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 »

Meeting on aviation expansion and climate confirms “No new runways” is the only effective policy

Representatives from London’s anti-airport expansion campaigns shared the stage with Green activists, with a unified message: No new runways for the south east’s airports. The meeting was chaired by Sian Berry, the Green Party’s candidate for the London mayoral election. A range of prominent environmental activists spoke about why the case for no new runways at London’s airports is the most attractive option. Sian said nobody would believe David Cameron’s climate change credentials if he heads to the UN Climate Change conference in Paris in November, intending to get a new runway at a London airport. We need to “convince the government to end this false choice debate, trying to pit [Heathrow and Gatwick] communities against each other over which airport to expand and who should suffer the increased pollution and noise that would result.” Professor Alice Bows-Larkin, a climate expert, said in the conflict between aviation and climate policy in the UK said providing more airport capacity is at odds with managing demand for air travel, which is the only effective way to limit the rise in aviation CO2 emissions. The efficiency improvements the industry can make are far smaller than the expected growth of the industry. Not building another runway is the simplest, cheapest and most effective way to solve the aviation carbon problem.
.

 

 

“No new runways” is the message from airport expansion meeting

12.9.2015 (Green Party)

Green_party_event_2

Representatives from London’s anti-airport expansion campaigns shared the stage with Green activists on Saturday (12 September) with a unified message: No new runways for the south east’s airports.

Sian Berry, the Green Party’s candidate for the London mayoral election made the event her first official engagement by chairing the meeting of prominent environmental activists who took to the stage to explain why the case for no new runways at London’s airports is quickly becoming the most attractive option [1].

Camden Councillor Berry told delegates that no one will believe David Cameron’s Climate Change credentials if he heads to the UN Climate Change conference in November while wishing for a new runway at a London airport.

Berry 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 UK. 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.”

Panellist Professor Alice Bows-Larkin, an expert in the conflict between aviation and climate policy in the UK said:

“Avoiding the 2°C target with any reasonable chance requires all sectors within, and associated with, wealthy nations to make immediate and urgent cuts to their CO2 emissions. The aviation sector has very few technical options to make any more than an incremental adjustment to energy efficiency or carbon intensity in the next decade. This points towards demand management as an essential way of cutting levels of CO2 from the aviation sector in the near-term.

“Providing more airport capacity is at odds with managing demand, and although may improve efficiency in the short-term, within only a few years the increase in passenger numbers will help to uphold growth rates in the CO2 from flights to and from wealthy nations, jeopardising the goal of maintaining global temperatures below the 2°C threshold.”

Keith Taylor, Green MEP for South East England and No New Runways campaigner said:

“The ‘No New Runways’ event highlighted a unified position that is beginning to emerge against the building of new airport runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and across the rest of the UK.

“The event is unique because it brought together for the first time anti-Heathrow expansion & anti-Gatwick expansion campaigners in a joint show of strength against building new runways anywhere because of the damaging implications for climate change.

“Instead of expanding our airports, the Government should introduce a frequent flyer tax which would tax aviation much more fairly and at the same time reduce the demand for expansion”.

 

.

.

ENDS

 

The Green Party and partners are urging the government to stop the premature decision to expand either Gatwick or Heathrow, and instead to:

Create a level playing field on aviation tax: Currently aviation fuel is not taxed, which means that the UK (and other countries) incentivise the most climate damaging form of travel.  A level playing field will make it as attractive in cost terms to travel by train to Europe or to UK internal destinations as on short haul flights.

Taking the train instead of flying can reduce your carbon impacts by as much as 90%. In 2016 the European Parliament will consider bringing aviation fully into the European Emissions Trading Scheme, to put it on a par with other polluting industries. The Green Party’s MEPs will be working hard to get this approved.

Introduce a frequent flyer levy to reduce demand (currently 70% of all flights are taken by just 15% of people) and ensure equity of flying. The finance from this levy, and aviation taxation could be used to increase investment in greener transport alternatives.

Invest in improving public transport in the UK (including bringing the railways back into public hands) and ground and sea links to Europe so they are easy, safe and comfortable to use. Removing the need for extra roads and rail to serve an expanded airport will free up resources to invest in the whole transport network and prioritize improving services.

 

Read more »

New study by ICCT show new plane fuel efficiency gains are more than a decade late for UN ICAO goal

The European group, T&E, say that since 2010, the average fuel burn of new aircraft has improved by 1.1% per year, which suggests that aircraft manufacturers may miss UN aviation body ICAO’s 2020 fuel efficiency goals by 12 years. This has been show by a new study by the ICCT. IATA forecasts 4.1% annual growth of global aviation for the next 20 years. By contrast, the 1.1% progress in fuel efficiency of new commercial jets falls way behind the progress needed to meet ICAO’s targets. The gap between 4.1% growth and 1.1% improvement is massive. Since 2009 ICAO has been working on a CO2 standard for new aircraft to boost fuel efficiency technology in the fleet. Work should be completed in 2016, with the standard for new commercial jets taking effect in 2020. Decisions on the actual stringency of the standard are due over the next months. T&E said: “ICAO must help airlines meet their own climate goals and agree a COstandard that actually forces new technology in the fleet, rather than doing business as usual….. It’s a no brainer for ICAO to agree a global market-based measure that drives fuel prices up steadily over time.”  More progress in fuel efficiency strongly correlates with higher fuel prices. Aviation’s massive CO2 emissions are projected to triple by 2050.
.

 

New plane fuel efficiency gains are more than a decade late for UN goal – study

Since 2010, the average fuel burn of new aircraft has improved by 1.1% per year, which suggests that aircraft manufacturers may miss UN aviation body ICAO’s 2020 fuel efficiency goals by 12 years, a new study by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) reveals.

As air traffic soars (industry trade body IATA forecasts a 4.1% annual growth for the next 20 years), this 1% progress in new commercial jet fuel efficiency falls way behind the technology advances needed to meet ICAO’s own targets, Transport & Environment commented.

