half the carbon dioxide per kilometre flown compared to 1990. [Since then the low cost airlines have sprung up, with higher load factors. AW note]

This is significant progress. But we recognise that more needs to be done.

Many economies rightly wish to foster the vital connectivity for trade, investment and tourism that further development of air transport can bring. We must balance that task with the challenge faced by all industrial sectors to reduce emissions.

As leaders in the aviation industry and the global business community and as the first global transport sector to set carbon-reduction goals, we have been engaged in impressive cross-sectoral climate action.

Our ambitious goals are to:

1. improve the fuel efficiency of the world fleet by an average 1.5 per cent a year, a goal we are already exceeding;

2. stabilise net aviation CO2 emissions at 2020 levels through carbon-neutral growth;  [ie. trading with other sectors which actually do cut carbon emissions. AW note]

3. halve aviation’s net CO2 emissions by 2050, compared with a 2005 baseline. [By carbon trading with other sectors, while the emissions from aviation itself grow perhaps three-fold. AW note]. 
These have been matched by action across the sector in four key areas: over $1tn of new technology aircraft have entered the fleet alongside advances in sustainable alternative fuels; operations; infrastructure; [all these things have been done by the industry in order to save costs and boost profits – not to cut carbon emissions, which is sometimes a useful additional gain. AW note. ] and the development of a global market-based measure.

Today we call on governments to support efforts towards realising these goals. This support must take place through a range of actions: air traffic management investment and reform; continued support for research into new technology, operations and sustainable alternative fuels; improved intermodal transport planning; and the right policy framework to help accelerate the availability of sustainable alternative fuels for aviation.

Importantly, we have just one year in which to shape a groundbreaking market-based measure that will, for the first time, enable a single global sector to stabilise its emissions from 2020. It is a challenging task. But it is one to which the aviation industry is fully committed.

We need governments meeting at ICAO to work together with us and civil society to push this process forward. We call on them to agree at the 39th ICAO Assembly to the implementation of a simple, global offsetting scheme which will stabilise air transport carbon emissions growth and to endorse a historic global CO2 standard for new aircraft. To delay will harm a vital global sector and harm our global climate.

For the full explanation of our commitments and examples of climate action across the sector, please visit:  www.enviro.aero/openletter

.
Fabrice Brégier
President and CEO, Airbus
Patrick de Castelbajac
CEO, ATR
Raymond L Conner
President and CEO, Boeing Commercial
Airplanes
Fred Cromer
President, Bombardier Commercial
Aircraft
Jean-Paul Ebanga
President and CEO, CFM International
Paulo Silva
President and CEO, Embraer Commercial
Aviation
David L Joyce
President and CEO, GE Aviation
Tim Mahoney
President and CEO, Honeywell Aerospace
Paul Adams
President, Pratt & Whitney
Tony Wood
President — Aerospace, Rolls-Royce
Philippe Petitcolin
CEO, Safran
Angela Gittens
Director-general, Airports Council International
Jeff Poole
Director-general, Civil Air Navigation
Services Organisation
Tony Tyler
Director-general and CEO, International Air
Transport Association
David F Melcher
Chair, International Coordinating Council of
Aerospace Industries Associations
Kurt Edwards
Director-general, International Business
Aviation Council
Peter J Bunce
President and CEO, General Aviation
Manufacturers Association
Dr Elijah Chingosho
Secretary-general, African Airlines
Association (AFRAA)
Nicholas E Calio
President and CEO, Airlines for
America (A4A)
Abdul Wahab Teffaha
Secretary-general, Arab Air Carriers
Organisation (AACO)
Andrew Herdman
Director-general, Association of
Asia-Pacific Airlines (AAPA)
Athar Husian Khan
CEO, Association of European
Airlines (AEA)
Fabio Gamba
CEO, European Business Aviation
Association (EBAA)
John Hanlon
Secretary-general, European Low Fares
Airlines Association (ELFAA)
Simon McNamara
Director-general, European Regions
Airline Association (ERA)
Sylviane Lust
Director-general, International Air
Carriers Association (IACA)
Andrés Conesa
President and CEO, Latin American and
Caribbean Air Transport Association (ALTA)
Michael Gill
Executive Director, Air Transport Action Group

.


