IATA says the Copenhagen Agreement is a Step in Right Direction
20.12.2009 (IATA press release)
"Copenhagen Agreement Step in Right Direction - Aviation Strengthens Commitment
to Tough Targets"
You almost have to admire the attempt at positive spin ....... see comments below......
Copenhagen - The International Air Transport Association (IATA) welcomed the
Copenhagen Accord as an important step in the right direction for climate change.
Aviation emissions were not addressed specifically in the Accord, a reflection
of the pro-active measures the industry has taken to set challenging targets for
itself, together with an aggressive strategy to achieve them. The industry will
continue to work towards achieving these global targets, which were recognized
by the member states of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) at
its High Level Meeting on Environment in October 2009 and which were commended
by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at a meeting with Giovanni Bisignani, IATA’s
Director General and CEO, in New York later that month. IATA will continue to
work with ICAO to develop a global framework for managing aviations emissions.
“We came to Copenhagen to be part of the deal and we were encouraged by the level
of support for the industry’s global sectoral approach and targets. We will continue
to press states to include these global targets in any future deal,” said Bisignani.
“Airlines, airports, air navigation service providers and manufacturers are reinforced
in their commitment (1) to improve fuel efficiency by an average of 1.5% per year
to 2020, (2) to stabilize carbon emissions from 2020 with carbon-neutral growth,
and (3) to a net reduction in carbon emissions of 50% by 2050 compared to 2005,”
he added.
Bisignani said, “We also found consensus among the delegations that a global
sectoral approach should be established for aviation emissions by ICAO, the UN’s
specialized agency for aviation. We will work closely with ICAO to prepare a global
framework for managing aviation’s emissions for the ICAO Assembly to consider
in September 2010. And we will urge governments to ensure this framework is presented
to COP16 in December 2010. In the meantime we continue to urge governments to
avoid creating a patchwork of national and regional solutions and to ensure aviation’s
emissions are dealt with as a sector and across the world. A global sectoral approach
supported by tough targets is the only sensible way forward for a global industry.”
A Global Sectoral Approach, under ICAO, to manage aviation’s emissions will ensure
a level playing field. The approach consists of three main elements:
- Full accounting for aviation’s emissions as a global industrial sector, not by
state.
- Global coordination of economic measures to ensure that aviation will not pay
more than once for its emissions
- Full access to global carbon markets
The aviation industry is already working towards its climate change goals through
its four pillar strategy. The strategy focuses on investing in new technology,
flying smarter, building efficient infrastructure, and taking advantage of positive
economic measures.
Notes for Editors:
- IATA is the global association for the airline industry. IATA’s 230 member airlines
comprise 93% of scheduled international traffic.
- The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is the specialized UN agency
for international civil aviation.
For more information, please contact:
Anthony Concil
Director Corporate Communications
+ 41 22 770 2967
Email: corpcomms@iata.org
see also, to put this better into context:
From AEF (the Aviation Environment Federation)
23.9.2009
Airlines pledge to halve carbon emissions by 2050(?!)
Ahead of the climate change summit in Copenhagen this December, the aviation
industry has tried to seize the initiative by making a ‘pledge’ to reduce emissions.
The British Airways chief executive, Willie Walsh, has told a UN climate meeting
in New York that airports and aircraft companies will cut emissions to 50% below
2005 levels by 2050. Forecasts for emissions growth from the sector have previously
suggested that emissions could rise up to fourfold if not appropriately controlled.
In the UK, there has been a lot of publicity surrouding the announcement, made
by Walsh on behalf of the International Air Transport Association (IATA). AEF
director Tim Johnson was interviewed for BBC business news, while AEF board member
Jeff Gazzard gave two radio interviews and had a letter printed in the Guardian.
IATA’s proposals, which have yet to be approved by the UN, are are as follows.
We give AEF comments on each.
* To reduce net carbon dioxide emissions by 50% by 2050, compared with 2005 levels.
This is far less than the target for other sectors, given international agreement
to achieve global cuts of 50% on 1990 levels (not 2005), with G8 countries agreeing
to 80% cuts. It means that other sectors will have to make reductions even greater
than 80% to make up for aviation.
Net ‘cuts’ would in any case allow ‘emissions trading’ and ‘offsets’. This means
that the industry need NOT actually cut its emissions by 50%, if it can buy offsets
or carbon credits by negotiating with other sectors.
* To make all industry growth carbon-neutral by 2020.