Since 2009 (and after rejecting the idea in 2001) ICAO has been working on a CO2 standard for new aircraft to boost fuel efficiency technology in the fleet. Work should be completed in 2016, three years later than planned, with the standard for new commercial jets taking effect in 2020. Decisions on the actual stringency of the standard are due over the next months.

Andrew Murphy, sustainable aviation officer at T&E, said: “When demand for your service grows four times quicker than the fuel efficiency of new planes, you clearly have a CO2 emissions gap. This study confirms the open secret that planemakers are not delivering the efficient airplanes needed to meet UN goals. ICAO must help airlines meet their own climate goals and agree a CO2standard that actually forces new technology in the fleet, rather than doing business as usual.”

The rate of fuel efficiency gains varied significantly over time: average fuel burn improved by 2.6% per year during the 80s, while no progress was seen during the 1970s and in the period from 1995 to 2005. As shown in the graph below, progress in fuel efficiency strongly correlates with fuel prices. That is, spikes in kerosene prices (like in early 80s and after 2004) have seen corresponding improvements in fuel efficiency of new jet planes.

Fuel efficiency improvement of planes to 2014

History has shown again and again that fuel efficiency in transport is highly linked to fuel costs. Air travel is no different. It’s a no brainer for ICAO to agree a global market-based measure that drives fuel prices up steadily over time,” Andrew Murphy added.

With new aircraft having a lifespan of 20-30 years, falling efficiency returns could lock in unnecessary fossil fuel consumption for decades to come, greatly undermining global efforts to decarbonise and limit a temperature increase to under 2 degrees,” Andrew Murphy concluded.

If considered as a country, global aviation would have ranked seventh in terms of CO2 emissions in 2012, just after Germany. These already massive CO2 emissions rise every year and are projected to triple by 2050.

http://www.transportenvironment.org/press/new-plane-fuel-efficiency-gains-are-more-decade-late-un-goal-%E2%80%93-study

.


 

 

A new paper for the ICCT analyzes the fuel efficiency/carbon intensity of new commercial aircraft, and indicates the substantial gap existing between what is technological feasible and new aircraft currently on the market.

Fuel efficiency trends for new commercial jet aircraft: 1960 to 2014 (PDF, 54.82KB)

3.9.2015 (ICCT – International Council on Clean Transportation)

This report updates a 2009 study that analyzed the sales- and activity-weighted fuel efficiency improvement of commercial jet aircraft from 1960 to 2008. It improves on that work in several significant ways, updating with new aircraft types and data for 2009 to 2014 deliveries and using refined metrics for measurement, including the efficiency metric value that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has developed for its international CO2 standard.

Key findings:

  • Between 1968 and 2014 the average fuel burn of new aircraft fell approximately 45%, or a compound annual reduction rate of 1.3%.
  • The rate of efficiency improvement varied significantly over time: average fuel efficiency improved by 2.6% per year during 1980s, while little or no improvement was seen during the 1970s and in the period from 1995 to 2005.
  • Today, the rate of efficiency improvement for new aircraft has returned back to the historical average. This trend, probably attributable to the spike in fuel prices after 2004, is likely to continue for the near term as more new aircraft types are brought to market.
  • Despite this progress, manufacturers continue to lag United Nations’ fuel efficiency goals for new aircraft. On average, industry is about 12 years behind the 2020 and 2030 fuel efficiency goals established by ICAO, the UN agency that overseas international aviation.
  • Continued oil market volatility, combined with evidence that the industry is lagging its technological potential, highlights the need for a meaningful CO2 standard to help industry meet its environmental goals.
ICCT chart of aircraft fuel efficiency improvements to 2014
STA means “small twin aisle” (ie. wide-bodied aircraft with more than 7 seats abreast, like ? Boeing 787 and Airbus A350,) and SA means “single aisle” (ie. seating 6 abreast, smaller planes referred to as regional jets, not making long inter-continental trips).
.
The paper says (Page iv):
“Reductions in average aircraft fuel burn slowed noticeably after 1990 and largely halted around 2000. After 2010, average fuel efficiency began to accelerate on both metrics and has now returned to the long-term average improvement of 1.1% per annum on a fuel/ passenger-km basis. Acceleration in improvement rate is expected in the foreseeable future due to the introduction of new, more efficient aircraft designs such as the A320neo, 737 MAX, and 777X. Over the long term, fuel efficiency improvements on the fuel/passenger-km and ICAO’s cruise fuel metric were found to be comparable.”
.
The paper’s conclusion:
“4. Conclusions and Next Steps
This work reconfirms the 2009 study’s conclusion that a meaningful CO2 standard is needed to provide an extra incentive for new technology development and deployment. Despite faster fuel efficiency improvements linked to new aircraft types and higher fuel prices, manufacturers remain 12 years behind ICAO’s technology goals. It is also worth noting that, albeit at a slow pace, new aircraft fuel efficiency keeps improving by the year. Any CO2 emission standard should, therefore, ensure additional emission reductions by taking into account the baseline level of industry improvement in order to avoid setting a standard that would be overtaken by “natural” improvement.
“As discussed in the previous section, ICAO’s CO2 emission standard, while rewarding technologies that reduce fuel burn, does not reward structural efficiency as evident from a comparison of ICAO’s cruise metric value and the fuel/passenger-km metrics used to measure CO2 reduction. Even if the adopted standard is stringent enough to incrementally improve fuel efficiency beyond business-as-usual, a supporting measure may be needed to promote structural efficiency, including the use of lightweight materials and efficient aircraft design. Differentiated landing fees based on the fuel efficiency of in-service aircraft is one potential incentive.
“Looking forward, further work is needed to comprehensively investigate the degree of correlation between the modeled average fuel burn on the block fuel per passenger-km and ICAO cruise metrics. An expansion of the study to include general aviation aircraft, notably turboprops and business jets, could broaden our understanding of overall industry fuel efficiency trends. A future update will also be necessary to reflect changes linked to project aircraft due to enter into service between 2016 and 2020 — before the earliest application date of ICAO’s CO2 standard. The update will also be useful in reassessing industry’s progress toward ICAO’s fuel burn technology goals.”
http://www.theicct.org/fuel-efficiency-trends-new-commercial-jet-aircraft-1960-2014
.
.
.
The ICCT (International Council on Clean Transportation) says it is:
“.. an independent non-profit organization founded to provide first-rate, unbiased research and technical and scientific analysis to environmental regulators. Our mission is to improve the environmental performance and energy efficiency of road, marine, and air transportation, in order to benefit public health and mitigate climate change.”
More details at http://www.theicct.org/about-icct
.