The speech by Michael Gill, of ATAG

http://aviationbenefits.org/newswire/2015/09/speech-michael-gill,-executive-director-of-atag/

which is long and wordy, but basically says the industry is vital for the world and governments should work with it to find ways in which it can continue to grow, but its carbon emissions can be traded with other sectors.  And they have to get governments to do this, so the aviation sector can keep growing.  Every possible action, other than actually emitting less carbon overall, in coming years ……..

…. with extracts like: 

… “The Open Letter from industry has been sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations, the head of the UNFCCC and the French Government delegation leading the COP21 talks in Paris. Over the next few weeks it will also be sent to governments around the world.”

…. “united in a common position that industry and governments must work together to solve this issue.”

… “We are a heavily regulated sector. And to fully realise the potential for efficiency measures we will need governments to step up and commit too.”

… “t must take place through a range of actions: air traffic management investment and reform; continued support for research into new technology, operations and sustainable alternative fuels; improved intermodal transport planning; and the right policy framework to help accelerate the availability of sustainable alternative fuels for aviation.”  [In reality, there are virtually no “biofuels” that aviation could use which could not equally be used by other terrestrial uses, or which don’t compete more or less directly with land used for human food, or food fed to animals to feed people]. 

….     “we need governments meeting at the 39th ICAO Assembly to endorse the implementation of a simple, global offsetting scheme which will stabilise air transport carbon emissions growth. Failure to agree will harm a vital global sector and harm our global climate.”

.


 

“Powerful call for Government partnership to deliver aviation industry’s climate goals”

From ATAG – the Air Transport Action Group

GENEVA, 30 September 2015 – A group of 28 aviation industry chief executive officers and association leaders has today sent an open letter to governments committing to climate action and calling for a joint approach to help deliver maximum CO2 emissions reductions in the aviation sector. In particular, the industry group urged action to approve a meaningful market-based measure for aviation emissions, expected to be agreed by governments at a meeting of the United Nations specialised aviation agency in one year’s time.

Aviation was the first transport sector which set global goals to proactively manage its climate change impact, in 2008. These goals include capping net CO2 emissions from 2020 through a global market-based measure being developed at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and a longer-term goal to reduce net CO2 emissions from aviation to half of 2005 levels, by 2050.

Michael Gill, Executive Director of the cross-industry coalition Air Transport Action Group which coordinated the letter said: “This is an influential set of business leaders adding their voice to those supporting climate action in the lead-up to the COP21 negotiations in Paris and one year ahead of aviation’s own climate deadline – the 39th ICAO Assembly. We are urging governments to back industry and civil society efforts to deliver this market-based measure.”

“Since we set the goals, the aviation sector has been actively undertaking fuel efficiency projects through the deployment of over a trillion dollars of new technology, improved operational procedures and moving towards more advanced infrastructure. However, government regulation and national political environments prevent us from fully influencing our own future. [???] Today’s letter urges government action in five key areas to complement the significant action already taking place within the industry.”

The letter says that to maximise already impressive aviation action, “government support must take place through a range of actions: air traffic management investment and reform; continued support for research into new technology, operations and sustainable alternative fuels; improved intermodal transport planning; the right policy framework to help accelerate the availability of sustainable alternative fuels for airlines; and to agree at the 39th ICAO Assembly to both the implementation of a simple, global offsetting scheme which will stabilise air transport carbon emissions growth and to endorse an historic global CO2 standard for new aircraft. To delay will harm a vital global sector and harm our global climate.”

Whilst Michael Gill says the industry believes the development of the global market-based measure is progressing well, “we have to ensure that the timelines do not slip and that the current positive momentum is not lost. Aviation has a distinct timeframe from the broader climate negotiations being undertaken at the UNFCCC. A progressive outcome in Paris would certainly help deliver a meaningful result at ICAO next September, but let’s not wait until after December for the aviation talks to proceed.”

