Climate Change News
Below are news items on climate change – many with relevance to aviation
EasyJet annual overall CO2 emissions rise, but the spin just focuses on CO2 per passenger kilometre
EasyJet has had a moderately difficult year and its profits have not grown as fast as it would have liked. So logically it is pushing for the highest load factors it can, to save costs and increase profits. Getting the planes fuller is great - as it does make a small reduction in the amount of carbon emitted per passenger. EasyJet is proud to be announcing that its CO2 emissions for the year ending September 2016 were 79.98g/passenger km. That was down by 1.3% on the previous year and 31% lower than in 2000. But in 2000 the number of passenger kilometres flown by EasyJet was only about 2.5% of the number now. With the massive annual growth in passenger kilometres that EasyJet anticipates (and does everything it can to achieve) of over 6% per year, the small improvement on each is far, far out-weighted. It is like someone one a diet saying they will eat biscuits that are 1% smaller, but eat 6% more of them. The net effect is massively more - biscuit eaten in this case - carbon emissions overall. It is merely greenwash, for PR purposes and to confuse the unwary, to crow about tiny improvements in carbon intensity per unit of a product, while increasing the quantity of the product. All industries do this - even countries. EasyJet's overall carbon emissions are rising, and as long as it grows fast, will continue to rise. Most gains in load factor improvements have already been achieved - the "low hanging fruit".
Click here to view full story...
Environmental group launches legal action over plans for new Dublin runway under climate law
The original permission for the proposed 3.1km runway at Dublin airport was granted in 2007, and was due to expire this August. A 5 year extension was granted by Fingal County Council in March 2017. The runway plans were put on hold during the recession.. Now Friends of the Irish Environment (FIE) have sought a judicial review of Fingal County Council’s decision. They allege that the council’s Chief Executive was fully aware that the extra runway would result in increased greenhouse gas emissions before granting the 5-year extension. This would be in contravention of the objectives of the 2015 Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. FIE say that as the original permission was granted based on an Environmental Impact Statement from 2002, the council has failed to consider new research on climate change over the past 15 years. The FIE’s challenge also refers to the recent refusal of planning permission for a third runway at Vienna Airport by the Austrian Court due to the higher carbon emissions the runway would cause. Two separate groups of residents to be affected by the construction of a 3rd runway have also brought legal challenges. St Margaret’s Concerned Residents Group say the impact of the runway on their homes was not properly considered by the council.
Click here to view full story...
MPs criticise Government over carbon ‘fantasy’ for Heathrow expansion (based on vague hopes)
The Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) has criticised the UK Government for its failure to deal adequately with carbon emissions from a 3rd runway, saying their carbon calculations were a "fantasy". As part of its response, the Government says it will publish an Aviation Strategy white paper in 2018 (which means pushing the Heathrow runway through first, and only then, sorting out the rest of the UK's aviation policy. A true case of "cart before horse"). The government is trying to make out that adding a new runway would not place extra pressure on other sectors to reduce their emissions. The Committee on Climate Change has repeatedly warned this would be the case, if gross UK aviation CO2 emissions rose above 37.5MtCO2 per year. The government says (whatever this means) that it “remains open to considering all feasible measures to ensure the aviation sector contributes fairly to UK emissions reductions”. Clear as mud. The EAC has now ceased work, due to the general election. But its chair, Mary Creagh has warned the election will enable the Government to “duck their responsibilities to the environment”. She said: “Heathrow expansion should only go ahead if the Government has a clear plan for the extra air pollution, carbon emissions and noise. All the government has to offer on aviation CO2 is membership of the (woefully weak and inadequate) ICAO deal, which the UK would join in 2021.
Click here to view full story...