.

See earlier:

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

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

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2014/11/overall-fuel-efficiency-of-us-airlines-fails-to-improve-on-domestic-routes-during-2013-finds-icct-study/

.


Southampton University study shows air traffic growth would outpace CO2 reduction efforts unless demand is cut by higher air fares

Edit this entry.

Experts warn that cheap air travel needs to end if the air industry is to honour its pledges to reduce its carbon footprint. Airfares will need to increase by a third over the next 30 years if airlines are to cut their passenger numbers,in order to hit their ‘carbon neutral’ targets. A study (by John Preston, Matt Grote and Ian Williams, at the Dept of Engineering and the Environment at the University of Southampton) shows the airline industry will have to raise fares in order to limit demand for air travel, which otherwise rises continuously.  The study says air ticket prices need to increase by at least 1.4% per year, even if the airlines invest in more efficient aircraft and manage to introduce lower-carbon fuels. Air fares have become 1.3 % cheaper every year, on average, since 1979. The researchers say the average fare paid by passengers would need to rise (at 2013 prices) from £170 in 2013, to £195 in 2023, to £225 in 2033, and to £258 by 2043. The growth in demand for flights will outpace fuel efficiency improvements if the annual increase in air passengers worldwide is around 4 – 5% per year.  Though IATA hopes to improve aircraft fuel efficiency by 1.5% per year up to 2020, it realises the higher growth in passenger numbers is causing a net increase in aviation carbon emissions.

Paper is at University of Southampton Aircraft emissions paper – June 2014

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2014/08/southampton-university-study-shows-air-traffic-growth-would-outpace-co2-reduction-efforts-unless-demand-is-cut-by-higher-air-fares/

.


UK aviation industry presents its (unrealistic) Road-Map for growing while cutting carbon by 2050

An aviation industry body calling itself The Sustainable Aviation Group has updated its 2008 Road-Map on how it hopes to continue growing as much as possible, and yet also magically keep its carbon emissions down. There are many assumptions about the extent of  fuel efficiency from new planes and new engines; from better operational practices such as better air traffic control.  And a huge hope that biofuels will be the salvation and provide immense carbon savings.  In addition, they will depend to a huge extent on carbon trading with other sectors, so at least a quarter of their emissions will have to be compensated for by other sectors. And for all this they want a lot of government subsidy and assistance – which means money from the tax payer.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2012/03/sustainable-aviation/

Link:

Sustainable Aviation

The 2012 Road-Map is at  http://www.sustainableaviation.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/SA-CO2-Road-Map-full-report-280212.pdf

The 2008 Road-Map is at  http://www.nats.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/sa-road-map-final-dec-08.pdf

.

.

..

 

 

Read more »

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.”
.

 

 

SOMETHING IS HAPPENING HERE

August 17, 2015

by Tom Burke

Environmentalists have long been vulnerable to their own passions. At times this can make us sound shrill and self-righteous. On other occasions it can blind us to political traps. The oil industry is now busy setting a big one for us. It is camouflaged under a call by the industry’s leaders for ‘clear, stable, long-term, ambitious policy frameworks’ to tackle climate change.

Who could quarrel?

This call was set out in a letter to Christiana Figueres, head of the UNFCCC, at the end of May. In case you missed it, it was repeated in a letter to the Financial Times on June 1st. They were specific about what they wanted. Governments should, ‘introduce carbon pricing systems……[and] ….create an international framework that could eventually connect national systems.’

Let me summarise. They want a global carbon price.

Environmentalists have long been beguiled by the pollution syllogism. It runs like this: pollution is sinful; sin must be punished; taxes are punishment, ergo, tax pollution. There is no joy in heaven like that at a sinner repenting.

It would be easy to confuse oil companies calling for a carbon price with sinners repenting. They are not. They are up to something altogether more subtle. The European companies who signed the letter, their American peers declined, have woken up to the existential threat to them posed by climate change.

A brutal combination of rapid technology development and unusual global weather events is reshaping the politics of climate change. The weather events ramp up the pressure on governments to act. Rapidly falling costs for low carbon technologies lower the political risk of doing so.

To have a good chance of avoiding dangerous climate change the world must get to net zero carbon emissions by 2100. That is for emissions from all sources including agriculture and deforestation. For the global energy system it means getting to carbon neutrality much earlier – at or soon after 2050. This goal collides directly with the oil companies’ business model.

Three beliefs define the oil companies current comfort zone. 1. The world needs their product. 2. Governments are on their side.  3. Energy technology change takes decades.

The accelerating surge of investment in renewables and storage as prices collapse undermines two of them. Obama and Clinton choosing to pick a fight over climate change, with the Pope’s blessing, in an election year is sawing away at the third.

Changing your business model is no simple task even for a small company. For behemoths like the oil companies writing to the UNFCCC it may be impossible. I cannot think of an example in corporate history of companies this large doing so voluntarily. In recent months a more alarmed conversation has begun within the oil companies’ leadership.

Its first product is a decision to buy time to think about how to deal with the collision between their business model and a safe climate. Hence the call for a carbon price. The intent is to create the impression of an industry in favour of urgent action whilst actually slowing that action down.