The open letter, 60 days before the crucial COP21 climate talks in Paris, was signed by the chief executives of all the world’s major aircraft and engine manufacturers and leaders of associations representing over 90% of airline traffic; 1,861 airports and air traffic management organisations supporting 85% of traffic. In total, the organisations represent businesses with nearly a trillion dollars in annual revenue and over four million employees worldwide. The industry has been meeting with government and civil society representatives at the Global Sustainable Aviation Summit in Geneva, Switzerland.

http://www.atag.org/our-news/press-releases/83.html?tmpl=pressrelease


 

Related posts:

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/09/30/airlines-commit-to-climate-action-ahead-of-paris/

.


 

See also 

Tom Burke article exposes the fallacy of hoping carbon pricing will lower CO2 emissions

The aviation industry is reluctantly realising it needs to cut its carbon emissions, and work is under way, through ICAO, on a “market based measure” by which the industry could pay for carbon emissions. This, like the EU ETS, would be by being able to buy carbon permits from other sectors which had managed to make actual carbon cuts. A hard-hitting article from Tom Burke casts serious doubt on whether this sort of carbon pricing and trading could ever work effectively. He fears many high carbon industries pay lip-service to the concept, in the full knowledge that it will never work sufficiently well to curtail their activities, and it delays the need for any real action. He says: “The intent is to create the impression of an industry in favour of urgent action whilst actually slowing that action down”…. [with the carbon price remaining too low] … “If only governments were brave enough to put the carbon price up higher and faster, they will lament,  we would get there sooner.  This is hocus-pocus. They know full well governments will be deeply reluctant to put up consumers’ bills.” … “There is no chance that the world will agree on a global price for carbon in the forty years we have to keep the climate safe….  Their purpose is clear, to set a trap for unwary policy makers and environmentalists. Shame on those who fall into it.”

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/08/tom-burke-carbon-price-article/


.

Green skies for aviation industry behind schedule

29.5.2015

Deadline to set up offset mechanism at UN’s aviation body meet in 2016 will be missed, delaying action on climate

contrais brussels

By Alex Pashley

As passengers numbers soar and new carriers crisscross the skies, the aviation industry aims to achieve “carbon-neutral growth” from 2020.

It has a voluntary goal to halve emissions from 2005 levels by mid-century. The sector’s carbon footprint is equivalent to the seventh largest country in the world.

But a key tool in crimping airlines’ emissions will miss a deadline to be adopted at the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO’s) next meet in 2016, according to an official involved in proposals.

Andreas Hardeman, deputy assistant director at the International Air Transport Association, told the Carbon Expo in Barcelona on Thursday an offsetting mechanism wouldn’t be ready by the triennial conference.

Report: Is there any way to slow aviation’s soaring emissions?

“Will there be a fully developed scheme in time for ICAO? No. There has been a lot of progress but there’s still a lot of work to be done next year to get states and operators ready to take this on,” he said.

Under the proposals, from 2020 airlines will have to offset emissions growth with carbon credits that direct investment to CO2-reducing projects: a wind farm in Nepal, for example.

The industry favours a market-based mechanism as the most effective way to regulate emissions.

At present, only flights within the European Economic Area airspace are subject to any kind of carbon charge, being included in the EU’s emissions trading system.

Proposals to extend that to air links with non-EU destinations were dropped after a backlash from other countries.

As a result, all eyes are on the ICAO scheme to deliver a more comprehensive plan for emissions.

Megan Flynn, who leads Qantas’ carbon strategy, said with four years until plans took effect it was “never intended that we would have the t’s crossed and i’s dotted by the ICAO assembly”.

Report: Aviation industry unlikely to agree emissions reduction deal until 2016

Eight percent of the Australian carrier’s passengers voluntary offset their journeys, she said, making it the airline with the largest uptake. Over 30 IATA member airlines have introduced an offset program either integrated into their web-sales engines or to a third party offset provider.

Aviation accounts for about 2% of global greenhouse emissions, and 13% of those from transportation.

Around 3.1 billion people take flights a year, three times the number that flew 30 years ago. What’s more, that could triple again by 2050.