A commitment to stabilise emissions by 2020 would allow emissions to continue
growing until then! BBC business editor Robert Peston has wryly observed “The industry does not expect to stabilise emissions until 2020. Which most psychologists
would say is too far away to serve as much of a deadline.” After 2020 emissions would have to be even more drastically cut to meet the
aspirational target for 2050.
* To achieve a 1.5% average annual improvement in fuel efficiency to 2020.
A 1-2% improvement in fuel efficiency (a 1-2% reduction in CO2 per passenger
km) is what airlines have historically achieved regardless of any environmental
targets, this being acheived through technoloical improvements in new aircraft.
But as traffic has been growing at around 4-5% per year, total emissions have been
increasing rapidly. A 1-5% fuel efficiency target would simply reflect the trend.
* To submit plans for joining a global carbon trading scheme to the UN by November
2010.
Having failed to get international aviation included in the Kyoto protocol, pressure
is on make sure that aviation does not slip through the net again at Copenhagen.
The aviation industry’s ‘pledges’ are intended to pre-empt Copenhagen and substitute
for real action and strong targets for aviation a virtually meaningless plan.
and
22.9.2009
some initial thoughts by AirportWatch members:
This looks largely like clever PR rubbish.
1. To cut aviation emissions by 50% by 2050. The previous target was to cut
emissions per passenger by 50%, so that if as predicted passenger numbers double,
emissions in 2050 would be no higher than in 2005. Has the target suddenly doubled
or is the UN being misled?
2. If target is merely that emissions will be no higher in 2050 than in 2005
then, as the Climate Change Committee recently reported, everyone else will need
to cut by 90%.
3. Even this target is suspect. It depends on the invention of new miracle
aircraft to be introduced on a wide scale after 2020. Thus it is a subtle PR
ploy to be allowed to continue to grow unchecked at present
4. To reduce emissions by 1.5% a year. Is this in total or per passenger?
If the latter, not much use if passenger numbers growing at 4 or 5 % a year.
And how exactly is the 1.5% reduction to be defined? If they grow for one year,
is the cut the next year then smaller? And who enforces the reduction?
5. To produce plans for a global emissions trading scheme. Easy to produce
plans. The difficulty is in getting international agreement.
6. Leave the EU emissions trading scheme to join new global scheme. A good
ploy to persuade the EU to delay its scheme
7. New global emissions trading scheme would cost the industry £3 billion a
year. Peanuts compared to the benefit it gets worldwide through paying no tax
on aviation fuel, and no VAT or sales taxes on airline tickets.
8. Apparent reductions in emissions for greater use of biofuels, and use of
offsets against emissions cuts by developing countries should not be allowed to
be used as "cuts".
9. No enforecement method is mentioned - self policing and laudable aims will
not be sufficient.
10. Sounds like a lot of clever words, to give every appearance of action without
any real change. The industry still aims to grow passenger numbers to double
the current level.
11. Not a plan, just a set of assertions based on extrapolations from the days
before high-bypass-ratio engines had been invented and a fervent belief in the
existence of miracles. It needs a bit of rebuttal, though.........
12. The cap appears to be '2020 levels', while the 2050 target that grabbed
the headlines is 'aspirational'
13. The industry wants unlimited access to offsets, whereas CCC (the Committee
on Climate Change) has said they should plan to limit absolute emissions].
14. There is no statement on auctioning permits. The industry wants them all
free, with any revenue recycled to themselves.
15. The rest of it is about operations, biofuels etc is recycled puff - just
a lot of words
16. The Guardian headline "Airlines vow to halve their carbon emissions by 2050"
omitted a key three-letter word: "net". It's mainly just carbon trading and
biofuels.
17. The industry is pinning its hopes (leaving aside peak oil) for some remarkable
technological break-through happening after 2020. Whatever it is, we have no
idea. But they depend on something turning up which will enable planes to continue
to fly, but with far lower carbon emissions. Something magical.
18. What the aviation industry ignores, with its hopes of biofuels saving them,
is that the carbon dioxide emitted by planes at high altitude still causes around
x3 as much climate damage as the same emissions at ground level. Whether that
carbon came from biofuel, or conventional fossil fuel, burnt in a plane engine,
the climate efffect of the emissions is the same. The emissions have to be multiplied
by 3, so being carbon neutral is even harder.
19. It looks as if the industry realise that peak oil will be making their industry
contract within the next decade, and they realise growth out to 2050 will be impossible.
Therefore they can make these commitments, and aspirational targets for the longer
term, to allow them to continue to emit in the short term.
20. The press have picked up on the offers to make cuts, but the press release
contains more demands about how the industry wants to be given special treatment,
and be permitted to continue to grow.
(21st December 2009)