It is a tenet of economic dogma that putting a price on carbon is the most efficient way of dealing with climate change. The oil companies are counting on the weight of orthodox economic opinion supporting them.

The call for a carbon price is a shield with which to defend themselves from calls for faster change. If we are not decarbonising fast enough, they will argue, it is not their fault. 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. Ask Amber Rudd. This is simply a stratagem to re-balance the political equation. Politicians are to be caught between the pressure to protect the climate and the pain of doing it with a carbon price. You do not have to be a cynic to believe that faced with this kind of dilemma most politicians will do very little.

There is a further subtlety to this plan. Calling for a global carbon price will mobilise hostile, if covert, opposition from every finance ministry on the planet. Few national prerogatives are as fiercely protected as the right to raise (or lower) taxes. Sixty years of building a Single Market have not persuaded the nations of the EU to surrender any taxation prerogatives to Brussels.

Keeping the climate safe means persuading 190 nations to coordinate their energy policies. After thirty years of trying we are still some way from succeeding. Yet, by comparison with coordinating their tax policies this is straightforward. 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.

Oil company CEOs lack neither intelligence nor experience. They have not overlooked the political problems of calling for a global price on carbon. They are counting on them. Their purpose is clear, to set a trap for unwary policy makers and environmentalists. Shame on those who fall into it.

Tom Burke, London  -August 10th 2015

[ ‘Something is happening here/But you don’t know what it is/ Do you, Mr Jones?’ is a line from ‘Ballad of a Thin Man’ by Bob Dylan ]
http://tomburke.co.uk/2015/08/17/something-is-happening-here/

.

Tom Burke

Tom Burke is the Chairman of E3G, Third Generation Environmentalism, and an Environmental Policy Adviser (part time) to Rio Tinto plc. He is a Visiting Professor at both Imperial and University Colleges, London.

More details and fuller biography at http://www.e3g.org/people/tom-burke

.


 

Comment from an AirportWatch member:

“For more than 12 years I have felt as if I was almost a lone voice amongst environmentalists in describing carbon pricing and emissions trading schemes as a complete sham and an excuse for doing nothing.  God bless Tom Burke.  He has hit the nail on the head with this article.”


.

Energy round-up: carbon markets have failed

3.9.2015

By Stephen Devlin

In theory, the world has the solution to soaring emissions – it’s called carbon pricing.

Carbon pricing is an attempt to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by charging polluters to cover their external costs. Most economists and policy-makers argue the only efficient way to do this is through establishing a market for carbon. This is done through an emissions trading scheme (ETS): a fixed number of emissions permits are issued and a cap is set on the total emissions allowed.

Those who then pollute more – oil and gas firms and others [airlines, as another example] who find it harder to make cuts, for example – can cover their higher emissions by buying more permits from those who make reductions easier. But it’s also possible to cover emissions by purchasing offsets from foreign ETS.

In fact, a new report released by the New Zealand government reveals that almost all of their emission reduction obligations for 2014 were met by paying for offsets in transition countries such as Russia and Ukraine, cheaper options because emissions cuts are easier to make there.

The problem is that many analysts believe these foreign emissions reductions would have happened anyway. Cutting waste from coal or pipeline leakages, for example, is win-win for industry as it also keeps their costs down. As a result, the impact of New Zealand’s ETS is close to zero. This also applies to the EU ETS, in which about a third of total emissions reductions come from international offsets.

Not only has this overestimated emissions reductions, it may have also contributed to the collapse of carbon prices. In both New Zealand and EU, markets remain far below the estimated cost of carbon. The actual social cost of carbon emissions is far higher than emissions permit prices imply. This also undermines long-term incentives to innovate as it’s much cheaper to just pay for your pollution.

But reforming emissions trading schemes has been a headache so far. Companies benefit from low prices as offsets depress the market and windfall profits – as permits are issued for free – and those unused can be sold on. Chances are they are not looking to give up paying far below the actual cost of pollution and making a profit from selling excess permits, too. At least in other carbon markets this problem is tackled by auctioning permits.

Financial incentives are a powerful force, but for carbon pricing the market design is flawed.

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/energy-round-up-carbon-markets-have-failed

.

.

.

.

 

 

Read more »

Many thousands of determined opponents of new Nantes airport gather before final court decision

Over the weekend of 11th and 12th July there was a massive gathering at Notre Dame des Landes, in western France, to show the strong opposition to the building of a new runway there, to replace the current Nantes airport. This “mobilisation” is the 15th that the organisers, ACIPA, have put on over the years.  It was estimated that perhaps 15,000 people attended over the two days. People at Nantes are very aware of the carbon and climate implications of a new airport, as well as serious local environmental destruction. They also link the Nantes campaign with other huge infrastructure projects across Europe, that would be damaging in terms of carbon emissions – such as a new runway in the UK. There is a desire to link up campaigns against such developments.  The gathering combined a lot of workshops and education sessions with fun, with music, dancing and food -but with a very serious message. On Friday 17th July the Nantes Administrative Court will rule on the last 17 appeals by opponents of the airport project, on several environmental issues in contention with EU law, such as on water law and destruction of protected species. It is thought the court will rule against the opponents,but they will appeal. These legal issues are all that is holding up building of the airport. 
.

 

Several thousand opponents of the airport of Notre-Dame-des-Landes met before the final court decision

11.7.2015

(Le Monde, France)

Several thousand people attended, Saturday, July 11, to mobilize weekend against the airport project at Notre-Dame-des-Landes, about fifteen kilometers north of Nantes. The stakes are high: if this form of summer gathering takes place every year – this is the fifteenth edition – the 2015 meeting takes place just days before the (near) final court round about the proposed move of the Current Nantes Atlantique airport to the small town of Notre-Dame-des-Landes.