But at world climate talks, aviation emissions fall into no man’s land.

“Aviation is an international sector like very few sectors,” Niclas Svenningsen at the UN’s climate change body said. “It’s not explicitly included in the UNFCCC process.”

Emissions, visibly etched into the sky in the form of condensed trails, are difficult to regulate belonging to all and none.

Kat Watts at Carbon Market Watch told RTCC with the political will of countries and industry there was “no reason most of the market’s modalities couldn’t be agreed in 2016″.

“A key issue will be the agreement of strong eligibility criteria so that credits used represent real emissions reductions and don’t cause environmental and social harm,” she added.

 

 

Read more »

European Parliament urges EU governments to include aviation and shipping in a strong Paris climate deal

.

 

European Parliament urges EU governments to include aviation and shipping in a strong Paris climate deal

The heads of the political groups on the Environment Committee said:
“To promote increased climate ambition from ICAO and IMO, like all the other sectors of the global economy, aviation and international shipping require an emissions reduction target. There is no reasonable excuse to continue exempting these two economy sectors from the global policy framework. Aviation and shipping need to contribute in the same way that is required of all UNFCCC Parties, large and small.” 
(See MEP letter copied below)
The Environment Ministers of the 28 European member states will be meeting on 18 September to finalise the EU position for COP21.
Sotiris Raptis, clean shipping officer at sustainable transport group Transport & Environment, commented: “It’s simply fair to demand from two economic sectors with emissions the size of Germany and South Korea to reduce CO2 emissions in line with keeping the global temperature increase below 2 degrees celsius. The IMO and ICAO have been procrastinating so far. The time for action has come.”

The European Parliament called last week for the establishment of an EU 2030 emissions reduction target for shipping and measures for the reduction of ships’ speed (slow steaming).

International aviation and shipping already account for up to 8% of the global climate change problem – if these two sectors were a country, they would rank in the top 10 list of biggest polluting nations in the world. Most importantly, their emissions are expected to grow by 2050 by 200-300% for aviation and 50-250% for shipping. Such increases would undermine efforts to limit the rise of global temperature to under 2 degrees.

http://www.transportenvironment.org/press/european-parliament-urges-eu-governments-include-aviation-and-shipping-strong-paris-climate

.


 

The letter – from the European Parliament – says:

14.9.2015

Dear Minister Carole Dieschbourg,

Dear Minister François Bausch,

As the Council of the European Union prepares to consider its conclusions on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change conference to be held in Paris in December 2015 (COP 21), we are writing to highlight the climate impact of international aviation and shipping and the need to ensure that addressing emissions from these sectors is included in the upcoming Council conclusions.

International aviation and shipping already account for up to 8% of global greenhouse gas, and their emissions are expected to grow by 2050 by 200 to 300% for aviation and 50 to 250% for shipping. Such increase would undermine efforts to limit the rise of global temperature to under 2 degrees.

It is therefore of paramount importance that the text to be finalised in Paris includes a requirement for the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to increase their climate ambition and adopt measures to limit and reduce their sectors emissions in line with the overall objective of limiting the temperature increase to under 2 degrees Celsius.

While ICAO is working on a global market based mechanism to implement its target of carbon neutral growth from 2020, a target which already falls well short of what is needed, there is no certainty that an effective agreement on this will be reached at its 2016 Assembly. Moreover the IMO, as recently as last May, stepped back from even launching a process to set up an overall emissions target for international shipping. This is despite the fact that there is an abundance of low-cost mitigation options that would permit global shipping to grow while arresting the growth of its emissions.

To promote increased climate ambition from ICAO and IMO, like all the other sectors of the global economy, aviation and international shipping require an emissions reduction target. There is no reasonable excuse to continue exempting these two industry sectors from the global policy framework. Aviation and shipping need to contribute in the same way that is required of all UNFCCC Parties, large and small.

We call on the EU Member States to defend the current references in the text to ICAO/IMO, and urge them to actively engage with other UNFCCC Parties to develop a wording which is acceptable to the maximum possible number of Parties and which addresses legitimate concerns regarding differentiation of responsibility. In this context, it is essential that the need for ambitious targets for aviation and shipping is reflected in the Council conclusions on COP 21.