T&E and CAN write to AirlinesforEurope (A4E) to ask where they stand on Ryanair’s climate denial
Following remarks by Ryanair CEO Michael O'Leary rejecting the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, T&E and Climate Action Network Europe have written to the European airlines' lobbying group, AirlinesforEurope (A4E), and A4E's other member airlines - asking them to state publicly whether they side with O'Leary's climate denial or whether they accept the proven link between human activity and a warming planet. With aviation emissions continuing to soar – up 8% in Europe alone in 2016 – and governments struggling to introduce effective measures to rein them in, there is a strong public and consumer interest in knowing whether European airlines accept the need to take action on climate change or are intent on identifying with the diminishing band of climate deniers. National and European decision makers should also know where airlines stand on the issue of climate change when they are being intensively lobbied by airlines on the issue. The letter ends: "We therefore call on your airlines, and A4E, to state publicly whether you accept the over-whelming evidence of climate change, and the resulting need to take ambitious action, or whether you are partners in Mr O’Leary’s reckless climate denialism."
Click here to view full story...
Sweden should face down industry myths about the impact of an air travel tax, and impose it
There is a great interest in Sweden on which decisions will be taken regarding aviation tax. For European airlines, resistance to air taxes is a top priority. Andrew Murphy, Manager at Aviation at Transport & Environment (T&E) believes Sweden must resist industry pressure and intimidation, and not cut the taxes. In every country, in Europe the airline industry lobbies in the same way: say the tax threaten job losses, say it’ll destroy the economy, and threaten to shut down routes if governments don’t drop attempts to tax. The UK’s air passenger duty (APD), first introduced in 1994, has withstood all onslaughts while its airline sector has thrived. Now it’s Sweden’s turn to be subject to this economic scaremongering. For airlines, low taxes mean slightly cheaper tickets, so more passengers and more money for the industry. And more CO2 of course. industry arguments have very little basis in reality, and are rarely backed up with any credible evidence. In the UK a tax of £13 per return flight for an adult really is not enough to stop anyone travelling to Europe. Nor will a tax of £7 - 37 in Sweden. The industry likes to make out that the tax is wicked and damaging, and everyone deserves a tax break at the expense of all the others who don’t fly. The industry already pays no VAT, no fuel duty and only the most minimal charges for carbon under the EU ETS.
Click here to view full story...
30 NGOs ask Austrian authorities not to reverse block on expansion of Vienna airport
30 NGOs, from Austria and beyond, have called on the Austrian authorities to respect a court ruling which blocked the planned expansion of Vienna Airport on the basis that it would violate Austria's domestic and international climate commitments. Aviation is the most carbon intensive mode of transport, and its continued growth undermines efforts to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. The letter says: "The Court’s ruling is a recognition of the inability of the aviation sector to expand in a manner which takes into account the public interest of climate mitigation, and which is consistent with Austria’s domestic, constitutional and international legal responsibilities. No effective measures currently exist to mitigate the sector’s substantial and growing climate impact. Aviation remains uniquely exempt from fuel taxation and VAT, artificially inflating its growth and undermining the incentive to improve efficiencies or strengthen alternatives to aviation, such as rail." The NGOs say reliance on the weak ICAO deal (CORSIA) should not be used to permit aviation to expand, as it is "wholly incompatible with the Paris Agreement: not only is its target insufficient for the Agreement’s 1.5°C limit, but its reliance on offsets is unsustainable given the Agreement’s requirement for all states and sectors to reduce emissions. Its limited environmental effectiveness is called into question if it is used by industry as a ‘licence to grow’."
Click here to view full story...
Ryanair denies climate change because it doesn’t like CO2 solutions that would cramp its growth
Recently Ryanair’s Michael O’Leary dismissed evidence of climate change as “rubbish”. Andrew Murphy, aviation manager at Transport & Environment, says this is hardly surprising. CO2 emissions from all sectors in the EU’s emissions trading system decreased in 2016 with one exception: aviation: CO2 from flights within Europe grew 8%, according to figures released last week by the European Commission. Low-fares airlines drove this growth, with Ryanair, Wizz Air, Eurowings and Norwegian all registering double-digit increases in emissions. Ryanair is the biggest aviation emitter in Europe. These airlines are now huge emitters with carbon footprints exceeding those of some small countries. Ryanair’s growth is thanks, in part, to a business model reliant on taxpayer handouts. It will face the biggest challenge if governments take serious action against aviation’s growing emissions. World CO2 emissions need to almost cease by 2050, so an increase of 8% in European aviation emissions in one year alone is of serious concern. It is allowed because all levels of government – regional, national and European - policies do nothing to curb its emissions. The sector receives €40 billion annual subsidy from its fuel tax and VAT exemptions. Luckily, the aviation EU ETS provisions are currently under revision, and MEPs and member states have an opportunity to fix some of the major flaws.