By late afternoon, the organizers met a peak at the height of their hopes when many other large projects were contested in the heart of the debate.

The government, through the voice of the Prime Minister in particular, has already indicated that the work of the future airport, told the Great West Airport, a subsidiary of Vinci Airports, could begin once all legal remedies exhausted.

Last resort

Friday, July 17, the Nantes administrative court must give judgment on the last seventeen appeals by opponents. On June 18, the public rapporteur had rejected them , arguing that the decrees issued by the prefecture, the Law on water and protected species, were consistent with national and European regulations. If the President of the 8 th house, Patrick Chupin had stated that the court would decide “independently” in most cases, the recommendation of the rapporteur public is followed by the judges.

Nothing precludes, in fact, the early start of work, both for the construction of the new airport platform (the terminal and the two tracks) that bar the road which should allow the service of the site.

Obstacles could still nevertheless complicate or delay construction sites. We must move protected species which for some of them, can not be done any time, especially in summer. Opponents, in case of defeat (expected) Friday, intend to appeal, which is not suspensive of a possible start of work.

Embedded image permalink

Finally, the shovel into action in Nantes grove, it will then dislodge tens of zadistes, who occupy the ZAD, zone defense (originally holding zone). It will not be easy, especially as this site, ZAD ancestor that emerged throughout the country, Sivens (Tarn) against a dam in Roybon (Isère) against a Center Park, many reinforcements will come lend a hand strong permanent occupants, as soon as the start of any movement of construction site equipment, escorted by police. An important network of support committees is Woven throughout the country for many years.

The fiasco of “Caesar”

In October and November 2012, the operation “Caesar” that was intended to dislodge the occupants and resume huts and occupied farms had resulted in violent clashes in the peaceful countryside Nantes … and a fiasco. The offensive led by the gendarmes had caused a major demonstration of some 30,000 people, from all over France, with the presence of many political leaders (Europe Ecology-The Greens, the Left Front, Modem, far left, libertarian, etc.) on 17 November.

In May 2013, they were still tens of thousands have made a human chain around the site slated to host the future airport. Will they be as numerous 11th and 12th of July? This is not safe, but mobilization may nevertheless be significant.

Representatives of other strengths to projects like the landfill of nuclear waste in Bure (Meuse) will be there. On this issue, the integration by the Senate of an amendment to the law Macron not put to a vote by resorting to 49-3 Thursday night endorsing the creation of the landfill of nuclear waste, has rankled opponents , environmentalists in mind.

See the picture on Twitter

The militants hostile to the construction of the Center Park of Roybon are the guests of honor at the 2015 Notre-Dame-des-Landes. They will know, them, the decision of the Grenoble Administrative Court on their appeals, Thursday, July 16.

Read also: The future of Center Parcs Roybon again suspended from a court decision

“Heater fight! “

Suffice to say that the reasons to prepare future events will not fail and that the coming week is important. After the judicial phase, decisions will be highly political.

At five months of the climate conference that will host delegations from all member countries of the United Nations in Paris, François Hollande he will take the risk of clashes in Notre-Dame-des-Landes, or elsewhere? Environmentalists and anti-capitalist activists, opposed to what they call “big useless projects” have understood the dilemma.

They placed the gathering of the weekend under the sign of planetary rendezvous of the end of November. “heater control, not the climate! “ profess organizers gathered in the opponents to the project Coordination of Notre-Dame-des-Landes, adding, “There is no planet B! Stopping global warming! “ .

The original French at:

http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2015/07/11/mobilisation-a-notre-dame-des-landes-en-attendant-l-ultime-decision-judicaire_4679363_3244.html

 


See also

Notre-Dame-des-Landes 2015 : Une détermination renforcée par le succès du 15ème rassemblement.

Notre-Dame-des-Landes 2015: A determination reinforced by the success of the 15th gathering.

14.7.2015 (ACIPA)

 

Bad Google translate English version below (but you can get the gist !):

The resounding success of the fifteenth annual gathering Notre-Dame-des-Landes, 2015, organized by opponents of Coordination for the airport project, leash, as one of our members said, ” there is little doubt about the inability of the Power go back to the act of destruction  . ” If the struggle of Notre-Dame-des-Landes has become the “flagship” of European struggles, we have, after this weekend more than warm, accumulated enough energy to help inform other struggles for much longer.

Congratulations and thank you to the committee members who worked for 6 months around those who have become over gatherings of real pros of the organization, support committees and to the many volunteers who helped them to the end, as well as ‘producers who gave products or loaned equipment.

Congratulations and thank you to the 15,000 participants of this great event to have answered our call again! The relaxed but determined atmosphere that settled – under a generous sun this year – has earned us numerous enthusiastic congratulations.

Congratulations and thank you to organizations from all over France – Bure, Roybon, Sivens and even Great Britain and Germany – to provide information on a stand or / and debate through the quarantine proposed forums. The quality of trade increases every year and allows us to say that our traditional appointment has become a festive rendezvous militant of the highest level meet the high expectations of citizens.

Congratulations and thank you to the artists we came to dance and volunteers occupation of heaven to those magical moments.

We were very honored by the presence of Mr. Tognoni, General Secretary of the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal and thank him for being with us at this important stage of our struggle.

Tributes to Rémi Fraisse opening rally and political meeting were the highlights, filled with emotion and respect. Everyone was aware that such a tragedy does not happen again.

There is no intention of abandoning the project.  We must continue to work on the three pillars of our action:

– We confidently expect the rendering judgment expected Friday, July 17 on the 17 appeals filed notably under the Water Law and Protected Species. It is “a first round in a match in 3 sets” according to another activist.

– On the political side, we must prepare for the month of December in preparation for regional elections (especially in PDL and Brittany, funders Potential of Our Lady of the project-des-Landes) and

-COP 21 which one can say that the debate has already started this weekend at Notre Dame des Landes.