Dr. Peter Liese as ENVI Coordinator for the EPP Group.

Matthias Groote as ENVI Coordinator for the S&D Group .

Julie Girling as ENVI Coordinator for the ECR Group

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy as ENVI Coordinator for the ALDE group

Kateřina Konečná as ENVI Coordinator for the GUE/NGL group

Bas Eickhout as ENVI Coordinator for the Greens/EFA Group

Piernicola Pedicini as ENVI Coordinator for the EFDD Group

.


.

Earlier:

 

NGOs from across Europe send open letter to EU ministers, asking for proper action on aviation CO2

The inclusion of international flights into the EU’s carbon market (the EU ETS) was one factor that created momentum for a global, rather than regional, measure to address aviation emissions. Recognizing Europe’s potential importance in trying to get progress in the ICAO negotiations towards a global MBM (market based measure), open letters from 15 NGOs across Europe have been sent to EU’s transport and environment/climate ministers. The letters ask them to do more in getting aviation CO2 emissions cuts. ICAO is aiming to adopt a global MBM to address some of the rapidly-rising emissions from global aviation,at its 2016 meeting. In theory, if ICAO does not come up with a sufficiently effective MBM, the EU will be asked to bring back its ETS measure. But with just one year till the scheduled adoption, the EU is punching below its weight at the negotiations, and there are concerns the ICAO’e level of ambition on CO2 is far too low. The NGO letters say that to keep aviation CO2 emissions down, the subsidies that European aviation enjoys, including tax-free status of fuel and no VAT, subsidies to non-viable regional airports and legalising operating aid to airlines, need to be cut.

Click here to view full story…

UN climate negotiations need to get agreed emissions targets for international aviation and shipping

Bill Hemmings, of Transport & Environment, writing in Euractiv after the recent UNFCCC talks, says the relevant UN bodies should identify an emission reduction pathway, and ensure that any measures adopted are done so in a fair and equitable way. The UNFCCC negotiating text now includes wording calling for the setting of emission reduction targets for international shipping and aviation, in the context of the objective of the agreement – which is to limit any temperature increase to 2 degrees. There will be more dialogue between parties on why this wording should be included in the Paris Agreement at COP 21. In a “business-as-usual” scenario, CO2 emissions from shipping could increase by up to 250% and from aviation by 270% by 2050. These would account for one-quarter of all allowable emissions under a 2-degree scenario in 2050 and one-third under a 1.5-degree scenario. Despite this reality, the IMO and ICAO have a long record of inaction. ICAO says it will agree by 2016 the details of a measure to deliver carbon neutral growth in 2020, but even that is uncertain and it will depend heavily on the quality of offsets used. However, in any case “carbon neutral growth” by the aviation industry globally will be insufficient to meet a 2-degree scenario.

Click here to view full story…

Talks in Geneva target a carbon emissions cap on international aviation and shipping

Work is progressing on text for the climate talks in Paris in December. In Geneva work has started, with representatives from over 190 countries, on negotiating texts on how there could be caps on carbon emissions from international aviation and shipping. The EU has been supportive of this sort of cap, having been the first to have an Emissions Trading System including aviation, till the ETS was scuppered last year. Brussels eventually had to cut the range of the ETS to only include flights within the EU, after trade threats from the USA, China and others. Air travel is one of the fastest growing sources of CO2, and the Paris negotiating text might encourage the global aviation industry to levy funds to be used to help poor countries adapt to climate change. However, any measures to limit aviation CO2 emissions are expected to be opposed by many countries. Including shipping and aviation emissions in a global climate deal has proved difficult in the past. If emissions from these sectors are not addressed effectively by 2050, bunker emissions could swell to account for a quarter of all emissions. ICAO is working on a proposal for some form of market based measure on carbon, due to be considered in 2016. Bill Hemmings, of T&E, said: “ICAO has promised action by 2016 but operates in complete secrecy.”

Click here to view full story…

 

Read more »