Click here to view full story...
Ryanair’s Michael O’Leary says climate change is ‘complete and utter rubbish’ – not related to burning carbon
Ryanair chief Michael O'Leary has dismissed climate change concerns as "complete and utter rubbish". Speaking on an Irish radio programme, he said he believes that people's fears about global warming are unfounded. He said: “This kind of nonsense that we all need to cut back on beef production or that we all need to eat vegetables or go vegan and all start cycling bicycles is not the way forward. ... In the 19th century in London, [people] thought they were all going to die from smog. There is always some lunatic out there who points to a load of rubbish science; science changes.” He said: "I don't accept that climate change is real. I don't accept the link between carbon consumption and climate change" ... and the cooling and warming had been "going on for years." It is hardly a surprise that a businessman whose private fortunes depend on encouraging ever more burning of fossil fuels thinks this. Otherwise how could he cope with the cognitive dissonance? But it is worth noting that the aviation industry does no more than pay lip service to any prospect of reducing its carbon emissions, merely holding out a few very minor carbon savings - while massively growing (doubling or tripling) the size of the industry - and getting other sectors to offset its CO2.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow 2.0: a ‘sustainable airport’ that pretends no one has to choose between planes and pollution
A thoughtful article, by two leading academics in public policy and ideology, casts huge doubts on the claims of Heathrow to have solutions to the increased environment problems of a 3rd runway. It is well worth reading it all. A few extracts: "Heathrow expansion has become an emblematic issue in the fight against climate change. ... An airport that exists above politics gives the illusion that no one has to choose between planes and pollution ... its “cake and eat it” narrative, in which we could fly more and still cope with rising CO2 ... the plans lack clarity and ambition. Strategic priorities like a 'noise envelope' ... are often stated, but not accompanied with clear targets ... As Heathrow itself accepts, the airport cannot deliver on most of the claims it makes ...The airport is simply trying to fill the void left by Theresa May and Chris Grayling, who have abandoned their responsibility to offer policy leadership ... this absence of leadership betrays the emergence of a new “post-sustainable” aviation, designed to accommodate the challenges of Brexit ... people are increasingly urged to believe that human progress and innovation are enough to meet environmental challenges. ... In this emerging discourse, the demands of economic growth trump those of the environment and social well-being."
Click here to view full story...
The challenge of tackling the non-CO2 impacts of aviation – explained by Carbon Brief
In a long, but very informative article, Carbon Brief discusses the problems of the non-CO2 impacts of aircraft emissions. These are from water vapour, aerosols and nitrogen oxides emitted by aircraft at cruise altitudes. Though these impacts may be short lived, they have definite climate forcing effects, though these are complicated, while CO2 has easily understood impacts and lasts in the atmosphere for decades or centuries. The impact of contrails forming cirrus cloud is to slow the radiation of heat back into space, causing more warming. But this effect is greatest at night, when contrails persist, and also in areas where there is colder, damper air. So the impacts are not uniform across the globe. The article discusses possibilities of planes avoiding certain areas where contrails persist, either on a daily basis or with blocks of airspace out of use for particular periods. Or of planes flying less high. Both those options are likely to increase fuel use - and thus CO2 emissions - by planes, and so need to be carefully organised, to avoid having yet more overall climate impact. Even if the ICAO deal requires planes to pay a small amount to "offset" their CO2, they are not required to pay for non-CO2 impacts. With the global aviation industry expected to increase its CO2 emissions by 200%-360% by 2050, the non-CO2 impacts are a very real problem, and one that should not be ignored. Small changes to flight routes are unlikely to make more than a token difference.