– On the ground, we will remain vigilant, all united components to discourage the slightest hint of the beginning of work on the airport, confident that our civil disobedience is legitimate. All components of the fight work on a common future without airport rich exchange of new agricultural practices and respect for living together in harmony after the abandonment of the project.

We wish everyone a nice summer!

Wear the badge of the struggle of Notre-Dame-des-Landes wherever you go this summer to strengthen it!

Think of other struggles whose representatives came to Notre-Dame-des-Landes weekend that need us to support them!  [Heathrow for one].

See you in mid-August to actively resume our actions in non-violence – ie coherent actions with the world we want to help build – with respect for people and property and with a determination not only completely intact but strengthened by what has happened around Notre-Dame-des-Landes in 2015.

The ACIPA

The event’s photo album is online here: https://picasaweb.google.com/114351998387816929013/2015071112_NotreDameDesLandes2015#slideshowAnd the videos will be collected there: http://www.scoop.it/t/videos-ndl/?tag=NDL2015

Press Book dedicated: http://www.scoop.it/t/acipa/?tag=NDL2015

https://www.acipa-ndl.fr/actualites/divers/item/569-notre-dame-des-landes-2015-une-determination-renforcee


Notre-Dame-des-Landes. Une mobilisation studieuse et festive

13.7.2015
 Les débats ont fait le plein
http://www.ouest-france.fr/notre-dame-des-landes-une-mobilisation-studieuse-et-festive-3556860
And this includes some short video clips
In rather poor English translation:

Notre-Dame-des-Landes. A studious and festive mobilization

13.7.2015
Vigneux-de-Bretagne
The anti-airport passed their traditional summer mobilization. It was the 15th time this has been held and it was held in Vigneux-de-Bretagne.
A spokesman of project opponents Notre-Dame-des-Landes, Julien Durand had Sunday smile, the day of reckoning. “The mobilization was excellent. The participants were happy to be back. The crowd shows that resistance is installed , “noted the peasant.
A portrait of the environmental activist Rémi Fraisse had been deployed to the big top
This year, there was no headliners, but opponents came in numbers affirm their determination to prevent the transfer of the Nantes airport. Julien Durand estimated up to 20,000 people were on the site over the two days.
The 15th rally against the transfer of the Nantes airport to Notre-Dame-des-Landes was studious. A wide audience, in search of information, followed quarantine forums and debates. That of Sunday noon, in particular, who made the link between anti-airport fight and the fight against global warming.
Many people also exposed to legal action, and reflection on the future of the area “after the abandonment of the project.”
The gathering was festive. After the success of the great popular dance Résist’danse Saturday night, other music took the relay on Sunday, as “bagad Notre-Dame-des-Landes, an increase training for the occasion with musicians who play in training industry and fans.
Friday, July 17, it will again issue of airport project. The administrative court will tell if the invalid or prefectural water law and destruction of protected species. The judgment, written, shall be communicated directly to the parties. Opponents have not planned a gathering near the administrative court.
http://www.ouest-france.fr/notre-dame-des-landes-une-mobilisation-studieuse-et-festive-3556860
.

.

The public rapporteur dismisses the actions of opponents of the airport project of Notre-Dame-des-Landes

Le rapporteur public rejette les recours des opposants au projet d’aéroport de Notre-Dame-des-Landes

18.6.2015   (Le Monde, France)

Not very good translation into English below:

The decision was expected. The rapporteur has rejected public, Thursday, June 18, the 17 appeals filed by opponents of the proposed airport at Notre-Dame-des-Landes, announced about fifteen kilometers north of Nantes (Loire-Atlantique). The Nantes Administrative Court will deliver its judgment on 17 July.

From the findings of the known public rapporteur, President (PS) of the Pays de la Loire, Jacques Auxiette, released its satisfaction. “These conclusions are logical , he says.  They are in line with a validation of the important and unprecedented environmental measures that accompany the transfer of the existing Nantes Atlantique airport to the grove of Notre-Dame-des-Landes. They show that the years of dialogue were useful because they helped improve the environmental aspect and the necessary compensations. “ It is quite likely that the court follow, as is the case most of the time, the conclusions of the public rapporteur.

For opponents who had filed appeals against prefectural orders “Water Law” and “protected species” – associations (the elected Collective doubting the relevance of the airport [CEDPA], the intermunicipal citizen Association populations affected by the airport project [ACIPA], France Nature Environnement, etc.) and individuals like Julien Durand, a longtime opponent farmer and spokesman of ACIPA -, this conclusion is nonetheless carrier risks.

Indeed, on several occasions, the Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, said that the future airport work would start as early as the ultimate recourse judged. Nothing therefore should stand in the runway of the airport project proponents, government, the region and the city of Nantes in particular, and Vinci Airports and Airport Grand Ouest subsidiary (AGO ) that was assigned the concession of the future airport platform.

“The battle is not over”

For their part, opponents have expressed their intention to appeal against any decision of the court which would be unfavorable to them. “The battle is not over, we will appeal if necessary because it is completely abnormal that justice follow the advice of Vinci, and government, as we have motivated scientific expert opinion “ , said Françoise Verchère, CEDPA spokesman. “We hope that nothing will be done on the ground before all remedies are exhausted, as Head of State promised, therefore before any appeal “ , she adds.

He cited the example of East Donges, in the 2000s, one of the Autonomous Port of Nantes expansion project that wanted to build new docks by destroying a reed bed in the estuary of the Loire. “The court rejected the opponents but finally we won on appeal “ , she recalls. The Minister of the Environment the time, Jean-Louis Borloo, announced the abandonment of the project on 19 June 2009. After twenty years of fighting.

Read also: Notre-Dame-des-Landes: Valls irritates environmentalists

“Strength of arguments”

The only glimmer of hope for opponents, the president of the 6 th Chamber of the Administrative Court, Patrick Chupin, has insisted that the conclusions of public rapporteur pledged that he and the court would decide in “complete independence” .

“Our goal is to achieve the cancellation of prefectural orders, given the strength of our arguments” , told the World counsel for the opponents, Thomas Dubreuil. In support of their applications, the associations hostile to the project indeed cited the findings of two expert reports that criticize, in particular, compensation systems provided due to the destruction of wetlands where several dozen flourish protected species.

In April 2013, a panel of scientific experts appointed by the government of Jean-Marc Ayrault, then Prime Minister, former mayor of Nantes and always strong supporter of the airport at Notre-Dame-des-Landes, felt that could not “validate the method as is” scheduled compensation and that he formulated reservations should be lifted so that “the project can be continued.” These criticisms of the Committee related in particular to “insufficient initial characterization of biodiversity “ , “insufficient analysis of quantitative hydrological functioning” , “non-relevant analysis of water quality” or “lack of explicit method for long-term monitoring of compensation measures” .

More recently, in February, it was the turn of the Scientific Council of the natural heritage and biodiversity to convey his reservations to the Minister for Ecology, Segolene Royal. He saw then that “this project would have a major impact on agro-ecosystems of relict wetlands, endangered throughout western Europe, with their valuable ecological functions and biodiversity richness, which offset opportunities alike appear very limited “ . The Board had issued “an opinion that the destruction of this very original set by the realization of the airport of Notre-Dame-des-Landes” .

New setback

The record of Notre-Dame-des-Landes, open for nearly fifty years, is not yet completed. In 2010, the joint association of airport studies foresaw the arrival of the first aircraft in 2017. It will not happen. The battle is not over, especially since the opponents have developed an alternative project, defended a long time: the renovation of the Nantes airport. Friday night, they will present to the press and the public the findings of the “citizen workshop” which, with many architects, worked in particular on the expansion of the existing terminal.

Just a week before the decision of the Administrative Court of Nantes, on 11 and 12 July, the Nantes Bocage and farms occupied by farmers and activists ZAD (zone defending) welcome from supporters of the country to a mobilization weekend. “This will give us the opportunity to re-engage everyone in case it is needed” , says Françoise Verchère. Zadistes, farmers and environmental protection activists have the opportunity to discuss strategies for opposing the start of construction. And the most skeptical about the usefulness of legal battle are sure to then emphasize the need for other means of control.
See the original French below

http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2015/06/18/derniere-passe-d-armes-judiciaire-autour-du-projet-d-aeroport-a-notre-dame-des-landes_4656591_3244.html

.

Lors d'une manifestation contre le projet d'aéroport à Notre-Dame-des-Landes le 18 juin.

Notre-Dame-des-Landes : pour les opposants, le projet d’aéroport est contraire aux objectifs de la COP21

13.7.2015
(Le Monde, France)

In rather poor English translation below:

Notre-Dame-des-Landes: for opponents, the airport project is contrary to the goals of COP21

13.7.2015 (Le Monde, France)

On one airport to another. From Notre-Dame-des-Landes, where the state, region and Vinci Airports Nantes Atlantique want to transfer the existing airport until Bourget, north of Paris, where the UN Conference will be held climate, COP21, a single combat.

For thousands of opponents (about 15,000 according to the organizers) to the draft new Nantes airport, gathered Saturday 11 and Sunday July 12 in Vigneux-de-Bretagne (Loire-Atlantique), south of the future airport area, there a major contradiction between the declarations in favor of the fight against global warming policies and industrial managers, and the reality of economic policies and infrastructure projects, particularly transport.

“Stowaways”

“Air transport is stowaways in the fight against global warming, it exempts of all, recalled Lorelei Limousin, Climate Action Network (RAC) at the central meeting on Sunday morning. The absence of tax diesel for the Air lost 550 million euros a year to the government, to which one can add the reduced VAT on airline tickets, € 600 million, more than one billion shortfall. “ She continued, to the applause of hundreds of activists present in a large tent: “Air France is one of the sponsors of the COP21, it boggles. “

Read also: Climate: air transport promises a blue sky

These politicians, Europe Ecology-The Greens (EELV), the Left Party (PG) and the New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA), were hit hard. ” The fight against climate change, it is in our advertising, in our communication, say the large groups, Air France, BNP Paribas, which invest in fossil fuels in the world, EDF, GDF-Suez, etc., but in reality, they oppose any proposed saving energy , explained Yannick Jadot, MEP EELV. They say yes, butnot here, not now, not like this. “

Martine Billard (PG) mocked those who “want to sell green airports” . “We are sold the same sustainable nuclear; to be sustainable, nuclear is truly sustainable “ , she threw to the conquered militants. According to her, the planet can not travel, unfortunately, to the discovery of all countries of the world. “There are limits, our planet has limits, and we must make choices, what is at stake the COP21 “ , she has said. For the representative of the NPA, Christine Poupin, the question of “expropriation of the big capitalist groups” is asked.

Beyond political statements, facilitated by the full support of the public, the weekend of mobilization against the planned Notre-Dame-des-Landes – and all the “useless major projects”  : rail tunnel between Lyon and Turin The Center Parc Roybon (Isère), the dam Sivens (Tarn) … not to mention the “factory” of a thousand cows or landfill of nuclear waste in Lorraine, in Bure … – was the occasion of an intense work on arguments.

Judicial appointments

“An Airbus A 320 engulf as much energy in one hour at takeoff than me in twenty years on my farm, summarized Daniel Durand of the Confederation Paysanne. To get to New York, it would take 150 ha rapeseed, 300 if we want him back. So useless to think of biofuels for aviation. “

One after another, all stakeholders dozens of forums organized under the six capitals of the site have expressed opposition to current projects. The link with the fight against global warming, five months of COP21, is permanent, highlighted by the presence of officials of the Climate Coalition and 21 of Alternatiba activists who are trying to achieve, by bike, turn, France militant. “heater control, not the climate! “ was the central slogan of the weekend.

And then there was the news of the record of Notre-Dame-des-Landes. Friday, July 17, the Nantes administrative court must rule on the last seventeen appeals by opponents of the airport project. The day before, the Grenoble Administrative Court will judge appeals opponents of the Center Parc Roybon.

Read also: Several thousand opponents of the airport of Notre-Dame-des-Landes met before the final court decision

Political agreement

“If the opinion is unfavorable we, as public rapporteur has suggested, then we will appeal. And according to the political agreement sealed with the president and prime ministers that have succeeded, no construction will not start before the exhaustion of all legal proceedings “ , recalls serene but determined, Julien Durand, farmer and is emblematic of the ACIPA (inter citizen Association of populations affected by the airport project of Notre-Dame-des-Landes).

Around the vast grasslands of La Paquelais, where opponents have installed the rally, dozens of occupants of the “zone defense” (ZAD), distributed between farms and the many huts scattered around the countryside, are also waiting later with the firm intention not to leave the place one day construction machinery.

See the original in French here:

En savoir plus sur http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2015/07/12/pour-les-opposants-a-notre-dame-des-landes-le-projet-d-aeroport-est-contraire-aux-objectifs-de-la-cop21_4680552_3244.html#6f0P5FYPPmU0tASu.99

Read more »

The Guardian view on expanding Heathrow: just say no. Guardian Editorial

The Guardian writes that the Airports Commission and most of the reporting of the Heathrow runway recommendation looked only at issues like economic growth, the alleged urgency of more links to emerging markets, and the UK keeping its place as top dog on aviation in Europe. A few voices were raised about the local “environmental” effect,  noise, air pollution etc. But these “pale besides aviation’s contribution to the planet’s slow cooking. If there is a difficult question that has been ducked for too long, then that is the one about decarbonising the economy.”  Though the Commission looked at carbon, their “emphasis … and the basis for arguing that increased capacity was not merely desirable but imperative, was on a …fairytale future, in which passengers double, under the auspices of comprehensive and globally enforced carbon trading.” This requires an effective global system in which the price of carbon rises from around £5 to several hundred £s which would greatly increase the price of air tickets. That is not likely to happen. The aim of the runway is to make flying cheaper, not more expensive, so people take even more flights. ” The infrastructure we have now is enough to speed climate change. “Transport networks need to be re-engineered for decarbonisation. But that would require some real blue-sky thinking, and of that there is no sign.”
.

 

The Guardian view on expanding Heathrow: just say no
Editorial

1.7.2015 (Guardian)

The debate about where to build extra airport capacity has been a giant distraction. The climate demands drawing a line under aviation’s growth

‘If there is a difficult question that has been ducked for too long, then that is the one about decarbonising the economy.’ 

Britain finally confronted the point of a decision on a difficult question that it had ducked for far too long. Or, at least, that is how the Airports Commission presented its endorsement of an extra runway at Heathrow. The airwaves reverberated with the voices of the sort of men who never shrug off a boyhood Airfix fixation, arguing with burning intensity about whether the precise spec and coordinates of the Heathrow proposal, and its Gatwick rival, had the makings of a world-beating hub. A few voices were raised about the “environmental” effect, in the sense of the immediate local environment – questions of noise, of birdlife and the extra fumes that could soon be inhaled by the suffering lungs of Middlesex. These are all real issues, but together with the diversionary debate about “where” rather than “whether”, they pale besides aviation’s contribution to the planet’s slow cooking. If there is a difficult question that has been ducked for too long, then that is the one about decarbonising the economy.

To be fair to Sir Howard Davies, his commission did not ignore carbon. The report predicated its projections of passenger growth on two scenarios, both of which it said could respect UK carbon obligations. The first involved a rigid cap on aviation emissions, a little above current levels. The commission stuck a finger in the air and ventured that this might be compatible with a 61% rise in passengers by 2050, a calculation that must rely on engineering advances easing the brute, energy-intensive physics of lifting people and machinery into the air. The emphasis, however, and the basis for arguing that increased capacity was not merely desirable but imperative, was on a second, fairytale future, in which passengers double, under the auspices of comprehensive and globally enforced carbon trading.

At a time when European integration is under strain, the invitation here is to imagine that something akin to the EU emissions trading system is first extended to the rest of the world, and then made so much more effective that the carbon price rises from a few euros a tonne to something in the hundreds. If all this can be put into practice, then, the theory runs, the value of UK flights will be such that the aviation sector will be able to outbid British factories and foreign enterprises in the scramble for carbon rations. That is a dubious proposition. For all the talk of Heathrow as an engine of growth, many of the new jobs would be low-tech and low-pay: serving the coffee in another Costa, or lugging more suitcases out of holds. The official figures confirm that the proportion of flights dedicated to business is lower than it was at the dawn of the millennium, the result not only of passing recession, but also the march of things like Skype, which allow more business meetings to be held online.

Seeing as – in all likelihood – the price of carbon is not going to rise to the point where the climate problem is fixed, the pertinent question is whether the actual price of flying is going to get closer or further away from where the planet would want it to be. Building more capacity is going to reduce the cost of taking an extra flight: that is its principal aim. It will mean more people choosing to fly, rather than holidaying closer to home, or taking the train. Indeed, nothing betrays the mindset more than the way in which the commission held up the downward trend in regular domestic flights into Heathrow as if this were a problem. It is part of the solution.

In 2009, David Cameron stood against expanding Heathrow, linking his opposition to support for high-speed rail. That grand project may be on track, but other important rail upgrades have just been postponed. The Guardian’s Keep it in the Ground campaign has pointed out that existing fossil-fuel stocks are more than sufficient to unleash climate chaos; the same thing is true of the existing infrastructure. Transport networks need to be re-engineered for decarbonisation. But that would require some real blue-sky thinking, and of that there is no sign.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/01/the-guardian-view-on-expanding-heathrow-just-say-no

.

.

.

.

 

Read more »